Agricultural Marketing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Copyright Royalty Board
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule implements updates to the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Order). The updates increase the mandatory assessment rate from 5 cents per hundredweight of popcorn to 6 cents to reflect the present rate, which was administratively increased in 2001 and has been charged of processors ever since. Additionally, subpart C is added to the Order, which prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments.
Effective April 9, 2026.
George Webster, Marketing Specialist, or Alexandra Caryl, Chief, Mid-Atlantic Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-8085; or email:
This final rule affecting the Order (7 CFR part 1215) is authorized by the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 7481-7491).
This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This rule amends an existing research and promotion program and is necessary for the continued operation of the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).
This action was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” AMS assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian Tribes and determined this rule does not have Tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly teleconference with Tribal leaders where matters of mutual interest regarding the marketing of agricultural products are discussed. Information about the changes to the regulations will be shared during an upcoming quarterly call. AMS will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided as needed with regard to these changes to the Order.
This action was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 580 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7489) provides that nothing in this subtitle preempts or supersedes any other program relating to popcorn promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.
Under section 577 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7486), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that the order, a provision of the order, or an obligation imposed in connection with the order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or obligation or an exemption from the order or obligation. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the date of imposition of the obligation. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
Under the Order, the Popcorn Board (Board), with USDA oversight, administers a nationally coordinated program of research, promotion, and consumer information designed to maintain and expand markets for U.S. popcorn. The program is financed by assessments on processors of more than four million pounds of popcorn annually. The Board, which is composed of five popcorn processors, unanimously recommended these changes during a meeting on August 28, 2024.
This final rule updates § 1215.51(c) of the Order, which states that the rate of assessment shall be 5 cents per hundredweight of popcorn. The rate was administratively increased by the Board in 2001 to 6 cents per hundredweight of popcorn and has been charged of processors since. This action updates the assessment rate in the Order to accurately reflect the change that took place in 2001 and helps eliminate any confusion amongst the industry regarding the current mandatory assessment.
Section 575(j) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7484(j)) states that “The order shall contain such other terms and conditions, consistent with this subtitle, as are necessary to effectuate this subtitle, including regulations relating to the assessment of late payment charges.”
Section 1215.51(e) of the Order states that “Each person responsible for remitting assessments under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall remit the amounts due from assessments to the Board on a quarterly basis no later than the last day of the month following the last month in the previous quarter in which the popcorn was marketed, in such manner as prescribed by the Board.”
Section 1215.51(f) states that “The Board shall impose a late payment charge on any person who fails to remit to the Board the total amount for which the person is liable on or before the payment due date established under this section. The amount of the late payment charge shall be prescribed in rules and regulations as approved by the Secretary.”
Section 1215.51(g) states that “The Board shall impose an additional charge on any person subject to a late payment charge, in the form of interest on the outstanding portion of any amount for which the person is liable. The rate of interest shall be prescribed in rules and regulations as approved by the Secretary.”
Previously, the Board outlined the late payment and interest fees charged on past due assessments from processors of popcorn in their Operational Policies and Procedures document; however, these fees were not reflected in the Order. This final rule codifies the Board's ability to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments by creating a new section in the Order outlining these fees.
Under this rule, a one-time late payment charge of $250 is imposed on any processor who fails to pay any assessments owed within 30 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge increases to $500 after 90 days of delinquency. These late payment charge amounts were chosen by the Board after reviewing Order language of other research and promotion programs of similar size and annual assessment collections.
Additionally, 1.25 percent per month interest on any outstanding balance, including any late payment and accrued interest, is added to any accounts for which payment has not been received within 30 calendar days of when the assessments are due. This monthly interest charge was chosen by the Board to match the current language in their Operational Policies and Procedures document.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory action to scale on businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers of popcorn as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $2.5 million (NAICS code: 111150—Corn Farming) and small agricultural service firms (processors and importers) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34 million (NAICS code: 115114—Postharvest Crop Activities).
For the purpose of fitting regulatory actions to the scale of businesses for this RFA data used is from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture published by NASS, there are roughly 860 total farms that produced a total of 10,141,686 hundredweight (a little over 1 billion pounds) of popcorn in 2022. NASS has reported that, on average, the 2022 parity price received for popcorn was roughly $60.80 per hundredweight ($0.61 per pound) of popcorn.
Taking the total hundredweight of popcorn produced in 2022, which was 10,141,686, multiplied by the parity price of $60.80 per hundredweight, gives a total parity price revenue of roughly $616,614,509 for the industry in 2022. Using the total parity price revenue the industry received in 2022 of roughly $616.6 million dollars divided by the total 860 popcorn farms in 2022, assuming normal distribution, gives an average of roughly $716,994 in revenue per farm from parity prices. Even with the potential of additional pricing being added into the parity price of popcorn per hundredweight from each producer, the average price per producer (inclusive of parity pricing) would not exceed the established revenue thresholds set by the SBA. Thus, most producers and processors of popcorn would be considered small entities and would not be disproportionately burdened.
Under the Order, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of promotion, research, consumer information and industry information designed to strengthen the position of popcorn in the marketplace, and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for popcorn. The program is financed by assessments on domestic processors only who process and distribute over 4 million pounds of popcorn annually. The currently charged rate of assessment, established in 2001, is 6 cents per hundredweight of popcorn. The Order specifies that processors are responsible for submitting the assessment to the Board in a timely manner and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Based on information from the Board, there are currently a total of 18 processors who pay mandatory assessments into the program and 15 exempt processors (under the 4-million-pound threshold) for a total of 33.
Processors who process and distribute 4 million pounds or less of popcorn annually are exempt from this assessment. Processors that operate under an approved National Organic Program (NOP) (7 CFR part 206) system plan, process only products that are eligible to be labeled as 100 percent organic under the NOP and are not split operations shall also be exempt from the payment of assessments.
After auditing the 2022 total mandatory assessments collected as reported by the
This larger 2022 popcorn hundredweight as reported by the
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) which implements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Order were approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. This final rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
As with all Federal research and promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding alternatives, the Board considered not making these changes to the Order and leaving it as-is. If the Order was left unchanged, the stated assessment rate would remain incorrect and would continue to cause confusion amongst the industry. By leaving the Order unchanged and not adding in language prescribing late fees and interest charges on unpaid assessments, the Board would also have trouble collecting assessments on a timely basis. After considering these potential issues, the Board decided against leaving the Order unchanged.
The Board discussed these changes throughout 2023 and 2024 and unanimously recommended the changes during their in-person meeting on August 28, 2024. The Board is made up of five processors of over four million pounds of popcorn annually.
A proposed rulemaking concerning this action was published in the
During the proposed rule's 30-day comment period, AMS received one comment which may be viewed on
After consideration of all relevant material presented, AMS has determined that that this rule is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Popcorn, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 1215 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7481-7491; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a) A late payment charge shall be imposed on any processor who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such processor is liable. The late payment charge will be imposed on any assessments not received within 30 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge shall be $250 and will be increased to $500 after 90 days of delinquency.
(b) In addition to the late payment charge, 1.25 percent per month interest on the outstanding balance, including any late payment and accrued interest, will be added to any accounts for which payment has not been received within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. Interest will continue to accrue monthly until the outstanding balance is paid to the Board.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N and -173N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -271NX, -271NY, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of engine stalls during takeoff in icing conditions with low visibility due to freezing fog. This AD requires revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 25, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 24, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 781-238-7655; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
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
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 Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 781-238-7655; email:
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0275, dated December 9, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0275) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N and -173N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -271NX, -271NY, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. The MCAI states that reports of engine stalls during takeoff in icing conditions with low visibility due to icing fog (also known as freezing fog) were received. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a dual engine surge in a critical flight phase. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
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 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 revising the existing AFM to incorporate a freezing fog take-off restriction.
EASA AD 2025-0275 requires incorporating all procedures within the Airbus AFM Documentary Unit (DU) 00017198.0001001, dated December 1, 2025, which includes a freezing fog take-off restriction and an updated engine run-up procedure in ground icing conditions. The FAA has determined that only the freezing fog take-off restriction addresses the unsafe condition of engine stalls during takeoff in icing conditions with low visibility due to freezing fog. However, the area of concern for the unsafe condition is in low visibility in icing condition, which is <150m visibility and an outside air temperature of + 3 °C (37 °F) or below. The updated run-up procedures are for visibility of 150 m and above and an outside air temperature of + 3 °C (37 °F) or below, which is outside of the area of concern for the unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA only requires revising the AFM to incorporate a freezing fog take-off restriction in the Normal Procedures, Ice and Rain Protection, Ground Engine Operation in Icing Condition section.
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. The FAA might consider further rulemaking.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
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 engine stalls during takeoff in icing conditions with low visibility due to freezing fog could result in a dual engine surge at a critical phase of flight. To address this unsafe condition during cold weather operations, the actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 7 days, which is a shorter time period 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 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 404 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 25, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N and -173N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -271NX, -271NY, -272N, and -272NX airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 72, Turbine/turboprop engine.
This AD was prompted by reports of engine stalls during takeoff in icing conditions with low visibility due to freezing fog. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a dual engine surge in a critical flight phase.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Normal Procedure, Ice and Rain Protection, Ground Engine Operation in Icing Condition section of the existing AFM, to include the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the existing AFM. Using an AFM revision that includes information identical to that in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirement of this paragraph.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 781-238-7655; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of a broken hose of the draining system in the rear cargo compartment due to hot air leakage from an engine combustion chamber drain valve failure. This AD requires for certain helicopters operational inspections (checks) of each engine drain valve, inspection of each affected rear cargo compartment hose (hose), installation and repetitive inspections of thermal papers, and depending on the results of those inspections, corrective actions. This AD also requires for certain helicopters, inspection of the rear cargo compartment hoses in conjunction with the initial operational inspections (checks) and, depending on the results of the inspections, performing corrective actions. Additionally, this AD prohibits installing an affected hose on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 25, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 25, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 24, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 944-8910; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under
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
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 Evan Weaver, 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 AD 2025-0287, dated December 17, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0287) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Helicopters Model AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS 355 NP helicopters. The MCAI states that there was a report where the hose of the draining system was found broken in the rear cargo compartment, and the engine combustion chamber drain valve was blocked in the open position. This resulted in an emergency landing due to a smoke event in the cabin. The MCAI further states subsequent investigation revealed that the hose cannot withstand high temperature, in cases of hot air leakage, due to failure of the engine drain valve.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rear cargo compartment hoses. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the cargo compartment, reduced control of the helicopter, and possible loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0287, which specifies procedures for certain helicopters for performing operational inspections (checks) of each engine drain valve, inspection of each affected hose (right-side and left-side), part number (P/N) 350A21010123 (manufacturer P/N 350A21-0101-23), installation of thermal paper on each drain pipe, and for certain helicopters repetitive operational inspections (checks) of each engine drain valve, and inspection of each affected hose in conjunction with the initial operational inspection (check). Depending on the results of these inspections, EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies procedures for corrective actions, which include installation of silicone tape on the hose, replacement of an affected hose, replacement of the drain pipe, visual inspection of the thermal paper, repetitive operational inspections (checks), and replacement of the thermal paper.
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
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 AD 2025-0287, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform a visual check of both sides of the thermal paper and must enter compliance with this requirement into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. The pilot may perform these actions because they only involve a visual check of the thermal paper and no maintenance or material is required to perform this check. This action could be performed equally well by a pilot or mechanic.
Where the MCAI and the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0287 specify to perform operational checks or to perform certain checks, this AD refers to this as inspections, except the visual check of the thermal paper.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2025-0287 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0287 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 AD 2025-0287 does not mean that operators need comply only with that
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The occurrence that prompted the MCAI resulted in an emergency landing due to a smoke event in the cabin. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the rear cargo compartment hose due to high temperature from hot air leakage increases the risk of undetected and uncontrolled fire, which could result in loss of the helicopter.
Additionally, the compliance times for the operational checks, hose inspection, and installation of thermal paper based on usage would average to about four months. This compliance time 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 36 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any repairs or replacements 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 these repairs or replacements:
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
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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 25, 2026
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7170, Powerplant/Engine Drains.
This AD was prompted by a report of a broken hose of the draining system in the rear cargo compartment due to hot air leakage from an engine combustion chamber drain valve failure. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rear cargo compartment hoses. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the cargo compartment, reduced control of the helicopter, and possible loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2025-0287, dated December 17, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0287).
(2) The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform a visual check of both sides of the thermal paper and must enter compliance with this requirement into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0287 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies “accomplish a visual inspection of those thermal papers in accordance with the instructions of the ASB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “accomplish a visual check of those thermal papers for any colored boxes, and if one or more boxes are found colored, before further flight, a licensed mechanic authorized under 14 CFR part 43 must perform the corrective actions specified in paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2025-0287”.
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies “check” this AD requires replacing that text with “inspect”, except for the visual check (inspection) of the thermal papers, after the last flight of each day.
(6) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies “new”, this AD requires replacing that text with “new (never previously installed)”.
(7) This AD does not adopt “Note 1” or the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0287.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0287 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 944-8910; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0287, dated December 17, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is finalizing the control of propionyl chloride as a list I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Propionyl chloride is used in the illicit manufacture of the controlled substances fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances, and it is important to the manufacture of these substances. This final rule subjects handlers of propionyl chloride to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations.
This rulemaking will become effective on April 9, 2026. Persons seeking registration must apply before April 9, 2026 to continue their business pending final action by DEA on their application.
Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is extremely concerned with the recent increase in the illicit manufacture and distribution of fentanyl. Therefore, on October 12, 2023, DEA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on the legitimate use of propionyl chloride in industry. On June 3, 2025, DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to control the precursor chemical propionyl chloride as a list I chemical.
This action subjects handlers of propionyl chloride to the chemical regulatory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. This rulemaking does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of propionyl chloride. As such, all transactions involving propionyl chloride, regardless of size, shall be regulated and are subject to control under the CSA. In addition, chemical mixtures containing propionyl chloride are not exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration. Therefore, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing any quantity of propionyl chloride shall be regulated pursuant to the CSA.
The CSA gives the Attorney General the authority to specify, by regulation, chemicals as list I chemicals.
The clandestine manufacture of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances remains extremely concerning as the distribution of illicit fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances continues to drive drug-related overdose deaths in the United States. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid and was first synthesized in Belgium in the late 1950s. Fentanyl was introduced into medical practice and is approved for medical practitioners in the United States to prescribe lawfully for anesthesia and analgesia. Yet, due to its pharmacological effects, fentanyl can be used as a substitute for heroin, oxycodone, and other opioids. Therefore, due to its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, DEA controls fentanyl as a schedule II controlled substance despite its high potential for abuse and the possibility that abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
The unlawful trafficking of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances in the United States continues to pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. Since 2012, fentanyl has shown a dramatic increase in the illicit drug supply as a single substance, in mixtures with other illicit drugs (
DEA has noted a significant increase in overdoses and overdose fatalities from fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances in the United States in recent years, with a slight decrease in 2023. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opioids, mainly synthetic opioids (which include fentanyl), are predominantly responsible for drug overdose deaths in recent years. According to CDC WONDER,
Fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances are not naturally occurring substances. As such, the manufacture of these substances requires them to be produced through synthetic organic chemistry. Synthetic organic chemistry is the process in which a new organic molecule is created through one chemical reaction or a series of chemical reactions, which involve precursor chemicals. Through chemical reactions, the chemical structures of precursor chemicals are modified in a desired fashion. These chemical reaction sequences, also known as synthetic pathways, are designed to create a desired substance. Several synthetic pathways to fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances have been identified in clandestine laboratory settings; these include the original “Janssen method,” the “Siegfried method,” and the “Gupta method.” In response to the illicit manufacture of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances using these methods, DEA controlled
The original published synthetic pathway to fentanyl, known as the Janssen method, involves the list I chemical benzylfentanyl and schedule II immediate precursor norfentanyl. In this synthetic pathway, benzylfentanyl, a list I chemical under the CSA,
Propionyl chloride is attractive to illicit manufacturers because there is a lack of regulations on this chemical, it
In response to the June 3, 2025 NPRM, DEA received one comment in opposition to the control of propionyl chloride as a list I chemical. The commenter cited four areas of concern relating to the control of propionyl chloride.
DEA is aware that propionyl chloride may be used as an intermediate in several industrial processes, including but not limited to the synthesis of dyes, pharmaceuticals (including fentanyl), and agricultural products. Designating propionyl chloride as a list I chemical does not preclude the use of propionyl chloride for end users (
In regard to controlling propionyl chloride in list I compared to the placement of norfentanyl, norfentanyl is controlled in schedule II of the CSA as an immediate precursor to fentanyl. Requirements for controlled substances in schedules I-V of the CSA,
Under the rulemaking, chemical mixtures containing propionyl chloride are not exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration, unless an application for exemption of a chemical mixture is submitted by a propionyl chloride manufacturer and the application is reviewed and accepted by DEA under 21 CFR 1310.13. The control of chemical mixtures containing any amount of propionyl chloride is necessary to prevent the extraction, isolation, and use of propionyl chloride in the illicit manufacture of fentanyl. This rule modifies the Table of Concentration Limits in 21 CFR 1310.12(c) to reflect the fact that chemical mixtures containing any amount of propionyl chloride are subject to the CSA chemical control provisions.
DEA has implemented an application process to exempt mixtures from the requirements of the CSA and its implementing regulations.
This final rule subjects propionyl chloride to all the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importing, and exporting of list I chemicals. Upon the effective date of this rule, persons handling propionyl
1.
DEA notes that under the CSA, “warehousemen” are not required to register and may lawfully possess list I chemicals, if the possession of those chemicals is in the usual course of business or employment. Under DEA implementing regulations, the warehouse in question must receive the list I chemical from a DEA registrant and shall only distribute the list I chemical back to the DEA registrant and registered location from which it was received. A warehouse that distributes list I chemicals to persons other than the registrant and registered location from which they were obtained is conducting distribution activities and is required to register as such.
Upon the effective date of this final rule, any person manufacturing, distributing, importing, or exporting propionyl chloride or a chemical mixture containing propionyl chloride will become subject to the registration requirement under the CSA. DEA recognizes, however, that it is not possible for persons who are subject to the registration requirements to immediately complete and submit an application for registration, and for DEA to immediately issue registrations for those activities. Therefore, to allow any continued legitimate commerce in propionyl chloride or a chemical mixture containing propionyl chloride, DEA is establishing in 21 CFR 1310.09, a temporary exemption from the registration requirement for persons desiring to engage in activities with propionyl chloride or a chemical mixture containing propionyl chloride, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration or application for exemption of a chemical mixture under 21 CFR 1310.13 on or before the effective date of this final rule. The temporary exemption for such persons will remain in effect until DEA takes final action on their application for registration or application for exemption of a chemical mixture.
The temporary exemption applies solely to the registration requirement; all other chemical control requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting, will be effective on the effective date of the final rule. This is necessary because a delay in regulating these transactions could result in increased diversion of chemicals desirable to drug traffickers.
Additionally, the temporary exemption for registration does not suspend applicable federal criminal laws relating to propionyl chloride, nor does it supersede State or local laws or regulations. All handlers of propionyl chloride must comply with applicable State and local requirements in addition to the CSA regulatory controls.
2.
Each regulated bulk manufacturer of a listed chemical must submit manufacturing, inventory, and use data on an annual basis. Existing standard industry reports containing the required information are acceptable, provided the information is separate or readily retrievable from the report.
The CSA and its implementing regulations require that each regulated person must report to DEA any regulated transaction involving an extraordinary quantity of a listed chemical, an uncommon method of payment or delivery, or any other circumstance that the regulated person believes may indicate that a listed chemical will be used in violation of subchapter I of the CSA. In addition, regulated persons must report any proposed regulated transaction with a person whose description or other identifying characteristics DEA has previously furnished to the regulated person, any unusual or excessive loss or disappearance of a listed chemical under the control of the regulated person, and any in-transit loss in which the regulated person is the supplier.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation and E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
DEA finds that propionyl chloride is used in the illicit manufacture of the controlled substances of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances, and is important to the manufacture of these substances. The replacement chemical for propionyl chloride in the respective pathways is already a list I chemical. This final rule subjects handlers of propionyl chloride to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations. This final rule does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of propionyl chloride. As such, all transactions of propionyl chloride, regardless of size, shall be regulated. In addition, chemical mixtures containing propionyl chloride are not exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration. Therefore, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing any quantity of propionyl chloride shall be regulated pursuant to the CSA. Propionyl chloride will be subject to all of the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importing, and exporting of list I chemicals.
DEA evaluated the cost of this final rule. Due to many unknowns, DEA is unable to provide an estimated cost of this final rule; however, based on DEA's analysis, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
Propionyl chloride is used for the legitimate manufacturing of pharmaceutical fentanyl as well as clandestinely synthesized illicit fentanyl. DEA has searched information in the public domain for legitimate uses of propionyl chloride and has documented that propionyl chloride may be used as an intermediary chemical in several industries, including the production of fentanyl. However, this rule would only impose regulations on those who manufacture, distribute, import, or export propionyl chloride and not end users who are using the chemical as an intermediate.
The primary costs associated with this rule would be the annual registration fee for list I chemicals ($3,699 for manufacturers and $1,850 for distributors, importers, and exporters). DEA has identified 20 domestic distributors of propionyl chloride. Three are already registered to handle list I chemicals, and this rule will not have impacts on their operations. The remaining distributors will need to register with DEA and employ security and handling processes to continue supplying propionyl chloride. For the nonregistered suppliers, it is difficult to estimate the amount of propionyl chloride that they distribute. It is also common for these chemical distributors to have items in their catalog while not actually having any material level of sales. Hence, DEA expects the quantities of propionyl chloride distributed by nonregistered distributors to be much smaller compared to the registered distributors. These distributors are expected to choose the least cost option, and stop selling propionyl chloride, rather than incur the registration cost. DEA expects that the cost of foregone sales will be small; and thus, the cost of this rule is minimal. DEA requested public comments regarding this estimate, however no public comment was received during the notice and comment period regarding the costs to industry.
Controlling propionyl chloride is expected to prevent, curtail, and limit the unlawful manufacture and distribution of the controlled substance, fentanyl, as well as fentanyl analogues and fentanyl-related substances. As a list I chemical, handling of propionyl chloride requires registration with DEA and various controls and monitoring as required by the CSA. This rule is also expected to assist in preventing the possible theft or diversion of propionyl chloride from any legitimate firms. DEA also believes control is necessary to prevent unscrupulous chemists from synthesizing propionyl chloride and selling it (as an unregulated material) through the internet and other channels, to individuals who may wish to acquire unregulated intermediary chemicals for the purpose of illicitly manufacturing fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and fentanyl-related substances.
In summary, DEA conducted a qualitative analysis of this final rule. DEA believes any manufacturer or distributor that uses propionyl chloride for legitimate pharmaceutical fentanyl production already would be registered with DEA and have all security and other handling processes in place, such that this regulation would result in minimal cost to those entities. Therefore, any potential cost as a result of this regulation is minimal.
This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rulemaking does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this rule and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, with this rulemaking, propionyl chloride and chemical mixtures containing propionyl chloride will be subject to all of the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importing, and exporting of list I chemicals. This rulemaking will affect all business activities that handle propionyl chloride including manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters. DEA identified 20 domestic suppliers, 17 (85 percent) of which are not registered with DEA to handle list I chemicals. All non-registered entities will be affected by this rule and are small entities based on Small Business Administration classification for Other Chemical and
There are 8,804 small entities under 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers.
On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, DEA has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1310 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 871(b), 890.
(a) * * *
The addition reads as follows:
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(xix) Propionyl chloride
(t)(1) Each person required under 21 U.S.C. 822 and 21 U.S.C. 957 to obtain a registration to manufacture, distribute, import, or export propionyl chloride, including regulated chemical mixtures pursuant to § 1310.12, is temporarily exempted from the registration requirement, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration or application for exemption for a chemical mixture containing propionyl chloride pursuant to § 1310.13 on or before 30 days after the publication of a rule finalizing this action. The exemption would remain in effect for each person who has made such application until the Administration has approved or denied that application. This exemption applies only to registration; all other chemical control requirements set forth in the Act and parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316 of this chapter remain in full force and effect.
(2) Any person who manufactures, distributes, imports, or exports a chemical mixture containing propionyl chloride whose application for exemption is subsequently denied by DEA must obtain a registration with DEA. A temporary exemption from the registration requirement will also be provided for those persons whose application for exemption is denied, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration on or before 30 days following the date of official DEA notification that the application for exemption has been denied. The temporary exemption for such persons would remain in effect until DEA takes final action on their registration application.
(c) * * *
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on February 25, 2026, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Order.
FinCEN is issuing this Geographic Targeting Order, requiring certain money services businesses along the southwest border of the United States to report and retain records of transactions in currency of $1,000 or more, but not more than $10,000, and to verify the identity of persons presenting such transactions.
FinCEN's Regulatory Support Section by submitting an inquiry at
If the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) finds, upon his own initiative or at the request of an appropriate Federal or State law enforcement official, that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are necessary to carry out the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
The Director finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in the GTO contained in this document (the “Order”) are necessary to carry out the purposes of the BSA or to prevent evasions thereof. This action is being taken in furtherance of Treasury's efforts to combat illicit finance by drug cartels and other illicit actors along the southwest border of United States. The Order does not alter any existing BSA obligation of a Covered Business (as defined in the Order), except as otherwise noted in the Order itself. Thus, for example, a Covered Business must continue to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) for transactions in currency above $10,000 and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) where appropriate and in accordance with the BSA and applicable regulations. Although the dollar thresholds for filing SARs in the SAR regulation applicable to Covered Businesses remains the same (as low as $2,000),
1. For purposes of this Order, the “Covered Business” means a money services business, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(ff), located in the Covered Geographic Area, except, for the period during which an applicable injunction remains in force, any money services business to which the government is enjoined by court order from applying the Geographic Targeting Order published by FinCEN on March 14, 2025 (90 FR 12106).
2. For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Transaction” means each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to the Covered Business which involves a transaction in currency, of $1,000 or more, but not more than $10,000.
3. For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Geographic Area” means:
i. Maricopa County, Arizona;
ii. Pima County, Arizona;
iii. Santa Cruz County, Arizona; and
iv. Yuma County, Arizona;
i. Cameron County, Texas;
ii. El Paso County, Texas;
iii. Hidalgo County, Texas;
iv. Maverick County, Texas; and
v. Webb County, Texas;
i. Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
ii. Dona Ana County, New Mexico;
iii. San Juan County, New Mexico; and
i. 92231, 92249, 92281, and 92283 (Imperial County, California); and
ii. 91910, 92101, 92113, 92117, 92126, 92154, and 92173 (San Diego County, California).
4. All terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning set forth in part 1010 of chapter X of subtitle B of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
5. Except as otherwise set forth in this Order, if the Covered Business is involved in a Covered Transaction, then the Covered Business shall report the Covered Transaction to FinCEN on a Currency Transaction Report within 30 days following the day on which the Covered Transaction occurred. In the case of the U.S. Postal Service, the obligation contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply to payments or transfers made solely in connection with the purchase of postage or philatelic products.
When submitting the report, the Covered Business may receive a warning that the transaction is below $10,000. The Covered Business shall ignore the warning and continue with the submission.
6. Each report filed pursuant to this Order must be: (a) completed in accordance with the terms of this Order and the Currency Transaction Report instructions (when those terms and those instructions conflict, the terms of this Order prevail); and (b) e-filed though the BSA E-Filing System.
7. Before concluding a Covered Transaction, the Covered Business must comply with the identification requirements set forth at 31 CFR 1010.312, including the requirement that the specific identifying information (
8. The Covered Business is not required to file a report otherwise required under this Order on a Covered Transaction between the Covered Business and a commercial bank.
9. Part IV of the Currency Transaction Report shall contain the following information in Field 45: “MSB0326GTO”.
The terms of this Order are effective beginning March 7, 2026 and ending on September 2, 2026. The compliance date for persons that were not Covered Businesses under the Geographic Targeting Order published by FinCEN on September 10, 2025 (90 FR 43557) is April 6, 2026.
The Covered Business must: (a) retain all reports filed to comply with this Order and any other records relating to compliance with this Order for a period of five years from the last day that this Order is effective (including any renewals of this Order); (b) store all such records in a manner accessible within a reasonable period of time; and (c) make such records available to FinCEN, or any other appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency, upon request, in accordance with applicable law.
Nothing in this Order otherwise modifies or affects any provision of the BSA or the regulations implementing the BSA to the extent not expressly stated herein.
This Order is being publicly issued, and its terms are not confidential.
The Covered Business must supervise, and is responsible for, compliance by each of its officers, directors, employees, and agents with the terms of this Order. The Covered Business must transmit this Order to each of its agents located in the Covered Geographic Area. The Covered Business must also transmit this Order to its Chief Executive Officer or other similarly acting manager.
The Covered Business, and any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, may be liable, without limitation, for civil or criminal penalties for violating any of the terms of this Order.
Any judicial determination that any provision of this Order is invalid shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this Order, and each other provision shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. A copy of this Order carries the full force and effect of an original signed Order.
The collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act contained in this Order has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 1506-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
All questions about the Order should be directed to FinCEN at
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish a final rule governing the rates and terms for the nonsubscription digital performance of sound recordings by commercial broadcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030.
Effective March 10, 2026.
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
On May 16, 2025, the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) published a proposed rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by commercial broadcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030. 90 FR 20977. The rates and terms in the proposed rule were the subject of a settlement between SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”), and National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”). Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0012-WR (2026-2030). Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement were given the opportunity to comment and participants in the Web VI proceeding were given the opportunity to object to any or all of the proposed regulations.
The Judges received one comment from David Powell, who is not a participant in the proceeding. While Mr. Powell's comment is largely incomprehensible, he appears to take issue with the fact that he was not provided leave to file an untimely petition to participate in the proceeding. He also appears to take issue with royalty distribution practices of SoundExchange.
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates,” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii), or where the negotiated agreement includes provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law. No Web VI participant has objected to the settlement. The Register of Copyrights has completed her review of the CRB's Final Rule for legal error, under 17 U.S.C. 803(f)(1)(D), and will not be issuing any corrections. In the absence of any objection from a participant, and in the absence of any cognizable indication that the Final Rule includes provisions that are contrary to the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law, the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A) direct the Judges to adopt the Final Rule. Therefore, the Judges adopt the terms and rates as proposed. The Judges find that under the circumstances of this proceeding and this settlement, adoption of the Final Rule is directed by the statute, and that such directed adoption is principally a ministerial function by the Judges.
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
In addition to the definitions in § 380.7, the following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart:
(1) A Licensee, in relation to the Collective; and
(2) The Collective in relation to a Copyright Owner or Performer.
(1) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (
(2) A performance of a sound recording for which the service has previously obtained a license from the Copyright Owner of such sound recording; and
(3) An incidental performance that both:
(i) Makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public events; and
(ii) Does not contain an entire sound recording, other than ambient music that is background at a public event, and does not feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as in the case of a sound recording used as a theme song).
(a)
(1) 2026: $0.0028 per Performance;
(2) 2027: $0.0029 per Performance;
(3) 2028: $0.0030 per Performance;
(4) 2029: $0.0031 per Performance; and
(5) 2030: $0.0032 per Performance.
(b)
(i) 2026: $1,100;
(ii) 2027: $1,150;
(iii) 2028: $1,200;
(iv) 2029: $1,250; and
(v) 2030: $1,250.
(2) The Collective must apply the fee to the Commercial Broadcaster's account as credit towards any additional royalty fees that the Commercial Broadcaster may incur under this subpart in the same year. The fee is payable for each individual channel and each individual station maintained or operated by the Commercial Broadcaster and making Nonsubscription Digital Audio Transmissions of sound recordings pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 114 during each calendar year or part of a calendar year during which it is a Licensee. The maximum aggregate minimum fee that a Commercial Broadcaster making Nonsubscription Digital Audio Transmissions of sound recordings pursuant to 17 U.S.C.114 must pay under this subpart in any calendar year is 100 multiplied by the applicable amount specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The minimum fee is nonrefundable.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) In a case in which, pursuant to § 380.46(g), an auditor determines that a Commercial Broadcaster underpaid royalties pursuant to this subpart:
(i) The late fee applicable to the underpayment so discovered shall accrue at the rate of 1% (or the highest lawful rate, whichever is lower) of the underpayment amount per month during the period starting on the date that the relevant notice of intent to audit is filed with the Copyright Royalty Judges pursuant to § 380.46(c), and ending on the date that the auditor provides its written report pursuant to § 380.46(f);
(ii) The late fee applicable to the underpayment so discovered shall accrue at the rate provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section at all other times between the due date and the date that the Collective receives the underpayment so discovered; and
(iii) The total amount of late fees applicable to the underpayment so discovered shall in no event exceed 75% of the principal amount of the underpayment so discovered.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(1) Such information as is necessary to calculate the accompanying royalty payment;
(2) The name, address, business title, telephone number, facsimile number (if any), electronic mail address (if any) and other contact information of the person to be contacted for information or questions concerning the content of the Statement of Account;
(3) The account number assigned to the Licensee by the Collective for the relevant service offering (if the Licensee has been notified of such account number by the Collective);
(4) The signature of:
(i) The Licensee or a duly authorized agent of the Licensee;
(ii) A partner or delegate if the Licensee is a partnership; or
(iii) An officer of the corporation if the Licensee is a corporation.
(5) The printed or typewritten name of the person signing the Statement of Account;
(6) If the Licensee is a partnership or corporation, the title or official position held in the partnership or corporation by the person signing the Statement of Account;
(7) A certification of the capacity of the person signing;
(8) The date of signature; and
(9) An attestation to the following effect: I, the undersigned owner/officer/partner/agent of the Licensee have examined this Statement of Account and hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence and that it fairly presents, in all material respects, the liabilities of the Licensee pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations adopted under those sections.
(b)
(a)
(2) The Collective must use its best efforts to identify and locate Copyright Owners and featured artists in order to distribute royalties payable to them under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114. Such efforts must include, but not be limited to, searches in Copyright Office public records and published directories of sound recording Copyright Owners.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If SoundExchange, Inc. should dissolve or cease to be governed by a board consisting of equal numbers of representatives of Copyright Owners and Performers, then it shall be replaced for the applicable royalty period by a successor Collective according to the following procedure:
(i) The nine Copyright Owner representatives and the nine Performer representatives on the SoundExchange board as of the last day preceding SoundExchange's cessation or dissolution shall vote by a majority to recommend that the Copyright Royalty Judges designate a successor and must file a petition with the Copyright Royalty Judges requesting that the Judges designate the named successor and setting forth the reasons therefor.
(ii) Within 30 days of receiving the petition, the Copyright Royalty Judges must issue an order designating the recommended Collective, unless the Judges find good cause not to make and publish the designation in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of the Collective, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who are engaged in the collection and distribution of royalty payments hereunder and activities related directly thereto who require access to the Confidential Information for the purpose of performing their duties during the ordinary course of their work;
(2) A Qualified Auditor or outside counsel who is authorized to act on behalf of:
(i) The Collective with respect to verification of a Licensee's statement of account pursuant to this part; or
(ii) A Copyright Owner or Performer with respect to the verification of royalty distributions pursuant to this part;
(3) Copyright Owners and Performers, including their designated agents, whose works a Licensee used under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 by the Licensee whose Confidential Information is being supplied, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, and including those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of such Copyright Owners and Performers and their designated agents, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who require access to the Confidential Information to perform their duties during the ordinary course of their work;
(4) Attorneys and other authorized agents of parties to proceedings under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, acting under an appropriate protective order.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Approved by:
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish a final rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by Educational Media Foundation and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2030.
Effective March 10, 2026.
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
On December 4, 2025, the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) published a proposed rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by Educational Media Foundation and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2030.90 FR 55821. The rates and terms in the proposed rule were the subject of a settlement between SoundExchange and NRB Music Licensing Committee, Inc (“Settling Parties”), together with Educational Media Foundation. Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0012-WR (2026-2030). Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement were given the opportunity to comment and participants in the Web VI proceeding were given the opportunity to object to any or all of the proposed regulations.
The Judges received no comments or objections in response to the December 4, 2025,
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates,” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii), or where the negotiated agreement includes provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law. No Web VI participant has objected to the settlement. The Register of Copyrights has completed her review of the CRB's Final Rule for legal error, under 17 U.S.C. 803(f)(1)(D), and will not be issuing any corrections. In the absence of any objection from a participant, and in the absence of any cognizable indication that the Final Rule includes provisions that are contrary to the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law, the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A) direct the Judges to adopt the Final Rule. Therefore, the Judges adopt the terms and rates as proposed. The Judges find that under the circumstances of this proceeding and this settlement, adoption of the Final Rule is directed by the statute, and that such directed adoption is principally a ministerial function by the Judges.
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(1) made by the Licensee;
(2) subject to licensing under 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2);
(3) transmitted over the internet on a channel or station offered for streaming to any member of the public who chooses to listen and that provides only linear programming that is not personalized to any particular listener.
(1) The Licensee, in relation to the Collective; and
(2) The Collective in relation to a Copyright Owner or Performer.
(1) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (
(2) A performance of a sound recording for which the Licensee has previously obtained a license from the Copyright Owner of such sound recording; and
(3) An incidental performance that both:
(i) Makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public events; and
(ii) Does not contain an entire sound recording, other than ambient music that is background at a public event, and does not feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as in the case of a sound recording used as a theme song).
(a)
(1) 2026: $7,125,000.00 ($593,750.00 per month);
(2) 2027: $7,410,000.00 ($617,500.00 per month);
(3) 2028: $7,706,400.00 ($642,200.00 per month);
(4) 2029: $8,014,656.00 ($667,888.00 per month); and
(5) 2030: $8,335,242.24 ($694,603.52 per month).
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(1) The amount of the royalty payment and the month for which it is submitted;
(2) The name, address, business title, telephone number, facsimile number (if any), electronic mail address (if any) and other contact information of the person to be contacted for information or questions concerning the content of the Statement of Account;
(3) The account number assigned to the Licensee by the Collective for the relevant service offering (if the Licensee has been notified of such account number by the Collective);
(4) The signature of:
(i) The Licensee or a duly authorized agent of the Licensee;
(ii) A partner or delegate if the Licensee is a partnership; or
(iii) An officer of the corporation if the Licensee is a corporation.
(5) The printed or typewritten name of the person signing the Statement of Account;
(6) If the Licensee is a partnership or corporation, the title or official position held in the partnership or corporation by the person signing the Statement of Account;
(7) A certification of the capacity of the person signing;
(8) The date of signature; and
(9) An attestation to the following effect: I, the undersigned owner/officer/partner/agent of the Licensee have examined this Statement of Account and hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence and that it fairly presents, in all material respects, the liabilities of the Licensee pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations adopted under those sections.
(b)
(a)
(2) The Collective must use its best efforts to identify and locate Copyright Owners and featured artists in order to distribute royalties payable to them under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114. Such efforts must include, but not be limited to, searches in Copyright Office public records and published directories of Copyright Owners.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If SoundExchange, Inc. should dissolve or cease to be governed by a board consisting of equal numbers of representatives of Copyright Owners and Performers, then it shall be replaced for the applicable royalty period by a successor Collective according to the following procedure:
(i) The nine Copyright Owner representatives and the nine Performer representatives on the SoundExchange board as of the last day preceding SoundExchange's cessation or dissolution shall vote by a majority to recommend that the Copyright Royalty Judges designate a successor and must file a petition with the Copyright Royalty Judges requesting that the Judges designate the named successor and setting forth the reasons therefore.
(ii) Within 30 days of receiving the petition, the Copyright Royalty Judges must issue an order designating the recommended Collective, unless the Judges find good cause not to make and publish the designation in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of the Collective, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who are engaged in the collection and distribution of royalty payments hereunder and activities
(2) A Qualified Auditor or outside counsel who is authorized to act on behalf of:
(i) The Collective with respect to verification of the Licensee's statement of account pursuant to this part; or
(ii) A Copyright Owner or Performer with respect to the verification of royalty distributions pursuant to this part;
(3) Copyright Owners and Performers, including their designated agents, whose works the Licensee used under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 by the Licensee whose Confidential Information is being supplied, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, and including those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of such Copyright Owners and Performers and their designated agents, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who require access to the Confidential Information to perform their duties during the ordinary course of their work;
(4) Attorneys and other authorized agents of parties to proceedings under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, acting under an appropriate protective order.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Approved by:
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish a final rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by certain public radio stations and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030.
Effective March 10, 2026.
Docket: For access to the docket, go to eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
On May 16, 2025, the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) published a proposed rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by certain public radio stations and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030. 90 FR 20982. The rates and terms in the proposed rule were the subject of a settlement between SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”), and National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (“CPB”). Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0012-WR (2026-2030). Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement were given the opportunity to comment and participants in the Web VI proceeding were given the opportunity to object to any or all of the proposed regulations.
The Judges received one comment from David Powell, who is not a participant in the proceeding. While Mr. Powell's comment is largely incomprehensible, he appears to take issue with the fact that he was not provided leave to file an untimely petition to participate in the proceeding. He also appears to take issue with royalty distribution practices of SoundExchange.
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates,” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii), or where the negotiated agreement includes provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law. No Web VI participant has objected to the settlement. The Register of Copyrights has completed her review of the CRB's Final Rule for legal error, under 17 U.S.C. 803(f)(1)(D), and will not be issuing any corrections. In the absence of any objection from a participant, and in the absence of any cognizable indication that the Final Rule includes provisions that are contrary to the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law, the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A) direct the Judges to adopt the Final Rule. Therefore, the Judges adopt the terms and rates as proposed. The Judges find that under the circumstances of this proceeding and this settlement, adoption of the Final Rule is directed by the statute, and that such directed adoption is principally a ministerial function by the Judges.
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(1) Is licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission;
(2) Originates programming and is not solely a repeater station;
(3) Is a member or affiliate of NPR, American Public Media, Public Radio International, or Public Radio Exchange, a member of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, or another public radio station that is qualified to receive funding from CPB pursuant to its criteria;
(4) Qualifies as a “noncommercial webcaster” under 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(E)(i); and
(5) Either—
(i) Offers website Performances only as part of the mission that entitles it to be exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501); or
(ii) In the case of a governmental entity (including a Native American Tribal governmental entity), is operated exclusively for public purposes.
(a)
(1) 2026: $950,000;
(2) 2027: $975,000;
(3) 2028: $1,000,000;
(4) 2029: $1,025,000; and
(5) 2030: $1,050,000.
(b)
(c)
(1) An annual minimum fee for each Public Broadcaster for each year during the Term;
(2) Additional usage fees for certain Public Broadcasters; and
(3) A discount that reflects the administrative convenience to the Collective (for purposes of this subpart, the term “Collective” refers to SoundExchange, Inc.) of receiving consolidated reporting of usage in accordance with § 380.32(b) that covers a large number of separate entities and annual lump sum payments that cover a large number of separate entities, as well as the predictability, time value of money and protection from bad debt that arises from being paid in advance.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Obligate such third Person to provide all such services in accordance with all applicable provisions of the statutory licenses and this subpart;
(2) Specify that such third Person shall have no right to make website Performances or any other performances or Ephemeral Recordings on its own behalf or on behalf of any Person or entity other than a Public Broadcaster through the Public Broadcaster's Authorized website by virtue of its services for the Public Broadcaster, including in the case of Ephemeral Recordings, pre-encoding or otherwise establishing a library of sound recordings that it offers to a Public Broadcaster or others for purposes of making performances, but instead must obtain all necessary licenses from the Collective, the copyright owner or another duly authorized Person, as the case may be;
(3) Specify that such third Person shall have no right to grant any sublicenses under the statutory licenses; and
(4) Provide that the Collective is an intended third-party beneficiary of all such obligations with the right to enforce a breach thereof against such third Person.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
Approved by:
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish a final rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by noncommercial educational webcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030.
Effective March 10, 2026.
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
On October 11, 2024, the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) published a proposed rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by noncommercial educational webcasters and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030. 89 FR 82543. The rates and terms in the proposed rule were the subject of a settlement between SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”) and College Broadcasters Inc. (“CBI”). Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0012-WR (2026-2030). Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement were given the opportunity to comment and participants in the Web VI proceeding were given the opportunity to object to any or all of the proposed regulations.
The Judges received one comment from Michael Ravnitzky. Mr. Ravnitzky suggests additional definitions for Aggregate Tuning Hours and Proxy Fee be added to section 380.20. Mr. Ravnitzky is not a participant in the Web VI proceeding and does not indicate whether he “would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement.” In any event, Aggregate Tuning Hours and Proxy Fee are defined elsewhere in Part 380. Mr. Ravnitzky's comment does not provide a basis for not adopting the proposed regulations.
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates,” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii), or where the negotiated agreement includes provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the applicable licenses or otherwise contrary to statutory law. No Web VI participant has objected to the settlement. The Register of Copyrights
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges revise 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply, as well as those set forth in subpart A of this part:
(1) Has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and the implementing regulations therefor to make Educational Transmissions and related Ephemeral Recordings;
(2) Complies with all applicable provisions of Sections 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations in this part;
(3) Is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of which are staffed substantially by students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution;
(4) Is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to its criteria; and
(5) Takes affirmative steps not to make total transmissions in excess of 160,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours (ATH) on any individual channel or station in any month, if in any previous calendar year it has made total transmissions in excess of 160,000 ATH on any individual channel or station in any month.
(a)
(1) 2026: $800;
(2) 2027: $850;
(3) 2028: $900;
(4) 2029: $950; and
(5) 2030: $1,000.
(b)
(1) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, for such month and the remainder of the calendar year in which such month occurs, pay royalties in accordance, and otherwise comply, with the provisions of subpart B of this part applicable to Noncommercial Webcasters;
(2) The Minimum Fee paid by the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for such calendar year will be credited to the amounts payable under the provisions of subpart B of this part applicable to Noncommercial Webcasters; and
(3) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall, within 30 days after the end of each month, notify the Collective if it has made total transmissions in excess of 160,000 ATH on a channel or station during that month; pay the Collective any amounts due under the
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The name of the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster, exactly as it appears on the notice of use, and if the statement of account covers a single station only, the call letters or name of the station;
(2) The name, address, business title, telephone number, facsimile number (if any), electronic mail address (if any) and other contact information of the person to be contacted for information or questions concerning the content of the statement of account;
(3) The signature of a duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution;
(4) The printed or typewritten name of the person signing the statement of account;
(5) The date of signature;
(6) The title or official position held by the person signing the statement of account;
(7) A certification of the capacity of the person signing; and
(8) A statement to the following effect: I, the undersigned duly authorized representative of the applicable educational institution, have examined this statement of account; hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence; and further certify that the licensee entity named herein qualifies as a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster for the relevant year, and did not exceed 160,000 total ATH in any month of the prior year for which the Noncommercial Educational Webcaster did not submit a statement of account and pay any required additional royalties.
(d)
(2)
(3)
(A) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster exceeded 160,000 total ATH for any individual channel or station for more than one calendar month in the immediately preceding calendar year;
(B) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster expects to exceed 160,000 total ATH for any individual channel or station for any calendar month in the applicable calendar year; or
(C) The Noncommercial Educational Webcaster otherwise does not elect to be subject to paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(ii) A Noncommercial Educational Webcaster required to report pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section shall provide reports of use to the Collective quarterly on a census reporting basis in accordance with § 370.4 of this chapter, except that, notwithstanding § 370.4(d)(2) of this chapter, such a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster shall not be required to include ATH or actual total performances, and may in lieu thereof provide channel or station name and play frequency, during the first calendar year it reports in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For the avoidance of doubt, after a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster has been required to report in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section for a full calendar year, it must thereafter include ATH or actual total Performances in its reports of use. All reports of use under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section shall be submitted to the Collective no later than the 30th day after the end of each calendar quarter.
(e)
(f)
Approved by:
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges publish a final rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by new subscription services and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary to facilitate those transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030.
Effective March 10, 2026.
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
On December 19, 2024, the Copyright Royalty Judges published a proposed rule governing the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by new subscription services that provide transmissions to residential subscribers as part of a cable or satellite television bundle and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary to facilitate those transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2026, and ending on December 31, 2030. 89 FR 103722. The rates and terms in the proposed rule were the subject of a settlement between SoundExchange, Inc., Sirius XM Inc., and Stingray Music USA Inc. Settling Parties' Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0013-NSR (2026-2030) (“NSS V”). Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement were given the opportunity to comment and participants in the NSS V proceeding were given the opportunity to object to any or all of the proposed regulations. In response to a comment from the settling parties, the Judges published a correction to the proposed rule on February 10, 2025, to correct the omission of certain parentheses in the rate adjustment formulas. 90 FR 9224. The correction extended the comment period through March 12, 2025.
The Judges received one additional comment to the proposed rule from David Powell. Mr. Powell is not a participant in the NSS V proceeding and thus is not entitled to object to the settlement. To the extent he would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement, his comment did not contain “any comprehensible basis” for deviating from the settlement. Order 6 Denying Powell Motions, Docket No. 23-CRB-0013-NSR (2026-2030).
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114, and 801(b)(1).
(a)
(b)
(c)
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) A Licensee, in relation to the Collective; and
(2) The Collective in relation to a Copyright Owner or Performer.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) Subscribers do not pay a separate fee for audio channels.
(2) The audio channels are delivered by digital audio transmissions through a technology that is incapable of tracking the individual sound recordings received by any particular consumer.
(3) However, paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall not apply to the Licensee's current contracts with Providers that are in effect as of the effective date of this part if such Providers become capable in the future of tracking the individual sound recordings received by any particular consumer, provided that the audio channels continued to be delivered to Subscribers by digital audio transmissions and the Licensee remains incapable of tracking the individual sound recordings received by any particular consumer.
(k)
(l)
(a)
(1) For Stand-Alone Contracts, a monthly payment of [amount to be calculated in November 2025 and published in December 2025 in the final rule] per Subscriber to the Service of such Licensee, which is equivalent to the 2025 royalty rate of $0.0234, as adjusted by the annual royalty fee adjustment in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For Bundled Contracts, a monthly payment of [amount to be calculated in November 2025 and published in December 2025 in the final rule] per Subscriber to the Service of such Licensee, which is equivalent to the 2025 royalty rate of $0.0390, as adjusted by the annual royalty fee adjustment in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)
(2)(i) The calculation of the rate for each year shall be cumulative based on a calculation of the percentage increase in the CPI-U from the CPI-U published in November 2024 (CPI-U%) and shall be made according to the following formulas:
(A) For Stand-Alone Contracts, (1 + (C
(B) For Bundled Contracts, (1 + (C
(ii) For both formulas C
(3) The Judges shall publish notice of the adjusted fees in the
(c)
(d)
The Collective must promptly distribute royalties received from Licensees to Copyright Owners and Performers that are entitled thereto, or to their designated agents. The Collective shall only be responsible for making distributions to those who provide the Collective with information as is necessary to identify and pay the correct recipient. The Collective must distribute royalties on a basis that values all usage by a Licensee equally based upon the information provided under the Reports of Use requirements for Licensees pursuant to § 370.4 of this chapter and this part. However, in any case in which a Licensee has not provided a compliant Report of Use, whether for the License Period or otherwise, and the board of directors of the Collective determines that further efforts to seek the missing Report of Use from the Licensee would not be warranted, the Collective may distribute the royalties associated with the Licensee's missing Report of Use on the basis of Reports of Use for the corresponding calendar year filed by other Licensees.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Approved by:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of North Dakota (North Dakota) on January 12, 2015, and August 11, 2022, to address regional haze. Specifically, the EPA is approving North Dakota's nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective on April 9, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0641. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joe Stein, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-7078, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The EPA is approving North Dakota's 2015 progress report and the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to the first implementation period
On January 12, 2015, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision to address the regional haze program requirements to submit periodic progress reports under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.308(h) (2015 progress report). On August 11, 2022, North Dakota submitted a SIP revision to address regional haze for the second implementation period and included a revised first implementation period NO
On August 14, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve North Dakota's 2015 progress report and the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to the first implementation period NO
The EPA proposed approval for the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to the updated NO
During the public notice and comment period, we received seven comments on our proposal. Some comments received were in support of EPA's approval, while others argued in support of disapproval. Some commenters claim that the EPA erred in finding North Dakota's BART determination reasonable. Below, we provide a summary and response to this issue, including commenters' claims that more stringent controls of LNC3+ w/SNCR and LNC3+ w/SCR should not have been rejected.
In North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission, North Dakota determined that based on cost of compliance and visibility improvement associated with potential controls, it would not be reasonable to require SNCR or SCR when determining a BART emission limit for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2. Instead, North Dakota determined BART for Units 1 and 2 to be 0.15 lb/MMBtu associated with the operation of LNC3+. Some commenters argue that this limit for LNC3+ is less stringent than can be achieved at the facility and is not approvable as the emission limit required under BART. As further explained in section VII. of the RTC document, the EPA finds that given variable unit load and the variable sodium content of the fuel used by Coal Creek (North Dakota lignite), North Dakota's selection of a 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit for NO
Commenters also argue that North Dakota should have required a more stringent emission limit associated with operation of LNC3+ w/SCR because North Dakota improperly calculated cost of compliance and improperly weighed technical feasibility concerns. As further explained in the RTC document included in the docket to this action, The EPA supports North Dakota's determination that LNC3+ w/SCR is not reasonable due to a high cost of compliance. Further, the EPA finds that North Dakota provided documentation supporting their concerns about the technical feasibility of SCR at North Dakota lignite coal facilities. Additionally, we point to court precedent in support of North Dakota's arguments on technical feasibility of
For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document, and in this document, we are approving North Dakota's 2015 progress report and the portion of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to the first implementation period NO
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 SIP amendments described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. These amendments are contained within the Permit to Construct for Coal Creek Station: “PTC21001.” In § 52.1820, the table in paragraph (d) is amended under the center heading “Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2.” by removing entry “PTC1005” and adding the entry “PTC21001” in its place (state effective date: 7/27/2022). The EPA is incorporating the NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because it is 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
• 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
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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 disapproves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• 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 CAA.
In addition, the SIP 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).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 11, 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)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of broken bolts in seat rail connections of certain frames. This proposed AD would require replacement of the nylon bushes with bronze bushes in the affected areas and would also prohibit the installation of affected parts in those areas. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Camille L Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 817-222-5149; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
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
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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Camille L Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 817-222-5149; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0207R1, dated October 30, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0207R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states reports were received of broken bolts in the seat rail connections in the area of frame (FR) 47 (for Model A320 and A321 series airplanes), FR47/51 (for Model A319 series airplanes), FR47/54 (for Model A318 series airplanes), FR35 (for Model A318, A319 and A320 series
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0207R1 specifies procedures that would require replacement of the nylon bushes with bronze bushes in the affected areas. The replacement includes doing a rotating probe inspection of the fastener holes for cracking, checking the hole diameter of the bracket assemblies, seat track, and long beam, as applicable, to determine if it is within tolerance, checking the inner diameter of the bushing to determine if it is within tolerance, and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions and doing the repair. EASA AD 2025-0207R1 would also prohibit the installation of affected parts in those areas.
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
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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0207R1 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0207R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0207R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0207R1 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 AD 2025-0207R1 Material required by EASA AD 2025-0207R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,404 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed 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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 24, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0207R1, dated October 30, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0207R1).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of broken bolts in the affected seat rail connections of certain frames. The FAA is issuing this AD to address broken bolts in the affected seat rail connections of certain frames. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in seat detachment and passenger injuries under emergency landing loads.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2025-0207R1.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0207R1 refers to October 7, 2025 (the effective date of the original issue of EASA AD 2025-0207), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the service information specified in EASA AD 2025-0207 specifies to contact Airbus if any cracking is found or if any diameter is not within tolerance, this AD requires doing a repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0207R1
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Camille L Seay, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone 817-222-5149; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0207R1, dated October 30, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a failed extension of the inboard slats during the landing phase, which the crew alerting system (CAS) did not indicate to the flightcrew. This proposed AD would require modifying the maintenance and avionics interface computer (MAIC) software and revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide improved procedures for addressing slats failures. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
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
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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA Emergency AD 2022-0161-E, dated August 4, 2022 (EASA Emergency AD 2022-0161-E), as an interim action to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. EASA Emergency AD 2022-0161-E states there was a reported occurrence of a failed extension of the inboard slats during the landing phase, which the CAS did not indicate to the flightcrew. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced lift margin during approach and landing, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. The FAA issued corresponding FAA AD 2022-18-18, Amendment 39-22169 (87 FR 54131, September 2, 2022) (AD 2022-18-18) to require revising the existing AFM to provide procedures for failed extension of inboard slats and flightcrew indication during landing.
Since the FAA issued AD 2022-18-18, EASA issued EASA AD 2025-0092, dated April 23, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0092) (also referred to as the MCAI), to further address the unsafe condition identified in EASA Emergency AD 2022-0161-E for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes that have embodied Dassault modification M1000. EASA AD 2025-0092 states Dassault Aviation has developed Dassault modification M2138 that introduces changes to the MAIC software to restore crew awareness about the inboard slat configuration in case of slat failures and published improved AFM procedures to cope with slat failures. EASA AD 2025-0092 also stated the AD is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow to expand the applicability to airplanes that have not embodied Dassault modification M1000.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Accomplishing the actions in this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of AD 2022-18-18 only for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes that have embodied Dassault modification M1000.
EASA AD 2025-0092 requires the following actions:
• Upgrading the MAIC software, which includes modifying the digital flight control system (DFCS) 4.1.3 standard to ensure the “FCS: SLAT INB EXTEND FAIL” CAS message is properly displayed (Dassault modification M2138).
• Accomplishing Dassault modification M1968 or Dassault modification M1655, as applicable, prior to accomplishing Dassault modification M2138. Dassault modification M1968 includes updating the MAIC software. Dassault modification M1655 includes modifying DFCS standard 4.1.1.
• Amending the AFM to implement improved procedures for addressing slat failures.
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
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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0092 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
EASA AD 2025-0092 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the AFM, and thereafter, to “operate the airplane accordingly.” However, this proposed AD would not specifically require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA regulations require that operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the existing AFM including all updates. Section 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore, including a requirement in this proposed AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM would be redundant and unnecessary.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0092 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0092 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0092 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 AD 2025-0092. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0092 for compliance will be available at
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If EASA later determines it is necessary to expand the applicability to airplanes that have not embodied Dassault modification M1000, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 24, 2026.
This AD affects AD 2022-18-18, Amendment 39-22169 (87 FR 54131, September 2, 2022) (AD 2022-18-18).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0092, dated April 23, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0092).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of a failed extension of the inboard slats during the landing phase, which the crew alerting system did not indicate to the flightcrew. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failed extension of inboard slats during landing phase without flightcrew indication. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced lift margin during approach and landing and result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2025-0092.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0092 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0092 specifies to “implement the AFM-CP”, this AD requires replacing that text with “revise the existing AFM to incorporate the procedures in “the AFM-CP” for addressing slat failures”.
(3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0092 specifies to “inform all flight crews, and thereafter, operate the aeroplane accordingly,” this AD does not require those actions as those actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations (see 14 CFR 91.9, 91.505, 121.137, and 121.628(a)(2) and (5)).
(4) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2025-0092 specifies “An aeroplane, the AFM of which has been amended to comply with paragraph (3) of this AD, or that has been amended by incorporating the AFM at revision 7, or later”, this AD requires replacing that text with “An airplane that has been amended by incorporating the AFM at revision 7, or later”.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0092.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0092 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2022-18-18 only for the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Jonathan Duong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0092, dated April 23, 2025.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other natural resource harvest in national preserves in Alaska and for the procedures used to restrict public use and access in Alaska park lands. These changes restore National Park Service interpretations of law, policies, and regulations adopted to implement the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 that were in effect for over three decades. Rulemaking in 2015, 2017, and 2024 preempted methods of State-authorized fish and wildlife harvests, revised codified and established procedures for restricting public access and activities in Alaska park lands, and added severability provision, among other changes. The revisions in this proposed rule are consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14153, E.O. 14192, and Secretary of the Interior's Order (S.O.) 3422 titled “Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential.”
Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET on April 9, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE96, by either of the following methods:
•
•
(2)
Don Striker, Regional Director (Acting), Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501; phone (907) 227-6163; email:
Section 1313 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provides that “[a] National Preserve in Alaska shall be administered and managed as a unit of the National Park System in the same manner as a national park except as otherwise provided in this Act and except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation.” 16 U.S.C. 3201.
Section 1314(a) of ANILCA reaffirms that “Nothing in this Act is intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the State of Alaska for management of fish and wildlife on the public lands except as may be provided in title VIII of this Act, or to amend the Alaska constitution.” 16 U.S.C. 3202(a). Section 1314(c) provides further instructions on provisions for harvests and areas closed to all harvests in park units. 16 U.S.C. 3202(c).
Title VIII of ANILCA established a priority opportunity for customary and traditional subsistence uses of fish and wildlife by rural residents over other consumptive uses of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands, including Alaska's National Preserves. As part of its management for sustainability under the Alaska Constitution, the State authorizes regulated take on Federal lands, while the Federal Subsistence Board acts as the Federal regulating agency to assure a subsistence priority is provided to rural residents. The Federal Subsistence Board is authorized to “close public lands to hunting, trapping, or fishing, or take actions to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife necessary to conserve healthy populations” and “continue subsistence uses of such populations”, while the National Park Service (NPS) retains authority “to issue regulations necessary for the proper management of public lands under [its] jurisdiction in accordance with ANILCA and other existing laws” (
Beginning with Statehood in 1959, fish and wildlife harvest activities were regulated by the State of Alaska on all Federal and non-Federal lands and waters, subject to certain Federal laws. The three pre-statehood national parks were closed to all harvests except sport fishing. In 1978, Alaska adopted a statutory preference for subsistence uses among consumptive uses, which was regulated by the Boards of Fisheries and Game along with other uses. Upon passage of ANILCA, NPS adopted regulations in 1981 and 1983, which continued to recognize state-authorized harvests and methods for recreational, subsistence, commercial, and other uses apply to park units except where closed under ANILCA. In ANILCA, Congress established statutory criteria and a public engagement process that would protect traditional activities and methods of access on and across Federal lands for hunting, trapping, and other activities to occur. From NPS adoption of regulations implementing ANILCA in 1981 through the NPS regulations and policies in effect in 2014, the application of state-authorized harvests remained relatively unchanged.
On October 23, 2015, NPS reinterpreted its legal authorities and policies in publishing a final rule (2015 Rule; 80 FR 64,325) implementing major changes to its regulations for harvest and access on park lands in Alaska, as follows:
1. NPS added a new 36 CFR 13.42 that, among other things, prohibited: (1) trapping in a preserve as the employee of another; (2) transporting wildlife through parks without identification; (3) any state law identified by NPS as related to “predator reduction” efforts; (4) fourteen specific activities (including bear baiting); and (5) obstructing others engaged in lawful hunting. A previously existing prohibition on taking certain species after having been airborne the day before was moved into this new section. NPS also amended its interpretation of national policies and revised its Alaska-specific regulations for hunting and trapping in national preserves, including prohibiting certain harvest practices otherwise regulated by the State of Alaska. Information surrounding the rule focused public attention on certain harvest methods and values despite finding no impacts to wildlife populations and confirming that finding through an environmental analysis.
2. NPS revised the closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR 13.490(a) to remove the well-established public participation process and criteria for restricting public use and access that, for over three decades, were prescribed in regulations for all park units in Alaska at 36 CFR parts 1 and 13 (beginning in 1981) and for all conservation system units in Alaska at 43 CFR part 36 (since 1986). Information surrounding the rule characterized these changes to public use, access, notice, and opportunity to be heard on park management actions as “updating” the definitions and processes.
3. NPS removed paragraph (e) from 36 CFR 13.400 and revised 36 CFR 13.470 and 36 CFR 13.480 to remove references to state law and the State of Alaska. Paragraph (e) in 36 CFR 13.400 had made clear that the State of Alaska's regulation of the taking of fish and wildlife in park areas was authorized. The 2015 Rule's removal of this express provision created confusion regarding the State's management authority in parks. NPS stated the revisions to 36
4. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.40 to “allow” use of native fish for non-subsistence fishing. NPS authorized this use of native species as bait for fishing and certain traditional harvest methods as an exception to nationwide NPS prohibitions that preempted those methods in other states. This “allowance” codified NPS's reinterpreted claim of authority to apply nationwide prohibitions to preempt state law in Alaska without meeting the criteria and process Congress required in Section 1313 of ANILCA, which limits NPS authority to restrict state-authorized harvests to specific criteria “consistent with the provisions of section 816” and “for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment” after consultation with the State.
The 2015 Rule was supported by organizations supporting preservation and opposing certain harvest methods, and was opposed by Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Federation of Natives, Tanana Chiefs Conference, the State of Alaska, hunting and fishing advisory groups, gateway communities, and others affected by the harvest limits and disenfranchised by the process changes affecting access and traditional activities. The environmental analysis found no substantial difference in impact on NPS resources between the no action and preferred alternative adopted in the 2015 Rule. Numerous commenters objected to the omission in the analysis of significant impacts to the human environment and to the State's mandate for sustainable wildlife management.
On January 12, 2017, the NPS published a final rule (2017 Rule; 82 FR 3626) that used regulations modified in the 2015 Rule to make unilateral changes affecting subsistence uses and other traditional activities, as follows:
1. NPS added a new 36 CFR 13.482 to require a permit for subsistence collection of animal parts and revised 36 CFR 13.485 to institute limitations on the ability of subsistence users to gather plant materials for handicrafts for customary trade. These revisions limited public participation and consultation with the State and subsistence userson management decisions and obscured requirements for managers limiting public access and traditional activities, such as removing the process required for park units in Alaska in 43 CFR part 36. In addition to removing these requirements for restricting protected access and authorized activities, NPS expanded its claim of discretionary authority by redefining the nature of a “closure” to allow more intense management of the public and park resources without needing to consult with the public or State and Federal managers.
For example, in its response to comment 11 (82 FR 3630), NPS claimed that “requiring a permit or otherwise putting conditions on an activity is not a closure,” which ignores the fact a park is “closed” to any individual who fails to, cannot, or should not have to adhere to a given restriction. ANILCA and its implementing regulations recognize public entry, access, and use as “open until closed” to enable continuation of traditional activities, as prescribed by those regulations. The 2017 Rule claimed these activities, along with heritage activities like falconry and the customary and traditional uses of natural items in the park, were in conflict with nationwide regulations and revised policy interpretations, requiring more intense management and a discretionary permitting system.
When NPS removed its long-standing regulatory criteria, durations, and categories for emergency, temporary, and permanent restrictions and closures in the 2015 Rule, it expanded the discretion park superintendents exercise to implement these restrictions and closures without acknowledging the laws, policies, and well-established procedures in nationwide and Alaska-specific regulations at 36 CFR parts 1 and 13 that guided ANILCA implementation for over three decades before the 2015 and 2017 expansions.
2. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.420 Definitions to, among other things, insert a reference to ANILCA in “subsistence uses” that had the effect of displacing state authorized subsistence harvest from parks. NPS again changed the definition of “subsistence” in reinterpreting its authorities and policies to support discretion for more intense management actions, including permanent closures without rulemaking (
For example, based on the environmental impact analysis supporting the 2017 Rule, the NPS Regional Director determined written authorization from NPS is required to collect animal parts and plant materials to make handicrafts for barter and customary trade. Collecting living or dead fish and wildlife “or the parts or products thereof, such as antlers or nests” is prohibited in nationwide NPS regulations, 36 CFR 2.1, along with most unpermitted commercial uses,
Subsistence users expressed concerns about losing access to these irreplaceable materials and adding more permits to already permitted uses. In opposing the rule's basis and approach, users explained that gathering occurs simultaneously and opportunistically in search of all natural resources supporting a subsistence way of life, and the effect of the rule undermines congressional intent in ANILCA. See,
3. NPS revised 36 CFR 13.42 to add a paragraph (j) prohibiting the collection of living wildlife without an NPS permit and specifically disallowing use of State of Alaska and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits and regulations for falconry. NPS also revised 36 CFR 13.480 to add a paragraph (b) only allowing certain types of bait to be used for subsistence bear baiting and adding paragraph (d) to 36 CFR 13.1902 to require a permit for use of other types of bait. NPS provided notifications of regulatory intent to the public and State of Alaska but limited consultations to specific closures. The title of the 2017
The combined effect of these changes effectively expanded NPS's authorities to limit harvests administered through State of Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Federal Subsistence Board regulations.
Secretarial Order 3347, issued March 2, 2017, directed the Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to advance conservation, increase recreation opportunities, and improve consultation with State of Alaska wildlife managers. On June 22, 2017, the DOI published a
The State of Alaska submitted extensive information and comments on the May 22, 2018, proposed rule to show the rulemaking effort, like the 2015 Rule, was focusing public attention on certain hunting and trapping methods and downplaying substantial changes to the decision-making process that public land users, the State, and the NPS's conservation partners rely on. Despite recognition that the 2015 Rule relied on inaccurate claims only “sport” hunting would be affected, and acknowledgement of the effects on displaced users, the May 22, 2018, proposed rule retained the 2015 and 2017 rules' limited opportunities for residents who harvest for subsistence purposes under State and Federal regulations.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second unanimous ruling in
On June 9, 2020, NPS published a final rule (2020 Rule; 85 FR 35,181), that removed paragraphs (f) and (g) from 36 CFR 13.42. These deletions removed the prohibition on State of Alaska actions related to predator reduction and the prohibition on the fourteen specific practices, including bear baiting. Most of the hunting methods restored by the 2020 Rule were already prohibited by the State and the other hunting methods had no impact on NPS resources.
The 2020 Rule did not address the other provisions of 36 CFR 13.42 added by the 2015 Rule, nor did it address the 2015 Rule's removal of references to State law in 36 CFR 13.400, 36 CFR 13.470, and 36 CFR 13.480, changes to the closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR 13.490, or the closure effected by 2015 Rule's revisions to 36 CFR 13.40.
Similarly, the 2020 Rule did not address the closure effected by the 2017 Rule's prohibition on collection of living wildlife in 36 CFR 13.42(j), including through a falconry permit, nor did it address the 2017 Rule's limitation on subsistence uses by adding ANILCA to the definition of subsistence in 36 CFR 13.420, the subsistence bear baiting limitations imposed by the revisions to 36 CFR 13.480 and 36 CFR 13.1902, or the limitations imposed on subsistence plants and animal plant gathering effected by the 2017 Rule's revisions to 36 CFR 13.482 and 36 CFR 13.485.
In August 2020, several groups challenged the 2020 Rule and, in a September 2022 decision, a district court concluded the 2020 Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and remanded it to the NPS without vacatur.
On July 3, 2024, the NPS again published a final rule (2024 Rule; 89 FR 55,059) that examined and reinstated one of the harvest restrictions—the prohibition on bear baiting—in revisions to 36 CFR 13.42(f) and modified trapping regulations in Alaska preserves to preempt laws the State may enact in the future through revisions to the definition of “trapping” in 36 CFR 13.1. NPS also added a severability provision in 36 CFR 13.42(k). Nothing in the 2024 Rule addressed or modified the significant changes in policy interpretations adopted in the 2015 and 2017 rules regarding expanded NPS authorities based on values and removal of public participation in decisions involving access and traditional activities. In developing the 2024 Rule, the NPS narrowly sought input from Tribal entities, subsistence user groups, and the State of Alaska on the small set of proposed changes to harvest methods and trapping regulations. Likewise, there was no analysis of impacts of the 2015, 2017, and 2020 rules related to the 2024 Rule in the environmental assessment. After publication of the 2024 Rule, the appeal of the 2020 Rule was dismissed as moot and the district court's decision was vacated.
On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14153, “Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,” directing the Secretary of the Interior to, among other things, rescind the 2024 Rule and reinstate the 2020 Rule. E.O. 14153 also directed all bureaus in the DOI to ensure to the greatest extent possible that harvest opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with similar opportunities on State lands. Soon after, on January 31, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” directing all Federal agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. On February 3, 2025, S.O. 3422, “Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,” directed the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks to develop an action plan describing the necessary and appropriate steps to execute direction in
Disputes and uncertainties persisted after the final rules issued in 2015 and 2017, as stakeholders continued to comment on, litigate, and demand closer review of the modifications and supporting information. Multiple stakeholder groups were involved in challenging and defending the 2015 and 2020 rules in court on matters that were not fully addressed by the regulatory actions that resolved those cases, meaning disputes and uncertainties are likely to continue. For example, no rulemaking effort since 2015 has attempted to address or reconsider modifications to the closure process or the disproportionate impact on Alaskans, Tribes, local businesses, and public land users less affected by the harvest provisions, including subsistence users.
A “Petition for New Rulemaking Regarding Hunting on National Preserves in Alaska” (Petition) was filed on August 9, 2017, by the Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation and Alaska Professional Hunters Association seeking repeal of the 2015 Rule to restore the pre-2015 status quo of harvests and access administered through the well-understood, decades-old procedures. The Petition noted the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for the 2015 Rule suggested that no significant adverse impact on NPS resources was likely to occur under the State management regime preempted by the rule. Preemption of those authorities changed again in the 2020 and 2024 rules. Through this rulemaking, NPS can examine, compare, and learn more from the public about the five-year period with the 2015 Rule restrictions and the five-year period that followed to assess the environmental impacts and build on prior determinations.
The Alaska-based chapters of Safari Club International filed a similar request with the DOI on September 15, 2017, to rescind the entire 2015 Rule and parts of the 2017 Rule, noting strenuous objections and new information provided by the affected public and State managers were ignored in both the 2015 and 2017 rules. This request questioned the sufficiency of evidence supporting the precautionary protection of NPS resource values that supersedes procedures adopted by the DOI in 43 CFR part 36 to safeguard public access and activities protected in ANILCA.
The NPS received another request from Safari Club International on May 19, 2025, again asking the DOI Secretary to rescind the 2015 Rule and parts of the 2017 Rule in addition to rescinding the 2024 Rule, providing comments previously submitted by the State of Alaska and a coalition of Alaska conservation organizations amplifying similar concerns raised in a prior rulemaking (Docket #NPS RIN 1024-AE38).
The Alaska Outdoor Council, an organization of outdoor clubs and individuals who participate in harvests, access, and other activities on Alaska's public lands, submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to the Interior Department on October 10, 2025, to restore the pre-2015 policies and regulations by repealing the 2015 Rule, parts of the 2017 Rule, and the 2024 Rule. The Petition described impacts on Alaskans from changes since 2014, deficiencies in public information and consultation in the sequential rulemaking processes, and failure to meet the standard set in
By rescinding these new and modified regulations, the NPS proposes to restore the procedures for restricting and closing public entry and access on national park lands to the language and procedures in 43 CFR 36 and 36 CFR 13 in effect before the 2015 Rule. The proposed changes would remove changes made through the 2015, 2017, and 2024 rules that insulated managers from public involvement, removed required consultation with the State, and allowed for discretionary closures without unique criteria established in the regulations to comply with ANILCA. The proposed rule restores and maintains the NPS's authority to restrict public access, entry, and uses for reasons provided under the closure procedures in effect since the preserves were established in Alaska.
Consistent with
With specified exceptions for unrelated changes, the NPS proposes to restore its longstanding Alaska-specific regulations at 36 CFR part 13 by rescinding changes made in the 2015 Rule, 2017 Rule, and 2024 Rule, that:
• unnecessarily preempt State law;
• frustrate effective management of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska park units, including for subsistence;
• interfere with management of wildlife resources by other bureaus and offices in the DOI with delegated authorities from the DOI Secretary, including the Federal Subsistence Board and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• eliminate public notice and engagement on NPS management decisions, including for subsistence users guaranteed a “meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses” (16 U.S.C. 3111);
• are substantially similar to regulations for Alaska national wildlife refuges nullified by Congress in 2017 through the Congressional Review Act; and
• cannot demonstrate a verifiable basis for limiting public access and land uses.
The NPS has determined the 2015 Rule and 2017 Rule fundamentally altered the management framework Alaskans relied on following ANILCA for a sustainable harvest of fish and wildlife, to preserve culture, to conserve and protect lands and resources, and to pass on traditions. These rules unnecessarily interfere with the decision-making process outlined in ANILCA and the DOI regulations at 43 CFR part 36 protecting access and public use on NPS-administered lands in Alaska.
Evaluating the full scope of revisions at 36 CFR part 13 that originated in the 2015 Rule, and recommendations and information provided in the requests for
Based on a review of the full record, the NPS has preliminarily determined this proposed rule is a substantial improvement and that changes to NPS regulations in 2015, 2017, and 2024 were not necessary to protect wildlife or visitor safety, making their continued application inconsistent with ANILCA and NPS management policies. The NPS requests public input on this preliminary conclusion, particularly regarding any desirable modifications that resulted in positive outcomes for park users, affected communities, and regional management partners.
The NPS is also reconsidering conclusions that supported these prior rulemakings, taking into account deficiencies and concerns identified by requests for action, in public comments, and during litigation. For example, the importance of creating space for Alaska's system of dual management in the State's and NPS's respective decision frameworks has been a common concern shared by Tribes, the State, and regional stakeholders since the 2015 Rule. In the preamble to that rule, NPS concluded the word “subsistence” in ANILCA and its implementing regulations means subsistence activities by rural residents under Federal laws, rather than the customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and wildlife that is regulated and prioritized under both State and Federal laws. See 80 FR 64,329. Corresponding edits to 36 CFR 13.470 and 13.480 removed the incorporation of State laws by reference and had the unintended effect of displacing State laws governing those uses. Allowances in 36 CFR 13.400 for subsistence uses to occur consistent with applicable State and Federal law have not proven effective at maintaining the balance struck in the pre-2015 regulations that park users and resource managers relied on for 35 years, which this rulemaking proposes to restore.
This proposed rule would effect these changes by, among other things, restoring the appropriately balanced references to State law in 36 CFR 13.40, 36 CFR 13.400, 36 CFR 13.420, 36 CFR 13.470, and 36 CFR 13.480 from the pre-2015 rules. As part of the restoration of 36 CFR 13.40, certain measures moved out of that provision by the 2015 Rule and put into 36 CFR 13.42, will be restored through edits to 36 CFR 13.40 and deletion of 36 CFR 13.42.
This proposed rule repeals the significant changes to legal and policy interpretations of State authority to regulate harvests and NPS authorities to preempt such harvests, including the assertion of discretionary authority to regulate subsistence uses adopted in the 2015 and 2017 rules. This proposed rule more closely aligns harvest regulations in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations, ensuring that hunting opportunities on preserve lands are consistent with similar opportunities on State, private, and other Federal lands, as they were before the 2015 Rule. This alignment reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens inherent in conflicting and redundant harvest regulations in Alaska, where evolving land ownership is checker-boarded with Federal designations, State lands, Native Corporation lands, and various allotments, upon which wildlife populations move freely throughout.
This proposed rule would eliminate the potential for conflict in the 2015 changes to 36 CFR parts 1 and 13 with the DOI regulations implementing ANILCA at 43 CFR part 36 that specify public involvement and criteria prior to closing park lands to public access and protected uses. The 2015 Rule and 2017 Rule changes to 36 CFR part 13 reduced public involvement in the closure process. These rule changes also expanded the authority the NPS historically exercised: (1) to regulate subsistence harvests, including unintentionally preventing federally qualified users from participating in subsistence harvests on over 20 million acres of national preserves; and (2) to regulate fish and wildlife populations traditionally, and appropriately, managed by the State under the Alaska Constitution. Reinstatement of the pre-2015 closure process includes restoring the closure timelines Alaskans requested and relied on, notifications that were replaced by an overreliance on electronic communications, and long-standing requirements for meaningful consultation with the affected public and the State, using defensible criteria for discretionary closures consistent with ANILCA.
Further, this proposed repeal of the remainder of the 2015 Rule is consistent with, although not required by, Public Law 115-20 (April 3, 2017), whereby Congress disapproved a parallel final 2016 rule enacted for national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Regardless of whether the 2015 Rule for national preserves was “substantially the same” or not, both the national wildlife refuge and NPS rules prohibited similar hunting practices with similar amendments to regulations enacted to implement ANILCA, were developed simultaneously within the DOI, and applied to millions of acres of land across all regions of Alaska, with similar impacts to the same wildlife populations and public uses. Comments made in passing Public Law 115-20 noted the NPS 2015 Rule “also deserves repeal” as it similarly portended to address certain harvest methods while making other significant procedural changes. If adopted, this proposed rule would satisfy multiple requests to restore fish and wildlife management in Alaska to a regulatory framework consistent with ANILCA that existed for decades with no impacts on NPS resources, as acknowledged throughout this process.
For the most part, this proposed rule does not directly address subsistence harvest by rural residents regulated under Title VIII of ANILCA, but it helps alleviate the incidental burdens on subsistence imposed by the 2015 and 2017 rules, among other things.
The other two bases upon which the district court found the 2020 Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act were addressed by certain statements in the preamble to the 2024 Rule. Those statements are not disturbed by this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would remove a prohibition established by the 2015 Rule on using bait to attract or take bears on national preserves in Alaska, preempting long-standing, recent, and future State regulations governing the use, where authorized. The prohibition was removed by the 2020 Rule, then reestablished by the 2024 Rule. Removing this prohibition would restore application of State of Alaska hunting regulations in effect for decades before the 2015 Rule and between the 2020 Rule and the 2024 Rule.
As shown by the above summary of the 2015 and 2024 rules' treatment of this practice, the NPS is aware this proposed rule would be a change in policy from the 2015 and 2024 rules.
The NPS notes the 2015 Rule was not based on “factual findings” that would implicate the need for a “reasoned explanation” for disregarding those findings. See 80 FR 64,334 (response to comment 19). To the extent the 2024 Rule purported to have been based on “more recent factual findings,” the NPS's discussion below will provide the “reasoned explanation” for disregarding them.
Before addressing the
In regard to public safety concerns informed by NPS policy, the NPS estimates very few individuals used bait to attract or take bears when this practice was governed by State of Alaska regulations from 1982 until the 2015 Rule prohibition and between the 2020 Rule and the 2024 Rule. The NPS has no reason to believe this practice will occur more frequently than it did during those periods if once again governed by State of Alaska regulations. The NPS expects there would be few baiting stations established and the number of bears taken at stations would be low. It is difficult to predict how many more bears might be taken due to the proposed rule, and thus how much more bear baiting might occur, because neither the NPS nor the State of Alaska maintain data on the total number of bears taken over bait in national preserves in Alaska when this practice was allowed in previous years.
The NPS evaluated several data sources to estimate the total number of bears that could be expected to be taken over bait as a result of this proposed rule. Miller et al. (2017) found that more liberalized hunting regulations for brown bears, including bear baiting, resulted in an increased harvest of brown bears on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula. However, compared to the Kenai Peninsula, most national preserves in Alaska are more difficult to access for the purpose of bear baiting. Hilderbrand et al. (2013) estimated that less than 2 black bears per year were harvested over bait in national preserves in Alaska when this practice was allowed during the period from 1992 to 2010. Most bears were harvested along the McCarthy Road corridor in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, due to this being one of the few areas with an extensive road network. Other national preserves in Alaska are rural and roadless, making it difficult to establish bait stations. Although there are no data specific to the harvest of brown bears over bait in national preserves, data from the State of Alaska reveals that between 2012 and 2016, 40 brown bears were taken over bait in certain areas where baiting is allowed and that are adjacent to, within, or overlap with, national preserves (NPS, 2019a; SOA, 2018). This indicates a total of approximately 8 brown bears per year. These harvest numbers are not specific to national preserves, however, and it is possible that the harvest of brown bears would be similar to that of black bears (
Based on the available data, compared to baseline conditions, NPS anticipates that the proposed rule would result in the harvest of no more than 10 bears per year (2 black bears and up to 8 brown bears, where authorized). Thus, because any increase in bear baiting is expected to be minimal, NPS also expects that whatever additional public safety risk may be created, if any, would be minimal as well.
Statements made by Tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, and the State of Alaska during pre-consultation on this rule support these estimates. These entities largely opposed the prohibition in the 2015 Rule and 2024 Rule, and the limitations on subsistence users in the 2017 Rule, as unnecessary due to limited participation and no instances of public safety issues, and confusing due to long-standing, data-informed, user-led regulation through the State and Federal boards.
The NPS identified two primary risk factors in the 2024 Rule related to bear baiting. The first factor was risk to public safety from bears defending a food source. The NPS finds several considerations diminish risks to public safety from bears defending a food source at a bait station. State of Alaska regulations require a permit and bait station areas be signed and located more than
The NPS expects this rule would result in very few bait stations established across all national preserves. Even if some stations are established in unauthorized locations, measured against the total population of visitors to national preserves in Alaska, the risk to public safety from bears defending a food source at unauthorized locations would be extremely low.
Regarding theoretical risks to public safety from bears that might become habituated and conditioned to human food at bait stations, the State of Alaska Board of Game commented on the 2024 Rule that it had no information on bear baiting causing safety concerns by habituating bears to human-provided food and had found no fact-based support for this concern in any state that allows bear baiting. See letter dated March 9, 2023, from the Alaska Board of Game to the NPS Regional Director.
The 2024 Rule noted as “another consideration” that bear baiting would increase the number of food conditioned bears and that those bears would be more likely to be killed in defense of life or property. As NPS's discussion above demonstrates, there is no reason to expect bear baiting will result in more food conditioned bears and more bears taken in defense of life and property because the practice has not had that effect when authorized in the past.
The 2024 Rule also identified the prohibition on bear baiting in Denali State Park as a supporting basis for prohibiting bear baiting in national preserves. 89 FR 55,063. While there may be situations in which consistency between management of State parks and national preserves is preferable, the NPS now concludes that this is not the situation with bear baiting. Among other possible reasons why the inconsistency is appropriate here, Denali State Park is approximately 300,000 acres while national preserves make up approximately twenty-two million acres. Accordingly, prohibiting bear baiting in national preserves has a much more restrictive effect than prohibiting bear baiting in one State park.
The 2024 Rule placed substantial weight on a query of 28 bear management and research biologists from across North America to support a ban on bear baiting on national preserves in Alaska. Respondents provided their opinions of public safety risks from bears defending a food source and expressed views of baiting as the functional equivalent of feeding bears that may alter their natural behavior. The query did not specifically request their opinions about risks to public safety if bears become habituated to human food at bait stations, which the NPS expects would exist in very low numbers as a result of this rule. Although the query of biologists is perhaps useful for understanding potential risks, the NPS now finds the lack of data on any particular public safety risks from bear baiting in Alaska is more persuasive. The NPS finds the State of Alaska's experience particularly relevant here given that the State has allowed bear baiting since before the 2015 Rule without experiencing any notable public safety concerns. The NPS expects that if bear baiting caused public safety issues, the State would be aware of them through its active monitoring and research activities and its bear baiting management. Thus, the NPS now considers the speculative risks identified in the survey less persuasive than the State's experience in not encountering public safety concerns from bear baiting.
Section 8.2.5 of NPS Management Policies acknowledges it is not possible to eliminate all hazards in NPS System units, in particular in areas managed as natural environments. To the extent they exist, this policy does not require the NPS to eliminate all potential risks to public safety from infrequent bear baiting in national preserves in Alaska. The NPS manages national preserves as natural environments that present numerous risks to public safety that cannot be completely eliminated. No documentation exists of public safety issues under State management of bear baiting on other Federal, State, and private lands or on preserve lands prior to the 2015 Rule or when allowed between the 2020 Rule and 2024 Rule. For these reasons, the NPS has determined that a complete prohibition on using bait to attract or take bears on national preserves in Alaska and limitations on the use in the 2017 Rule are not supported by public safety concerns. This conclusion is further supported by comments from Tribal governments on the 2017 Rule, noting subsistence users have been harvesting bears over bait for decades without incident, and that food-conditioned bears are most likely to be attracted to bait stations with human food items and harvested to reduce the potential for a public safety issue. (Comment ID NPS-2016-0001-0011).
Although the NPS primarily relied upon public safety concerns to support closures in 2015, 2017, and 2024, the NPS also indicated closure was consistent with NPS policy to protect natural wildlife populations (see 2006 NPS Management Policies, section 4.4.2). The NPS has further considered the application of this policy to bear baiting and concludes that 2006 NPS Management Policies, section 4.4.2 is not an appropriate justification for banning or preempting the management of this activity in Alaska. This conclusion is based upon the estimated low number of bears taken over bait between the 2020 Rule and the 2024 Rule, which indicate that allowing bear baiting to occur again under State of Alaska and Federal Subsistence Board regulations would not create population-level concerns. This conclusion is further supported by statements from the State of Alaska Board of Game made in comments on the 2024 Rule, that it has information that hunting bears over bait focuses the harvest on mature bears while avoiding female and immature bears and, therefore, is part of an effective game management strategy. See letter dated March 9, 2023, from the Alaska Board of Game to the NPS Regional Director. Furthermore, we note the district court's September 2022 decision affirmed NPS's conclusions that the practices authorized in the 2020 Rule, which included bear baiting, would not adversely impact wildlife populations or contravene NPS's statutory duties.
Experience managing public uses by the NPS and the State of Alaska since bear baiting was authorized in 1982, with and without restrictions in place, has identified no areas where harvest authorized by the Alaska Board of Game or Federal Subsistence Board presents a public safety concern. If any are identified, the NPS maintains the authority to close that area to harvest, as outlined in 36 CFR 13.50 and 13.490.
This change would be effected by the proposed rule's deletion of 36 CFR 13.42, which currently includes a prohibition on bear baiting in 36 CFR
The 2024 Rule attempted to clarify the definition of “Trapping” in 36 CFR 13.1 to limit circumstances under which individuals can use firearms to take furbearers under a State of Alaska trapping license, notwithstanding what that license may allow. The NPS has determined this clarification did not contribute to clarity and is unnecessary and, therefore, is inconsistent with E.O 14192 to reduce unnecessary regulations. The NPS also determined that the 2024 Rule is inconsistent with the direction in E.O. 14153 to ensure to the greatest extent possible harvest opportunities on Federal lands are consistent with similar opportunities on State lands. State of Alaska regulations address the circumstances in which furbearers may be taken by firearm (5 AAC 92.075(d), 92.095(a)(8)) and the NPS requests public input on the need to establish different rules. The 2024 Rule stated that clarifying the definition would more closely align the definition of “trapping” for NPS System units in Alaska with the definition that applies to other NPS System units outside of Alaska. This reasoning does not independently support the preemption of State law. Accordingly, the proposed rule would revise the definition of “Trapping” and remove the definition of “Furbearer” in in 36 CFR 13.1 for being unnecessary.
In the 2017 Rule, the NPS addressed public inquiries about the collection of raptor chicks in national preserves for training and use in hunting, clarifying that the activity itself is not considered hunting and is therefore prohibited in national preserves. This closure was based on general System-wide prohibitions at 36 CFR 2.2(a)(2) and was adopted through a categorical exclusion for modifications to existing regulations that do not increase use. Falconry activities in Alaska are managed through State regulations (5 AAC 93.037) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations (50 CFR 21.82 and 21.85), including the collection of live chicks for training. The NPS proposes to restore that management through full deletion of 36 CFR 14.42, including (j), and requests input on the necessity for and impacts realized under full prohibition in the 2017 Rule.
ANILCA authorizes subsistence collection as the priority public use of most Alaska park units, including “for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade,” and requires management actions “cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence.” 16 U.S.C. 3112-13. At the request of subsistence resource commissions organized under ANILCA section 808, the NPS and subsistence users collaborated for nearly a decade to resolve a regulatory gap for collecting nonedible natural items for the creation of handicrafts, including a 2012 environmental assessment. While two individual Alaska NPS park units closed the gap with a simple allowance in regulation, see 36 CFR 13.1006 and 13.1504, the NPS identified a potential conflict with unregulated use and NPS System-wide regulations at 36 CFR 2.1, 2.2, and 5.3, prohibiting similar activities by the general public. The 2017 Rule purported to resolve this conflict and minimize the potential for adverse impacts to NPS resources and values through the creation of a mandatory permit system and other restrictions.
The NPS proposes to rescind the 2017 Rule in its entirety, including limitations on subsistence bear baiting (by deleting 36 CFR 13.1902(d)) and the collection of wildlife for falconry (by deleting 36 CFR 13.42, including (j)), as discussed above, as well as the attempt to resolve this perceived conflict in NPS authorities with closures and additional procedures that are no longer justified by any management needs. Removal of language is not intended to affect any authorized uses. The proposed rule would effect these changes through deleting the definition of “animal parts” and “handicraft” in 36 CFR 13.420 and by removing 36 CFR 13.482, and revising 36 CFR 13.485. These changes will reduce the regulatory burden on users, not institute prohibitions. For example, deleting 36 CFR 13.482 that was added as part of the 2017 Rule, does not mean the uses it describes are no longer authorized; it means they will not be conditioned by the regulations added in 2017. The NPS would like input on any uses that may be affected by full rescission. The two park-specific regulations regarding the definition of “customary trade” are retained and other parks may enact the same or a similar provision if the conditions require it. The NPS would also like input on whether a similar provision should be adopted as a State-wide clarification in 36 CFR 13.420.
The NPS proposes to restore its long-standing procedures for engaging the public in management decisions to respond to identified challenges with the revised approach, align with administrative direction to reduce the regulatory burden on the public, and eliminate the potential for conflict between DOI regulations at 43 CFR part 36 and NPS regulations at 36 CFR part 13 by ensuring limitations on public access and use are consistent with ANILCA. The proposed rule would accomplish this by revising 36 CFR 13.50 and 36 CFR 13.490 as necessary to restore the pre-2015 language. For example, the 2015 Rule removed the provision formerly at 36 CFR 13.50(h) and its specific criteria, duration, and notice requirements for “Facility closures and restrictions”, as well as the unique procedures for “Openings” in 36 CFR 13.50(g). Other than re-lettering, no changes to these provisions had been included in the proposed rule. Among other things, this change eliminated the opportunity to request hearings “in the affected vicinity and other locations as appropriate” before a final opening determination is made. Facility closures and openings become effective on posting to the NPS website. 36 CFR 13.50(f). This is not always a reliable means of notifying people accessing facilities in Alaska's remote parklands, especially since the 2015 Rule also removed the requirement for local radio station and newspaper announcements of proposed closures.
The 2015 Rule also replaced statutory “criteria” in the Alaska-specific closure process with “factors” drawn from emergency closure criteria, and including any “other management considerations.” 36 CFR 13.50(b). The 2015 Rule replaced three well-established closure durations with six new closure categories: non-emergency, emergency, emergency and related to the take of fish or wildlife, non-emergency and related to the take of fish or wildlife, related to the take of wildlife and prohibited under other new provisions in the 2015 Rule, and rulemaking-eligible closures. The
The 2024 Rule added a severability provision to 36 CFR 13.42(k) that the NPS has determined is unnecessary and that would be deleted by the proposed rule.
For the reasons stated above, the NPS proposes to rescind the remainder of the 2015 Rule and to rescind the 2017 and 2024 rules in their entirety. The proposed changes would restore the management of park lands in Alaska to the regulatory framework in effect since passage of ANILCA in 1980 and restore State regulatory authority for management of hunting, fishing, and trapping as practiced in Alaska since statehood.
Ministerial edits have been made to the regulatory text that is being restored to conform to current
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866 and has been submitted for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
The NPS has certified that the 2015 Rule, the 2017 Rule, the 2020 Rule, and the 2024 Rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed 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 proposed rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of lands and waters administered by the NPS 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
This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This proposed 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 proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. This proposed 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 DOI 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. This proposed rule was informed by feedback from Tribal entities. In April 2025, the NPS invited Tribes and ANCSA Corporations to participate in pre-consultation regarding NPS's wildlife management practices in Alaska. The NPS continues to incorporate feedback received, and to meet with all Tribal entities that requested a meeting. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation and ANCSA Corporation policies. Because the rule does not restrict Title VIII subsistence harvest and feedback from Tribes and ANCSA Corporations indicates using bait to attract or take bears on national preserves is uncommon, the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Tribes or ANCSA Corporation lands, water areas, or resources. Consultation and communication with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations is ongoing and feedback will continue to be considered by the NPS throughout the rulemaking process.
The NPS reviewed the input by local Alaska Native Tribes and Corporations, Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, NPS Subsistence Resource Commissions, and others during the comment period for the 2015 Rule and determined there was significant opposition to the 2015 Rule largely overlooked. For example, the Alaska Federation of Natives at their 2014 Annual Convention adopted Resolution 14-42, which found the rule “is overreaching, vague, and indiscriminate and would further criminalize Alaska Native traditional resources management practices” and “that the National Park Service should not adopt” it. Tanana Chiefs Conference similarly found “the proposed rule does impact subsistence use, Tribes, and ANCSA corporation's land” and, for a number of reasons, “opposed the proposed rule.” Ahtna, Incorporated objected to the proposed rule as it “contains misleading information, difficult to understand and read, and creates mistrust between the public and National Park System.” Ahtna, like many others, pointed out
This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements,
and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS 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.
The NPS will prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether this proposed rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act. The environmental assessment will include appropriate new information and an analysis of impacts evaluated in the environmental assessments prepared for the 2015 Rule, the 2017 Rule, the 2020 Rule, and the 2024 Rule, all of which resulted in a finding of no significant impact. The environmental assessment will incorporate feedback received during pre-consultation, consultation with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations, and during public comment periods.
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211; the proposed 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 OIRA as a significant energy action. A statement of energy effects is not required.
The NPS is required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule the NPS publishes must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
It is the policy of the DOI, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time.
Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 3101
The revision to read as follows:
(d)
(2) Violating a provision of either Federal or non-conflicting State law or regulation is prohibited.
(3) Engaging in trapping activities as the employee of another person is prohibited.
(4) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking any species of bear, caribou, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, coyote, arctic and red fox, mountain goat, moose, Dall sheep, lynx, bison, musk ox, wolf and wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained public airports.
(5) Persons transporting wildlife through park areas must identify themselves and the location where the wildlife was taken when requested by an NPS employee or other authorized person.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Other emergency closures shall become effective upon notice as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(3) No emergency closure or restriction shall extend for a period exceeding 30 days, nor may it be extended.
(d)
(2) Temporary closures shall be effective upon notice as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(3) Temporary closures or restrictions shall not extend for a period exceeding 12 months and may not be extended.
(e)
(f)
(1) Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the state and in at least one local newspaper if available, posted at community post offices within the vicinity affected, made available for broadcast on local radio stations in a manner reasonably calculated to inform residents in the affected vicinity, and designated on a map which shall be available for public inspection at the office of the Superintendent and other places convenient to the public;
(2) Designated by the posting of appropriate signs; or
(3) Both.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(e) The State of Alaska is authorized to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses within park areas to the extent such regulation is consistent with applicable Federal law, including but not limited to ANILCA.
The revision reads as follows:
(1) “Family” shall mean all persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or any person living within the household on a permanent basis; and
(2) “Barter” shall mean the exchange of handicrafts or fish or wildlife or their parts taken for subsistence uses—
(i) For other fish or game or their parts; or
(ii) For other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature; and
(3) “Customary trade” shall be limited to the exchange of furs for cash.
Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with applicable State and Federal law, including the provisions of §§ 2.3 of this chapter and 13.40. Provided, however, that local rural residents in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed may fish with a net, seine, trap, or spear where permitted by State law.
Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with applicable State and Federal law.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) The noncommercial gathering by local rural residents of fruits, berries, mushrooms, and other plant materials for subsistence uses, and the noncommercial gathering of dead or downed timber for firewood, shall be allowed without a permit in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Superintendent, after consultation with the State and adequate notice and public hearing in the affected vicinity and other locations as appropriate, may temporarily close all or any portion of a park area to subsistence uses of a particular fish or wildlife population only if necessary for reasons of public safety, administration, or to assure the continued viability of such population. For purposes of this section, the term
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notification of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
This document announces receipt of a petition for rulemaking received by the Department of Energy (DOE) on January 7, 2026, from the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) requesting that DOE update its regulations concerning procedures requiring that management and operating contractors (M&Os) who enter into agreements with DOE submit and implement a written Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Plan. This document summarizes the substantive aspects of this petition and requests public comments on the merits of the petition.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the America First Legal Foundation Petition until April 9, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number “DOE-HQ-2026-0199,” by the following method:
Mr. Lawrence Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 805-8181. Email:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
In their petition, the petitioners assert that the “Diversity Plan: provision is problematic for several reasons including that it is drafted in vague, subjective terms that invite arbitrary application as contractors endeavor to create and implement Diversity Plans. Secondly, petitioners assert that this vagueness is particularly problematic related to promoting race and identity-conscious initiatives that may conflict with federal civil rights laws. Additionally, petitioners assert that the provision is at odds with current Administration policy as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
DOE notes that it has taken action to implement E.O. 14151 as it relates to contracting to include modifying contract terms and conditions to strengthen civil rights compliance language and related specifically to the “Diversity Plan” provision. First, on January 23, 2025, DOE issued Policy Flash 2025-16 entitled, “Rescission of DEI, CBP, and Justice40 Policy Flashes, Acquisition Letters, and Financial Assistance Letters.” This Policy Flash rescinded former DOE guidance on DEI, CBP, and Justice40 requirements. DOE later issued a class deviation from DEAR 970.5226-1 on February 3, 2025. The deviation eliminated the requirement to include the DEIA Plan clause at 970.5226-1, directed contracting officers to immediately notify affected contractors that DOE will no longer enforce the clause, and instructed contracting officers to modify affected solicitations and contracts to remove the clause as soon as practicable. The AFL petition acknowledges that DOE issued the deviation but asserts that DOE could “reactivate” the regulation at any time so it should be rescinded.
The petition is described in this document and set forth verbatim below. The petition and class deviation are also available in the docket at
DOE welcomes comments and views of interested parties on any aspect of the petition for rulemaking and on whether DOE should proceed with the rulemaking.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date under the
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of its process for considering rulemaking petitions. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 6, 2026, by Jonathan Brightbill, General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
1. This petition for rulemaking is submitted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 42 U.S.C. 7191, which grant any interested person the right to petition the Department of Energy for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. America First Legal Foundation (“AFL”) respectfully requests that the Department of Energy (“DOE”) rescind 48 CFR 970.5226-1—which requires management and operating contractors who enter into engagements with the DOE to prepare, submit, and annually update a written diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility plan. The diversity plan requirement pressures contractors to sort and evaluate employees and applicants by race and sex, encouraging quotas and preferences that contravene federal civil rights guarantees and the Constitution's promise of equal protection. Prompt rescission of this rule is essential to restoring fair, merit-based federal contracting untethered from compelled “diversity” metrics.
2. AFL is a national, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization working to promote the rule of law, prevent executive overreach, protect our citizens' civil rights, and promote public understanding of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Our mission includes promoting government transparency and accountability by gathering official information, analyzing it, and disseminating it through reports, press releases, and media, including social media platforms, all to educate the public and to keep government officials accountable for their duty to faithfully execute, protect, and defend the Constitution, laws, and citizens of the United States.
3. Congress created the Department of Energy with the passage of the Department of Energy Organization Act
4. 48 CFR 970.5226-1 originated in 2000, when the DOE undertook a comprehensive rewrite of its management and operating contract regulations and added a Diversity Policy and Diversity Contract Clause to its regulations governing management and operating contracts.
5. But several decades later, in 2023, the DOE proposed 48 CFR 970.5226-1, which rebranded the “Diversity Contract Clause” as a “Diversity Plan.”
6. The addition of the “Diversity Plan” was closely tied to the Biden Administration's agenda of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
7. The Diversity Plan clause at 48 CFR 970.5226-1 is fundamentally at odds with the current Trump Administration's stated policy goals.
8. On January 20, 2025, President Trump responded to the widespread support for eliminating the government's race- and sex-conscious policies by signing Executive Order 14,151,
9. The DOE has recognized that this Executive Order poses problems for 48 CFR 970.5226-1 and has issued a class deviation for the Diversity Plan requirement.
10. According to both the APA and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the APA, the DOE may rescind or revise a prior rule when it concludes the rule is unlawful, no longer justified, or inconsistent with current policy, so long as it provides a reasoned explanation and complies with the APA's procedural requirements.
11. Requiring contractors to develop, update, and negotiate a stand-alone DEIA Plan diverts management time and resources from the technical, safety, and mission-critical work those contracts are supposed to advance. When the DOE revised § 970.5226-1 in 2024, it did not identify any concrete evidence that the Diversity Plan requirement had improved contract performance or addressed documented deficiencies in contractor practices. Instead, the DOE's stated rationale was largely to “incorporate” updated DEIA terminology and align the clause with contemporary policy priorities.
12. Because it does not serve a legitimate purpose, the DEIA Plan requirement functions less as a neutral compliance mechanism and more as a preferential channel for contractors willing to endorse a woke ideological framework. The clause does not turn on legal noncompliance, performance failures, or identifiable risks; instead, it directs contractors to describe “innovative strategies” to advance “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” across broad categories of activity.
13. The text of § 970.5226-1 is drafted in vague, subjective terms that invite arbitrary application. Contractors are left to guess at the DOE's expectations, and contracting officers are given broad discretion to approve or disapprove plans based on their own policy preferences rather than on clear, objective standards.
14. The clause requires contractors to submit a DEIA Plan that “include[s] innovative strategies for increasing opportunities to fully use the talents and capabilities of a diverse work force” and that describes the contractor's approach to “promoting diversity” in a wide range of areas, including workforce practices, educational outreach, community involvement, subcontracting, economic development, and the prevention of profiling and discrimination.
15. This vagueness is particularly problematic because the subject matter of the clause lies close to areas regulated by federal civil-rights statutes.
16. To promote equality of opportunity and meritocracy, the Department of Energy should initiate the process to rescind 48 CFR 970.5226-1's requirement for contractors to create a Diversity Plan.
17. The DOE must rescind 48 CFR 970.5226-1 to comply with current law and the President's agenda. The Diversity Plan requirement uses the procurement process to pressure contractors to adopt contested DEIA priorities, rather than simply ensuring that they can perform the work safely, effectively, and in compliance with neutral civil-rights and procurement laws. By layering vague, subjective DEIA criteria onto the contracting process, the clause injects uncertainty and politics into award and oversight decisions, distracting contractors from their core technical, safety, and mission-critical responsibilities. For these reasons, AFL respectfully requests that
18. Please confirm receipt of this petition and advise on the timeline and process for the DOE's consideration. We stand ready to provide additional information or participate in any public comment process that may follow.
Respectfully submitted,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Utah Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold public meetings via Zoom at 3:00 p.m. MT on Monday, March 30, and Monday, April 27, 2026. The purpose of these meetings is to finalize the Committee's report on the topic,
These meetings will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Monday, March 30th: Registration Link (Audio/Visual):
Monday, April 27th: Registration Link (Audio/Visual):
Agenda:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website:
On July 21, 2025, Garmin International, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 17G, in Olathe, Kansas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On June 26, 2025, Valero Energy Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of its affiliate The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. and its facilities within Subzone 116C, in Port Arthur, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On June 11, 2025, the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 40, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Air Venturi, Ltd., within Subzone 40N, in Solon, Ohio.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On August 15, 2025, Mölnlycke Health Care submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 186C, in Brunswick, Portland, and Wiscasset, Maine.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On April 7, 2025, RECARO Aircraft Seating Americas, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within FTZ 196, in Fort Worth, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On April 15, 2025, ZF Transmissions Gray Court LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 38K, in Gray Court and Fountain Inn, South Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the companies under review either sold certain steel racks and parts thereof (steel racks) from the People's Republic of China (China) in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024, or do not qualify for a separate rate. Further, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to four companies and preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to one company. Commerce invites interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of this review.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Luke Caruso, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2081.
On September 3, 2024, Commerce published in the
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative review by 90 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties who requested a review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review in the
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce may rescind an administrative with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if it concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no suspended entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise, as the case may be. Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd. (Hebei) and Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Xinguang Rack) reported no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and Commerce found no evidence of suspended POR entries of their subject merchandise. Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review with respect to Hebei and Ningbo Xinguang Rack because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to generally rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order with respect to a company for which Commerce concludes there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Although Nanjing Kingmore Logistics Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Kingmore) claimed that it
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Commerce calculated constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Further, because China is a non-market economy (NME) country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of review,
In all proceedings involving an NME country, Commerce maintains a rebuttable presumption that all companies are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single weighted-average dumping margin with the exception of companies that can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (
However, Nanjing Urgo Logistics Equipment Co (Urgo) has not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate because it did not file a separate rate application or separate rate certification. Therefore, Commerce has preliminarily determined that Urgo is ineligible for a separate rate and is, thus, part of the China-wide entity and subject to the China-wide entity rate (
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what estimated weighted-average dumping margin to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance regarding establishing an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for respondents that are not individually examined in an administrative review.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that Commerce will base the all-others rate in an investigation on the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding dumping margins that are zero,
The sole mandatory respondent's (Nova) preliminary estimated weighted-average dumping margin is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations that it performed in these preliminary results of review to parties to the proceeding within five days of any public announcement of these preliminary results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written hearing request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Requests should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of individuals from the requesting party that will attend the hearing and whether any of those individuals is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues the party intends to discuss at the hearing. Issues raised in the hearing by a party will be limited to those raised in the party's case and rebuttal briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review shall be based on the final results of this review. Therefore, upon issuance of the final results of review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II, for which Commerce is rescinding this review, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
Commerce will calculate importer or customer-specific assessment rates for the individually examined respondent, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Pursuant to a refinement to Commerce's assessment practice, where sales of subject merchandise exported by an individually examined respondent were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by the respondent, but the merchandise was entered into the United States during the POR, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of such merchandise at the antidumping duty assessment rate for the China-wide entity.
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by companies that are not eligible for a separate rate and which are therefore considered to be part of the China-wide entity, at the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity,
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by the companies for which it rescinded the review at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry.
The following cash deposit requirements will be in effect for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on, or after, the date of publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review in
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that heavy walled rectangular pipes and tubes (HWR) from Mexico was sold in the United States at below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024. Additionally, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to twelve companies which had no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Katie Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0557.
On September 13, 2016, Commerce published in the
On December 10, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days.
On January 13, 2026, Commerce notified interested parties of our intent
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The merchandise covered by the scope of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a company covered by the review had no recorded entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. We calculated export price, constructed export price, and NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, respectively. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks at section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examinations in an administrative review.
Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
Where the dumping margin for individually examined respondents are all zero,
In this review, we preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Forza and Prolamsa that are not zero,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results of this administrative review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce received a timely request from Nucor Tubular Products (the petitioner) to verify the information submitted in this administrative review, pursuant 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v).
Because Commerce intends to conduct verification of the questionnaire responses of Prolamsa, interested parties will be notified of the deadline for the submission of case briefs at a later date.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their briefs, a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of the final results, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
Where a respondent's weighted-average dumping either is zero or
However, if Forza or Prolamsa's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Forza and Prolamsa for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
For the companies identified in Appendix III, which were not selected for individual review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined in the final results of this review, unless that rate is zero or
For the twelve companies for which the review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP for the rescinded companies no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to the liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4), 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. (Toyo Kohan), the sole producer/exporter subject to this administrative review, did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On July 22, 2025, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The products subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
For these final results, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for Toyo Kohan in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Because the weighted-average dumping margin for Toyo Kohan is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Toyo Kohan for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Toyo Kohan will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review (
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Kelsie Hohenberger or Olivia Woolverton (Canada) at (202) 482-2517 or (202) 482-7452, respectively; Christopher Doyle (the People's Republic of China (China)) at (202) 482-5882; and Suresh Maniam (Mexico) at (202) 482-0176, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of van-type trailers and subassemblies thereof (van-type trailers) from Canada, the People's Republic of China (China), and Mexico.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On February 26, 2026, the petitioner
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determinations, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations in the CVD investigations of van-type trailers from Canada, China, and Mexico to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Manaksia Aluminium Company Limited (MALCO), a producer/exporter of common alloy aluminum sheet from India, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Elizabeth Bueley, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3269.
On August 11, 2025, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the publication of the
The merchandise covered by this
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the appendix to this notice.
Based on our analysis of comments from interested parties, we made no changes to MALCO's countervailable subsidy rate calculations from the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, Commerce determines the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for MALCO at the applicable
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for MALCO on shipments of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as the final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Ecuador for the producers/exporters that requested a review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 10, 2026.
Zachary Shaykin or Stephanie Trejo, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2638 or (202) 482-4390, respectively.
On December 26, 2024, Commerce published in the
On August 20, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for these preliminary results by 118 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), Commerce will rescind an expedited review for any company that withdraws its request for an expedited review within 60 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation. The
Commerce is conducting this expedited review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(l)(3). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the following producers/exporters for which this expedited review is being conducted:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce will notify interested parties as to the briefing schedule in this expedited review at a later date to be determined. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(l)(3)(ii), the final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon issuing the final results, Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this expedited review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1), and 777A(e) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(l).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) issued its final judgment in
Applicable March 5, 2026.
Charles DeFilippo or Jacob Saude, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-0981, respectively.
On February 21, 2024, Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling finding that Export Packers' IQF cooked garlic cloves were covered by the scope of the
In its final remand redetermination, issued on December 9, 2025, Commerce found, under protest, the Export Packers' IQF cooked garlic cloves to be outside the scope of the
In its decision in
In accordance with the Court's February 23, 2026, final judgment, Commerce is providing notice of its Final Scope Ruling, finding that Export Packers' IQF cooked garlic cloves are outside the scope of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that, pending any appeals, the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for entries of IQF cooked garlic cloves imported by Export Packers. In the event that the CIT's final judgment is not appealed or is upheld on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries, and to liquidate entries of IQF cooked garlic cloves imported by Export Packers without regard to antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of hybrid meeting open to the public offering both in-person and virtual options for participation.
The Gulf Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 3-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of America fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will convene Tuesday, April 7 through Thursday, April 9, 2026. Daily schedule: Tuesday and Wednesday from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., CDT and Thursday from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Renaissance Battle House Hotel, located 26 N Royal Street, Mobile, AL 36602. If you prefer to “listen in,” you may access the log-on information by visiting our website at
Dr. Carrie Simmons, Executive Director, Gulf Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The meeting will begin in CLOSED SESSION of the Full Council to discuss preliminary selection of Coastal Migratory
Approximately 9:45 a.m. Committee Sessions will begin with
Following lunch, Migratory Species Committee will receive a Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Presentation on Proposed Rule on Commercial and Recreational
The meeting will begin with a Litigation update followed by the
The Council will reconvene at 8:30 a.m., CDT with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions, Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes. The Council will hold public testimony beginning at 8:40 a.m.-12 p.m. for public comment
The Council will receive Committee Reports from the following committees:
The Council will receive updates from Supporting Agencies: South Atlantic Council Liaison, Alabama Law Enforcement Efforts, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) Report and Presentation, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of State.
Lastly, the Council will receive an update on documents transmitted for Rule Making, hold a discussion on Council Planning and Primary Activities and any Other Business items.
The meeting will be a hybrid meeting; both in-person and virtual participation available. You may register for the webinar to listen-in only by visiting
The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the website as they become available.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid or accommodations should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 15 days prior to the meeting date.
Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of solicitation of nominations.
NOAA is seeking nominations for members to serve on the Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) Federal Advisory Committee. Nominations are due by April 30, 2026.
Nominations for members to serve on the HSRP Federal Advisory Committee must be submitted by April 30, 2026, and will be kept on file and used for future HSRP vacancies. NOAA anticipates there will be five vacancies starting on January 1, 2027, each with a four-year term. Current members who may be eligible for a second term in 2027 must reapply.
Nominations will be accepted by email and should be sent to:
NOAA HSRP Program Manager, Amanda Phelps, email:
Pursuant to the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, as amended (HSIA; 33 U.S.C. 892
1. acquire and disseminate hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services; promulgate standards for hydrographic data and services;
2. ensure comprehensive geographic coverage of hydrographic services; maintain a national database of hydrographic data, in cooperation with other appropriate Federal agencies;
3. provide hydrographic services in uniform, easily accessible formats; and
4. participate in the development of, and implement for the United States in cooperation with other appropriate Federal agencies, international standards for hydrographic data and services.
The HSRP has fifteen voting members appointed by the NOAA Administrator in accordance with the HSIA, 33 U.S.C. 892c. Voting members are individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more disciplines relating to hydrographic data and services, marine transportation, port administration, vessel pilotage, coastal and fishery management, and other disciplines as determined appropriate by the NOAA Administrator. Two NOAA employees, the Directors of the National Geodetic Survey and the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, and the Co-Directors of the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center serve as non-voting members. The Director of the NOAA Office of Coast Survey serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) along with one Alternate DFOs. Full-time officers or employees of the United States may not be appointed as voting members. Any voting member of the HSRP who is an applicant for or beneficiary of (as determined by the Administrator) any assistance under the HSIA shall disclose to the HSRP that relationship, and may not vote on any other matter pertaining to that assistance.
Voting members of the HSRP serve a four-year term, except that appointments made to fill an out-of-cycle vacancy are for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy. Members serve at the Administrator's discretion and are subject to government ethics standards. Public meetings occur at least twice a year. Voting members receive compensation at a rate established by the Administrator, not to exceed the maximum daily rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376 when engaged in performing duties for the HSRP during the public meeting. Members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses incurred in performing such duties according to Federal Travel Regulation.
Upon selection and agreement to serve on the HSRP, members become Special Government Employees (SGEs) of the United States Government. An SGE, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a), is an officer or employee of an agency who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, either on a full time or intermittent basis. After the selection process is complete, applicants selected to serve on the HSRP must complete the following actions before they can be appointed as an HSRP member:
1. Security Clearance (online Background Security Check process and fingerprinting conducted through NOAA's Office of Security and Office of Human Capital Services); and
2. Confidential Financial Disclosure Report—SGEs are required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report to avoid involvement in a real or apparent conflict of interest. You may find information on the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001
NOAA requests nominations to the HSRP from individuals meeting the criteria in
1. A short biography of 300-400 words.
2. A resume of 3 pages maximum.
3. The nominee's full work and home contact information including full name, work title, institutional affiliation, work and home mailing addresses, email address(es), phone number(s), and fax number. The nominee will note preferred email, phone number, and mailing address.
4. A cover letter that responds to the
• List your area(s) of expertise from the following list: Hydrographic data and services (
• List the geographic region(s) of the country with which you primarily associate your expertise from the following list: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Gulf of America, Pacific Northwest, California, Hawaii, Pacific Islands, Alaska, Arctic, Great Lakes, Caribbean, National, and/or International.
• Describe your leadership or professional experiences that you believe will contribute to the HSRP.
• Describe your familiarity and experience with NOAA navigation, observations and positioning data, products, and services.
• Describe, generally, the breadth and scope of your knowledge of stakeholders, users, or other groups who interact with NOAA and whose views and input you believe you can share with the HSRP.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) will hold a public workshop to collect input on the commercial Scup Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs). This public workshop will be facilitated by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County-Marine Program to incorporate commercial fishing industry involvement in the MAFMC funded project, “Utilizing Collaborative Strategies to Assess and Adapt Scup Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) in Response to Climate Change.”
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, from 9:45 a.m.-3 p.m. For agenda details, see
This meeting will be conducted in person at three venues simultaneously with a virtual option available. The meeting locations are: Superior Trawl Inc. (55 State Street, Narragansett, RI 02882, telephone 401-782-1171), Cornell Cooperative Extension (423 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901, telephone 631-727-7850), Lund's Fisheries (997 Ocean Drive, Cape May, NJ 08204, telephone 609-884-7600). Webinar registration details will be posted to the Council's calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in coordination with the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County-Marine Program will sponsor this public meeting to collect public input on the current commercial Scup GRAs. Topics discussed at the meeting will include scup management history and stock status; preliminary results of mapping, modeling, and socioeconomic analyses examining scup discards and potential tradeoffs between management scenarios; and industry input on these findings. This public meeting is a deliverable to achieve the project's goal to develop and implement a comprehensive program to investigate potential modifications to the scup GRAs using fisheries and environmental data and industry input. Additional information, background documents, and instructions for providing written comments will be posted to the Council's website at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public webinar of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Monday, March 23, at 3 p.m. EST. Webinar registration URL information:
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Atlantic Herring Advisory Panel will meet to discuss the Council's priorities for Atlantic herring. They will also discuss a 2026 action to include Atlantic herring specifications for 2027-2031, river herring and shad management measures, and other measures. Other business will be discussed if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of research permit application.
NMFS has received an application for one new scientific research permit. The proposed work is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management, conservation, and recovery efforts. The application may be viewed online at:
We must receive your written comments at the provided email address (see
Written comments on the application should be submitted by email to
Susan Wang, Long Beach, CA (phone: 562-980-4199; email:
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
Scientific research and enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The application may be viewed online at:
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 26-0A.
(i)
(ii)
Date: April 3, 2018
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
On October 17, 2018, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 18-0H of the possible sale, under Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act, of the addition of the following MDE items: two (2) F110 General Electric or F100 Pratt & Whitney engines; four (4) iPDG; four (4) modular mission computers; four (4) Link-16 MIDS-JTRS; ninety-six (96) MXU-650C/B airfoil groups; ninety-six (96) MAU-209C/B or MAU-169D computer control groups; twelve (12) guidance units for AIM-9X-2 tactical missiles; and twelve (12) guidance units for AIM-9X-2 captive air training missiles (CATM). The following non-MDE items were also included: thirty (30) CATM-120C; twelve (12) joint helmet mounted cueing systems II; and twenty (20) aviator night vision devices AN/AVS-9. The total cost of the new MDE items was $30.6 million, and the total cost of the new non-MDE items was $5.6 million. The total notified cost of MDE increased to $2.04 billion. The total case value did not increase and remained $2.91 billion.
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following additional MDE items: four (4) F-16D Block 70/72 V configuration aircraft without engines; five (5) F110 General Electric or F100 Pratt & Whitney engines (4 installed, 1 spare); five (5) improved programmable display generators (iPDG) (4 installed, 1 spare); twelve (12) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper pods; five (5) embedded global positioning system inertial navigation systems (4 installed, 1 spare); one (1) Small Diameter Bomb increment I (SDB-I) guided test vehicle; one hundred twenty (120) GBU-39 SDB-I; twenty (20) LAU-129 guided missile launchers (16 installed, 4 spares); five (5) M61A1 anti-aircraft guns (4 installed, 1 spare); five (5) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars (4 installed, 1 spare); five (5) 7000AH modular mission computers (4 installed, 1 spare); and five (5) Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System—Joint Tactical Radio Systems. The following non-MDE items will also be included: AN/ALQ-254V(1) Viper Shield advanced electronic warfare suites, including lab assets (or equivalent); Infrared Search and Track (IRST) pods and processors; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $990 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $609.4 million to a revised $2.65 billion. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $380.6 million to a revised $1.25 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $990 million to a revised $3.90 billion.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The IRST is a high resolution, passive, infrared sensor system that searches for, detects, and tracks threats with infrared signatures at long ranges within its field of regard. It functions without emitting any radiation of its own and enables aircrews to detect adversaries before those adversaries see or sense them.
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to the other items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-79 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Lebanon has requested to buy an additional ninety (90) M1151A1 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales case, valued at $12.26 million ($10.85 million in MDE), included fifty M1151A1 HMMWVs. This notification
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by improving the security of a partner country that continues to be an important force for political and economic stability in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will provide a highly mobile and light combat vehicle capability enabling Lebanese Armed Forces to rapidly engage and defeat perimeter security threats and readily employ counter- and anti-terrorism measures. This acquisition will afford additional military-to-military tactics and operational training among the U.S. Army's and Lebanon's leadership and soldiers. Lebanon will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be AM General, located in South Bend, IN. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lebanon.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-99, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Denmark has requested to buy two hundred thirty-six (236) Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles—Extended Range (AMRAAM-ER); and five (5) AIM-120-C8 guidance sections. The following non-MDE items will also be included: AMRAAM-ER load trainers, containers, and support equipment; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; weapons software and support equipment; classified software delivery and support; classified publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $951 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Denmark's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring it has modern, capable air-to-air munitions for its aircraft, and surface-to-air munitions for its ground-based air defenses. This sale will further advance the already high level of Danish Air Force interoperability with U.S. forces and other regional and NATO forces. Denmark will have no difficulty in absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement with be defined in negotiations.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Denmark.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120-C8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air or surface-launched, aerial intercept guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. This potential sale will include AMRAAM containers, load trainers, guidance sections, and control section spares.
a. The Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile-Extended Range (AMRAAM-ER) utilizes an AIM-120-C8 seeker and warhead joined with a new control section and rocket motor, applicable only for surface-launch mode applications for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS). This provides extended range and altitude as well as higher speed and maneuverability.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Denmark can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Denmark.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-1U.
(i)
(ii)
Date: December 15, 2020
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following additional MDE items: one (1) Embedded/GPS/INS (EGI) with GPS security device; and one (1) Communications Intelligence (COMINT) Systems Sensor Suite. The following non-MDE items are also included: aircraft components, parts, and accessories; transportation support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $220 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $3 million to a revised $13 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $217 million to a revised $707 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $220 million to a revised $720 million.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
COMINT Systems Sensor Suite
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-1T.
(i)
(ii)
Date: June 7, 2024
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal notifies an increase in MDE value by $125.6 million, and non-MDE value by $16.5 million due to recent cost increases. There are no additional MDE or non-MDE items being reported with this notification. The estimated total case value will increase by $142.1 million to a revised $357.6 million. MDE will constitute $316.2 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology Statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-106 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Poland has requested to buy training aids and other related elements of logistics and program support that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $95 million ($0 in major defense equipment (MDE)), included personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This notification is for a combined total of non-MDE training aids; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $200 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will enhance Poland's capability to meet current and future threats and increase its interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO members and its allies through comprehensive U.S. Air Force Training. Poland will have no difficulty absorbing this training into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no principal contractor associated with this potential sale. Training will be provided by U.S. Government or contract vendors based upon requirements as they are determined. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Poland.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of housing price inflation adjustment for calendar year 2026.
The Department of War is publishing this notice to announce the 2026 Rent Threshold under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Applying the housing price inflation adjustment, the maximum monthly rental amount calculated as of January 1, 2026, is $10,542.60.
These housing price inflation adjustments are effective January 1, 2026.
Maj. Jacqueline McDermott-Wintch, (703) 571-0106 (voice),
The SCRA, as codified at 50 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3951, prohibits a landlord from evicting a service member (or the service member's family) from a residence during a period of military service, except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The SCRA requires the Secretary of War to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to publish the new amount in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21,
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Spain has requested to buy an additional two hundred fifty (250) F-404 engine fans that will be added to a previous implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case was valued at $98.80 million ($11.25 million in MDE) and included fifty (50) F-404 engine fans, Computer Power Supply (CP-1325/APG-65), Receiver Exciter (R-2089/APG-65), spare parts, consumables, and accessories, classified software delivery and support. This notification is for a combined total of two hundred fifty (250) F-404 engine fans. The following non-MDE items will also be included: Computer Power Supply (CP-1325/APG-65), Receiver Exciter (R-2089/APG-65), associated services and equipment, spare parts, consumables, and accessories, and classified software delivery and support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $200 million.
The proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Spain's capability to meet current and future threats and will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and other allied forces. The enhanced capability will also strengthen its homeland defense. Spain will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The F-404 engine fans will be transferred from United States Navy stock. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Spain.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-97 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) manages the Stinger Service Life Extension Program on behalf of Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, and has requested to buy additional booster pellets; flight motors; gas generator cartridges; Stinger warheads sections; U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services; technical
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of NATO partners that are a force for political stability and economic progress.
The proposed sale will improve NATO Allies' capability to meet current and future threats and enhance interoperability with U.S. and other allied forces. This proposed sale will contribute to U.S. and NATO defense goals by increasing readiness and enhancing the air defense capabilities of NATO Allies. Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into their armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be PTI Technologies Inc., located in Oxnard, CA; and L3 Harris, located in Melbourne, FL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to NSPA.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 26-10, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Japan has requested to buy follow-on technical support of Aegis class destroyers, including Combat Systems Sea Qualification Trials (CSSQT); test and evaluation services; sustainment support and services; Aegis computer software updates; systems integration
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific.
The proposed sale will improve Japan's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring Japan Maritime Self Defense Force's (JMSDF) Aegis fleet remains ready to provide critical capabilities in the defense of Japan. Specifically, the requested CSSQT services will provide JSMDF with capability support that is vital to the effective and safe operations of the Aegis Combat Systems (ACS) suite. Japan continues to modernize its fleet to support Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) roles and special mission requirements. The JMSDF Aegis Fleet will fulfill Japan's mission goal of acquiring and maintaining their Aegis capable ships and will further enhance interoperability with the U.S. Navy, build upon a longstanding cooperative effort with the U.S., and provide enhanced capability with a valued partner in a geographic region of critical importance to Japan and the U.S. Government. The Aegis destroyers in Japan's fleet afford greater flexibility and capability to counter regional threats and to enhance stability in the region. Japan currently operates Aegis ships, is proficient at using their evolving ballistic missile defense capability, and is effective at employing the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15J undersea warfare combat system for undersea surveillance and detection. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation, located in Moorestown, NJ. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Aegis Weapon System (AWS) is a multi-mission combat system providing Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) for surface ships. The follow-on technical support includes Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) test and evaluation (T&E) services, and software in support of AWS Baseline 9 with integrated Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).
2. The CSSQT services for Japan's Aegis System Equipped Vessels (ASEV) are critical to ensuring that the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force's (JMSDF) Aegis destroyer fleet remains ready to provide critical capabilities in the defense of Japan. Specifically, the requested CSSQT services provide the JMSDF with capability support vital to the effective and safe operations of the Aegis Combat Systems (ACS) suite.
3. The Aegis CSSQT services facilitate Japan's MSDF's multi-mission Aegis destroyers' ability to meet readiness and operational requirements to include Ballistic Missile Defense, Air Defense Warfare (ADW), surface warfare (SUW), Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and electronic warfare (EW) missions. CSSQT includes in-port assessment of shipboard systems, Waterfront Integration Testing (WIT), CSSQT-specific training, and installation of telemetry and support equipment. It also includes at-sea support of the range, target launch/recovery, and boat and aircraft services at Oahu Operation Area and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Kauai, Hawaii.
4. The at-sea CSSQT events provide tracking and live-fire events of ADW, including IAMD, SUW, Undersea Warfare (USW), EW, and Command, Control, and Communications (CCC).
5. After completing CSSQT events, the USN will analyze data and deliver a final report to document system performance during CSSQT. ADW live fire events will use Standard Missile SM-2, SM-6, and Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) from JMSDF inventory. SUW and ASW live fire events will use JMSDF inventory of gun ammunition and torpedoes.
6. The CSSQT Services do not provide specific technology to Japan. The test scenarios developed are based on the capabilities included in the ACS suite.
7. Japan currently operates eight Aegis destroyers with BMD capability. Japan signed a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), and continues to make progress in safeguarding information. Japan was the first foreign customer to purchase the AWS and is the only foreign customer with Aegis BMD capability. Japan has scrupulously complied with end use monitoring requirements and there is no evidence of physical tampering or compromise of hardware since Japan first purchased the AWS in the early 1990s. Japan currently operates, maintains, and supports the BMD capability in four Kongo class destroyers, two Atago class destroyers, and two Maya class destroyers, demonstrating a high level of readiness and proficiency. Japan has completed CSSQTs on all previous Aegis equipped ships.
8. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
9. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
10. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released by the U.S. Government. The sale is necessary in the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
11. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On September 7, 2021, South Field Energy LLC (SFE), as owner and operator of the South Field Energy Project, a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On September 7, 2021, SFE, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 8, 2026; 6-8 p.m. EDT.
Department of Energy (DOE) Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. This meeting will be held in-person at the DOE Information Center and virtually. To receive the virtual access information, please send an email to:
Melyssa P. Noe, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM), P.O. Box 4067, EM-94, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; Phone (865) 241-3315; or Email:
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/livestreamed meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, April 16, 2026; 5:30-7 p.m. CDT.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College (WKCTC), Emerging Technology Center, Room 215, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. This meeting will be held in-person at the WKCTC Emerging Technology Center, Room 215 and livestreamed. The meeting will be streamed on YouTube at
Zachary Boyarski at by Phone: (270) 441-6812 or Email:
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On October 14, 2025, Clean Energy Future—Trumbull, LLC (Trumbull), as owner and operator of the Trumbull Energy Center, a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On October 14, 2025, Trumbull, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On August 25, 2022, Guernsey Power Station LLC (Guernsey), as owner and operator of the Guernsey Power Station, a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On August 25, 2022, Guernsey, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2026.
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On August 26, 2025, CPV Basin Ranch, LLC (CPV Basin Ranch), as owner and operator of the CPV Basin Ranch Energy Center, a new baseload electric generating powerplant,
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On August 26, 2025, CPV Basin Ranch, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6. 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On April 21, 2022, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (PowerSouth), as owner and operator of the Lowman Energy Center, a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On April 21, 2022, PowerSouth, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2026.
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On May 11, 2021, Long Ridge Energy Generation LLC (Long Ridge), as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On May 11, 2021, Long Ridge, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of filing.
On June 28, 2023, Rayburn Energy Station LLC (RES), as the new owner of the Rayburn Energy Station, a baseload electric generating powerplant formerly known as Panda Sherman, submitted an amended coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, by contacting the Office of Electricity by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel at (240) 702-6156,
On June 28, 2023, RES, as the new owner of an existing baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted an amended coal capability self-certification to the DOE pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8311(d)), and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.61(a). The amendment application reflects RES' asset purchase and sale agreement of the Rayburn Energy Station (formerly known as the Panda Sherman Project) from Panda Sherman Power, LLC (Panda Sherman). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 6, 2026, by Catherine Jereza, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On February 12, 2026 the California State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Board) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Pacific Gas & Electric Company, in conjunction with the above captioned project on January 16, 2026. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If the California Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements), will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. There are no proposed changes to the record retention requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due April 9, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-915 to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468.
The Commission imposes the FERC-915 record retention requirements (18 CFR 35.41(d)) on applicable sellers to retain, for a period of five years, all data and information upon which they bill the prices charged for “electric energy or electric energy products sold pursuant to Seller's market-based rate tariff, and the prices it reported for use in price indices.”
The record retention period of five years is necessary due to the importance of records related to any investigation of possible wrongdoing and related to assuring compliance with the codes of conduct and the integrity of the market. The requirement is also necessary to ensure consistency with the rule prohibiting market manipulation (adopted in Order No. 670)
In addition, there are records storage costs. For all respondents, we estimate a total of 65,000 cu. ft. of records in off-site storage. Based on an approximate storage cost of $0.24 per cubic foot, we estimate total annual storage cost to be $15,600.00 (or $6.22 annually per respondent). The total annual cost for all respondents (burden cost plus off-site storage) is $100,940.00 (or $85,340 + $15,600); the average total annual cost per respondent is $40.22 ($6.22 + $34.00).
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license to continue to operate and maintain the Spencer Mountain Hydroelectric Project No. 2607 (project). The 640-kilowatt project is located on the South Fork Catawba, near the town of Gastonia, in Gaston County, North Carolina. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595, or at
For further information, contact David Gandy at (202) 502-8560, or by email at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The Halifax Hydroelectric Project consists of the following existing facilities: (1) a 682-foot-long and 36-foot-high dam, with a 301-foot-long concrete spillway (consisting of a 24-foot-long fixed weir, twelve 3-foot-wide piers, eleven 20-foot-wide gated bays, and a 21-foot-long fixed weir), a 73-foot-8-inch-long integral powerhouse and intake structure, and a 307-foot-8-inch-long non-overflow structure (consisting of a 57-foot-6-inch-long concrete gravity wall, 203-foot-2-inch-long sheet pile cells with earthfill, and a 47-foot-long earthfill section); (2) an approximately 374-acre impoundment with a gross storage capacity of 3,510 acre-feet at a normal water surface elevation of 351.3 feet mean sea level (MSL);
The Halifax Project operates in a run-of-river mode with a continuous minimum flow of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs), or inflow, whichever is less. There is minimal to no available usable storage behind the dam and if river flow is less than 135 cfs, all water is spilled over the dam. The project is typically operated remotely in automatic control mode. Banister Hydro is not proposing any new project facilities or changes to the operation of the project.
From 2019 to 2023, average annual generation at the Halifax Project was 2,403 megawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at (
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; and (3) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595, or
You may also register online at
n. The license applicant must file the following on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time May 4, 2026: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2026.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (defined by statute to include import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance. This document also provides a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt of this information, as required by TSCA, and an opportunity to comment. This document covers new chemical submissions that have passed an initial screening and, for PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs, were determined to be complete, during the period from 09/29/2025 to 12/31/2025.
Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0067 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is publishing this document in the
Under TSCA, a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance, see
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the new chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture a new chemical substance, or manufacture or process a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical substances will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME.
Premanufacture notification procedures for review of certain new microbial products of biotechnology are established in 40 CFR part 725. These pertain to MCANs and biotechnology exemptions, including TSCA experimental release applications (TERAs), TMEs for microorganisms, and Tier I and Tier II exemptions.
This document provides notice of receipt and status reports for the covered period and certain submissions under TSCA section 5 and provides an opportunity to comment on this information. The Agency is providing information about the receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and amendments to a previously submitted notice; test information; biotechnology exemption applications under 40 CFR part 725; TME applications; NOCs for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
1.
2.
The tables in this document provide the following information on the TSCA section 5 submissions received by EPA during this period and determined to be completely consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As used in each of the tables, the following explanations apply:
• (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter.
• (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
EPA provides information on its website about cases reviewed under TSCA section 5, including the PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received; the date of receipt; the final EPA determination on the submission; and the effective date of EPA's determination. See
Table 1 provides non-CBI information for the PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening and determined to be complete consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a) during this period.
In Table 2. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the TMEs and/or Biotech Exemptions received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the TME and/or Biotech Exemption, the submission document type (initial or amended), the version number, the date the TME and/or Biotech Exemption was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
Table 3 provides non-CBI information on the NOCs received by EPA that have passed an initial screening during this period.
Table 4 provides non-CBI information on the test information that has been received by EPA that has passed an initial screening during this period.
Information about the TSCA section 5 PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received, including the date of receipt, the status of EPA's review, the final EPA determination, and the effective date of EPA's determination, is available online at:
Interested parties may register for the meeting at:
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
10 a.m., Thursday, March 26, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or in the Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004.
Closed.
The Commission will conduct a meeting closed to the public to consider:
Commissioners will attend the meeting. Commission staff members who provide technological support and other Commission staff may also be present as necessary. The Commissioners have unanimously voted to close the meeting. This meeting is closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) on the basis of the Commission's consideration or disposition of a “particular case of formal agency adjudication.”
Rory P. Smith (202) 525-8649/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces our decision to approve the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, DBA QUAD A, for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for rural health clinics that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The decision announced in this notice is applicable March 23, 2026 to March 23, 2032.
Caecilia Andrews 410-786-2190.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a rural health clinic (RHC) provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1861(aa) and 1905
Generally, to enter into an agreement with Medicare, an RHC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in 42 CFR part 491. Thereafter, the RHC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. However, there is an alternative to surveys by State agencies. Section 1865(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we must deem that provider entity as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national AO applying for CMS approval of its accreditation program under 42 CFR part 488, subpart A must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5.
The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (DBA “QUAD A”) has requested continued approval by CMS for its RHC program. CMS has reviewed QUAD A's application as described later in this notice and is hereby announcing QUAD A's term of approval for a period of 6 years.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide us with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
On December 8, 2025, CMS published a proposed notice in the
• (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial viability; (3) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to allegations of violations of the Medicare program requirements; and (4) survey review and decision-making process for the purposes of deemed status.
• Survey process to confirm that it is comparable to State agencies' survey process and the AO can adequately assess whether a provider or supplier, under the AO's deeming program, meets
• Composition of the survey team.
• Procedures for monitoring deemed RHCs it has found to be out of compliance with the AO's program requirements.
• Ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed RHC and respond to the RHC's plan of correction in a timely manner.
• Verification of the AO's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the December 8, 2025 proposed notice solicited public comments regarding whether QUAD A's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare Conditions for Certification (CfCs) for RHCs. We received one comment.
In general, the commenter was in support of continued recognition of QUAD A as a national accrediting organization for RHCs, provided CMS verifies that QUAD A has established their accreditation requirements, fully trained its surveyors, and identified deficiencies in a manner consistent with the actual structures and operations of RHCs that serve rural communities. This includes those referred to by the commenter as “Indigenous” but are commonly known as “American Indians and Alaska Natives”.
We appreciate the commenter's input and have considered it when making our decision. As outlined in the proposed notice, CMS conducts a thorough review of any AO applying for initial or continued recognition as a CMS-approved national AO. This includes review of standards to ensure they meet or exceed the CMS conditions, training and education of surveyors, as well as comparability of survey processes to those of the State Survey Agencies.
We compared QUAD A's RHC accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare conditions set forth at 42 CFR part 491, subpart A, the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489, and survey process as outlined in the State Operations Manual (SOM). Our review and evaluation of QUAD A's RHC application, which was conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, yielded the following area where, as of the date of this notice, QUAD A has completed revising its standards and certification processes to—
• Revise surveyor guidance and training to provide additional clarity on its procedures to raise standard-level deficiencies to condition-level deficiencies, consistent with the regulation at § 488.26(b) and the State Operations Manual, Appendix G, Task 4.
Based on our review and observations described in section III. and section V. of this final notice, we find that QUAD A provides reasonable assurance that accredited entities would meet or exceed the applicable Medicare conditions and we approve QUAD A as a national accreditation organization for RHCs that request participation in the Medicare program. The decision announced in this final notice is effective March 23, 2026, to March 23, 2032 (6 years).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of CMS, Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with request for comment.
This notice announces that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is considering granting approval of the National Committee for Quality Assurance's renewal application for Medicare Advantage “deeming authority” of Health Maintenance Organizations and Preferred Provider Organizations to continue participation in the Medicare program.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than April 9, 2026.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-4216-PN.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-4216-PN, P.O. Box 8010 Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
Dawn Johnson Scott, (410) 786-3159 or Katie Schenck, (410) 786-0628.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services through a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization that contracts with the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The regulations specifying the Medicare requirements that must be met for a Medicare Advantage organization (MAO) to enter into a contract with CMS are located at 42 CFR 422.503(b). These regulations implement Part C of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act), which specifies the services that an MAO must provide and the requirements that the organization must meet to enter into an MA contract with CMS. Other relevant provisions of the Act include Parts A and B of Title XVIII and Parts A and E of Title XI of the Act pertaining to the provision of services by Medicare-certified providers and suppliers. Generally, for an entity to be an MAO, the organization must be licensed by the state as a risk bearing organization, as set forth in 42 CFR 422.400.
As a method of assuring compliance with certain Medicare requirements, an MAO may choose to become accredited by a CMS-approved accreditation organization (AO). By virtue of its accreditation by a CMS-approved AO, the MAO may be “deemed” compliant in one or more requirements set forth in section 1852(e)(4)(B) of the Act. For CMS to recognize an AO's accreditation program as establishing an MA plan's compliance with our requirements, the AO must, as set forth in § 422.157(a)(1), prove to CMS that their standards are at least as stringent as Medicare requirements for MAOs. MAOs that are licensed as health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and are accredited by an approved AO may receive, at their request, “deemed” status for CMS requirements for the deemable areas. These areas include Quality Improvement, Anti-Discrimination, Confidentiality and Accuracy of Enrollee Records, Information on Advance Directives, and Provider Participation Rules.
At this time, CMS does not recognize accreditation of the following areas: Access to Services set out in § 422.156(b)(3) or the Part D areas of review set out at § 423.165(b) as part of the MA deeming program. Accreditation organizations that apply for MA deeming authority are generally recognized by the health care industry as entities that accredit HMOs and PPOs. As we specify at § 422.157(b)(2)(ii), the term for which an AO may be approved by CMS may not exceed 6 years. For continuing approval, the AO must apply to CMS to renew their deeming authority for a subsequent approval period.
The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) was previously approved by CMS as an AO for MA deeming of HMOs and PPOs for a term from December 30, 2020, to December 30, 2026. On December 19, 2025, NCQA submitted its initial application to renew its deeming authority, including materials requested by CMS that included information intended to address the requirements set out in regulations at § 422.158(a) and (b) that are prerequisites for receiving approval of its accreditation program from CMS.
This proposed notice notifies the public of NCQA's request to renew its MA deeming authority for HMOs and PPOs. The renewal application was submitted on December 19, 2025, and NCQA submitted all the necessary materials (including its standards and monitoring protocol) as part of their application; and CMS has determined the application is complete. Under section 1852(e)(4) of the Act and § 422.158 our review and evaluation of NCQA will be conducted as discussed below.
The review of NCQA's renewal application for approval of MA deeming authority includes, but is not limited to, the following components:
• The types of MA plans that it would review as part of its accreditation process.
• A detailed comparison of NCQA's accreditation requirements and standards with the Medicare requirements (for example, a crosswalk) in the following five deemable areas: Quality Improvement, Anti-Discrimination, Confidentiality and Accuracy of Enrollee Records, Information on Advance Directives, and Provider Participation Rules.
• Detailed information about the organization's survey process, including—
++ Frequency of surveys and whether surveys are announced or unannounced.
++ Copies of survey forms, and guidelines and instructions to surveyors.
++ Descriptions of—
—The survey review process and the accreditation status decision making process.
—The procedures used to notify accredited MAOs of deficiencies and to monitor the correction of those deficiencies; and
—The procedures used to enforce compliance with accreditation requirements.
• Detailed information about the individuals who perform surveys for the AO, including—
++ The size and composition of accreditation survey teams for each type of plan reviewed as part of the accreditation process;
++ The education and experience requirements surveyors must meet;
++ The content and frequency of the in-service training provided to survey personnel;
++ The evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of individual surveyors and survey teams; and
++ The organization's policies and practice for participation, in surveys or in the accreditation decision process, by an individual who is professionally or financially affiliated with the entity being surveyed.
• A description of the organization's data management and analysis system for its surveys and accreditation decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays generated by that system.
• A description of the organization's procedures for responding to and investigating complaints against accredited organizations, including policies and procedures regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate licensing bodies and ombudsmen programs.
• A description of the organization's policies and procedures for the withholding or removal of accreditation for failure to meet the AO's standards or requirements, and other actions the
• A description of all types (for example, full, partial) and categories (for example, provisional, conditional, temporary) of accreditation offered by the organization, the duration of each type and category of accreditation and a statement identifying the types and categories that would serve as a basis for accreditation if CMS approves the AO.
• A list of all currently accredited MAOs and the type, category, and expiration date of the accreditation held by each of them.
• A list of all full and partial accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the AO.
• The name and address of each person with an ownership or control interest in the AO.
• CMS will also consider NCQA's past performance in the deeming program and results of recent deeming validation reviews or equivalency reviews conducted as part of continuing federal oversight of the deeming program under § 422.157(d).
Upon completion of our evaluation, including a review of comments received as a result of this proposed notice, we will publish a notice in the
This document does not impose new or revised collection of information requirements or burden. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 11, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The data collected through the reporting requirements for MAOs and Part D sponsors are used by CMS and other stakeholders for oversight, monitoring, compliance, and performance evaluation. CMS staff use the data to monitor and hold organizations accountable, while academic researchers and governmental entities such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have inquired about this information collection. Reported data may be used for CMS performance metrics such as the Medicare Part C and D Star Ratings and Display Measures, and analyzed for program oversight to ensure the availability, accessibility, and acceptability of sponsors' services.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comments.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration of Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is requesting the Office of Management and Budget to approve a new information collection, Central Authority Payment Service (CAP). Participating state child support agencies (CSAs)and foreign authorities will use CAP to send or receive child support payments electronically.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
To help states eliminate the burden of sending child support payments through international Automated Clearing House, by wire, OCSE developed CAP, which is a centralized and secure hub for participating states to send international child support payments. After consolidating payments from states, CAP sends one payment to each foreign authority through established federal international electronic payment channels. Payments are converted to applicable currency and distributed by the foreign authority to the custodial parent in their country according to secure case and payment details provided through CAP. To participate, states and foreign authorities must enroll in the CAP service to transmit or receive payments.
42 U.S.C. 652(n), 652(a)(7), and 659A(c)(3)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 4).” The question and answer (Q&A) format is intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilar products and proposed interchangeable biosimilar products, as well as describe FDA's proposed interpretation of certain statutory requirements related to the abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products added by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act). This draft guidance revises and replaces the draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 3)” issued September 17, 2021 to provide certain revisions to Q&As I.8, I.10, and I.19, which have been withdrawn from the final guidance entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act” issued September 20, 2021.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 11, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010 or emailing
Mustafa Unlu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HF-22), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 1139, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0001, 301-796-3396,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 4).” The BPCI Act amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway in section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)). FDA's view is that guidance for industry that provides answers to commonly asked questions regarding FDA's interpretation of the BPCI Act will enhance transparency and facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products.
This draft guidance is a companion to the final guidance for industry issued in September 2021 entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.” In this pair of guidance documents, FDA issues each Q&A in draft form in a draft guidance, receives comments on the draft Q&A and, as appropriate, moves the Q&A to the final guidance after reviewing comments and incorporating suggested changes to the Q&A. A Q&A that was previously in the final guidance may be withdrawn and moved to a draft guidance if FDA determines that the Q&A should be revised in some respect and reissued in a revised draft Q&A for comment. Furthermore, a Q&A also may be withdrawn and removed from a Q&A guidance if, for instance, the concept(s) addressed by the Q&A is addressed, or would be addressed more appropriately, in a different FDA guidance document.
This draft guidance contains Q&As distributed for comment purposes only and includes proposed revisions to Q&As that appeared in previous versions of the final guidance documents. The final guidance contains Q&As that have been through the public comment process and reflects FDA's current thinking on the topics described. While these guidances have been revised over time, FDA has maintained the original numbering of the Q&As as they were published in the original versions of these guidances and subsequent revisions (available at
This draft guidance contains revised versions of three Q&As (Q&A I.8, Q&A I.10, and Q&A I.19). The revised Q&A I.8 is now organized into two parts: Part “a” describes FDA's updated recommendations regarding how a clinical study (such as an assessment of pharmacokinetics (PK)) comparing the proposed biosimilar with a non-U.S.-licensed comparator product could address, in part, the requirements under section 351(k)(2)(A) of the PHS Act and support a demonstration of biosimilarity to the U.S.-licensed reference product in certain circumstances. Part “a” also identifies circumstances under which clinical data derived from a study using a non-U.S.-licensed comparator product may be acceptable. Part “b” elaborates on recommendations regarding the nature and extent of comparative analytical data between the non-U.S.-licensed comparator product and the U.S.-licensed reference product for purposes of the comparative analytical assessment. FDA is specifically requesting public comment on the utility of an analytical comparison between the proposed biosimilar product and the non-U.S.-licensed comparator product as part of the scientific justification to support the relevance of clinical data with a non-U.S.-licensed comparator product to a demonstration of biosimilarity to the U.S.-licensed reference product.
Additionally, minor updates were made to Q&As I.10 and Q&A I.19 for clarity and to align with revised Q&A I.8. FDA's intent is that Part “a” of Q&A I.8 may inform a future revised guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product” and Part “b” may inform future revisions to a guidance for industry entitled “Development of Therapeutic Protein Biosimilars: Comparative Analytical Assessment and Other Quality-Related Considerations” as appropriate.
At this time, FDA is also withdrawing Q&As I.8, I.10, and I.19 from the final guidance entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act” issued September 20, 2021, and reissuing the final guidance (with certain updates to the introductory text) solely for the purpose of withdrawing these particular Q&As. The Agency continues to evaluate other Q&As in this final guidance as part of its efforts to further enhance efficiency in biosimilar development programs and intends to update any Q&As that may no longer reflect the Agency's current thinking, as appropriate.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 4).” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 relating to submission of an investigational new drug application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information relating to the submission of a BLA under section 351(k) of the PHS Act, including the submission of data from comparative analytical assessments and a clinical study or studies (including the assessment of immunogenicity and PK or pharmacodynamics), that are sufficient to demonstrate safety, purity, and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is licensed, as well as formal meetings between FDA and sponsors, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0718.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
In Notice Document 2026-02383, appearing on pages 5497 through 5498, in the issue of Friday, February 6, 2026, make the following correction:
On page 5497, in the second column, in the
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Viral Dynamics and Transmission Study Section, March 19, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to March 20, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
Change in meeting date and time. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council (DKNAC), May 13, 2026, 08:30 a.m. to 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
DKNAC changed the subcommittee meetings to closed only and added a closed Executive Session at the end of the meeting. The meeting will remain as a one-day meeting. The meeting is partially closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
In the
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 18,000.
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 01, 2026, 2:00 p.m. to April 01, 2026, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is canceled due to the re-assignment of applications.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 11, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0167 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2025-0502. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Deputy Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for the Gold Card Program.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-140G; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit. Form I-140G is used by an individual (self-petitioner) or corporation or similar entity (corporate petitioner) to request an employment-based immigrant visa under the Gold Card program established by Executive Order 14351, The Gold Card (Sep. 19, 2025).
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-140G (self-petitioners) is 1,520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 5 hours; the estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-140G (corporate petitioners) is 72 and the estimated hour burden per response is 5 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual hour burden associated with this collection is 7,960 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $819,880.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the approval by operation of law of the 2025 Amendment to the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and the State of Wisconsin Gaming Compact of 1992, as Amended (Amendment), governing the operation and regulation of class III gaming activities.
The Amendment takes effect on March 10, 2026.
Mr. Troy Woodward, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2701
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-790 and 731-TA-1778 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of lithium hexafluorophosphate from China, provided for in subheadings 2826.90.90, 3824.91.00, and 3824.99.93 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
March 5, 2026.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2025 (90 FR 28780, July 1, 2025) and determined on November 24, 2025 that it would conduct an expedited review (90 FR 61163, December 30, 2025).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on March 5, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5712 (March 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 11, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 11, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 18, 2025, Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals Inc., 400-600 Summit Drive, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as reference standards. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following generic information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 11, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Benjamin Adams, Supervisory Social Science Analyst, National Institute of Justice, 999 N Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Following standard Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements, NIJ will submit an individual request to OMB for every group of data collection activities undertaken under this generic clearance. NIJ will provide OMB with a copy of the individual instruments or questionnaires (if one is used), as well as other materials describing the project.
1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Generic clearance for cognitive, pilot, and field studies for Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention data collection activities.
3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form numbers are not available for a generic clearance. The applicable components within the Department of Justice are the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in the Office of Justice Programs.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond: Affected Public: State, local and tribal governments, individuals or households, Private Sector-for or not for profit institutions. The obligation to respond is voluntary.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that approximately 2,000 respondents will be involved in the anticipated cognitive, pilot, and field-testing work over the 3-year clearance period. Specific estimates for the average response time are not
6. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: The estimated annual cost burden for this collection is $0.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor
Notice.
In a news release announcing the recipients of the 2025 HIRE Vets Medallion Awards, the Department of Labor (Department) recognized a select group of veteran-ready employers for excellence in recruiting, employing, and retaining America's veterans. The record number of employers announced on January 30, 2026, range from small businesses and nonprofit organizations to national corporations. Recipients receive an award certificate along with a digital image of the medallion for their use, including as part of an advertisement, solicitation, business activity, or product. The awards are conferred in six categories, based on the size of the employer (small, medium, or large) and what level of criteria their application met (platinum or gold). This action announces the recipients of the 2025 HIRE Vets Medallion Awards and application fees for 2026.
Randall Smith, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, email:
The HIRE Vets Medallion Awards are authorized by the Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans Act of 2017 (HIRE Vets Act), enacted on May 5, 2017, as Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, 131 Stat. 838. The Department codified the HIRE Vets Act's requirements through regulations found at 20 CFR part 1011
VETS received 891 applications for the HIRE Vets Medallion Award in 2025. Among the 891 applications, the Secretary of Labor approved 888 applications for award, with 1 application denied and 2 applications withdrawn by the applicant. Of the 888 applications approved for award, the breakdown by award type is as follows: 233 small gold (SG), 154 small platinum (SP), 251 medium gold (MG), 155 medium platinum (MP), 80 large gold (LG), and 15 large platinum (LP).
The following list shows the 888 recipients for 2025 in alphabetical order by employer name, along with their doing business as (DBA) name (as applicable), state or territory and city, and award type.
The Institutional Advancement, Delivery of Legal Services, and Operations and Regulations committees of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors will meet on March 16, March 18, and March 19, 2026, respectively. The Institutional Advancement Committee meeting will begin on March 16 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Delivery of Legal Services Committee meeting will begin on March 18 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The Operations and Regulations Committee meeting will begin on March 19 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Each meeting will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
Public Notice of Virtual Meeting.
LSC will conduct its March 16, March 18, and March 19, 2026, meetings virtually via videoconference.
Open, except as noted below.
Any portion of the closed sessions consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Institutional Advancement Committee. The transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (7), (9) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
a. Matters to be discussed include a Chairman's Report and update on the Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council; a development update; privately funded project highlights; and a strategic communications and social media update.
a. Matters to be discussed include an update on LSC's learning management system for grant recipient staff and board members; an update on Performance Criteria 1 and 3; a presentation on LSC grantee oversight and compliance; and comments from the Client Leadership Council.
a. Matters to be discussed include considering and acting on the 2026-2027 regulatory agenda; and considering and acting on the notice of proposed rulemaking for 45 CFR parts 1630—Cost Standards and Procedures and 1631—Purchasing and Property Management.
Kimberly Little, Board and Executive Coordinator, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to the Office of the Corporate Secretary at
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of funding availability.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a federally established and funded organization that funds civil legal aid organizations across the country and in the U.S. territories. Its mission is to expand access to justice by funding high-quality legal representation for low-income people in civil matters.
In anticipation of a congressional appropriation to LSC for Fiscal Year 2027, LSC hereby announces the availability of funding for basic field grants with terms commencing in January 2027. LSC will publish a Request for Proposals (RFP) and seeks applications from interested parties who are qualified to provide effective, efficient, and high-quality civil legal services to eligible clients in the service area(s) of the states and territories identified below. The availability and the exact amount of congressionally appropriated funds, as well as the date, terms, and conditions of funds available for grants for calendar year 2027, have not yet been determined.
See
By email to
Christine Williams by phone at 202-295-1602 or email at
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) hereby announces the availability of funding for basic field grants with terms beginning in January 2027. LSC seeks grant proposals from interested parties who are qualified to provide effective, efficient, and high-quality civil legal services to eligible clients in the service area(s) of the states and territories identified below. Interested potential applicants must first file a Pre-Application. After approval by LSC of the Pre-Application, an applicant can submit an application in response to the RFP, which contains the grant proposal guidelines, proposal content requirements, and selection criteria. The Pre-Application and RFP will open in GrantEase, LSC's grants management system, on or around April 13, 2026. Additional information will be available at
The listing of all key dates for LSC's 2027 basic field grant process, including the deadlines for filing grant proposals, is available at
LSC seeks proposals from: (1) non-profit organizations that have as a purpose the provision of legal assistance to eligible clients; (2) private attorneys; (3) groups of private attorneys or law firms; (4) state or local governments; and (5) sub-state regional planning and coordination agencies that are composed of sub-state areas and whose governing boards are controlled by locally elected officials.
The service areas for which LSC is requesting grant proposals for calendar year 2027 are listed below. LSC provides grants for three types of service areas: Basic Field-General, Basic Field-Native American, and Basic Field-Agricultural Worker. For example, the state of Idaho has three basic field service areas: ID-1 (General), NID-1 (Native American), and MID (Agricultural Worker). Service area descriptions are available at
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before May 09, 2026.
Send comments to Sandra Narva, Acting Director of Grants Management, Office of Grants Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Suite N-3627, Washington, DC 20210. Ms. Narva can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4634 or by email at
Teri DeVoe, Associate Deputy Director for Grants to States, Office of Library Services, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Suite N-3627, Washington, DC 20210. Ms. DeVoe can be reached by telephone at 202-653-4778, or by email at
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
IMLS is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's libraries and museums. The agency advances, supports, and empowers America's museums, libraries, and related organizations through grant making, research, and policy development. To learn more, visit
This Notice proposes the clearance of the IMLS Grants to States Program “State Reporting System.” The Grants to States program is the largest source of Federal funding support for library services in the U.S. Using a population-based formula, approximately $180 million is distributed among the State Library Administrative Agencies (SLAAs) every year. SLAAs are official agencies charged by the Library Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9121 and 20 U.S.C. 9141) with the extension and development of library services, and they are located in:
• Each of the 50 States of the United States, and the District of Columbia;
• The territories (Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands); and
• The Freely Associated States (Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands).
Under 20 U.S.C § 9134, each SLAA is required to submit a plan that details library services goals for a five-year period, along with associated certifications. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 9134(c), each SLAA that receives an IMLS grant under the Grants to States program is required to evaluate and report on all funded project activities to the agency, prior to the end of the execution of its five-year plan. Each SLAA receives IMLS funding to support activities for the five-year period through a series of overlapping two-year grant awards. Each SLAA must file interim and final financial reports, and final performance reports for each of these two-year grants through IMLS's State Program Report (SPR) system.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act to permit registered closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains more frequently than permitted by section 19(b) or rule 19b-1.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to pay as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any preferred stock issued by the investment company subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Japan Smaller Capitalization Fund, Inc. and Nomura Asset Management U.S.A. Inc.
The application was filed on December 4, 2025, and amended on December 17, 2025 and February 23, 2026.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Rachel Loko, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' amended application, dated February 23, 2026, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would withdraw as rule text: the Clearing Member Application, Letter of Authorization, Clearing Member Agreement, Non-U.S. Clearing Member Agreement (together with the Clearing Member Agreement, the “Clearing Member Agreements”), Authorized Signatory Certificate, Agreement for OCC Services, and, as identified further in the proposed rule change, various Appointment Forms and Product-Specific and Account-Specific Forms (collectively, the “Clearing Membership Forms”). As explained in its filing, OCC considers the Clearing Membership Forms to be forms to be used in connection with the implementation and operation of the proposed rule change, rather than rules themselves.
In connection with this proposed change, OCC also proposes to make certain other changes to OCC Rules related to the Clearing Membership Forms, including (i) to amend OCC Rule 204 to add a new paragraph (h) that would require, as a condition to admission, that each applicant for clearing membership and each Clearing Member sign and deliver to the Corporation such instruments in writing as the Corporation may require from time to time depending on the services that the applicant or Clearing Member selects; and (ii) in connection with OCC's proposal to withdraw the Participating Escrow Bank Agreement as one of the Account-Specific Forms, to amend Rule 610C to clarify that OCC's standard for establishing relationships with an escrow deposit bank is the same as those for Clearing Bank relationships under OCC Rule 206. Other than the proposed amendments to OCC Rule 204, the proposed rule change would not alter any of the requirements for initial or continued OCC clearing membership.
OCC filed proposed changes to OCC Rules 204 and 610C as Exhibit 5a, and the text of the Clearing Membership Forms as Exhibits 5b through 5v to File No. SR-OCC-2026-002, respectively. Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text.
The proposed rule change does not require any other changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission. OCC provides clearing services for options on equities,
Specifically, the Clearing Membership Forms include documents that fall within the following general categories:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
In connection with a comprehensive review of the Clearing Membership Forms in 2014, OCC first filed the Clearing Membership Forms as rules, as revised to (i) reduce the number of documents by eliminating outdated documents and combining similar documents, (ii) reflect OCC's then-current business and operational processes; and (iii) reflect changes in applicable law and conform the documents to OCC's then-current By-Laws and Rules.
Notwithstanding their previous inclusion in rule text filed with the Commission, OCC does not consider the Clearing Membership Forms to be rules of the clearing agency. The Exchange Act defines the term “rules of a clearing agency” to mean the constitution, articles of incorporation, by-laws, and rules, or instruments corresponding to the foregoing, of a clearing agency and such of the stated policies, practices, and interpretations of such clearing agency as the Commission, by rule, may determine to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(1)
The Clearing Membership Forms also include a Letter of Authorization
(2)
The Clearing Membership Forms also contain other forms and authorizations to be used by Clearing Members to facilitate compliance with OCC's Rules and OCC's authority to perform certain critical functions. OCC believes these forms
• The Notice of Name change is a form for a Clearing Member to provide notification of changes in its name, in accordance with and as reasonably and fairly implied by Interpretation and Policy (“I&P”) .01(b)(1)(D) of OCC Rule 306A.
• The Authorization to Draft Clearing Member Accounts provides the Clearing Member's acknowledgment of OCC's authority to debit the Clearing Member's accounts in accordance with and as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC's rules including, but not limited, OCC Rules 210(b), 502, 504(c), and 605.
• The Authorized Signatory Certificate is a form for Clearing Members to identify authorized signatories for purposes of agreements and other papers necessary for conducting business with OCC, in accordance with and as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rule 205.
• The Authorization Form for Post-Trade Instructions is a form to facilitate instructions received for Clearing Member Trade Assignment (“CMTA”), in accordance with and as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rule 407.
• The Security Agreement for Non-U.S. Clearing Members provides a Non-U.S. Clearing Member's acknowledgement of OCC's security interest on positions and collateral in the various accounts established under and as reasonably and fairly implied by Section 3 of By-Law Article VI.
Each of these forms is meant to facilitate the above-referenced By-Laws and Rules, and do not themselves establish or change any standard, limit or guidelines with respect to the rights, obligations or privileges of Clearing Members or applicants for clearing membership or the meaning, administration or enforcement of those By-Laws and Rules. Any changes to the above-referenced By-Laws and Rules would require a proposed rule change.
(3)
(4)
The Appointment Forms are the means by which the Appointed and Appointing Clearing Members or a Canadian Clearing Member provide the required acknowledgements under OCC Rules 901(f) and 901(g), respectively. The Appointment forms also require acknowledgement and agreement from the Appointing Clearing Member that relate to OCC's rights in the event of an Appointed Clearing Member's suspension under Chapter XI of OCC's Rules. Accordingly, OCC believes the Appointment Forms are reasonably and fairly implied by those rules. Any changes to OCC Rules 901(f) and 901(g), or to Chapter XI of OCC's Rules, would require OCC to file a proposed rule change.
With respect to the acceptance of an appointment by an Appointed Clearing Member, the acceptance form also requires the Appointed Clearing Member to agree to maintain the net capital required by OCC Rule 309A and remain subject to OCC Rule 309A until the appointment is terminated. However, OCC previously filed a proposed rule change to remove Rule 309A, in favor of the general net capital requirements as set forth in current Rule 301.
In addition, certain of the Appointment Forms filed in 2014 relate to products no longer listed by OCC's participant exchanges and no longer cleared by OCC, including physically settled treasury options and futures. Accordingly, OCC proposes to withdraw the Appointment Forms designed to support those products, including for designating an Appointed Clearing Member for purposes of settling those products through the facilities of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and providing information to OCC related to a Clearing Member's FICC membership.
(5)
• The NSCC Participation Status form is a form for the Clearing Member to provide, and NSCC to confirm, an applicant's membership in NSCC for purposes of sending exercise and assignment activity for physically settled options to NSCC for settlement, in compliance with and as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rule 302(e).
• The Stock Loan Participant Information Form is a form for a participant in OCC's Hedge Loan Program or Market Loan Program to provide information related to its membership with DTC, as required and reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rule 302(f). The form may also be used by participants in that program to provide instructions to OCC concerning the applicable mark-to-market percentage and rounding convention to be applied, pursuant to and as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rules 2201 and 2201A.
• The FICC Membership Information form is a form for a participant to provide information about their FICC membership for purposes of clearing Treasury Securities Options and Treasury Futures under Chapters XIII and XIV of OCC's Rules. As discussed above, none of OCC's participant exchanges currently list such products. Accordingly, OCC proposes to withdraw the FICC Membership Information form.
• The JBO Acknowledgement Letter is a form used by a Clearing Member that desires to maintain a JBO Participants' Account to provide acknowledgement to the requirements for such an account, as reasonably and fairly implied by Section 3(h) of OCC By-Law Article VI.
• The Government Securities Delivery Information Form is a form used by Clearing Members to identify the account information for its custodial bank for purposes of delivering Government securities as collateral in satisfaction of margin or Clearing Fund requirements, as reasonably and fairly implied by OCC Rule 604(a)(1) and I&P .17 thereto, with respect to margin collateral, and Rule 1002(a)(ii), with respect to Clearing Fund deposits.
Each of these forms is meant to facilitate the above-referenced By-Laws and Rules, and do not themselves establish or change any standard, limit or guidelines with respect to the rights, obligations or privileges of Clearing Members or applicants for clearing membership or the meaning, administration or enforcement of those By-Laws and Rules. Any changes to the above-referenced By-Laws and Rules would require a proposed rule change.
In addition, OCC maintains a Participating Escrow Bank Agreement and an Escrow Program Tri-Party Agreement between OCC, a custodian bank that OCC has approved to hold escrow deposits, and, in the case of the Escrow Program Tri-Party Agreement, a customer of a Clearing Member, for purposes of OCC's Escrow Deposit Program under OCC Rule 610C.
With respect to the terms of the agreement, OCC considers the material aspect to be the agreement of the parties to abide by the Escrow Deposit Program rules as set forth in and reasonably and fairly implied by OCC's By-Laws and Rules, including OCC Rule 610C. Any change to the rules for the Escrow Deposit Program would require a proposed rule change. The Participating Escrow Bank Agreement also requires the custodian bank to meet certain capital requirements. In practice, OCC employs the same standards for escrow deposit banks as it does for Clearing Banks under OCC Rule 206. In the interest of enhanced transparency, OCC proposes to amend Rule 610C(b) to add that OCC may in its discretion approve a participating escrow deposit bank if a bank: (i) meets the minimum requirements for a Clearing Bank under Rule 206, and (ii) meets such other standards for participating escrow deposit banks as OCC may determine from time to time. In addition to promoting enhanced transparency, the
OCC believes that filing the Clearing Membership Forms as Exhibit 3 to SR-OCC-2026-002, as opposed to rule text as is the case for items filed under Exhibit 5, is consistent with the Commission's General Instructions for Form 19b-4.
In addition, OCC believes that filing the Clearing Membership Forms as Exhibit 3 is consistent with the practices of other SROs with respect to similar forms. For example, national securities exchanges, which are also SROs and subject to the requirements of Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, submit such forms as Exhibits F to their Form 1 application, which is for forms pertaining to, among other things, application for membership, participation, or subscription to the exchange, rather than as Exhibit A (constitution, articles of incorporation, and existing by-laws or corresponding rules or instruments) or Exhibit B (written rules, settled practices having the effect of rules, and interpretations of the governing board or other committee of the exchange in respect of any provisions of the constitution, by-laws, rules, or trading practices of the exchange).
OCC also proposes to codify in Rule 204 the general requirement that applicants for Clearing Membership and existing Clearing Members execute agreements related to the services they are requesting or receiving. Specifically, OCC proposes to add a paragraph (h) to Rule 204 that would require, as a condition to admission, that each applicant for clearing membership and each Clearing Member sign and deliver to the Corporation such other instruments in writing as the Corporation may require from time to time. For example, if an applicant or an existing Clearing Member selects to utilize a particular service offered by OCC outlined in the Agreement for OCC Services, such as an ancillary service or a data distribution service, OCC would require the applicant or Clearing Member to execute other instruments, such as other forms or agreements, related to the selected service. This provision would supplement existing Rule 204(b), which currently requires Clearing Members to execute the Clearing Member Agreement or Non-U.S. Clearing Member Agreement, as applicable. Rule 204(h) is designed to capture the Clearing Membership Forms that would be applicable to a particular applicant or Clearing Member based on the types of services and accounts that the Clearing Member selects and are not otherwise required by other OCC By-Laws and Rules.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
OCC also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(21), which requires, in relevant part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves.
OCC believes that withdrawing the Clearing Membership Forms, which include 21 separate documents that contribute approximately 100 pages to this total, would help ease the administrative burden of maintaining OCC's rule text and allow OCC to more expeditiously implement changes to such documents that are consistent with the existing By-Laws and Rules. For example, as discussed above, OCC has identified instances where these documents require updates to amend outdated references to OCC's By-Laws or Rules or to remove forms that are no longer relevant to OCC's current processes. Because the Clearing Membership Forms are currently filed as rules, a proposed rule change is required to make such administrative amendments. Such proposed rule changes require time and attention from OCC, its Board of Directors, Commission staff, and the Commission that would be more effectively allocated to matters that advance OCC's role as a registered clearing agency that has been designated as a systemically important financial market utility. Accordingly, OCC believes that the proposed rule change would enable OCC to more efficiently and effectively meet the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(21).
OCC also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(1), which requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Certain of these forms relate to services provided by OCC to Clearing Members outside of the rules, such as the services offered under the OCC Services Agreement. The proposed addition of Rule 204(h) would require applicants for admission and Clearing Members to sign and deliver to the Corporation such instruments in writing as the Corporation may require from time to time depending on the services selected by the Clearing Member or applicant. As such, OCC believes that OCC Rule 204(h) is designed to provide a clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for such services by requiring Clearing Members who select such services to execute agreements containing terms and conditions that are designed to form the legal basis for such services.
In addition, in connection with withdrawing the Participating Escrow Bank Agreement as rule text, OCC proposes to codify in OCC Rule 610C its standards for approving participating escrow banks. Specifically, OCC proposes to amend OCC Rule 610C to provide that a participating escrow bank must meet the same standards for Clearing Banks as established by OCC Rule 206, as well as any other standards for participating escrow deposit banks as OCC may determine from time to time. This rule is identical to one for letter-of-credit banks under OCC Rule 604(c) and I&P .01 thereunder previously approved by the Commission.
For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2026-002 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 12, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
The Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (“HFIA Act”),
Section 16(a)(5) of the Exchange Act,
Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 16(a)(5) of the Exchange Act, and subject to the conditions listed below, the Commission is exempting from the reporting requirements of Section 16(a), and rules related to that provision, the directors and officers of any FPI that is (i) incorporated or organized in a “qualifying jurisdiction,” as defined below, and (ii) subject to a “qualifying regulation,” as defined below.
• Canada;
• Chile;
• the European Economic Area;
• the Republic of Korea;
• Switzerland; or
• the United Kingdom.
• Canada's National Instrument 55-104—Insider Reporting Requirements and Exemptions (supported by National Instrument 55-102—System for Electronic Disclosure by Insiders (SEDI) and companion policies) (“NI 55-104”), which provides, in general, requirements that directors and officers of covered issuers promptly report their initial holdings and any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public;
• Articles 12, 17, and 20 of the Chilean Securities Market Law (Ley de Mercado de Valores, Ley No. 18,045) and General Rule (Norma de Carácter General) No. 269, which provide, in general, requirements that directors and executive officers promptly report their initial holdings and any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public;
• Article 19 of the European Union Market Abuse Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2024/2809) (including, as applicable, implementing legislation and regulations adopted by the European Union's member states) and as incorporated into the domestic law of each European Economic Area state (“EU MAR”), which provides, in general, requirements that persons discharging managerial responsibilities (which includes directors and officers) promptly report to the issuer any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public;
• Article 173 of the Republic of Korea Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and Article 200 of the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act which provide, in general, requirements that directors and executives promptly report their initial holdings and any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public;
• Article 56 of the Listing Rules and implementing directives of SIX Swiss Exchange as approved by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (the “SIX Listing Rules”) which provide, in general, requirements that members of the board of directors and members of the executive committee promptly report to the issuer any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public; or
• Article 19 of the United Kingdom Market Abuse Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014), as it forms part of United Kingdom domestic law pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“UK MAR”), which provides, in general, requirements that persons discharging managerial responsibilities (which includes directors and officers) promptly report to the issuer any changes in beneficial ownership of the issuer's securities, including a description of the security, the nature of the transaction, and the price and volume of the transaction, and that such reports be made available to the general public.
The exemption granted by this order is subject to the following conditions:
• Any director or officer, as defined in Section 3(a)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act, respectively, seeking to rely on this exemption is required to report their transactions in the issuer's securities as set forth under the qualifying regulation to which they are subject;
• Any report filed pursuant to a qualifying regulation is made available in English to the general public within no more than two business days of its public posting.
In exercising the exemptive authority granted under Section 16(a)(5) of the Exchange Act, the Commission has determined that the qualifying regulations of the qualifying jurisdictions include substantially similar requirements to the requirements of Section 16(a). In making this determination, the Commission considered the following criteria:
• Persons covered: directors and officers of issuers, including persons who perform policy-making functions for the issuer, are subject to reporting obligations.
• Securities covered: directors and officers must report holdings of, and transactions in, any equity securities or derivative securities relating to an issuer.
• Transactions covered: directors and officers must report transactions and other changes in beneficial ownership, including acquisitions and dispositions of any direct or indirect beneficial ownership interest, with a focus on the director's or officer's opportunity to profit or share in the profit derived from a transaction.
• Reports: the required reports disclose the director's or officer's beneficial ownership and changes in such beneficial ownership, with timely filings of these reports.
• Publicly available: reports are publicly available electronically in English.
The Commission reviewed each of the qualifying regulations and assessed how each qualifying regulation compared to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with regard to each of the criteria listed above. The Commission concluded that each of the qualifying regulations covers substantially similar persons, securities, and transactions as those covered by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, and requires timely public disclosures of the covered persons' changes in beneficial ownership.
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 16(a)(5) of the Exchange Act, that directors and officers of an FPI that is incorporated or organized in a qualifying jurisdiction and subject to a qualifying regulation are exempt from the reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, provided that each condition set forth above is satisfied.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the state of Louisiana dated February 2, 2026.
Issued on March 4, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the state of Louisiana, dated February 2, 2026 is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning January 23, 2026 and continuing through January 27, 2026.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the state of Louisiana (FEMA-4900-DR), dated March 4, 2026.
Issued on March 4, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on March 4, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21454B and for economic injury is 214550.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to April 9, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Director of Medical Clearances, Jessica Martinez, who may be reached on (202) 663-1657 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Forms DS-1843 and DS-1622 collect medical history, screenings and physical examinations for all individuals applying for overseas positions, including their eligible family members. Forms DS-1843 and DS-1622 are designed to collect sufficient and current medical information on the individual for a medical provider to make a medical clearance determination for initial appointment to an overseas assignment. They are also used to determine whether the individual or eligible family member will have appropriate medical and/or educational resources at a diplomatic mission/host country abroad to maintain the health and safety of the individual or family member. The forms were updated to include questions regarding employment agency information for non-foreign service agencies.
The respondent will initially answer the questions on pages 1-3 of the forms digitally. They will then be prompted to download the auto populated form with their responses and take it to their personal medical provider for completion and authorization of pages 4-5. Once complete, the forms will be submitted via a secure online platform for review by the Office of Medical Clearances.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of new information collection. The information collected on the Physiology Training Record is required by students attending aviation physiology training that wish to participate in hypoxia training. Information collected is reviewed by the training instructor and a member of the Airman Education Program team to ensure those desiring to participate in this training have the necessary aviation medical qualification.
Written comments should be submitted by April 9, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anthony Landwehr by email at:
Students voluntarily enroll in the aviation physiology course, which is offered to aircrew with an FAA Class 1, 2 or 3 aviation medical certificate or are flying under the BasicMed program and are at least 18 years of age. The goal is that those individuals will have a greater understanding of the stressors in an aviation environment that could affect the onset of hypoxia with the ability to experience their personal symptoms. Doing this should allow them to respond more quickly and correctly in an actual aviation situation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by April 9, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Eric Simson by email at: Anthony Landwehr by email at:
The information collected on the Survival Training Record is required by students attending the post-crash survival course. It is reviewed by the training instructor and a member of the Airman Education Program team to personalize the teaching experience, verify the swimming ability and previous survival training experience of those attending this training.
The information collected on the document is done on paper, and not through automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological means. This is because doing so is not possible as it is used in a classroom setting for those that attend training at the time of arrival at the training site and technology is not made available. The form is not available to be printed off the internet and the information will not be made available to the public.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for five individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on March 15, 2026. The exemptions expire on March 15, 2028. Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0215, FMCSA-2021-0026, or FMCSA-2023-0039, as appropriate, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2014-0215, FMCSA-2021-0026, or FMCSA-2023-0039), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private,
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (MEs) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if the person has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, or if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of Title 49 chapter 313 or section 31136, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the five applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The five drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and
As of March 15, 2026, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0215, FMCSA-2021-0026, or FMCSA-2023-0039. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 15, 2026, and will expire on March 15, 2028.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local law enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, as set forth above; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of Title 49 chapter 313 or section 31136.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the five exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that, on February 27, 2026, Amtrak submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to one of its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC) systems. FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTC system.
FRA will consider comments received by March 30, 2026. FRA may consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
In general, title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system, or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will publish a notice in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on Amtrak's RFA by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.
Revised submission deadline.
On January 17, 2025, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) published in the
Applicants should submit any questions to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the NACA Program. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's website at
All other information and requirements set forth in the NOFA published on January 17, 2025, and in the amendments to the NOFA published on September 25, 2025, shall remain effective, other than as set forth in this notice.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA Program) Application (Application). The Application is an online form submitted through the CDFI Fund's Awards Management Information System (AMIS).
Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments concerning the Application via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
BEA Program, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20220, 202-653-0300 or by email to
The CDFI Fund is seeking input on the BEA Program Application. The Application may be obtained from the Request for Public Comments page of the CDFI Fund's website at
In addition, the CDFI Fund requests comments in response to the following questions about the BEA Program Application:
1. Is the data and information that is proposed to be collected by the BEA Program Application necessary and appropriate for the CDFI Fund to consider for the purpose of making award decisions? If no, specify which data and information and why?
2. In general, does the data and information requested in the BEA Program Application allow an applicant to demonstrate its lending, investment and service activities in BEA Program Distressed Communities or to CDFIs? If no, explain why not.
3. Are certain data fields, questions or tables redundant or unnecessary? If yes, identify which ones and why.
4. Should any data fields, questions or tables be added to ensure collection of relevant information? If yes, identify which ones and why.
5. Are there any data fields, questions or tables that are particularly difficult or burdensome to answer? If so, please be specific as to which questions or tables and describe why they are difficult or burdensome.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.
Revised submission deadline.
On January 17, 2025, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) published in the
Applicants should submit any questions to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the CDFI Program. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's website at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on November 12, 2025. See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On November 12, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. AUNG, Saw San (a.k.a. AUNG, Saw Sang; a.k.a. “AUNG, San”), Burma; DOB 28 Jul 1968; nationality Burma; Gender Male (individual) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4] (Linked To: DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(D) of Executive Order 14014 of February 10, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect to the Situation in Burma,” 86 FR 9429, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp. p. 514 (E.O. 14014), for being or having been a leader or official of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14014 as a result of activities related to the leader's or official's tenure.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(F) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” 80 FR 18077, 3 CFR, 2015 Comp., p. 297, as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” 82 FR 1, 3 CFR, 2016 Comp., p. 659, and as further amended by Executive Order 14144 of January 16, 2025, “Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity,” 90 FR 6755, and Executive Order 14306 of June 6, 2025, “Sustaining Select Efforts To Strengthen the Nation's Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144,” 90 FR 24723 (E.O. 13694, as further amended), for being or having been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended.
2. HLA, Sai Kyaw (a.k.a. SAI, Ko), Burma; DOB 06 Sep 1971; nationality Burma; Gender Male; Passport MB941865 (Burma); National ID No. 13MasakaN024010 (Burma) (individual) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4] (Linked To: DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 14014 for being responsible or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that has the purpose of or involves causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
3. SAWANG, Chamu (a.k.a. MOOSAWAN, Naija; a.k.a. SAVANG, Cha Mu; a.k.a. YU, Jianjun), Thailand; DOB 01 Jan 1964 to 17 Feb 1964; nationality Thailand; Gender Male; Passport Z992106 (Thailand) expires 26 Feb 2017 (individual) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4] (Linked To: TRANS ASIA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP THAILAND COMPANY LIMITED).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(D) of Executive Order 14014 for being or having been a leader or official of TRANS ASIA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP THAILAND COMPANY LIMITED, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14014 as a result of activities related to the leader's or official's tenure.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(F) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being or having been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of TRANS ASIA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP THAILAND COMPANY LIMITED, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended.
4. STEEL, Saw, Burma; DOB 27 Mar 1961; nationality Burma; Gender Male (individual) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4] (Linked To: DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(D) of Executive Order 14014 for being or having been a leader or official of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14014 as a result of activities related to the leader's or official's tenure.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(F) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being or having been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended.
5. WIN, Saw Sein (a.k.a. “WIN, Sein”), Burma; DOB 15 Aug 1965; nationality Burma; Gender Male (individual) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4] (Linked To: DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(D) of Executive Order 14014 for being or having been a leader or official of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14014 as a result of activities related to the leader's or official's tenure.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(F) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being or having been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended.
1. DEMOCRATIC KAREN BENEVOLENT ARMY (a.k.a. DEMOCRATIC KAREN BUDDHIST ARMY; a.k.a. DEMOCRATIC KAREN BUDDHIST ARMY BRIGADE 5; a.k.a. KALOH HTOO BAW ARMED GROUP; a.k.a. KAREN KLO HTOO BAW ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. KLO HTOO BAW BATTALION; a.k.a. “DKBA”; a.k.a. “DKBA 5”; a.k.a. “KKO”), Sone See Myaing Village, Myawaddy, Karen State, Burma; Organization Established Date 08 Nov 2010; Target Type Armed Group [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 14014 for being responsible or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that has the purpose of or involves
2. TRANS ASIA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP THAILAND COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. HUANYA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING GROUP), 100/20 Prasat Withee Road, Mae Sot, Tak 63110, Thailand; Organization Established Date 24 Feb 2020; Organization Type: Non-specialized wholesale trade; Registration Number 0635563000201 (Thailand) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 14014 for being responsible or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that has the purpose of or involves causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
3. TROTH STAR COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. “TRUST STAR COMPANY LIMITED”), No. 19, Ward No. 2, Pai Kyone, Hlaingbwe, Burma; Organization Established Date 2022; Organization Type: Construction of buildings; Registration Number 132583269 (Burma) [BURMA-EO14014] [CYBER4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 14014 for being responsible or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as further amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that has the purpose of or involves causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person and one vessel that have been removed from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On March 4, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are unblocked and they have been removed from the SDN List.
1. ARCTIC VOYAGER INCORPORATED (a.k.a. ARCTIC VOYAGER INC), Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Majuro, Ajeltake Island 96960, Marshall Islands; Organization Established Date 08 Nov 2024; Identification Number IMO 0109600; Business Registration Number 128742 (Marshall Islands) [VENEZUELA-EO13850].
On March 4, 2026, OFAC also removed from the SDN List the following vessel that had been identified as property in which Arctic Voyager Incorporated has an interest:
1. KIARA M (3E2278) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Year of Build 2004; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9285823; MMSI 352002348 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: ARCTIC VOYAGER INCORPORATED).
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of re-establishment of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP)—correction.
The Treasury Department has determined that it is in the public interest to reestablish the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) and the Internal Revenue Service's Chief Executive Officer approved the TAP Public Interest Determination statement. A Charter for the TAP has been prepared and will be filed no earlier than 7 days following the date of publication of this notice.
Saul Hernandez, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Acting Director, at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 8(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1008, that the Taxpayer Advisory Panel will be re-established for an additional two years beginning on the date that the charter is filed.
The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is a federal advisory committee operating per the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Under the Act, no advisory committee may conduct any meeting in the absence of a charter being properly filed by the Committee Management Officer.
TAP was established in 2002 and increases opportunities for U.S. taxpayers to communicate with the IRS. TAP is made up of a cross-section of the taxpaying public with at least one member from each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in addition to one member representing
(i) Federal personnel (based on full-time equivalent (FTE) usage basis) and other Federal internal costs: $1,489,066
(ii) Proposed payments to members and number of members: 75 members. TAP does not have any proposed payments to members.
(iii) Reimbursable costs: $142,125. Typically, at the beginning of the TAP year, the TAP staff coordinate and deliver an all-TAP Member Business Meeting that's held in the IRS Headquarters, Washington, DC The cost represents two travel days and three days of covering topics, such as:
• National Taxpayer Advocate Forum
• Introductions and partnerships with the various IRS operating divisions liaisons
• TAP outreach training, social media training
• Identifying and developing grassroot projects to improve IRS service and customer satisfaction
• Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
• Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee
• Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council
The TAP fulfills the requirements of 41 CFR 102-3.60 because its functions require a unique, independent structure for obtaining nationwide grassroots taxpayer input that cannot be replicated through other means. Established by the Department of the Treasury in 2002 and operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, TAP ensures that taxpayer advice and recommendations are objective, transparent, and accessible to the public while remaining accountable to Treasury, the IRS, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. Supported administratively by the Taxpayer Advocate Service, TAP is composed of private citizen volunteers, not IRS employees, who bring real-world experiences and community-based perspectives that internal processes cannot provide. With up to 75 members, including at least one representative and alternate from each state, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and a member representing U.S. taxpayers living and working abroad, TAP reflects broad geographic, demographic, and taxpayer diversity, including underserved populations. Through structured dialogue, challenge of assumptions, and consensus-based recommendations, TAP elevates taxpayer insights into IRS programs, processes, and potential enhancements. Ongoing annual recruitment and member rotation ensure fresh perspectives and sustained credibility. This independent, nationwide, citizen-driven model enables the IRS to hear directly from taxpayers in a way no other advisory mechanism can, making TAP essential to effective, inclusive, and responsive tax administration.
The TAP serves the public interest by providing an independent, transparent, and structured forum through which taxpayers can directly influence how IRS programs and services are designed and delivered. Composed of dedicated volunteers from across the country, including an international member, TAP supports the IRS mission of delivering top-quality service and helping taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibilities by elevating grassroots issues and offering practical, taxpayer-centered recommendations. TAP members prioritize, research, document, and submit referrals to IRS program owners and collaborate on assigned projects, ensuring real-world taxpayer perspectives are incorporated into critical tax administration decisions. TAP has submitted more than 3,000 recommendations from grassroots taxpayers, which is a remarkable record for a volunteer advisory panel.
In 2024, TAP submitted 37 referrals with 380 recommendations, and in 2025, members submitted 20 referrals with 188 recommendations. Our members have conducted over 1,300 outreach activities and have dedicated over 8,000 hours of their personal time reaching over 150,000 taxpayers from December 2023 through November 2025.
Recently, the Government of Accountability Office (GAO) requested that our TAP members be part of a focus group related to in-person services provided by the IRS. The focus group is part of an open audit with the IRS Taxpayer Services division. Questions being asked of our members are shared below.
What are the challenges, if any, associated with IRS's in-person services?
What suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve the quality of IRS's in-person services?
What factors do you think are most important for IRS to consider in making decisions about the future of in-person services, including where they are located and what types of services are offered?
Some of the TAP notable accomplishments include:
• Involved in evaluating the clarity and accuracy of public facing tax product Form 8915-F, Qualified Disaster Retirement Plan Distributions and Repayments. The committee determined the form, and instructions did not effectively communicate complex guidance. The recommendations submitted in this referral to the IRS provided clarity, readability as it relates to public understanding, and reduction of burden.
• Procedural changes to the way the IRS handles 3rd party authorization and verification of taxpayers in with identity issues.
• Completely re-wrote the Form 709, United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return.
• Members were asked to participate in an IRS Taxpayer First focus group on the topic of service. The members influenced a process change within the IRS tollfree lines by introducing call back technology.
• Produced substantive recommendations to clarify taxpayer rights related to Form 8821.
• The members' advocacy led to influencing asynchronous communication options, and contributions to clearer installment agreement notices that strengthened taxpayers' understanding of their right to appeal.
These outcomes would not be possible without TAP's existence. By representing diverse, real-life taxpayer experiences and elevating them to IRS leadership, TAP enhances fairness, transparency, government efficiency, and customer service—strengthening public trust and voluntary compliance, which are foundational to an effective and credible tax system.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Treasury has completed two rounds of funding for the SIPPRA program through two releases of a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Treasury invites comments on the revisions to the FY26 NOFO to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the application review process.
Written comments must be received on May 11, 2026.
Direct all comments to Matthew Cook, SIPPRA Program Director, Office of Economic Policy, at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Matthew Cook by emailing
Although Treasury asked applicants to use the SF-424 and SF-425 families of common forms for their applications and reports, Treasury also solicited additional detailed information from applicants to effectively and efficiently assess and evaluate whether applications for projects comply with statutory requirements. This request includes only the burden for this additional information. The burden for the SF-424 forms is covered under OMB Control Numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0006, 4040-0007, 4040-0008, 4040-
•
• Project Narrative, to include an Executive Summary;
• Project Narrative Attachments, to include project budget, narrative statement addressing partnership agreements, an estimate of the value to the federal government of the interventions being proposed in the project, partner qualifications, independent evaluator qualifications, evaluation design plan, independent evaluator contract, outcome valuation, legal compliance, and (optional) additional supporting documentation such as a preexisting feasibility study;
• Treasury Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity Assurances and Certifications, Terms and Conditions, and Compliance Data;
• Additional documentation related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;
• Copy of application proposing privileged or confidential information to be redacted;
• Administrative Reporting, including an Annual Performance Report, Evaluation Progress Reports, and Final Evaluation Report; and
• Records Retention requirements.
Treasury has released two Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) since 2018. The first in January 2019 and the second in November 2023. Treasury is now planning to release a third round of funding in FY26. The potential FY26 NOFO is available in full for the public's review.
The information collected under this NOFO: (1) Identifies eligible recipients and activities; (2) helps identify which applications sufficiently address all statutory requirements and which proposed projects are the most competitive; (3) determines the appropriate amount of funding; (4) allows evaluation of compliance with SIPPRA and Federal laws and policies on grants (
• The application Executive Summary will assist Treasury and the Interagency Council in streamlining the processing of applications and optimizing the eligibility phase of application review. The application standard forms, Project Narrative, and Project Narrative attachment components of the grant application are intended to provide Treasury with the information necessary to properly evaluate and assess whether applications include statutorily mandated information. Additionally, certain components of the application, in particular the evaluation design plan and outcome valuation, will enable the Interagency Council to determine whether to make statutorily mandated certifications regarding the proposed projects.
•
• To comply with the OMB Uniform Guidance performance and financial monitoring and reporting requirements, 2 CFR 200.328-200.330, Treasury intends to require biannual performance and annual financial report from grant recipients. SIPPRA also requires that recipients submit progress reports prepared by an independent evaluator on a periodic basis and before the scheduled time of outcome payments. 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(d). SIPPRA also requires that recipients submit a final report prepared by an independent evaluator within six months of a project's completion. 42 U.S.C. 1397n-4(e). Per the statute, Treasury will use these reports to determine if outcome payments are warranted.
• Treasury intends to require recipients under this NOFO to comply with the OMB Uniform Guidance's record retention requirement, 2 CFR 200.334, which requires them to maintain records for three years after grant close-out.
• SIPPRA established a Commission on Social Impact Partnerships (Commission) whose principal obligation is to make recommendations to Treasury regarding the funding of SIPPRA projects and feasibility studies. 42 U.S.C. 1397n-6. The Commission is subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which generally requires that documents made available to the Commission be made available for public inspection and copying. 5 U.S.C. app. section 10(b). Treasury may provide to the Commission all complete applications received under this NOFA from eligible applicants and would make all such applications available for public inspection and copying. However, FACA also provides that trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential (confidential business information) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) need not be made publicly available. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). To assist Treasury in complying with FACA's public disclosure requirements while protecting confidential business information in accordance with FOIA, Treasury requests applicants to propose redactions of confidential business information. An applicant may omit pages for which it does not propose any redactions. Treasury expects to review the redactions proposed by each applicant.
• Applicants must provide qualifications of key project personnel and partners. Applicants may voluntarily provide curriculum vitae for key project personnel and partners, but the application will not require that personally identifiable information (PII) is collected.
For several reasons, Treasury revised the third SIPPRA NOFO relative to the first two. Treasury believes that the revisions will increase the number of applications it receives, reduce the burden on applicants and stakeholders, improve the quality of applications, reduce application review time, and enhance the success of projects. Treasury is interested in receiving comments on applicants' experiences with the application process under the FY24 NOFO or the FY19 NOFO and suggestions on revisions Treasury should consider in the next NOFO to make the application and application review process more user-friendly and efficient. Treasury has a draft of the next NOFO available for the public's review. The most significant revisions Treasury made in the next NOFO are addressed below.
• Treasury returned the outcome valuation methodology to budget impact analysis (BIA) instead of benefit-cost analysis. Treasury made this change because after testing both approaches, Treasury determined that BIA is a better methodology to allow Treasury to observe value to the federal government, as required by statute, and is more efficient to implement for social impact partnerships. Treasury is interested in the public's view regarding whether there are alternative approaches to savings and value that would be preferable in place of this approach, and why those approaches are consistent with SIPPRA statute.
• Treasury continues to ascertain how to make the application and the application review process more efficient for all parties. Treasury invites suggestions and specific strategies that
• Under the FY24 NOFO, Treasury provided applicants five months from the date of NOFA publication to submit their applications. Treasury is interested in learning whether prospective applicants favor a shorter window of time to submit their applications, which would leave more time for project implementation, or conversely, if they favor a longer application timeframe (
• The evaluation design section has been heavily edited to make it easier to understand and develop. Treasury is interested in learning whether these changes have sufficiently addressed questions, and it would welcome comments on how long it will take to complete these evaluation design plans.
• Treasury is planning to prioritize projects that affect specific outcomes instead of weighing all outcomes equally. Treasury is interested in feedback on how this will affect whether potential applicants will apply. Treasury is also interested in whether the language of the NOFO is consistent with the goals of programs that would achieve these outcomes, and if not, what changes would it make it more likely to appeal to these programs.
The SIPPRA statute provides that only States, including the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; federally recognized Indian tribes; and local governments are eligible applicants (“Applicant”); applications from any other entity will not be reviewed.
There is no cost sharing required.
In 2018, Congress appropriated $100 million to Treasury to implement the SIPPRA program. The program funds social impact projects based on achieving results.
The SIPPRA statute requires that each project achieve one or more specific, measurable outcomes that benefit society and reduce governmental outlays (
Under the pay for results model, the government makes a payment only if an
The outcome payment will not be more than the value of the outcome to the government over a maximum period of ten years from the start of the project. Applicants can propose one or more outcomes and may receive separate payments at different times for each one achieved, depending on the project design and payment requests.
The Applicant must procure an independent evaluator to confirm the project achieved the agreed-upon outcomes. Treasury will have a separate agreement with the Awardee to pay for evaluation activities. This separate agreement cannot exceed 15 percent of the total funding awarded to the Awardee. Treasury will fund this award even if the project does not meet its goals. This separate award can only be used for evaluation activities and not for other project costs. The evaluator must be objective and must not have any financial or other connections to the project that could create a potential conflict of interest.
The independent evaluator must determine whether the project achieved the expected outcome(s) following the evaluation design plan (see Section 3.C, Evaluation Methodology). If Treasury determines that the evaluation shows the applicant was successful, the federal government will make a payment or payments to the Awardee based on the agreed-upon payment schedule. Treasury will not make a payment to the Awardee if the independent evaluator has violated the terms of the award.
Eligible outcomes for an approved project are set out in Section 2052(b) of the SIPPRA statute. The SIPPRA statute provides a nonexclusive list of types of eligible projects. One-fifth of the projects in this list are types of workforce development projects, yet only one workforce development project has thus far been funded. Under this NOFO, Applicants proposing workforce development projects will be given particular consideration to help ensure that an appropriate range of subject matters are covered by SIPPRA projects and that the statutorily highlighted outcomes related to workforce development are appropriately funded. Examples of workforce development outcomes listed in the SIPPRA statute include:
• Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United States who are unemployed for more than 6 consecutive months.
• Increasing employment and earnings of individuals who have attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age.
• Increasing employment among individuals receiving Federal disability benefits.
• Improving the employment and well-being of returning United States military members.
Additional possible outcomes outside of those listed in statute include:
• Increasing work and earnings by individuals in the United States who are not participating in the labor force for more than 6 consecutive months.
• Increasing the persistence in paid, self-sufficient employment for individuals who have exited a federally funded public workforce program in the last six months.
• Increasing the number of individuals in the United States who participate in a registered apprenticeship while co-enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Treasury does not expect to provide further funding opportunities under the current SIPPRA appropriation.
The SIPPRA statute requires that “[n]ot less than 50 percent of all Federal payments made to carry out agreements under this section shall be used for initiatives that directly benefit children.”
To determine the value to the federal government, Applicants must provide a budget impact analysis (BIA) as the outcome valuation methodology.
The statute requires the federal payment for each specified outcome to be less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government over a specified period we refer to as the “valuation period.” The valuation period is selected by the Applicant but may extend for no more than ten years after the start of the intervention.
The applicant must also select a period during which it will conduct outcome tracking for the project. We refer to the period beginning with the start of the intervention through the last day of outcome tracking as the “period of performance.” In some cases, the outcome tracking may continue beyond the intervention period; in other cases, the intervention period and period of performance may be the same. The period of performance must end by September 2032. After the period of performance, if an outcome has been met, Treasury will provide payment based on the demonstrated value of the outcome to the federal government over the entire valuation period, which may extend beyond the period of performance in order to show the projected value of an outcome for up to 10 years. For that reason, payment may be made before the end of the valuation period. The valuation period is simply a time limiting function of the BIA calculation process.
For each specified outcome, the Applicant must provide the estimated savings and value over the valuation period and the period of performance.
Over the course of the period of performance, the project must provide savings to the State or local government or to the federal government, in the form of reduced outlays.
For the purposes of payment, the Applicant must only include estimates of federal savings and revenue. If the project is expected to affect state and local savings or revenue, those estimates must be presented, but
For applicants who plan to use savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see Appendix II: Integration of Managed
The following shows the steps of the calculation of BIA. Applicants must document the underlying literature, assumptions, and justifications for how the intervention will achieve the estimated savings and value in each step of the BIA calculation. The estimates must be derived from the existing research or data on the topic with clear citations for reviewers. The Applicant must detail how the existing research can be reasonably applied to their approach (
The Applicant must document existing federal outlays that support the target population during the valuation period. This includes, but is not limited to, programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other relevant federal anti-poverty initiatives. This section will establish a baseline by estimating the total federal resources currently allocated to the target population in the absence of the proposed intervention. The Applicant must document the existing federal outlays over the period of performance and the valuation period.
The Applicant must estimate the total amount of federal revenue generated by the target population during the valuation period. The Applicant must estimate the existing federal revenues over the period of performance and the valuation period.
The Applicant must document how federal outlays will change due to achieving the outcome targets as a result of the intervention. The outcome valuation must include increases in costs due to intended or unintended impacts of the intervention. The Applicant must carefully consider how the project intervention may cause the substitution of benefits delivered through one social program for another. Specifically, the Applicant must consider how the intervention will affect eligibility for other federal programs and how this will affect the change in outlays. For example, an intervention that increases employment could decrease participation in government assistance programs while increasing eligibility for reimbursable employment-based tax credits. Both the decrease in assistance outlays and the increase in refundable tax credit expenditures are changes in government outlays resulting from the project intervention and must be considered.
In estimating the project intervention's effect on the outlays of a government program, the Applicant must carefully consider the funding structure of the program and spillover effects. For instance, if the program has more eligible individuals than funding available for services, such that when one individual is removed from the program another eligible individual replaces that individual, then it is unlikely that there is a reduction in outlays. There may also be spillover effects of providing this training to the target population to participants outside of the target population. For example, a job training program may cause the displacement of workers currently employed resulting in lower wages and higher benefit uptake for those individuals.
The Applicant must clearly show the intervention effect over the period of performance and the valuation period.
For applicants who plan to use savings from Medicaid or CHIP, see Appendix II: Integration of Managed Care Information/Data for the integration of managed care information/data. This information is required to certify such changes in spending.
The Applicant must document how the federal taxes will change if the project reaches the assumed outcome target. Applicants must take into account tax credits and deductions when estimating changes to federal taxes paid by the target population. The changes in federal tax revenues should be shown over the period of performance and the valuation period. Changes in federal tax revenues are not required for a project to be funded.
The Applicant must measure the difference between the baseline and impact estimates. The Applicant must detail the savings (post-intervention federal outlays (C) minus baseline federal outlays (A)) and the change in revenues (post-intervention federal revenues (D) minus baseline federal revenues (B)). The “value to the federal government” is calculated as the sum of the savings plus the change in revenues. Treasury will pay no more than the value estimated in this step. As a formula, this is:
Applicants must include the estimated total savings, estimated savings per project participant, and estimated savings per dollar spent on the intervention. Applicants must also provide the estimated total savings over the period of performance and the valuation period.
The Applicant must also include the estimated value, estimated value per project participant, and estimated value per dollar spent on the intervention over the valuation period. Applicants must provide the estimated total value over the period of performance and the valuation period.
Applicants must document and submit their estimates of baseline federal revenues and outlays and estimated changes to federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of each proposed intervention in a spreadsheet so that the analyses can be replicated.
The spreadsheet must include all formulas used and describe all data sources, such as related literature, assumptions, and justifications, used to arrive at the estimates of the changes in federal revenues and outlays as a direct result of the proposed intervention.
The estimates in the spreadsheet must include the annual and cumulative net effect of each intervention on federal revenues and outlays overall, per dollar of intervention, and per participant over the period of performance and the valuation period.
The estimates of baseline federal outlays and revenues and the estimated federal outlays and revenues after the intervention must be rounded to the nearest hundred, rounding up any number that ends in a number greater than $50 to the nearest $100.
As required by SIPPRA statute, if the project's outcome target will result in changes to the state or local outlays and revenues, the Applicant is required to submit these estimates. They should be presented in a similar manner to the federal savings and value calculation explained above. However, these estimates
If the investor (see Section 4.A.g.(3), Partner Qualifications for a description of investor) is a state or local government, the program costs must be included in the assessment of state and local outlays and revenues.
This section addresses the evaluation design and research methodologies.
The Applicant must provide an evaluation design plan that includes a range of information related to design, implementation, statistics, and data. The full list of requirements is available in Section 4.A.g(4), Evaluation design plan.
The evaluation design plan may evolve during a project's early implementation period (approximately the first 12-18 months) to ensure proper measurement of project outcomes. However, outcome goals may not change without prior approval from Treasury or the administering federal agency. Grantees must submit the evaluation design plan to Treasury or the administering federal agency once it is finalized. Elements of the evaluation design plan will be posted on the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (Interagency Council) website.
The SIPPRA statute requires the Awardee demonstrate that outcomes “have been achieved as a result of the intervention.” The evaluation must use rigorous methods that can reliably show this direct link. These methods are either experimental designs with random assignment or other strong, evidence-based research methods approved by the Interagency Council when random assignment is not feasible.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered to be the most rigorous type of experimental design. In RCTs, a sample is randomly split into two groups—treatment and control. One group will receive the intervention and the other will continue as normal. Because people are randomly assigned to these groups, RCTs help minimize the chance that any differences in outcomes we see are due to other factors, rather than the project itself.
If randomization is not feasible, Treasury will also accept other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies often called quasi-experimental designs. These methods compare the outcomes of the group receiving the project to a similar group that did not. While they do not use random assignment, these designs use careful planning and analysis to create a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the project group. Applicants that cannot implement an RCT study will not be deemed less competitive or penalized for implementing a quasi-experimental design. These methods include regression discontinuity design, difference-in-differences, and propensity score matching, among others.
However, the application must clearly explain why randomization is not feasible and show how the Applicant plans to control for other factors without using random assignment. This could include who was selected for the project, other policies that were in place, changes in the economy, or other factors that might have influenced the results. The Applicant shall also describe how the services received by the project group will be different from what the comparison group receives.
A key part of both types of evaluations will be showing that the results are likely due to a causal effect and not chance. This is often done using a concept called statistical significance. The evaluation needs to show that the difference in outcomes between the project group and the comparison group is unlikely to have happened randomly. For purposes of the SIPPRA program, the result will be considered statistically significant if the null hypothesis falls outside of the 80 percent confidence interval. The choice of how to best calculate standard errors and confidence intervals is left to the independent evaluator, who must follow best practices based on the identification strategy submitted in the application.
Applicants may use classical statistical analysis or Bayesian statistical analysis. For applicants using Bayesian statistical analysis, the appropriate Bayesian tests must be used to show the equivalent of classical statistical significance at the 80 percent level. Additionally, applicants using Bayesian statistical analysis must conduct prior sensitivity analysis to ensure any causal result is not due only to an overly strong assumption (a dominant prior) in the prior distribution. Applicants using this approach must use high-quality experimental or quasi-experimental evidence to justify the prior distribution.
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider the likelihood, based on evidence provided in the application and other evidence, that the partnership will achieve the specified outcomes. This proof must come from well-designed studies that use experiments or other reliable methods to show that the approach causes the desired results and well-conducted studies with many participants in different settings that also show the approach works.
The level of improvement the project estimates it will achieve must be based on existing research.
For each project application, a Subject Matter Expert Panel (“Panel”) will determine the strength of the evidence provided. Projects with strong or moderate evidence are generally the best fit for the SIPPRA program, but all applications will be considered.
• Strong evidence means that the evidence base can support causal conclusions for the specific program proposed by the applicant with the highest level of confidence. The evidence must support causal conclusions (
(1) More than one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or
(2) One large, well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled,
• Moderate evidence means that there is a reasonably developed evidence base that can support causal conclusions. There must be evidence from previous studies on the program, the designs of which can support causal conclusions (
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study supporting the effectiveness of the practice strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability; or
(2) At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study that does not demonstrate equivalence between the intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no other major flaws related to internal validity; or
(3) Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning the influence of internal factors.
• Preliminary evidence means that the evidence base can support conclusions about the program's contribution to observed outcomes. The evidence base must consist of at least one non-experimental study. A study that demonstrates improvement in program beneficiaries over time on one or more intended outcomes OR an implementation (process evaluation) study used to learn about and improve program operations would constitute preliminary evidence. Examples of research that meet the standards include:
(1) outcome studies that track program beneficiaries through a service pipeline and measure beneficiaries' responses at the end of the program;
(2) pre- and post-test research that determines whether beneficiaries have improved on an intended outcome; or
(3) rigorous implementation studies.
By statute, SIPPRA projects must have evaluations conducted by independent evaluators.
The federal government will fund up to 15 percent of the amount of the estimated project award (not including the cost of the evaluation) for independent evaluation activities of the project, regardless of whether outcomes are met. The federal government will not pay for pre-award costs or the portion of an evaluator's contract contemplating evaluation work that is not completed in the event a project terminates earlier than expected.
Any activities reasonably related and necessary to the evaluation are eligible to be funded through this award. This includes paying for staff time, purchasing data access, or travel related to the project. The expected evaluation activities will need to be listed when finalizing the award.
Treasury will assess the independence and experience of the evaluator. The Applicant is required to show the evaluator's experience in conducting rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including RCTs or quasi-experimental methods on the intervention or similar interventions. Treasury may determine there is not sufficient independence or experience and request a change in the independent evaluator before making an award.
The agreement between the Awardee and the independent evaluator must address the following:
• An evaluation design and methodology that will return the causal effect of the program.
• Plan to obtain relevant datasets from various sources, for example, local agencies, state agencies, or other federal agencies, including the responsibilities of the grantee and evaluator in accomplishing this task;
• Design and coding of a management information system, as needed, that is tailored for research or evaluation, to track participants and obtain individual level data;
• Collection or assessment of individual-level data. The independent evaluator must work directly with the Applicant and other organizations to enter into one or more agreements for the access and use of the data. These agreements must include assuring data quality and adherence to all federal and state data privacy statutes and policies and data security standards;
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or a plan to get IRB approval to ensure the protection of human subjects, to the extent applicable; and
• Submission of progress reports to Treasury, the Interagency Council, and the head of the relevant agency in accordance with the reporting requirements described in Section 8.B.b, Evaluation Progress Reports and Section 8.B.c, Final Evaluation Report.
If the Applicant is unable to execute an agreement prior to the application deadline, Treasury will require the Applicant to detail how it will procure the evaluator in the application. This shall include a potential list of suitable evaluators, the steps for procuring the evaluator's contract (
Applications submitted in response to this NOFO must include the following:
(a) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance;
(b) SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (if applicable);
(c) SF-424C, Budget Information for Construction Programs (if applicable);
(d) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;
(e)
(f) Project Narrative
The project narrative (page limit is 20 pages) must include the following:
(1) A one-page executive summary that follows the format as laid out in Appendix I.
(2) The outcome goals of the project.
This section shall cite available research to explain how the project will achieve the specified outcome goals. This description must include the unmet need in the target population that the intervention is trying to fulfill. The Applicant must provide the highest outcome level that it reasonably expects to achieve. The Applicant may provide a reasonable estimated range that it expects to achieve, and the outcome payment cap will be set at the highest end of that range. This section must also include a theory of change and logic model for how the intervention will lead to these outcome goals building from the available research.
•
•
The Applicant must also provide a summary of the value of the anticipated outcomes that is laid out in detail in section #7 of the project narrative attachments.
(3) The project timeline.
The project timeline must include an estimated duration for each phase of the project. Be sure to include the following periods:
•
•
•
•
•
(4) A description of each intervention in the project and a service delivery plan for delivering the intervention through a social impact partnership model.
The Applicant must provide details for how each of the chosen interventions will affect the target population. The outcome goals described above must be referenced for each of the interventions.
The service delivery plan must detail how the project will implement each intervention and include a discussion of how the project will incorporate feedback from the evaluation into its ongoing operations.
If procuring services is required, the Applicant must detail what the procurement process will look like and how long that process typically takes.
If the Applicant does not have all funding secured at the time of application submission, the Applicant must provide a detailed fundraising plan to meet all funding requirements.
(5) The proposed payment terms.
This section must include the payment schedule, the methodology used to calculate outcome payments, and performance thresholds for defining success. These must be reasonably derived from the outcome valuation completed in Project Narrative Attachment #7. This section may include details as to how the Applicant plans to incorporate assumptions about value that is produced outside of the period of performance. The proposed payment terms must include the following:
•
•
•
(6) The target population that will be served by the project.
This section must include a description of the target population and the criteria used to determine the eligibility of an individual for the project, including how the target population will be identified, how individuals will be referred to the project, how they will be enrolled in it, and the extent to which affected stakeholders will be engaged in the development and implementation of the project and evaluation.
(7) Social benefits.
The Applicant must also detail the expected social benefits to participants who receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
(8) A description of whether and how the Applicant and service providers plan to sustain the intervention.
This section must include a description of whether and how the Applicant and service providers plan to sustain the intervention beyond the period of performance. The Applicant must detail the strategies for leveraging data and evidence generated from the project's activities to inform adaptation, continuation, or scaling of the project.
(9) Whether the project will directly benefit children.
This section must include a description of whether the project will directly benefit children. If so, the Applicant must specify how the project will benefit children and provide an estimate of the percentage of project participants who are expected to be children. Treasury will consider a project to “directly benefit children” if (1) the target population is children (aged 0-19 at the beginning of the intervention); or (2) the target population is parents of children or non-parental primary caregivers if the application presents strong evidence demonstrating a close logical, causal, and consequential relationship between the project's effect on parents or caregivers and the resulting positive effect on the parents' or caregivers' children. For projects where the target population is parents or primary caregivers, being a parent or primary caregiver must be part of the intervention's eligibility criteria in order to qualify as directly benefiting children. Portions of projects can directly benefit children without having the entire project directly benefit children. If a project directly benefits children, the Applicant must detail what percent of its value directly benefits children.
(g) Project Narrative Attachments
(1)
(2)
i. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each partner;
ii. A plan for sharing data among the partners, including a Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement, which may be conditioned on the award of a grant, that appropriately safeguards the privacy of individuals in the targeted population in accordance with applicable laws;
iii. A representation that all project partners have reviewed an independent evaluation plan for the project and an agreement by all the partners to cooperate in the implementation of the evaluation plan as necessary; and
iv. A payment arrangement between the applicant and project partners (including the intermediary and/or investors, as applicable), demonstrating that all partners understand that payment by the federal government is conditioned upon the independent evaluator's verification that the project's pre-determined outcome(s) and value generated have been met. This payment arrangement must include a plan and timeline describing each payment point that the project partners have agreed on, and the corresponding outcome targets that will be evaluated in the impact evaluation. Although the federal government generally will make payments to the grantee if the independent evaluator determines that the project achieved the specified outcome as a result of the intervention and the payment is less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government, the federal government is not responsible for making payments to the Awardee's partners other than the independent evaluator.
(3)
i.
ii.
iii.
(4)
Demonstrate a high-quality design by:
(1) Explaining how the proposed evaluation is best suited for the project including an explanation for why randomization is not feasible (if applicable);
(2) Documenting the project evaluation's research question(s), the data to be collected and analyzed, how data quality and integrity will be maintained (
(3) Describing how the project will be implemented with fidelity (
(4) Providing and justifying the selected evaluation strategy (
(5) Explaining how the methodology will measure relevant unintended outcomes and/or negative impacts;
(6) Stating whether the design is likely to generate evidence that can support causal conclusions;
(7) Describing anticipated challenges, such as attrition, failed randomization, and oversubscription and plans to mitigate them; and
(8) Showing that the evaluation will be independent of the intervention.
Incorporate appropriate evaluation design by:
(9) Describing the metrics that will be used in the evaluation to determine whether the outcomes have been achieved as a result of the intervention including key outcomes and outcome targets; an explanation of how the metrics will be measured; and an explanation of how the metrics are independent, objective indicators of impact that are not subject to manipulation by the service provider, the intermediary, or investors, if any;
(10) Describing the statistical assumptions required to infer causal effects in the research design (
(11) Proposing all important covariates that will be used in evaluation analysis, including how these measures will be operationalized, and the data used for them;
(12) Describing anticipated statistical and analytical methods (such as regression equations to be used), power calculations, and minimal detectable impacts for each proposed outcome. Please include the actual power and minimal detectable impact estimates for each proposed outcome;
(13) Describing what hypothesis testing procedure will be used (
(14) Including the anticipated customized randomization plan if applicable;
(15) Describing an approach for coordinating all partners and required evaluation activities, including assisting the independent evaluator in collecting and accessing the necessary data, and include a timeline;
(16) Describing an approach for conducting an evaluation of program implementation, potentially using an implementation framework (
(5)
i. Experience working with the datasets the project expects to use;
ii. Prior work in conducting implementation and causal impact evaluation and how their past methodologies and evaluation design experience will be used in the proposed project. Please provide examples of evaluations that they have completed of similar size, scope and complexity;
iii. Qualifications of the key personnel designing and overseeing the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their education or training and type and years of experience;
iv. Experience in managing similar evaluation protocols (
v. Experience dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues in other program evaluations. Provide specific examples and experiences dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues.
(6)
i. Plan to obtain relevant datasets from various sources, for example, local agencies, state agencies, or other federal agencies, including the responsibilities of the grantee and evaluator in accomplishing this task;
ii. Design and coding of a management information system, as needed, that is tailored for research or evaluation, to track participants and/or to obtain individual level data;
iii. Collection or assessment of individual-level data. The independent evaluator must work directly with the Applicant and other organizations to enter into one or more agreements for the access and use of the data. These agreements must include assuring data quality and adherence to all federal and state data privacy statutes and policies and to all applicable data security standards;
iv. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or a plan to get IRB approval to ensure the protection of human subjects, to the extent applicable; and
v. Submission of progress reports to Treasury, the Interagency Council, and the head of the relevant agency in accordance with the reporting requirements described in Section 8.B.b, Evaluation Progress Reports and Section 8.B.c, Evaluation Final Report.
vi. A payment plan that details the annual payment schedule that aligns with the other requirements of the independent evaluator.
The selection of an independent evaluator is subject to the procurement requirements of the Uniform Guidance, including those related to competitive procurement.
An independent evaluator's experience and independence are considered in the review process. If you are unable to submit the name and qualifications of the independent evaluator when you submit the application to Treasury, you may submit in the SIPPRA application a description of the process you will use to choose an independent evaluator. That process must include the requirements noted above that will be incorporated into the independent evaluator agreement.
(7)
(8) Legal compliance for projects that include construction (if applicable): Applicants proposing a project including a construction component must identify applicable State and federal environmental laws, regulations, policies, and required environmental documents. Applicants proposing a project including a transportation component must identify applicable federal, State, and local laws relating to that component, and required permitting and licensing documents. The applicant must identify laws applying to the population being served and verify that the project will be in compliance with those laws. The applicant must comply with applicable federal, State, and local privacy laws. The applicant must identify any approved waivers, including but not limited to environmental or transportation laws or regulations, required by the intervention design; if waivers are pending, the applicant must include documentation that it has sought the waiver and when approval is expected. Failure to obtain a necessary waiver may be grounds for termination of a grant.
(9) An application may contain additional supporting documentation as attachments, such as an existing feasibility study.
The project application must be prepared using the following formatting and organizational guidelines:
1. Number all pages.
2. Be double-spaced, with text in a single column.
3. Be a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman.
4. Use 1-inch margins.
5. Not exceed 20 pages in length, excluding the table of contents, appendices, or attachments. See each individual attachment for page limits.
6. As appropriate, include graphics, charts, or lists to make the information easier to review.
7. If possible, provide website links to supporting documentation rather than copies of these supporting materials. It is important to ensure that the website links are currently active, accessible, and working. Non-working links may negatively affect the review of the application.
8. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants must clearly identify within the application the relevant portion of the application that each supporting document supports.
9. Use appropriately descriptive file names (
10. All file names must be prefaced with the applicant's name or initials.
Applicants must apply using
General information for registering and submitting applications through
Registration is a multi-step process that may take several weeks to complete before an application may be submitted.
Applications may withdraw from consideration by providing written notice to
The Applicant, if they do not have an exemption under § 25.110, must
(1) Be registered in
(2) Maintain a current and active registration in
(3) Include its UEI in each application it submits to the Federal agency.
Treasury suggests finalizing a new registration or renewing an existing one at least one month before the application deadline to allow time to resolve any issues that may arise. Applicants must use their
Submission instructions may be found here:
Please contact Matthew Cook, SIPPRA Program Director, at
Applications must be submitted between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on (one month after publication) and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on (five months after application). Applications must be submitted electronically through
All applications will be reviewed after the deadline has passed. If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, Treasury will review the most recent submission.
This funding opportunity is subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” as amended by Executive Order 12416. Some States require that applicants contact their State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to comply with the State's SPOC process established pursuant to Executive Order 12372. Names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed on the Office of Management and Budget's homepage at
Treasury will review all applications to determine if the applicant is a State or local government and submitted all required information in the requested format. An application received from an ineligible entity or for an ineligible project will be rejected. Incomplete applications may, at Treasury's discretion, receive further consideration. Treasury expects to afford applicants a reasonable opportunity to fix any such issues, as appropriate.
This section has three components: value to the federal government, estimates of state and local outlays and revenues, and the proposed payment terms. The magnitude of the estimated savings or value will not be a factor in the overall score of the application.
SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to take into consideration the savings to the federal, State and local governments.
A Subject Matter Expert Review Panel (“Panel”) will ensure that the Applicant meets the threshold requirement of the presence of federal, State, or local savings. Then, the Panel will assess the quality of the methodology used by the Applicant to arrive at the estimates, how likely the Applicant is to achieve these savings, and the comprehensiveness of the estimated savings. Applicants will receive higher scores for comprehensive and well-justified estimates of savings.
Applicants must include the estimated total savings, estimated savings per project participant, and estimated savings per dollar spent on the intervention over the valuation period. Applicants must also provide the estimated total savings over the period of performance.
The federal payment to the State or local government for each specified outcome achieved as a result of the intervention must be less than or equal to the value of the outcome to the federal government over a period not exceeding ten years from the date implementation commences.
The Panel will determine how likely the project is to achieve the value, how accurate the justification is that the proposed intervention will produce the value proposed by the Applicant, and the comprehensiveness of the Applicant's estimate. The Panel will also review the data and approach to ensure it can easily be replicated and that the data would be sufficient for the analysis. Applicants will receive higher scores for comprehensive and well-justified estimates of value.
Applicants must include the estimated total value, estimated value per project participant, and estimated value per dollar spent on the intervention over the valuation period.
The Panel will evaluate proposed payment terms to ensure a clear link between the outcome valuation and potential payments. Applications must detail the payment schedule, the methodology for calculating outcome payments, and the performance thresholds triggering payment. Applicants may propose to have one payment at the end of the project or multiple payments throughout the duration of the project.
The terms shall specify the payment calculation formula (including potential tiers, bonuses, or penalties), reference the evaluation design plan (including the metrics used to measure outcomes, the baseline data, and the independent verification process), and clearly articulate how outcome achievement translates to payment using the outcome values over the valuation period. Clearly defined and measurable performance thresholds for the requested minimum payment to the outcome payment cap are required. Applicant will receive higher scores for more detailed and realistic payment terms.
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider the likelihood, based on evidence provided in the application and other evidence, that the State or local government in collaboration with the intermediary and the service providers will achieve the specified outcomes.
The Panel will assess Applicants' compliance with the statutory requirement to provide evidence demonstrating that the intervention can be expected to produce the estimated changes in the chosen outcomes.
Panels will also assess the extent to which the theory of change and the logic model accurately represent the causal steps necessary to understand how the intervention will cause the change in outcomes in the participants.
Each intervention must clearly detail the activities the program will take to improve the lives of its target population. The Panel will review the Applicant's identified target population, outcome goals, proposed intervention(s), and description of the unmet need in the area where the intervention will be delivered or among the target population that will receive the intervention.
The Panel will review the criteria used to determine the eligibility of an individual for the project, including how the target population will be identified, how individuals will be referred to the project, and how they will be enrolled in it.
The Panel will assess the Applicant's project budget.
The Panel will assess the assigned responsibilities and the qualifications of the partners. This will include an assessment of the Applicant's description of the roles and responsibilities of each entity involved in the project, including, to the extent applicable, any State or local government entity, intermediary, service
To the extent the Applicant intends to use investors and has not already identified and received commitments from them, the Panel will consider the experience of the State or local government, intermediary, or service provider in raising private and philanthropic capital to fund social service investments. While securing complete funding is not required at the time of application submission or when the period of performance begins, the Applicant must be able to provide a detailed overview of how and when it anticipates obtaining the investments needed to operate the program.
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider the expected quality of the evaluation of the proposed intervention that the independent evaluator will conduct. The Panel will assess the project's evaluation design, including the rigor and strength of the design, its capacity to determine that the outcomes were achieved as a result of the intervention, the feasibility of implementing the evaluation, the quality and availability of the required data, and the Applicant's explanation of how the metrics used in the evaluation are independent, objective indicators of impact. The Panel will also determine whether randomization is feasible, and if not, the Panel will assess whether the reason provided by the Applicant is sufficient to allow an alternative evaluation. This assessment will be provided to the Interagency Council, which will make the final determination as to whether an evaluation method other than randomization is allowable.
Panels will review the independence of the evaluator from the other entities involved in the project and the evaluator's experience in conducting rigorous evaluations of project effectiveness. Types of experience that will be reviewed include experience with the chosen evaluation design method as applied to the intervention or similar interventions and the datasets the project expects to use, as well as experience conducting implementation and causal impact analyses, managing similar evaluation protocols, and dealing with unforeseen data or implementation issues in other program evaluations. The qualifications of the individuals designing and overseeing the evaluation and ensuring its quality, including their education or training and type and years of experience, will also be considered.
If the Applicant does not provide a letter of intent from an evaluator at the time of submission, the Applicant can detail the criteria to be used to select the evaluator through a procurement process. The criteria used to select the evaluator must be aligned with the information requested of the evaluator noted above.
Panels will assess whether the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that it has access to the correct data to assess the causal result of the intervention. The SIPPRA statute requires that the Interagency Council certify that the independent evaluator has access to federal administrative data to conduct the independent evaluation.
The SIPPRA statute requires Treasury to consider “the capacity and commitment of the State or local government to sustain the intervention, if appropriate and timely, and if the intervention is successful, beyond the period of the social impact partnership.”
The following is the review process for determining the award recipients. During the review process and risk assessment evaluation, Treasury may ask the Applicant to provide confirming or clarifying information. A request for confirmation or clarification does not guarantee an award. If the Applicant does not respond by the deadline to a request for information, Treasury may remove its application from consideration. Upon request, Treasury expects to provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants after grant awards have been announced.
In the first review phase, Treasury will review all applications to determine eligibility and completeness, which will consist of a technical review to determine whether the applicant is a State or local government; whether the proposed project can qualify as a pay for results project; whether the proposed project qualifies as an eligible project as set forth in Section 2, Eligibility; and whether each of the application content requirements set forth in Section 5, Submission Requirements and Deadlines has been satisfied. Prospective applicants are encouraged to consult the SIPPRA FAQs on Treasury's SIPPRA website page to help them determine if their proposed project is suitable under the pay for results model.
Treasury will assign complete applications submitted by eligible applicants to a panel of subject matter experts who will be selected based on their knowledge of the social benefits or
The Panel will review the applications based on the criteria laid out in Section 6, Application Review Information.
Following the Panel review, Treasury will review application scores for consistency among subject matter experts on each Panel and across Panels and rank the applications. After this review, the reviewer scores will be averaged to create a ranking that will be provided to the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships.
SIPPRA statute establishes the Commission on Social Impact Partnerships (“the Commission”) whose principal obligation is to make recommendations to Treasury regarding the funding of SIPPRA program projects and feasibility studies. The nine-member advisory commission established by the Act consists of a non-federal Chair appointed by the President and eight non-federal members chosen by congressional leaders based on expertise laid out in SIPPRA statute.
The Act establishes the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (“the Interagency Council”). This eleven-member body is chaired by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and its other members are representatives from the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Treasury; the Social Security Administration; and the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Interagency Council's responsibilities include certifying Federal savings, providing subject-matter expertise, and advising the Secretary of the Treasury.
By statute,
• The evaluation design uses experimental designs using random assignment or other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when random assignment is not feasible.
• The State or local government and its evaluator has access to federal administrative data.
• The application contains rigorous, independent data and reliable, evidence-based research methodologies to support the conclusion that the project will yield savings to the State or local government or the federal government if the project outcomes are achieved.
• For proposed projects that expect to provide savings to the federal government, the project will yield a projected savings to the federal government if the project outcomes are achieved.
Treasury, after consultation with the Interagency Council, will make a final determination regarding which projects to select. Treasury may also take into account considerations set out in Section 4 of Executive Order 14332, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.” Treasury may also give particular consideration to applications that propose workforce development projects, consistent with SIPPRA's emphasis on workforce outcomes.
As required by 2 CFR.200.206, Treasury will review the risks posed by the applicants. Treasury will consider any information about an applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000) over the period of performance.
Further, as required by Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, or affirm that there is no new information to provide.
Before a grant is awarded, Treasury or the relevant federal agency may enter into negotiations with the applicant regarding program components, staffing and funding levels, and/or administrative systems in place to support grant implementation. If the negotiations do not result in a mutually acceptable submission, Treasury or the relevant federal agency may terminate the negotiations and decline to fund the award.
Treasury expects to announce the results of this competition by FY XX (to be determined). Any notice of selection prior to a Notice of Award (NoA) is not an authorization to begin performance. Treasury will provide successful applicants with a NoA that will set forth the amount of the award, the amount for the independent evaluation, and other pertinent information. The NoA is the official document issued to obligate funds and notify an applicant that an award has been made. The NoA will also include standard Terms and Conditions and any Special Award Conditions related to participation in the SIPPRA program. A copy will also be sent to the electronic mail address listed on the SF-424. After Treasury issues a NoA, Treasury or the relevant federal agency will provide the Awardee a time period to finalize pertinent documents before starting the project.
Note that any communication between Treasury, the relevant federal agency, and applicants prior to the issuance of the NoA and prior to the execution of any award agreement is not authorization to begin performance on the project.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified of their status by electronic mail to the applicant listed on the SF-424 as soon as practicable. Unsuccessful
Applicants selected for awards must agree to comply with additional applicable legal requirements upon acceptance of an award. All grants are subject to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) regulatory requirements for grants, as codified in the Uniform Guidance.
Awards under this NOFO are subject to federal laws, regulations, and policies concerning grants. Below is a non-exhaustive list of requirements with which the applicant will need to comply:
1. Lobbying Restrictions at 31 CFR part 21.
2. Government-wide Debarment and Suspension Requirements at 31 CFR part 19.
3. Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace at 31 CFR part 20.
4. Award Term for Trafficking in Persons at 2 CFR part 175.
5. Environmental Requirements.
Treasury approval of financial assistance is subject to compliance with applicable federal and State environmental requirements. As discussed under Section 4.A.g(8), Legal Compliance, the Applicant must identify the State and federal environmental laws, regulations, and policies that may apply to the project and the environmental documents that may be required under State and federal laws. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), project applications will be evaluated in accordance with Treasury's NEPA procedures. Grantees whose projects do not fall within Treasury's categorical exclusions will be required to assist Treasury in conducting an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement for the project, as applicable.
All grantees, partners, and sub-recipients, if applicable, must comply with applicable non-discrimination statutes and regulations. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-2000d7), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color of national origin, and Treasury's implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 22; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and Treasury's implementing regulation 31 CFR part 28; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; (d) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1400
In implementing non-discrimination statutes and regulations, recipients must take into account applicable federal guidance, including the Department of Justice Memorandum of July 29, 2025, “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.” This funding opportunity is subject to Executive Orders regarding anti-discrimination and federal rulemaking, to the extent applicable to the SIPPRA program, including Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” and Executive Order 14332 “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.”
Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended by § 6202 of Pub. L. 110-252) (Transparency Act). All Applicants, except for those excepted from the Transparency Act, must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the sub-award and executive total compensation reporting requirements of the Transparency Act, should they receive funding. Upon award, Applicants will receive detailed information on the reporting requirements of the Transparency Act, as described in 2 CFR part 170, Appendix A. No sub-award of an award made under this NOFO may be made to a sub-recipient that is subject to the terms of the Transparency Act unless that potential sub-recipient acquires and provides a Unique Entity Identifier.
By accepting a project award under this NOFO, the Awardee agrees to make available to Treasury, the Comptroller General, agency Inspectors General, the administering agency, or any of their authorized representatives, all data and documents that might be needed, including contracts and agreements, regardless of whether outcomes are achieved and payment is received, in the Awardee's possession or available to the grantee. Awardees must also agree to provide timely and reasonable access to program operating personnel, project partners, and participants. This evaluation may make use of program management information system data, local administrative data, financial data, and program progress reports. It is critical that Awardees keep this information up to date and accurate for performance measurement, evaluation, and auditing purposes. Awardees may be required to: (1) provide access to pertinent documents; (2) host site visits; (3) facilitate interviews with grantee staff, partners and the independent evaluator; (4) attend grantee meetings; and (5) provide additional data. By accepting a project award under this NOFO, the Awardee also agrees to participate in a national cross-site evaluation in the event that the federal government conducts one.
Intellectual property rights relating to the activities of the Awardee and all partners in the project, including the evaluator, intermediary, and service provider(s), are subject to 2 CFR 200.315.
Applicants must follow federal guidelines on record retention, which require Awardees to maintain all records pertaining to grant activities for a period of not less than three years from the time of final grant close-out.
Awardees must comply with existing laws and regulations governing the subject area of the project and the relevant federal agency administering the project.
Awardees must agree to meet the reporting requirements as listed below or as otherwise specified in the award agreement. Administrative reports must be submitted electronically to Treasury or to the relevant federal agency, as specified in the award agreement.
Treasury or the relevant federal agency will require programmatic progress reports twice a year. A performance report form must be submitted within 30 days of June 30 and December 31 each year of the project. A final performance report is due 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date. Each report must summarize project activities, including the current stage of program implementation; progress towards achieving the outcome goals, including number of people served; significant milestones of the Awardee, intermediary, investors, if any, and evaluator; and related results of the project. It must thoroughly document the partnership activities and decision-making structure used to implement the pay for results model. These reports may be made publicly available. Upon award, Treasury or the administering federal agency will provide detailed formal guidance about the data and other information that is required to be collected and reported on either a regular basis or special request basis.
Not later than two years after a project has been approved and annually thereafter, the independent evaluator must submit a written report to the head of Treasury or the relevant federal agency and the Interagency Council summarizing the progress that has been made in achieving each outcome specified in the award agreement. Data in evaluation progress reports and final reports will be made available to all federal agencies represented on the Interagency Council, and data content requirements will be specified in the agreement between the grantee and the head of the relevant federal agency.
When an Awardee's intervention has achieved one or more outcomes, pre-defined outcome target(s) have been met, and the grantee wishes to receive an outcome payment in accordance with the outcome payment structure originally proposed, the independent evaluator must submit a written report that includes the results of the evaluation conducted to determine whether an outcome payment must be made.
The report must explain the unique factors that contributed to achieving or failing to achieve the outcome in the context of the intervention. This must include, but is not limited to, any major change in policy or law that may have affected the project intervention, and the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the outcome. The report may also include information learned during the evaluation, including how to improve future service delivery or implementation.
The report must assess the degree to which the project was delivered as intended, including a discussion of how closely the project's theory and procedures aligned with actual project implementation. The report must include information related to the intervention model, including whether it has evolved and whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity to the plan. The report must detail how staffing, recruitment/identification and screening of participants, selection, and enrollment were different from what was expected at the outset.
The progress report must include an assessment by the independent evaluator of the value to the federal government as discussed and defined in Section 3.B, Outcome Valuation Methodology.
Treasury will submit these reports to the Interagency Council and to each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and Senate within 30 days of receipt.
Within six months of project completion, and no later than March 2033, the independent evaluator must submit a final report to the head of the relevant federal agency managing the award. The report must assess the effects of the intervention and include a discussion of the findings and implications, as well as a definitive statement about whether the predetermined outcomes have been met and whether the State or local government has fulfilled each obligation of the agreement. This must include information on the unique factors that contributed to the achievement or failure to achieve outcomes, including but not limited to any major change in policy or law that may have affected the project intervention, a description of the research methods (
The report must also assess whether, and the degree to which, the project was delivered as intended. This must include a discussion of how closely the project's theory and intended procedures aligned with actual project implementation. This portion of the report must include information related to the intervention model, including whether it has evolved and whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity; staffing; recruitment/identification and screening of participants; selection and enrollment; and how the intervention was implemented. The report must also discuss information regarding the improved future delivery of this or similar interventions.
The report must also detail how the unique characteristics of the pay-for-results model assisted or hindered the implementation of the project. Potential questions include what the evaluators are learning about the feasibility/viability of the pay-for-results approach; whether the financing/managerial structure is incentivizing the right partners in the right ways; and challenges in implementing the pay-for-results model in areas such as project management, partner communication, dispute resolution, investor relations, and overseeing service provision.
The independent evaluator's final report for a project must include an assessment of the value to the federal government as discussed and defined in Section 3.B, Outcome Valuation Methodology. In calculating the value to the federal government of the completed outcome(s), the independent evaluator may only take into consideration the value from the outcome valuation.
Treasury will submit this report to the Interagency Council and to each committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and Senate within 30 days of receipt. This report will be made publicly available.
Treasury anticipates that applicants may have projects affecting individuals who receive managed care services from Medicaid or CHIP. To ensure that the calculations of benefits from reduced health care spending in these contexts properly demonstrate that those benefits accrue to the federal government or other public payers rather than to managed care organizations, applicants proposing projects that include a managed health care component must include a section in their application entitled “Managed Health Care Information.” This section must include, at a minimum, answers to the following questions, as applicable:
• To what degree will participants in the intervention be covered by comprehensive, risk-based managed care during the period of the demonstration?
• For intervention participants covered by a managed care organization, how would savings accrue to the federal government rather than the entity taking on risk?
• What services, if any, will be carved out of managed care for this population?
• If multiple capitation rates are used, which rate cells (by eligibility group or other category) will be used for the SIPPRA program project participants?
• With what frequency will capitation rates for the population covered by comprehensive, risk-based managed care be redetermined during the period of the SIPPRA program project?
• How would this intervention lead to reduced capitation rates?
• While the level of impact cost and utilization data will have on a capitation rate will vary, if the anticipated intervention effect is small and/or the population impacted by the intervention makes up a relatively small proportion of the rate cell (or grouping of Medicaid beneficiaries with similar characteristics for the purposes of determining a capitation rate), it may be unlikely that the effect will be large enough to change the capitation rate, even if the cost and utilization reductions occur. Is the impact of the intervention effect (or impacted population size) meaningful relative to size of the managed care program?
• For the population covered by managed care, what proportion of individuals covered under the relevant rate cell(s) are participants in the intervention?
• Is the proportion sufficient to trigger changes in the capitation rate under current procedures? If not, please be specific about how you will work with the State Medicaid Agency to ensure cost and utilization changes among this population due to the intervention are captured and incorporated into adjustments to the capitation rate.
• Please clarify if you will have access to robust historical (
• Please note that lags in realization of governmental savings in managed care contexts, relative to those in Fee for Service contexts, will not preclude consideration so long as the savings are realized within the ten-year time period and the BIA procedures discussed above are followed.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reestablishment of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI).
The Treasury Department has determined that it is in the public interest to reestablish the FACI. A Charter for the FACI has been prepared and will be filed with Congress no earlier than seven (7) days following the date of publication of this notice.
John Gudgel, Senior Regulatory Insurance Policy Analyst, Department of Treasury, (703) 362-2684.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Department of the Treasury (Department) intends to reestablish the FACI. Following the issuance of Executive Order 14217 “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy” on February 19, 2025, Treasury leadership conducted a review of all the Department's federal advisory committees and determined that it was in the public interest for the FACI to be reestablished following the lapse of its previous charter.
The FACI's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) regarding FIO's duties and authorities, which include monitoring all aspects of the insurance industry, identifying issues or gaps in regulation of insurers that could contribute to crisis in the insurance industry or U.S. financial system, and consulting with states regarding insurance matters of national importance. The FACI allows FIO to receive timely information and benefit from the knowledge and regulatory experience of state insurance regulators and state legislators, as well as the experience and perspective of industry and academic experts. The advice and recommendations may cover specific or general insurance topics, processes, studies and/or reports. FIO's duties and authorities are set out in Subpart A of the Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010 (31 U.S.C. 313
The FACI shall be a continuing advisory committee with an initial two-year term, subject to two-year reauthorizations at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Going forward, the FACI would serve as a unique forum allowing direct feedback from insurers, reinsurers, brokers, private equity firms, state insurance regulators, consumer advocates, and other insurance sector stakeholders on a range of topics.
The duties of the FACI shall be solely advisory and shall extend only to the submission of advice and recommendations to FIO, which shall be non-binding. No determination of fact or policy shall be made by the FACI.
The body of the FACI shall consist of up to 25 members. The Department shall assure that the FACI reflects balanced membership and includes a cross-section of members representative of the views of state and non-government persons having an interest in the duties and authorities of FIO, such as: (1) state and tribal insurance regulators, legislators, and/or other officials, (2) insurance industry experts such as insurers, reinsurers, and brokers, and (3) consumer advocates, academics, and/or experts in the issues facing insurance consumers, including underserved insurance communities and consumers.
The FACI shall meet at such intervals as are necessary to carry out its duties. It is estimated that the FACI will generally meet four times per year, virtually or in person. Generally, FACI meetings are open to the public. Nominations for membership will be solicited in a subsequent notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; proposed letter of authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) for Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and an associated Letter of Authorization (LOA) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The requested regulations would govern the authorization of take of marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities using Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar systems in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian oceans over the course of 7 years from August 2026 through August 2033. NMFS requests comments on this proposed rule. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the promulgation of the requested ITR and issuance of the LOA; agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the final rule, if issued. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) and the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA).
Comments and information must be received no later than April 9, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at:
•
•
•
A copy of the Navy's Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
This proposed rule, if promulgated, would provide a framework under the authority of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (collectively referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362). The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section discusses the definition of “negligible impact.”
The 2004 NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to remove the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” provisions (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(F)) and amended the definition of “harassment” in section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA as applied to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows: (1) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (2) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment) (16 U.S.C.
The major provisions of this proposed rule are as follows:
• The proposed authorization of take of marine mammals by Level A harassment and Level B harassment;
• The proposed use of visual, passive acoustic, and active acoustic monitoring mitigation;
• The proposed implementation of geographic activity limitations including within 22 kilometers (km) (12 nautical miles (nmi)) of any emergent land and in certain offshore areas and times that are biologically important (
• The proposed implementation of a Notification and Reporting Plan (for dead, live stranded, or marine mammals struck by any vessel engaged in military readiness activities); and
• The proposed implementation of a robust monitoring plan to improve our understanding of the environmental effects resulting from the Navy's training and testing activities.
This proposed rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation, monitoring, and/or reporting measures based on new information, when appropriate.
On April 6, 2025, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to training and testing activities (characterized as military readiness activities) using SURTASS LFA sonar in the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean. The Navy is requesting one 7-year LOA for training and testing activities. In response to our comments and following an information exchange, the Navy submitted a revised application, deemed adequate and complete on July 1, 2025. The Navy's request is for take of 44 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and a subset of those species by Level A harassment (9 species). On July 11, 2025, we published a notice of receipt (NOR) of application in the
NMFS has previously promulgated ITRs pursuant to the MMPA relating to similar military readiness activities using SURTASS LFA sonar. NMFS published the first rule effective August 15, 2002 through August 15, 2007 (67 FR 46712, July 16, 2002), the second rule effective from August 16, 2007 through August 15, 2012 (72 FR 46846, August 21, 2007), the third rule effective from August 15, 2012 through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012), and the fourth rule effective from August 12, 2019 through August 11, 2026 (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019). Of note, on August 10, 2017, the Secretary of Defense,
The Navy's application reflects the most up-to-date compilation of training and testing activities deemed necessary to accomplish military readiness requirements. The types and numbers of activities included in the proposed rule account for interannual variability in training and testing to meet evolving or emergent military readiness requirements. In this proposed rule, we have undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of all SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities on marine mammals likely to be present within the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean in the area described below.
The Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting military readiness activities. The Navy has determined that acoustic stressors are likely to result in take of marine mammals in the form of Level A and Level B harassment. Descriptions of these activities are provided in the Navy's application (
The Navy's statutory mission is to organize, train, equip, and maintain combat-ready naval forces for the peacetime promotion of the national security interests and prosperity of the United States, including deterring maritime aggression and maintaining freedom of navigation in ocean areas. This mission is mandated by Federal law (10 U.S.C. 8062), which requires the readiness of the naval forces of the United States. Due to the advancements and use of quieting technologies in diesel-electric and nuclear submarines, undersea submarine threats have become increasingly difficult to locate solely using passive acoustic technologies. At the same time, the distance at which submarine threats can be detected has been decreasing due to these quieting technologies, and improvements in torpedo and missile design have extended the effective range of these weapons. To meet the requirement for improved capability to detect quieter and harder-to-find foreign submarines at greater distances, the Navy developed and uses SURTASS LFA sonar.
The specified activities would occur at any time during the 7-year period of validity of the regulations, from August 12, 2026 through August 11, 2033. The
The Pacific SURTASS LFA Sonar Study Area includes the western and central North Pacific Ocean and Eastern Indian Ocean, not including the Western Indian Ocean or Sea of Okhotsk (figure 1). Please refer to figure 2-1 of the application for a color map of the Study Area. The Study Area remains unchanged from the previous rulemaking (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019) (see also the 2019 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2019)).
Importantly and as described in greater detail in the Proposed Mitigation section, in areas within 22 km from any emergent land (coastal standoff range (CSR)) and in areas outside of the CSR identified as offshore biologically important areas (OBIAs), SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing would be conducted such that received levels of LFA sonar are below 180 decibels referenced to 1 microPascal (dB re 1 μPa) root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL). This restriction would be observed year-round for the CSR and during known periods of biological importance for OBIAs.
The Navy proposes to use 1,100 hours of SURTASS LFA sonar per year. The analysis for the current SURTASS LFA incidental take regulations (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019) analyzed the use of 592 hours. The change from 592 to 1,100 hours does not reflect new or additional training requirements. Instead, it is the result of a change in how the Navy counts an “hour” of transmission. Previously, SURTASS LFA sonar hours were calculated by adding the portions of time a sonar emits sound during its duty cycle (ratio of time the signal is on compared to off), whereas other Navy sonar systems, such as mid-frequency and high-frequency active sonar (MFAS and HFAS, respectively), report hours based on “duration” time (total time the source is active, including silent periods between pings). To bring SURTASS LFA sonar in line with these other systems, the Navy
• Training (
• Maintenance and upgrade (
• Exercises (
Compared to the 2019 final rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), the geographic bounds of the Study Area and geographic mitigations remain the same, as do the operating characteristics of SURTASS LFA sonar system, which remains the only stressor with the potential to cause take during SURTASS training and testing activities. Although the sonar hours are calculated differently between the 2019 final rule and current proposed rulemaking (592 hours and 1,100 hours, respectively), the active sonar duration remains the same as analyzed for the 2019 rule. All of the acoustic thresholds and take calculation methods used here are referred to as “Phase IV” and described in the technical report “Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase 4)” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025) (hereafter referred to as the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report) mirroring those used in analyses supporting the Phase IV AFTT (90 FR 50504, November 7, 2025) and HCTT (90 FR 58810, December 17, 2025) training and testing regulations. Alternatively, in the previous SURTASS LFA sonar rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), Phase III thresholds were used for acoustic injury prediction, a SURTASS-specific threshold was used to predict behavioral disturbance, and different SURTASS-specific methods and modeling were used in the calculation of take. This proposed rulemaking proposes to authorize take of marine mammals by Level A harassment that was not previously requested or authorized in the 2019 final rule. This change is due to updated marine mammal hearing thresholds, the criteria for estimating impacts to marine mammals, and the Navy's reliance on their Navy Acoustics Effects Model (NAEMO) rather than the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM), which was used to model and quantify estimated take for the 2019 rulemaking. These changes are described in the
The Navy describes and analyzes the effects of their activities within the application and provides additional details in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS. In their assessment, the Navy concluded that the transmission of acoustic signals was the only stressor likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that qualify as harassment as defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the Navy's application provides their assessment of potential effects from this stressor.
Sonar is an acronym for “sound navigation and ranging” and its definition includes any system that uses underwater sound or acoustics for observations and communications. The two basic types of sonar used in the SURTASS LFA sonar system are passive sonar and active sonar. Passive sonar detects sound created by a source. This is a one-way transmission of sound waves through water from the source to the receiver. Very simply, passive sonar “listens” without transmitting any sound signals. Active sonar is the transmission of sound energy for the purpose of sensing the environment by interpreting features of received signals. Active sonar detects objects by creating a sound pulse or “ping” that is transmitted from the sonar system through the water, reflects off a target object, and returns in the form of an echo to be detected by a receiver. Active sonar is a two-way transmission of sound waves through water (sound source to reflector to receiver).
SURTASS LFA sonar is a system with three components: low-frequency (less than 1,000 hertz (Hz)) active sonar system, passive sonar system, and active high-frequency/marine mammal monitoring (HF/M3) sonar (see figure 1-1 of the application). The passive component is the SURTASS receiver array while the active component includes the LFA sonar source array and HF/M3 sonar.
Although SURTASS LFA sonar vessels usually operate independently from one another, SURTASS LFA sonar vessels may operate in conjunction with other naval air, surface, or submarine assets as part of naval exercises. SURTASS LFA sonar vessels generally travel in straight lines or racetrack patterns depending on the scenario. When the SURTASS or LFA sonar arrays are deployed, a SURTASS LFA sonar vessel must maintain a speed of at least 5.6 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (3 knots), with a typical speed of 7.4 km/hr. When not towing the SURTASS or LFA sonar arrays, Tactical-Auxiliary General Ocean Surveillance (T-AGOS) vessels travel at maximum speeds of approximately 22.2 km/hr. Movements of SURTASS LFA sonar vessels are not unusual or extraordinary and are in line with routine operations of seagoing vessels.
LFA sonar is employed when active sound signals are needed to detect and track underwater targets of interest. LFA sonar complements SURTASS passive activities by actively acquiring and tracking submarines when they are in quiet operating modes, measuring accurate target range, and re-acquiring lost contacts. LFA sonar consists of a vertical source array of sound-producing elements that are suspended by cable under one of the T-AGOS vessels. These elements, called projectors, are devices that produce the active sonar sound pulses or pings. To produce a ping, the projectors transform electrical energy into mechanical energy (
The LFA sonar source is a vertical line array consisting of up to 18 projectors. Each LFA projector transmits sonar beams that are omnidirectional (360 degrees) in the horizontal, with a narrow vertical beamwidth that can be steered above or below the horizontal. The operating features of the LFA sonar are as follows:
• The source level (SL) of an individual projector on the LFA sonar array is approximately 215 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL or less;
• For the array SL, the effective SL of the system design was used; effective SL is a theoretical value, hypothetically measured at 1 meter (m) from the array on its horizontal axis, calculated from the formula: SEL + 20 Log10(N), where sound exposure level (SEL) = SL of an individual projector and N = number of projectors;
• The source frequency ranges from 100 to 500 Hz;
• The typical LFA sonar signal is not a constant tone but consists of various waveforms that vary in frequency and duration. A complete sequence of sound transmissions (waveforms) is referred to
• The maximum duty cycle (ratio of sound “on” time to total time) is 20 percent. The typical duty cycle, based on historical SURTASS LFA sonar operational parameters (from 2003 to 2017), is 7.5-10 percent; and
• The time between wavetrain transmissions typically ranges from 6 to 15 minutes.
In addition to the LFA sonar system currently deployed on the T-AGOS vessel United States Naval Ship (USNS) IMPECCABLE, the Navy developed a compact LFA (CLFA) sonar system, which is now deployed on its three smaller T-AGOS vessels (USNS ABLE, USNS EFFECTIVE, and USNS VICTORIOUS). The operational characteristics of the active component for the CLFA sonar system are comparable to the LFA sonar system and the potential impacts from the CLFA sonar system will be similar to the effects from the LFA sonar system. The CLFA sonar system consists of smaller projectors that weigh 64,410 kilograms (kg), which is 82,554 kg less than the weight of the LFA projectors on the USNS IMPECCABLE. The CLFA sonar system also consists of up to 18 projectors suspended beneath the surveillance vessel in a vertical line array, and the CLFA sonar system projectors transmit in the low-frequency band (also between 100 and 500 Hz) with the same duty cycle as described for LFA sonar. Similar to the active component of the LFA sonar system, the source level of an individual projector in the CLFA sonar array is approximately 215 dB re 1 μPa or less.
For the analysis in this rulemaking, NMFS will use the term LFA to refer to both the LFA sonar system and/or the CLFA sonar system, unless otherwise specified.
SURTASS is the passive, or listening, component of the system that detects returning sounds from submerged objects, such as threat submarines, through the use of hydrophones. Hydrophones transform mechanical energy (
The HF/M3 sonar is a Navy-developed, enhanced high-frequency (HF) commercial sonar used as a mitigation and monitoring asset to detect, locate, and track marine mammals that may pass close enough to the SURTASS LFA sonar's transmit array to enter the LFA mitigation zone (1.8 km (2,000 yards)). This intermittent source has a low-duty cycle and would operate at a SL of 220 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m RMS SPL and source frequencies between 30 and 40 kHz, with maximum pulse length of 40 milliseconds and a variable duty cycle that is nominally 3-4 percent.
The Navy currently deploys SURTASS LFA sonar on four T-AGOS vessels that are 72-86 m in length, with twin-shafted diesel electric engines capable of providing 3,200-5,000 horsepower. T-AGOS vessels have a catamaran-type split-hull shape and an enclosed propeller system, and the bridge of T-AGOS vessels are positioned forward of the centerline, offering good visibility ahead of the bow and good visibility aft to visually monitor for marine mammals. Each vessel has an observation area on the bridge that is more than 9.1 m above sea level from where Lookouts will monitor for marine mammals whenever SURTASS LFA sonar is transmitting.
NMFS considered the likelihood that vessel movement during military readiness activities could result in an incidental, but not intentional, strike of a marine mammal in the Study Area, which has the potential to result in serious injury or mortality. Vessel strikes are not specific to any specific military readiness activity but rather, a limited, sporadic, and incidental result of the Navy's vessel movement during military readiness activities within the Study Area. Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and military vessels are known to seriously injure and occasionally kill cetaceans (Abramson
Here, the limited number of Navy vessels operating within the Study Area, the design and operation of the T-AGOS vessels, the monitoring and mitigation utilized, and the fact that no strikes of marine mammals from vessels conducting SURTASS training and testing have occurred in the past support the conclusion that Navy vessel strikes are not expected to result from the activities covered by this proposed rule. The number of vessels used in the Navy's SURTASS testing and training activities is minimal (especially as compared to the number of commercial ships transiting in the same areas on an annual basis), rendering the base probability of a vessel strike very low. The design of the T-AGOS vessels further reduces the risk of a vessel strike, with the catamaran-type split hull shape and enclosed propeller system, a propeller system design that has been suggested as effectively reducing sharp force injuries to marine species, particularly when combined with reduced speeds (
Surface ships operated by the Navy have multiple personnel assigned to stand watch at all times when moving through the water (underway). A primary duty of personnel standing watch on surface ships is to detect and report all objects and disturbances
Further, the use of HF/M3 sonar to monitor for marine mammals in tandem with Lookouts would support detection of cetaceans well in advance of any potential vessel strike during SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities. Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation Measures section, Proposed Monitoring section, and Proposed Reporting section).
Due to the reasons described above (
For training and testing to be effective, Navy personnel must be able to safely use their sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices to their optimum capabilities and as intended for use in missions and combat operations. The Navy has developed standard operating procedures through decades of experience to provide for safety and mission success. Because they are essential to safety and mission success, standard operating procedures are part of the proposed activities and are considered in the environmental analysis for applicable resources (see chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS). While standard operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel and equipment and to ensure the success of training and testing activities, their implementation often yields additional benefits for environmental (
Because standard operating procedures are essential to safety and mission success, the Navy considers them to be part of the proposed activities and has included them in the environmental analysis. Standard operating procedures that are recognized as providing a potential secondary benefit on marine mammals that apply to SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities include those related to the following, described in more detail in section 2.1.2 of the application:
• Vessel safety; and
• Towed in-water device safety.
Standard operating procedures (which are implemented regardless of their secondary benefits) are different from mitigation measures (which are designed entirely for the purpose of avoiding or reducing impacts). Information on mitigation measures is provided in the
Marine mammal species and their associated stocks that have the potential to occur in the Study Area are presented in table 1 along with each stock's Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MMPA statuses, abundance estimate and associated coefficient of variation (CV) value, minimum abundance estimate, potential biological removal (PBR), annual M/SI, as applicable, and potential occurrence in the Study Area. The Navy requests authorization to take individuals of 44 species by Level B harassment and, for a subset of those species, Level A harassment (9 species), incidental to military readiness activities from the use of SURTASS LFA sonar in the Study Area. Of note, based on improvements to the Navy's density research since the 2019 SURTASS LFA Final Rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019), seven more species were modeled for this proposed rulemaking than the 2019 rulemaking. Of those seven, the Navy's application includes estimated take of four species from the proposed activity that were not included in the 2019 final rule: (1) bearded seal; (2) ringed seal; (3) harbor seal; and (4) Steller sea lion. Multiple stocks of some species are affected, and independent assessments are conducted to make the necessary findings and determinations for each of these.
There are 34 stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area, of which 11 are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The remaining species in the Central and Western Pacific (CWP) and Eastern Indian Oceans (EIO) have no stock designation (NSD) under the MMPA.
Sections 3 and 4 and appendix A (Marine Mammal Species Supplemental Information) of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) (
The species carried forward for analysis (and described in table 1) are those likely to be found in the Study Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have not been sighted in recent years (
The North Pacific right whale (NPRW) is one of the rarest marine mammals worldwide. Their historical range spanned the entire North Pacific Ocean from approximately 35 degrees north, with feeding grounds in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Okhotsk Sea, and northwestern North Pacific, the latter of which overlaps a portion of the Study Area. Two transboundary stocks of NPRW are currently recognized: a Western North Pacific stock feeding primarily in the Sea of Okhotsk and an Eastern North Pacific (ENP) stock feeding primarily in the southeastern Bering Sea (Rosenbaum
Bowhead whales (
Beluga whales (
The distribution of shallow-water porpoise species, such as the Indo-Pacific finless porpoise (
Freshwater dolphin species, such as the Ganges River dolphin (
Inshore and coastal delphinid species, such as the Irrawaddy dolphin (
Two species of marine mammal, sea otters (
NMFS standardly considers additional information about the marine mammals in the area of the specified activities that informs our analysis, such as identifying known areas of important habitat or behaviors, or where unusual mortality events have been designated. For SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities, the Navy coordinated with NMFS to develop a comprehensive method for consideration of these types of important areas globally and specifically within the Study Area (for the purposes of identifying OBIAs, discussed further in the Offshore Biologically Important Areas for SURTASS LFA Sonar section). This method and these areas are summarized in the Proposed Mitigation Measures section and described in detail in appendix F of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS. Further, we note here that the OBIA identification criteria include consideration of the hearing sensitivity of the affected species, given the low frequency (100-500 Hz) of the LFA sonar signal, which most odontocetes and pinnipeds hear with significantly reduced sensitivity (9-65 dB lower, or more). Additional details regarding marine mammal hearing sensitivity are included in the
Below, we describe the critical habitat for the two species in the Study Area for which it has been designated under the ESA, as well two National Marine Sanctuaries that include marine mammal resources, although both critical habitat and Sanctuaries are considered through the referenced OBIA process. Further, we briefly describe biologically important areas (BIAs) for cetaceans identified and scored in Kratofil
Currently, the false killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS) and Hawaiian monk seal have ESA-designated critical habitat in the Study Area.
Critical habitat for the ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale DPS was finalized in July 2018 (83 FR 35062, July 24, 2018) designating waters from the 45 m depth contour to the 3,200 m depth contour around the main Hawaiian Islands from Niihau east to Hawaii. This designation does not include most bays, harbors, or coastal in-water structures. NMFS excluded 14 areas. The total area designated was approximately 45,504 square kilometers (km
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales are island-associated whales that rely entirely on the productive submerged habitat of the main Hawaiian Islands to support all of their life-history stages. Island-associated marine habitat for Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale is the only essential feature of the critical habitat. The following characteristics of this habitat support insular false killer whales' ability to travel, forage, communicate, and move freely around and among the waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands: (1) adequate space for movement and use within shelf and slope habitat; (2) prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; (3) waters free of pollutants of a type and amount harmful to Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales; and (4) sound levels that would not significantly impair false killer whales' use or occupancy.
Critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals was designated in 1986 (51 FR 16047, April 30, 1986) and later revised in 1988 (53 FR 18988, May 26, 1988) and in 2015 (80 FR 50925, August 21, 2015). In the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat includes all beach areas, sand spits and islets, including all beach crest vegetation to its deepest extent inland as well as the seafloor and marine habitat 10 m in height above the seafloor from the shoreline out to the 200 m depth contour around Kure Atoll (Hōlanikū), Midway Atoll (Kuaihelani), Pearl and Hermes Reef (Manawai), Lisianski Island (Kapou), Laysan Island (Kamole), Maro Reef (Kamokuokamohoali'i), Gardner Pinnacles ('Ōnūnui), French Frigate Shoals (Lalo), Necker Island (Mokumanamana) and Nihoa Island. In the main Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat includes the seafloor and marine habitat to 10 m above the seafloor from the 200 m depth contour through the shoreline and extending into terrestrial habitat 5 m inland from the shoreline between identified boundary points around Kaula Island (includes marine habitat only), Ni'ihau (includes marine habitat from 10 to 200 m in depth), Kaua'i, Ōahu, Maui Nui (including Kaho'olawe, Lāna'i, Maui, and Moloka'i), and Hawaii Island. Critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal overlaps the Study Area.
The essential features of Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat are: (1) terrestrial areas and adjacent shallow, sheltered aquatic areas with characteristics preferred by monk seals for pupping and nursing; (2) marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate prey quality and quantity for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging; and (3) significant areas used by monk seals for hauling out, resting or molting.
Ferguson
Kratofil
The Study Area overlaps BIAs in Hawaii for small and resident populations of the following species: spinner dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, rough-toothed dolphin, pygmy killer whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, melon-headed whale, false killer whale, dwarf sperm whale, goose-beaked whale, common bottlenose dolphin, and Blainville's beaked whale, and the updated BIAs for humpback whale reproduction (Kratofil
Under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)), NOAA has authority to establish as national marine sanctuaries (NMS) areas of the marine environment with special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Sanctuary regulations prohibit destroying, causing the loss of, or injuring any sanctuary resource managed under the law or regulations for that sanctuary (15 CFR part 922).
• Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS; and
• Papahānaumokuākea NMS.
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS is a single-species managed sanctuary, composed of 3,540 km
Papahānaumokuākea NMS, the largest NMS, consists of approximately 1,508,849 km
An unusual mortality event (UME) is defined under section 410(9) of the MMPA as a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response (16 U.S.C. 1421h(9)). There are no active UMEs in the Study Area.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
Of particular relevance to the assessment of the impacts of the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing are the auditory weighting functions shown in figure 2 and figure 3 (NMFS, 2024), which illustrate the significantly reduced sensitivity of most marine mammal taxa to frequencies in the 100-500 Hz range (
For more detail concerning these hearing groups and associated frequency ranges and weighting functions, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
Of note, the Navy adjusted the LF cetacean hearing group using data from recent hearing measurements in minke whales (Houser
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation Measures section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts on individuals are likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The Navy has requested authorization for the take of marine mammals that may occur incidental to training and testing activities in the Study Area. The Navy analyzed potential impacts to marine mammals from acoustic sources in the application. NMFS carefully reviewed the information provided by the Navy and concurs with their synthesis of science, along with independently reviewing applicable scientific research and literature and other information to evaluate the potential effects of the Navy's activities on marine mammals, which are presented in this section (see appendix D in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS for additional information).
Potential impacts to marine mammals from training and testing activities in the Study Area were analyzed in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, in consultation with NMFS as a cooperating agency, and stressors other than acoustic sources were determined to be unlikely to result in marine mammal take. Therefore, the Navy has not requested authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to other components of their proposed Specified Activities, and we agree that incidental take is unlikely to occur from those components. In this proposed rule, NMFS analyzes the potential effects on marine mammals from the activity components that may result in take of marine mammals: exposure to acoustic stressors (
For the purpose of MMPA ITAs, NMFS' effects assessments serve four primary purposes: (1) to determine whether the specified activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals (based on whether it is likely that the activities would adversely affect the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival); (2) to determine whether the specified activities would have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses; (3) to prescribe the permissible methods of taking (
In this section, NMFS provides a description of the ways marine mammals may generally be affected by acoustic stressors in the form of mortality, physical injury, sensory impairment (permanent and temporary threshold shifts and acoustic masking), physiological responses (particular stress responses), behavioral disturbance, or habitat effects. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section discusses how the potential effects on marine mammals from non-impulsive sources relate to the MMPA definitions of Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment and quantifies those effects that do not qualify as a take under the MMPA. The Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section assesses whether the proposed authorized take would have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks.
The marine soundscape is composed of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (American National Standards Institute, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources, which may include physical (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can possibly result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, other auditory injury, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson
Richardson
We also describe more severe potential effects (
Marine mammals have adapted hearing based on their biology and habitat. Amphibious marine mammals (
The hearing sensitivity of marine mammals is also directional, meaning the angle between an animal's position and the location of a sound source impacts the animal's hearing threshold, thereby impacting an animal's ability to perceive the sound emanating from that source. This directionality is likely useful for determining the general location of a sound, whether for detection of prey, predators, or members of the same species, and can be dependent upon the frequency of the sound (Accomando
An acoustic signal refers to the sound waves used to communicate underwater, and marine mammals use a variety of acoustic signals for socially important functions, such as communicating, as well as biologically important functions, such as echolocating (Richardson
Marine mammal species typically produce sounds at frequencies within their own hearing range, though auditory and vocal ranges do not perfectly align (
Marine mammals, like all mammals, lose their ability to hear over time due to age-related degeneration of auditory pathways and sensory cells of the inner ear. This natural, age-related hearing loss is distinct from acute noise-induced hearing loss (Møller, 2013). Noise-induced hearing loss can be temporary (
TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory threshold shift: (1) effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity; (2) modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells; (3) displacement of certain inner ear membranes; (4) increased blood flow; and (5) post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall
Generally, TTS increases with cumulative SEL in a non-linear fashion, where lower SEL exposures will elicit a steady rate of TTS increase while higher SEL exposures will either increase TTS more rapidly or plateau (Finneran, 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025). Additionally, with sound exposures of equal energy, those that had lower SPL with longer duration were found to induce TTS onset at lower levels than those of higher SPL and shorter duration. Less threshold shift will occur from intermittent sounds than from a continuous exposure with the same energy (some recovery can occur between intermittent exposures) (Kryter
Although TTS increases non-linearly in marine mammals, recovery from TTS typically occurs in a linear fashion with the logarithm of time (Finneran, 2015; Finneran
In some cases, associated with terrestrial mammal noise studies, intense noise exposures have caused AUD INJ (
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the inner ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear fluids (Southall
While many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
• The method used to test hearing may affect the resulting amount of measured TTS, with neurophysiological measures producing larger amounts of TTS compared to psychophysical measures (Finneran
• The amount of TTS varies with the hearing test frequency. As the exposure SPL increases, the frequency at which the maximum TTS occurs also increases (Kastelein
• The amount of TTS increases with exposure SPL and duration and is correlated with cumulative SEL, especially if the range of exposure durations is relatively small (Kastak
• Gradual increases of TTS over multiple exposures may not be directly observable with increasing exposure levels, before the onset of PTS (Reichmuth
• The amount of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of highest susceptibility, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of highest susceptibility (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS—defined as the exposure level necessary to produce 6 dB of TTS (
• TTS can accumulate across multiple intermittent exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same cumulative SEL (Finneran
• The amount of observed TTS tends to decrease with increasing time following the exposure; however, the relationship is not monotonic (
Nachtigall
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of AUD INJ on an animal could also range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious than TTS because it is a permanent condition (Reichmuth
As the amount of research on hearing sensitivity has grown, so, too, has the understanding that marine mammals may be able to self-mitigate or protect against noise-induced hearing loss. An animal may learn to reduce or suppress their hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound exposure, or if the duty cycle of the sound source is predictable, as has been demonstrated in some odontocete species (Finneran, 2018; Finneran
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific (Nowacek
Studies by DeRuiter
Ellison
Friedlaender
Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in, but is not
Baleen whales are hypothesized to react more strongly to LF sounds that overlap with their vocalization range. One series of behavioral response studies (BRSs) was undertaken in 1997-1998 pursuant to the Navy's Low-Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program (LFS SRP). The frequency bands of LF sonars used were between 100 and 500 Hz, with received levels between 115 and 150 dB re 1 μPa. Exposures occurred on fin whale and blue whale foraging grounds, on humpback whale breeding grounds, and along gray whale (
At this time, no other BRSs have used an LFA (less than 1 kHz) sound source, so the applicability of all BRSs discussed herein to determining potential behavioral responses to the specified activities is limited. Specifically, while there are several studies illustrating the responses of LF species to MF sources (which are still in or near the most sensitive part of their predicted hearing range), many of the studies discussed below relate to the responses of HF hearing specialists to MF sources, which are essentially sources with frequencies in or near the most sensitive area of the species hearing, whereas (as noted above), all but LF species have significantly reduced sensitivity (9-65 dB and above) in the range of SURTASS LFA sonar. However, these data can generally inform the analysis of marine mammal response to sonar.
Mysticetes responses to sonar and other duty-cycled tonal sounds are dependent upon the characteristics of the signal, behavioral state of the animal, sensitivity and previous experience of an individual, and other contextual factors including distance of the source, movement of the source, physical presence of vessels, time of year, and geographic location (Goldbogen
Similarly, while the rates of foraging lunges decrease in humpback whales due to sonar exposure, there was variability in the response across individuals, with one animal ceasing to forage completely and another animal starting to forage during the exposure (Sivle
Building on this work, Durbach
Odontocetes have varied, context-dependent behavioral responses to sonar and other transducers. Much of the research on odontocetes has been focused on understanding the impacts of sonar and other transducers on beaked whales because they were hypothesized to be more susceptible to behavioral disturbance after several strandings of beaked whales in which military MFAS was identified as a contributing factor (see
During a BRS in Southern California, a tagged Baird's beaked whale exposed to simulated MFA sonar within 3 km increased swim speed and modified its dive behavior (Stimpert
Long-term tagging work during the same BRS demonstrated that the longer duration dives considered a behavioral response by DeRuiter
During a BRS in Norway, northern bottlenose whales avoided a sonar sound source over a wide range of distances (0.8 to 28 km) and estimated avoidance thresholds ranging from received SPLs of 117 to 126 dB re 1 μPa. The behavioral response characteristics and avoidance thresholds were comparable to those previously observed in beaked whale studies; however, researchers did not observe an effect of distance on behavioral response and found that onset and intensity of behavioral response were better predicted by received SPL. There was one instance where an individual northern bottlenose whale approached the vessel, circled the sound source (source level was only 122 dB re 1 μPa), and resumed foraging after the exposure. Conversely, one northern bottlenose whale exposed to a sonar source was documented performing the longest and deepest dive on record for the species, and continued swimming away from the source for more than 7 hours (Miller
Research on Blainville's beaked whales at the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) range has shown that individuals move off-range during sonar use, only returning after the cessation of sonar transmission (Boyd
The probability of Blainville's beaked whale group vocal periods on the PMRF were modeled during periods of: (1) no naval activity; (2) naval activity without hull-mounted MFA sonar; and (3) naval activity with hull-mounted MFA sonar (Jacobson
Stanistreet
Goose-beaked whale behavioral responses (
Sea floor depths and quantity of light (
Harbor porpoise behavioral responses have been researched extensively using acoustic deterrent and acoustic harassment devices; however, BRSs using sonar are limited. Kastelein
Behavioral responses by odontocetes (other than beaked whales and harbor porpoises) to sonar and other transducers include horizontal avoidance, reduced breathing rates, changes in behavioral state, changes in dive behavior (Antunes
In controlled exposure experiments on captive odontocetes, Houser
While several opportunistic observations of odontocete (other than beaked whales and harbor porpoises) responses have been recorded during previous Navy activities and BRSs that employed sonar and sonar-like sources, it is difficult to definitively attribute responses of non-focal species to sonar exposure. Responses range from no response to potential highlight-impactful responses, such as the separation of a killer whale calf from its group (Miller
Pinniped behavioral response to sonar and other transducers is context-dependent (
Mysticetes have varied responses to vessel noise and presence, from having no response to approaching vessels to exhibiting an avoidance response by both horizontal (swimming away) and vertical (increased diving) movement (Baker
Mysticete behavioral responses to vessels may also be affected by vessel behavior (Di Clemente
Overall, mysticete responses to vessel noise and traffic are varied, and habituation or changes to vocalization are predominant long-term responses. When baleen whales do avoid vessels, they seem to do so by altering their swim and dive patterns to move away from the vessel. Although a lack of response in the presence of a vessel may minimize potential disturbance from passing vessels, it does increase the whales' vulnerability to vessel strike, which may be of greater concern for mysticetes than vessel noise.
Odontocete responses due to vessel noise are varied and context-dependent, and it is difficult to separate the impacts of vessel noise from the impacts of vessel presence. Vessel presence has been shown to interrupt feeding behavior in delphinids in some studies (Meissner
While most odontocetes have documented neutral responses to vessels, avoidance (Bejder
Information is limited on beaked whale responses to vessel noise, but Würsig
Porpoises and small delphinids are known to be sensitive to vessel noise, as well. It should be noted that fewer responses in populations of odontocetes regularly subjected to high levels of vessel traffic could be a sign of habituation, or a sign that the more sensitive individuals in the population have abandoned that area of higher human activity.
Lusseau and Bejder (2007) have reported some long-term consequences of vessel noise on odontocetes but, overall, there is little information on the long-term and cumulative impacts of vessel noise (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017; NMFS, 2007). Many researchers speculate that long-term impacts may occur on odontocete populations that experience repeated interruption of foraging behaviors (Stockin
Context and experience likely play a role in pinnipeds response to vessel noise, which vary from negative responses including increased vigilance and alerting to avoidance to reduced time spent doing biologically important activities (
Cape fur seals were also more responsive to vessel noise at sites with a large breeding colony than at sites with lower abundances of conspecifics (Martin
Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to produce, detect, recognize, interpret, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (
The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest (
Most research on auditory masking is focused on energetic masking, or the ability of the receiver (
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (
Richardson
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals, like SURTASS LFA sonar, may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Impacts on signal detection, measured by masked detection thresholds, are not the only important factors to address when considering the potential effects of masking. As marine mammals use sound to recognize conspecifics, prey, predators, or other biologically significant sources (Branstetter
As marine mammals use sound to recognize predators (Allen
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in the presence of natural or anthropogenic noise. Most masking studies in marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the same direction. The dominant background noise may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic source such as a vessel or industrial site. Directional hearing may significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving the effective signal-to-noise ratio (Erbe
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and, when present at large scales (
Masking can reduce the ranges over which marine mammals can detect biologically relevant sounds in the presence of high-duty cycle sources. Lower-duty cycle sonars have less of a masking effect as sonar tones occur over a relatively short duration, thus the listener can detect signals of interest during the quiet periods between cycles. The LFA sonar duty cycle averages 7.5-10 percent with a maximum of 20 percent; however, single pulses range from 6 to 100 seconds with an average of 60 seconds. Additionally, sonar tones occur over a relatively narrow bandwidth, which means the signal is unlikely to overlap more than a small portion of the vocalizations for most species. LFA sonar signals are limited to the 100-500 Hz range. For large mysticetes, the range of best hearing is estimated between 0.1 and 10 kHz, which overlaps with SURTASS LFA sonar sources. Additionally, many of their vocalizations are below 1 kHz, which overlaps with low-frequency sources. Any auditory impacts (TTS and AUD INJ) or masking may affect communication due to low-frequency sonars.
As noted previously in the
High-frequency (10-100 kHz) sonars, including the HF/M3 source (frequency range of 30-40 kHz), fall within the best hearing and vocalization ranges of most odontocetes; however, the HF/M3 source is an intermittent source with a low duty cycle, thus less likely to overlap both hearing and vocalizations, and high frequency sounds attenuate more rapidly in the water due to absorption than do lower frequency sounds, thus producing a smaller zone of potential masking than mid- and low-frequency sounds. While high-frequency sonar has the potential to mask marine mammal vocalizations under certain conditions, reduction in available communication space or ability to locate prey is unlikely because of the small zone of effect.
For other mysticetes, the range of best hearing and vocalizations is typically between 1 and 30 kHz, which overlaps with mid- and high-frequency sonar sources. Masking from high-frequency sonar sources would be less likely to affect communication for these mysticetes than impacts due to low-frequency sonars. Odontocetes that use echolocation to hunt may experience masking of the echoes needed to find their prey when foraging near low-frequency and mid-frequency sonar sources. Communication sounds could also be masked by these sources. This effect is likely to be temporary in offshore areas where these sources would operate. Odontocetes with very high frequency hearing, such as harbor porpoises, may experience masking of echolocation and communication calls from close-proximity very-high-frequency sources, but these effects are likely to be transient and temporary in the case of the HF/M3, given the small impact zone. Pinnipeds may also experience masking due to low- and mid-frequency sources because their communication calls range from approximately 0.1-30 kHz. Some species of pinnipeds communicate primarily in air and would not experience masking due to underwater sonar use. Any impacts from masking would generally be expected to occur within the same areas for which direct behavioral disturbance from the SURTASS sources is quantified in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section.
Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vessels; however, we note that this rule contemplates no more than four vessels traversing an ocean basin at greater than 22 km from shore (away from where marine mammal densities are higher), resulting in a very low likelihood of any meaningful masking resulting from the noise of the vessels themselves. Several studies have shown decreases in marine mammal communication space and changes in behavior as a result of the presence of vessel noise. For example, NARWs were observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks
Physiological stress is a natural and adaptive process that helps an animal survive changing conditions. When an animal perceives a potential threat, whether or not the stimulus actually poses a threat, a stress response is triggered (Selye, 1950; Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky, 2005). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses.
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic functions. For example, when a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” or “allostatic loading” (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficiently to restore normal function.
According to Moberg (2000), in the case of many stressors, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response, which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with “stress.” These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effect on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine systems or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuro-endocrine functions that are affected by stress, including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior, are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier and Rivest, 1991), altered metabolism (Elasser
Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to disease and naturally occurring toxins, lack of prey availability, and interactions with predators all contribute to the stress a marine mammal experiences (Atkinson
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
The ability to make predictions from stress hormones about impacts on individuals and populations exposed to various forms of natural and anthropogenic stressors relies on understanding the linkages between changes in stress hormones and resulting physiological impacts. Currently, the sound characteristics that correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood, as are the ultimate consequences of these changes. Several research efforts have improved the understanding of, and the ability to predict, how stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations (
Non-impulsive sources of sound can cause direct physiological effects including noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity (or “threshold shift”) or other auditory injury, nitrogen decompression, acoustically-induced bubble growth, and injury due to sound-induced acoustic resonance. Separately, an animal's behavioral response to an acoustic exposure might lead to physiological effects that might ultimately lead to injury or death, which is discussed later in the
Several experimental studies have measured the heart rate response of a variety of marine mammals. For example, Miksis
Kvadsheim
Two captive harbor porpoises showed significant bradycardia (reduced heart rate), below that which occurs with diving, when they were exposed to pinger-like sounds with frequencies between 100-140 kHz (Teilmann
Limited evidence across several different species suggests that increased heart rate might occur as part of the acute stress response of marine mammals that are at the surface. However, the decreased heart rate typical of diving marine mammals can be enhanced in response to an acute stressor, suggesting that the context of the exposure is critical to understanding the cardiac response. Furthermore, in instances where a cardiac response was noted, there appears to be rapid habituation when repeat exposures occur. Additional research is required to understand the interaction of dive bradycardia, noise-induced cardiac responses, and the role of habituation in marine mammals.
What is known about the function of the various stress hormones is based largely upon observations of the stress response in terrestrial mammals. The endocrine response of marine mammals to stress may not be the same as that of terrestrial mammals because of the selective pressures marine mammals faced during their evolution in an ocean environment (Atkinson
Catecholamines increase during breath-hold diving in seals, co-occurring with a reduction in heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction (
Yang
Whereas a limited amount of work has addressed the potential for acute sound exposures to produce a stress response, almost nothing is known about how chronic exposure to acoustic stressors affects stress hormones in marine mammals, particularly as it relates to survival or reproduction. In what is probably the only study of chronic noise exposure in marine mammals associating changes in a stress hormone with changes in anthropogenic noise, Rolland
Considerably more work has been conducted in an attempt to determine the potential effect of vessel disturbance on smaller cetaceans, particularly killer whales (Bain, 2002; Erbe, 2002; Lusseau, 2006; Noren
Non-auditory injury, or direct injury, is considered unlikely to occur in the context of the Navy's proposed activities. Here, we discuss less direct non-auditory injury impacts, including acoustically induced bubble formation, and injury from sonar-induced acoustic resonance. Neither the Navy, nor NMFS expects physical or non-auditory injury or mortality to any of the marine mammal species in the Study Area due to the proposed activities.
One theoretical cause of injury to marine mammals is rectified diffusion (Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of increasing the size of a bubble by exposing it to a sound field. This process could be facilitated if the environment in which the ensonified bubbles exist is supersaturated with gas. Repetitive diving by marine mammals can cause the blood and some tissues to accumulate gas to a greater degree than is supported by the surrounding environmental pressure (Ridgway and Howard, 1979). The deeper and longer dives of some marine mammals (for example, beaked whales) are theoretically predicted to induce greater supersaturation (Houser
It is unlikely that the short duration (in combination with the source levels) of sonar pings would be long enough to drive bubble growth to any substantial size, if such a phenomenon occurs. However, an alternative but related hypothesis has also been suggested: stable bubbles could be destabilized by
Yet another hypothesis has speculated that rapid ascent to the surface following exposure to a startling sound might produce tissue gas saturation sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen bubbles (
Although theoretical predictions suggest the possibility for acoustically mediated bubble growth, there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 2003; Cox
As described in additional detail in appendix D the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, marine mammals generally are thought to deal with nitrogen loads in their blood and other tissues, caused by gas exchange from the lungs under conditions of high ambient pressure during diving, through anatomical, behavioral, and physiological adaptations (Hooker
In 2009, Hooker
Bernaldo de Quiros
To summarize, while there are several hypotheses, there is little data directly connecting intense, anthropogenic underwater sounds with non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. The available data do not support identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
An object exposed to its resonant frequency will tend to amplify its vibration at that frequency, a phenomenon called acoustic resonance. Acoustic resonance has been proposed as a potential mechanism by which a sonar or sources with similar operating characteristics could damage tissues of marine mammals. In 2002, NMFS convened a panel of government and private scientists to investigate the potential for acoustic resonance to occur in marine mammals (NOAA, 2002). They modeled and evaluated the likelihood that Navy MFAS (2-10 kHz) caused resonance effects in beaked whales that eventually led to their stranding. The workshop participants concluded that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have played a primary role in the Bahamas stranding in 2000. They listed several reasons supporting this finding including (among others): (1) tissue displacements at resonance are estimated to be too small to cause tissue damage; (2) tissue-lined air spaces most susceptible to resonance are too large in marine mammals to have resonant frequencies in the ranges used by MFAS or LFA sonar; (3) lung resonant frequencies increase with depth, and tissue displacements decrease with depth so if resonance is more likely to be caused at depth it is also less likely to have an affect there; and (4) lung tissue damage has not been observed in any mass, multi-species stranding of beaked whales. The frequency at which resonance was predicted to occur in the animals' lungs was 50 Hz, well below the frequencies used by the MFAS systems associated with the Bahamas event. The workshop participants focused on the March 2000 stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas as high-quality data were available, but the workshop report notes that the results apply to other sonar-related stranding events. For the reasons given by the 2002 workshop participants, we do not anticipate injury due to sonar-induced acoustic resonance from the Navy's proposed activity.
The different ways in which marine mammals respond to sound are sometimes indicators of the ultimate effect that exposure to a given stimulus will have on the well-being (survival, reproduction,
Lusseau and Bejder (2007) present data from three long-term studies illustrating the connections between disturbance from whale-watching boats and population-level effects in cetaceans. In Shark Bay Australia, the abundance of bottlenose dolphins was compared within adjacent control and tourism sites over three consecutive 4.5-year periods of increasing tourism levels. Between the second and third time periods, in which tourism doubled, dolphin abundance decreased by 15 percent in the tourism area and did not change significantly in the control area. In Fiordland, New Zealand, two populations (Milford and Doubtful Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins with tourism levels that differed by a factor of seven were observed and significant increases in travelling time and decreases in resting time were documented for both. Consistent short-term avoidance strategies were observed in response to tour boats until a threshold of disturbance was reached (average 68 minutes between interactions), after which the response switched to a longer-term habitat displacement strategy. For one population, tourism occurred only in a part of the home range. However, tourism occurred throughout the home range of the Doubtful Sound population and once boat traffic increased beyond the 68-minute threshold (resulting in abandonment of their home range/preferred habitat), reproductive success drastically decreased (
An important variable to consider is duration of disturbance. Severity scales used to assess behavioral responses of marine mammals to acute sound exposures are not appropriate to apply to sustained or chronic exposures, which requires considering the health of a population over time rather than a focus on immediate impacts to individuals (Southall
Marine mammals exposed to frequent or intense anthropogenic activities may leave the area, habituate to the activity, or tolerate the disturbance and remain in the area (Wartzok
Longer term displacement can lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the species in the affected region (Bejder
Population characteristics (
Population models are necessary to understand and link short-term effects to individuals from disturbance (anthropogenic impacts or environmental change) to long-term population consequences. Population models require inputs for the population size and changes in vital rates of the population (
The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee on Characterizing Biologically Significant Marine Mammal Behavior developed an initial conceptual model to link acoustic disturbance to population effects and inform data and research needs (NRC, 2005). This Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance, or PCAD, conceptual model linked the parameters of sound exposure, behavior change, life function immediately affected, vital rates, and population effects. In its report, the committee found that the relationships between vital rates and population effects were relatively well understood, but that the relationships between the other components of the model were not well-known or easily observed.
Following the PCAD framework (NRC, 2005), an Office of Naval Research (ONR) working group developed the Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD), outlining an updated conceptual model of the relationships linking disturbance to changes in behavior and physiology, health, vital rates, and population dynamics. The PCoD model considers all types of disturbance, not solely anthropogenic or acoustic, and incorporates physiological changes, such as stress or injury, along with behavioral changes as a direct result of disturbance (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017). In this framework, behavioral and physiological changes can have direct (acute) effects on vital rates, such as when changes in habitat use or increased stress levels raise the probability of mother-calf separation or predation; they can have indirect and long-term (chronic) effects on vital rates, such as when changes in time/energy budgets or increased disease susceptibility affect health, which then affects vital rates; or they can have no effect to vital rates (New
The PCoD model identifies the types of data that would be needed to assess population-level impacts. These data are lacking for many marine mammal species (Booth
A population's movement ecology determines the potential for spatiotemporal overlap with a disturbance. Resident populations or populations that rely on spatially limited habitats for critical life functions (
Bioenergetics frameworks that examine the impact of foraging disruption on body reserves of individual whales found that rates of daily foraging disruption can predict the number of days to terminal starvation for various life stages (Farmer
Resource limitation can impact marine mammal population growth rate regardless of additional anthropogenic disturbance. Stochastic Dynamic Programming models have been used to explore the impact declining prey species has on focal marine mammal predators (McHuron
Even when modeled alongside several anthropogenic sources of disturbance (
PCoD models have been used to assess the impacts of multiple and recurring stressors. A marine mammal population that is already subject to chronic stressors will likely be more vulnerable to acute disturbances. Models that have looked at populations of cetaceans who are exposed to multiple stressors over several years have found that even one major chronic stressor (
Farmer
Not all stressors have the same impact for all species and all locations. Another model analyzed the effect of a number of chronic disturbances on two bottlenose dolphin populations in Australia over 5 years (Reed
Recurring stressors can impact population abundance even when individual instances of disturbance are short and have minimal behavioral impact on an individual. A model on California sea lions introduced a generalized disturbance at different times throughout the breeding cycle, with their behavior response being an increase in the duration of a foraging trip by the female (McHuron
The definition for a stranding under title IV of the MMPA is an event in the wild in which (A) a marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the United States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of apparent medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to return to its natural habitat under its own power or without assistance (see 16 U.S.C. 1421h(6)). This definition is useful for considering stranding events even when they occur beyond lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Marine mammal strandings have been linked to a variety of causes, such as: (1) illness from exposure to infectious agents, biotoxins, or parasites; (2) starvation; (3) unusual oceanographic or weather events; or (4) anthropogenic causes including fishery interaction, vessel strike, entrainment, entrapment, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. Historically, the cause or causes of most strandings have remained unknown (
Numerous studies suggest that the physiology, behavior, habitat, social relationships, age, or condition of cetaceans may cause them to strand or might predispose them to strand when exposed to another phenomenon. These suggestions are consistent with the conclusions of numerous other studies that have demonstrated that combinations of dissimilar stressors commonly combine to kill an animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the other does not produce the same result (Bernaldo de Quiros
Historically, stranding reporting and response efforts have been inconsistent, although significant improvements have occurred over the last 25 years. Reporting forms for basic (“Level A”) information, rehabilitation disposition, and human interaction have been standardized nationally are available at:
In the United States from 2006 to 2022, there were 27,781 cetacean strandings and 79,572 pinniped strandings (107,353 total) (P. Onens, NMFS,
Worldwide, there have been several efforts to identify relationships between cetacean mass stranding events and military active sonar (Cox
Most of the stranding events reviewed by the International Whaling Commission involved beaked whales. A mass stranding of goose-beaked whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea occurred in 1996 (Frantzis, 1998), and mass stranding events involving Gervais' beaked whales, Blainville's beaked whales, and goose-beaked whales occurred off the coast of the Canary Islands in the late 1980s (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). The stranding events that occurred in the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas in 2000 have been the most intensively-studied mass stranding events and have been associated with naval maneuvers involving the use of tactical sonar. Other cetacean species with naval sonar implicated in stranding events include harbor porpoise (Norman
Over the past 21 years, there have been 5 stranding events coincident with naval MFAS use in which exposure to sonar is believed to have been a contributing factor: (1) Greece (1996); (2) the Bahamas (2000); (3) Madeira (2000); (4) Canary Islands (2002); and (5) Spain (2006) (Cox
Although the confluence of Navy MFAS with the other contributory factors noted in the 2001 NMFS/Navy joint report was identified as the cause of the 2000 Bahamas stranding event, the specific mechanisms that led to that stranding (or the others) are not well understood, and there is uncertainty regarding the ordering of effects that led to the stranding. It is unclear whether beaked whales were directly injured by sound (
There is no empirical evidence of strandings of marine mammals associated with the employment of SURTASS LFA sonar since its use began in the early 2000s. Moreover, both the system acoustic characteristics and the operational parameters of SURTASS LFA sonar differ from MFAS. SURTASS LFA sonars use frequencies generally below 1,000 Hz with relatively long signals (pulses) on the order of 60 seconds, while MFAS use frequencies greater than 1,000 Hz with relatively short signals on the order of 1 second. SURTASS LFA sonars involve use of one slower-moving vessel operating far from shore, as opposed to the faster-moving, multi-vessel MFAS training scenarios operating in closer proximity to shore that have coincided with strandings.
Cox
From the commencement of SURTASS LFA sonar use in 2002 through the present, neither LFA sonar nor operation of the T-AGOS vessels has been associated with any known mass or individual strandings of marine mammals. In addition, the Navy's required monitoring reports indicate that there have been no apparent avoidance reactions observed.
Vessel strikes of marine mammals can result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal. Lethal interactions are typically associated with large whales, which are occasionally found draped across the bulbous bow of large commercial ships upon arrival in port. Although smaller cetaceans are more maneuverable in relation to large vessels than large whales, they may also be susceptible to strike. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). Impact forces increase with speed as does the probability of a strike at a given distance (Silber
Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 records of known or probable vessel strikes of all large whale species from 1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at the time of collision was reported for 58 cases. Of these 58 cases, 39 (or 67 percent) resulted in serious injury or death (19 of those resulted in serious injury as determined by blood in the water, propeller gashes, or severed tailstock, and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other injuries noted during necropsy; 20 resulted in death). Operating speeds of vessels that struck various species of large whales ranged from 3.7 to 94.5 km/hr. The majority (79 percent) of these strikes occurred at speeds of 24 km/hr or greater. The average speed that resulted in serious injury or death was 34.4 km/hr. Pace and Silber (2005) found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 18.5 to 25.9 km/hr and exceeded 90 percent at 31.5 km/hr. Higher speeds during strikes result in greater force of impact and also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death. While modeling studies have suggested that hydrodynamic forces pulling whales toward the vessel hull increase with increasing speed (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
In a separate study, Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) analyzed the probability of lethal mortality of large whales at a given speed, showing that the greatest rate of change in the probability of a lethal injury to a large whale as a function of vessel speed occurs between 15.9 and 27.8 km/hr. The chances of a lethal injury decline from approximately 80 percent at 27.8 km/hr to approximately 20 percent at 15.9 km/hr. At speeds below 21.9 km/hr, the chances of lethal injury drop below 50 percent, while the probability asymptotically increases toward 100 percent above 27.8 km/hr. Garrison
The Jensen and Silber (2003) report notes that the database represents a minimum number of strikes, because the vast majority probably goes undetected or unreported. In contrast, Navy vessels are likely to detect any strike that does occur because of the required personnel training and Lookouts (as described in the Proposed Mitigation Measures section), and they are required to report all vessel strikes involving marine mammals. The Navy has never reported any marine mammals being struck by SURTASS LFA sonar vessels (T-AGOS).
Between 2007 and 2009, the Navy developed and distributed additional training, mitigation, and reporting tools to Navy operators to improve marine mammal protection and to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In 2009, the Navy implemented Marine Species Awareness Training designed to improve effectiveness of visual observation for marine mammals and other marine resources. In subsequent years, the Navy issued refined policy guidance on vessel strikes in order to collect the most accurate and detailed data possible in response to a possible incident (also see the Notification and Reporting Plan for this proposed rule). In 2021, the Navy created a new SURTASS-specific Marine Species Awareness Training module, developed
The proposed training and testing activities could potentially affect marine mammal habitat through the introduction of impacts to the prey species of marine mammals, acoustic habitat (sound in the water column), water quality, and biologically important habitat for marine mammals. Each of these potential effects was considered in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS and was determined not to have adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. Based on the information below and the supporting information included in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, NMFS has determined that the proposed training and testing activities would not have adverse or long-term impacts on marine mammal habitat.
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (
Fishes utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (Zelick
Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a variety of different sensory systems to glean information from ocean around them (Astrup and Mohl, 1993; Astrup, 1999; Braun and Grande, 2008; Carroll
Hearing capabilities vary considerably between different fish species with data available for only just over 100 species out of the 34,000 marine and freshwater fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong, 2016). In order to better understand acoustic impacts on fishes, fish hearing groups are defined by species that possess a similar continuum of anatomical features which result in varying degrees of hearing sensitivity (Popper and Hastings, 2009a; Popper
In terms of physiology, multiple scientific studies have documented a lack of mortality or physiological effects to fishes from exposure to low-frequency sonar and other sounds (Cox
In terms of behavioral responses, Juanes
For fishes exposed to military sonar, there would be limited sonar use spread out in time and space across large offshore areas such that only small areas are actually ensonified (tens of miles) compared to the total life history distribution of fish prey species. While there would be no probability of mortality or physical injury from low-frequency sonar exposure, there is the potential for minor, temporary changes in behavior among fishes, including increased swimming rate, avoidance of the sound source, or changes in orientation to the sound source. If behavioral effects were to occur, they would be localized and infrequent due to the transient nature of the vessels transmitting LFA sonar. Most acoustic effects, if any, are expected to be short-term and localized (a few seconds or minutes). Long-term consequences for fish populations, including key prey species within the Study Area, would not be expected based on the minor nature and short duration of the behavioral effects; and the low level and short duration (at most, 8 hours per day) of potential exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar.
Vessels and in-water devices do not normally collide with adult fishes, particularly those that are common marine mammal prey, most of which can detect and avoid them. Exposure of fishes to vessel strike stressors is limited to those fish groups that are large, slow-moving, and may occur near the surface, such as ocean sunfish, whale sharks, basking sharks, and manta rays. These species are distributed widely in the Study Area. Any isolated cases of a military vessel striking an individual could injure that individual, impacting the fitness of an individual fish. Vessel strikes would not pose a risk to most of the other marine fish groups, because many fish can detect and avoid vessel movements, making strikes rare and allowing the fish to return to their normal behavior after the ship or device passes. As a vessel approaches a fish, they could have a detectable behavioral or physiological response (
In addition to fishes, prey sources such as marine invertebrates could potentially be impacted by sound stressors as a result of the proposed activities. However, most marine invertebrates' ability to sense sounds is very limited. In most cases, marine invertebrates would not respond to non-impulsive sounds, although they may detect and briefly respond to nearby low-frequency sounds. These short-term responses would likely be inconsequential to invertebrate populations.
Invertebrates appear to be able to detect sounds (Pumphrey, 1950; Frings and Frings, 1967) and are most sensitive to low-frequency sounds (Packard
Cephalopods have a specialized sensory organ inside the head called a statocyst that may help an animal determine its position in space (orientation) and maintain balance (Budelmann, 1992). Packard
Vessels have the potential to impact marine invertebrates by disturbing the water column or sediments, or directly striking organisms (Bishop, 2008). The propeller wash (water displaced by propellers used for propulsion) from vessel movement and water displaced from vessel hulls can potentially disturb marine invertebrates in the water column and is a likely cause of zooplankton mortality (Bickel
Overall, the combined impacts of sound exposure and vessel movement resulting from the proposed activities would not be expected to have measurable effects on populations of marine mammal prey species. Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. Mortality from decompression injuries is possible in close proximity to a sound, but only limited data on mortality in response to an impulsive source (air gun noise) exposure are available (Fields
Acoustic habitat is the soundscape which encompasses all of the sound present in a particular location and at a
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (
The term “listening area” refers to the region of ocean over which sources of sound can be detected by an animal at the center of the space. Loss of communication space concerns the area over which a specific animal signal (used to communicate with conspecifics in biologically important contexts such as foraging or mating) can be heard, in noisier relative to quieter conditions (Clark
Any anthropogenic noise attributed to SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities in the Study Area would be temporary and the affected area would be expected to immediately return to its original state when these activities cease.
Training and testing activities of SURTASS LFA sonar would have no effect on marine sediments as all equipment would only be deployed in the marine water column. No part of the proposed activities would affect seafloor sediments. The execution of the proposed activities would add sound to the ambient ocean environment, and water quality may potentially be affected should pollutants be discharged from T-AGOS vessels into oceanic waters. All equipment is properly maintained in accordance with applicable Navy and legal requirements. All such operating equipment meets Federal water quality standards, where applicable.
This section indicates the number of takes that NMFS is proposing to authorize, which is based on the amount of take that NMFS anticipates is reasonably likely to occur. NMFS coordinated closely with the Navy in the development of their incidental take application and preliminarily agrees that: (1) the methods the Navy has put forth described herein to estimate take (including the model, thresholds, and density estimates); and (2) the resulting numbers are based on the best available science and appropriate for authorization.
Takes would be in the form of harassment only. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (1) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (2) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment) (16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)).
Proposed authorized takes would primarily be in the form of Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources is most likely to result in disruption of natural behavioral patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered (as defined specifically at the beginning of this section, but referred to generally as behavioral disturbance) for marine mammals, either via direct behavioral disturbance or TTS. There is also the potential for Level A harassment, in the form of auditory injury to result from exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar. Although we analyze the impacts of the potential harassment takes that are proposed for authorization, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of these takes.
Generally speaking, for acoustic impacts NMFS estimates the amount and type of harassment by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals would experience behavioral disturbance or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day or event; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities.
It is important to note that for this SURTASS LFA sonar proposed rule, the Navy, in coordination with NMFS, has elected to change both the acoustic thresholds and the take estimation methodology used to better reflect the best available science and also better align with the analytical methods used in other Navy training and testing rules. Specifically, all of the acoustic thresholds and take calculation methods used here are referred to as “Phase IV” and described in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report, mirroring those used in analyses supporting the Phase IV AFTT (90 FR 50504, November 7, 2025) and HCTT (90 FR 58810, December 17, 2025) training and testing regulations. Alternatively, in the
Using the best available science, NMFS, in coordination with the Navy, has established acoustic thresholds that identify the most appropriate received level of underwater sound above which marine mammals exposed to these sound sources could be reasonably expected to directly incur a disruption in behavior patterns to a point where they are abandoned or significantly altered (equated to onset of Level B harassment), or to incur TTS onset (equated to Level B harassment via the indirect disruptions of behavioral patterns) or AUD INJ onset (equated to Level A harassment).
NMFS' 2024 Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Updated Technical Guidance also identifies criteria to predict TTS, which is not considered injury and falls into the Level B harassment category. The Navy's specified activities include the use of non-impulsive (
For the consideration of impacts on hearing in Phase IV of the Navy's at-sea training and testing program (which SURTASS LFA sonar is considered a part of), marine mammals were divided into nine groups for analysis: VLF, LF, HF, VHF, SI, PCW and PCA, and OCW and OCA. For each group, a frequency-dependent weighting function and numeric thresholds for the onset of TTS and the onset of AUD INJ were estimated. The onset of TTS is defined as a TTS of 6 dB measured approximately 2-5 minutes after exposure. A TTS of 40 dB is used as a proxy for the onset of AUD INJ (
To compare Phase IV weighting functions and TTS/AUD INJ SEL thresholds to those used in Phase III (which are the same as those included in NMFS (2018), which were used to predict TTS and AUD INJ in the previous SURTASS LFA sonar rule (84 FR 40132, August 13, 2019)), both the weighting function shape and the weighted threshold values were considered; the weighted thresholds by themselves indicate the TTS/AUD INJ threshold at only the most susceptible frequency (based on the relevant weighting function). In contrast, the TTS/AUD INJ exposure functions incorporate both the shape of the weighting function and the weighted threshold value and provide the best means of comparing the frequency-dependent TTS/AUD INJ thresholds for Phase III and Phase IV.
The most significant differences between the Phase III functions used in the previous SURTASS LFA sonar rule and the Phase IV functions and thresholds used here include the following:
• Mysticetes were divided into two groups (VLF and LF cetaceans), with the upper hearing limit for the LF cetacean group increased from Phase III to match recent hearing measurements in minke whales (Houser
• Group names were changed from Phase III to be consistent with Southall
• For the HF group, Phase IV onset TTS/AUD INJ thresholds are lower compared to Phase III at frequencies below approximately 10 kHz. This is a result of new TTS onset data for dolphins at low frequencies (Finneran
• For the PCW group, new TTS data for harbor seals (Kastelein
• For group OCW, new TTS data for California sea lions (Kastelein
Of note, the thresholds and weighting function for the LF cetacean hearing group in NMFS' 2024 Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2024) match the Navy's VLF cetacean hearing group. However, the weighting function for those hearing groups differs between the two documents (
These thresholds (table 4) were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both public and peer reviewers. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Though significantly driven by received level and distance, the onset of Level B harassment by behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors and can be difficult to predict (Southall
Despite the rapidly evolving science, there are still challenges in quantifying expected behavioral responses that qualify as take by Level B harassment, especially where the goal is to use one or two predictable indicators (
In its analysis of impacts associated with sonar acoustic sources (which was coordinated with NMFS), the Navy used an updated approach, as described below. Many of the behavioral responses identified using the Navy's quantitative analysis are most likely to be of moderate severity as described in the Southall
As noted above, the Navy coordinated with NMFS to develop behavioral harassment thresholds specific to their military readiness activities utilizing active sonar that identify at what received level and distance Level B harassment by behavioral disturbance would be expected to result. These behavioral harassment thresholds consist of behavioral response functions (BRFs) and associated distance cut-off conditions, and are also referred to, together, as “the criteria.” These criteria are used to estimate the number of animals that may exhibit a behavioral response that qualifies as take under the MMPA when exposed to sonar and other transducers. The way the criteria were derived is discussed in detail in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report. Developing these behavioral harassment criteria involved multiple steps. All peer-reviewed published BRSs conducted both in the field and on captive animals were examined in order to understand the breadth of behavioral responses of marine mammals to sonar and other transducers. Marine mammals were divided into four groups for analysis: (1) mysticetes (all baleen
The BRFs relate only the highest received level of sound to the probability that an animal will have a behavioral response. The BRFs do not account for the duration or pattern of use of any individual sound source or of the activity as a whole, the number of sound sources that may be operating simultaneously, or how loud the animal may perceive the sonar signal to be based on the frequency of the sonar versus the animal's hearing range.
Criteria for assessing marine mammal behavioral responses to sonars use the metric of highest received sound level (RMS SPL) to evaluate the risk of immediate responses by exposed animals. Currently, there are limited data to develop criteria that include the context of an exposure, characteristics of individual animals, behavioral state, duration of an exposure, sound source duty cycle, and the number of individual sources in an activity (although these factors certainly influence the severity of a behavioral response) and, further, even where certain contextual factors may be predictive where known, it is difficult to reliably predict when such factors will be present.
The BRFs also do not account for distance. At moderate to low received levels the correlation between probability of response and received level is very poor and it appears that other variables mediate behavioral responses (
Data suggest that beyond a certain distance, significant behavioral responses are unlikely. At shorter ranges (less than 10 km) some behavioral responses have been observed at received levels below 140 dB re 1 μPa. Thus, proximity may mediate behavioral responses at lower received levels. Since most data used to derive the BRFs are within 10 km of the source, probability of response at farther ranges is not well-represented. Therefore, the source-receiver range must be considered separately to estimate likely significant behavioral responses.
This analysis applies behavioral cut-off conditions to responses predicted using the BRFs. Animals within a specified distance and above a minimum probability of response are assumed to have a significant behavioral response. The cut-off distance is based on the farthest source-animal distance across all known studies where animals exhibited a significant behavioral response. Animals beyond the cut-off distance but with received levels above the sound pressure level associated with a probability of response of 0.50 on the BRF are also assumed to have a significant behavioral response. The actual likelihood of significant behavioral responses occurring beyond the distance cut-off is unknown. Significant behavioral responses beyond 100 km are unlikely based on source-animal distance and attenuated received levels. The behavioral cut-off conditions and additional information on the derivation of the cut-off conditions can be found in table 2.2-3 of the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report.
The Navy used cutoff distances beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses (and therefore Level B harassment) is considered to be unlikely (table 5). These distances were determined by examining all available published field observations of behavioral responses to sonar or sonar-like signals that included the distance between the sound source and the marine mammal. Behavioral effects calculations are based on the maximum SPL to which a modeled marine mammal is exposed. There is empirical evidence to suggest that animals are more likely to exhibit significant behavioral responses to moderate levels sounds that are closer and less likely to exhibit behavioral responses when exposed to moderate levels of sound from a source that is far away. To account for this, the Navy has implemented behavioral cutoffs that consider both received sound level and distance from the source. These updated cutoffs conditions are unique to each behavioral hearing group and are outlined in table 5.
The Navy and NMFS have used the best available science to address the challenging differentiation between significant and non-significant behavioral responses (
NAEMO is the Navy's current standard model for assessing acoustic effects on marine mammals. As noted above, NAEMO includes differences from the AIM model previously used for the SURTASS LFA sonar that support a more accurate acoustic effects analysis based on the best available science. These factors are summarized below.
NAEMO calculates sound energy propagation from sonar and other transducers during military readiness activities and the sound received by animat dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are virtual representations of marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity and each dosimeter records its individual sound “dose.” The model bases the distribution of animats over the Study Area on the density values in the Navy Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD) and distributes animats in the water column proportional to the known time that species spend at varying depths. It should be noted that the dive profile research included in the technical report “Dive Distribution and Group Size Parameters for Marine Species Occurring in the U.S. Navy's Pacific Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar Training and Testing Study Area” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025a/b/c), had to be completed by the fall of 2022 for the majority of marine mammals, before modeling began for the specified activities. As a result, although the technical report was not published until 2025, research for it largely stopped in 2022. Some dive profiles were researched after 2022 (
The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth when computing the sound level received by the animats in accordance with the process described in the “Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase IV Training and Testing” report.
As described in the
Assumptions in NAEMO intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are unknowns. The specified activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine mammals, meaning that the implementation of shutdowns is not modeled or, thereby, considered in the take estimates. For more information on this process, see the discussion in the
The model estimates the acoustic impacts caused by the SURTASS LFA sonar system during individual military readiness activities, with active SURTASS LFA sonar use modeled at 8 hours per day. During any individual modeled event, impacts to individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The animats do not represent actual animals, but rather they represent a distribution of animals based on density and abundance data, which allows for a statistical analysis of the number of instances that marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of a year but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals that may be impacted over a year (
All previous iterations of SURTASS LFA sonar modeling were done using the Marine Acoustics, Inc. software AIM. The Navy elected to transition modeling for SURTASS to NAEMO, as it is the Navy-wide approved acoustic effect model for all at-sea projects. For this proposed action, NAEMO was used to quantify estimated acoustic exposures to marine mammals. AIM, as described in the 2019 SURTASS SEIS/OEIS, and NAEMO are similar in many ways (both models represent each marine species as independent virtual animals called “animats”), but there are differences:
• Source parameters modeled in NAEMO accurately reflect operational parameters, based on validation from system subject matter experts, and the SL and duty cycle are higher than those used in AIM;
• NAEMO uses the range-dependent Comprehensive Acoustic Simulation System/Gaussian Ray Bundle (CASS-GRAB) for propagation modeling while AIM uses the range-dependent Navy standard parabolic equation (PE);
• NAEMO models propagation at 5-degree bearing resolution, AIM uses a 90-degree resolution;
• NAEMO models to a maximum 500 km distance extent for SURTASS LFA sonar modeling, while AIM models to a 100 dB transmission loss cutoff;
• NAEMO distributes animats and runs simulations for all unique species-stock density layers while AIM used three representative densities for modeling and scales simulation output based on species-stock density for final results;
• Animats are horizontally stationary in NAEMO, while AIM simulates animat movement;
• NAEMO mathematically approximates animal avoidance to sound, while AIM's animal movement did not factor avoidance;
• NAEMO calculates behavioral effect using the maximum SPL an animat is exposed to, while AIM uses a single ping equivalent metric.
Animat avoidance of high SLs was incorporated into NAEMO, with marine
As NAEMO interrogates the simulation data in the animat processor, exposures that are both outside the distance cutoff and below the received level cutoff are omitted when determining the maximum SPL for each animat.
The presence of the two cutoff criteria in Phase IV of the Navy's at-sea training and testing program provides an accurate and conservative estimation of behavioral effects, while the estimation of behavioral effects still omits exposures at distances and received levels that would be unlikely to produce a significant behavioral response. NAEMO retains the capability of calculating behavioral effects without the cutoffs applied, depending on user preference.
The modeling methods outlined in the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report are applied to SURTASS LFA with two exceptions: (1) NAEMO methods are applied to 500 km instead of 100 km; and (2) propagation of the array is calculated based on the individual transducers and combined rather than as a point source.
For Phase IV at-sea program modeling efforts for other non-SURTASS LFA acoustic sources, NAEMO modeled out to 100 km for all sources. However, a 2022 analysis of the SURTASS LFA sonar system by the Marine Species Modeling Team at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center determined, based on Phase IV criteria, the standard 100 km modeling extent would be insufficient to capture all behavioral effects on marine species. Both distance and the received level cutoff conditions are considered in determining which exposures are included in the behavioral effects calculation. While the specified distance condition (
SURTASS LFA is a towed array with multiple projectors located at different depths. The sound fields of the individual projectors are independent within a range from the source called the “near-field.” Past that range is considered the “far-field,” where transmissions from the individual projectors constructively interfere and the sound field behaves like that of a point source at the center point of the array depth. The received level of the array in the far-field is greater than what the received level would be from an individual projector in the far field. Therefore, the array is modeled in the far-field with a source level based on the cumulative energy of the projectors acting together. For the array source level, the effective source level of the system design was used. Effective source level is a theoretical value, hypothetically measured at 1 m from the array on its horizontal axis, calculated from the formula:
The near-field range was estimated based on the Fresnel distance (Guo
Propagation modeling in NAEMO does not apply source level and uses only the frequency, depth, vertical beam width, and relative beam angle (
This section provides range (distance) to effects for sonar (active acoustic sources) to specific acoustic thresholds determined using NAEMO. Ranges are determined by modeling the distance that noise from a source will need to propagate to reach exposure level thresholds specific to a hearing group that will cause behavioral response, TTS, AUD INJ, non-auditory injury, and mortality, as described in the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report. Of note, neither non-auditory injury nor mortality were estimated for SURTASS LFA sonar activities, so they are not discussed further. Ranges to effects (table 6) are utilized to help predict impacts from acoustic sources and assess the benefit of mitigation zones. The ranges-to-effect calculations are bound by a species' maximum dive depth, and only the data for effects at less than or equal to the maximum dive depth of the species is used to estimate impact ranges. Marine mammals exposed within these ranges for the duration shown are predicted to experience the associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not only predicting acoustic impacts, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially physiological effects to marine mammals.
Ranges to effects for sonar were determined by modeling the distance that sound would need to propagate to reach exposure level thresholds specific to a hearing group that would cause behavioral response, TTS, and AUD INJ, as described in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report. The ranges do not account for an animal avoiding a source nor for the movement of the platform, both of which would
Table 6 provides the ranges to TTS and AUD INJ for marine mammals from exposure to the sonar system proposed for use (see also appendix B of the application). Due to the lower acoustic thresholds for TTS versus AUD INJ, ranges to TTS are larger. Successive pings can be expected to add together, further increasing the range to the onset of TTS and AUD INJ.
As described in the Level B Harassment by Behavioral Disturbance section, the BRFs relate only the highest received level of sound during an event to the probability that an animal will have a behavioral response. The Navy's analysis applies behavioral cut-off conditions to responses predicted using the BRFs. Animals within a specified distance and above a minimum probability of response are assumed to have a significant behavioral response. The cut-off distance is based on the farthest source animal distance across all known scientific studies where animals exhibited a significant behavioral response. Animals beyond the cut-off distance but with received levels above the sound pressure level associated with a probability of response of 0.50 (denoted p(0.5)) on the BRF are also assumed to have a significant behavioral response. The actual likelihood of significant behavioral reactions occurring beyond the distance cut-off is unknown.
As opposed to defining a specific cut-off distance, previous modeling using AIM propagated SURTASS LFA sonar to wherever there was 100 dB of transmission loss. NAEMO uses the maximum unweighted SPL value of exposures received by an animat to determine the behavioral effects. Cutoff conditions are applied in both distance and received level in NAEMO to determine which exposures are included in the behavioral effects calculation (see appendix C of the application for more information).
The mean, 5th, and 95th percentile behavioral response curves (see figures 2-17 through 2-20 of appendix B to the application) provide the probability of behavioral response as a function of range for the sensitive species (beaked whales), mysticete (all baleen whales), odontocete (most toothed whales, most porpoises, and dolphins), and pinniped (true seals and sea lions) behavioral response groups.
A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species or stock requires data on their abundance and distribution that may be affected by anthropogenic activities in the potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the number of animals present per unit area. Marine species density estimation requires a significant amount of effort to both collect and analyze data to produce a reasonable estimate. Unlike the species observed during surveys for terrestrial wildlife, many marine species spend much of their time submerged and are not easily observed. In order to collect enough sighting data to make reasonable density estimates, multiple observations are required, often in areas that are not easily accessible (
For most cetacean species, abundance is estimated using line-transect surveys or mark-recapture studies (
Ideally, density data would be available for all species throughout the Study Area year-round, in order to best estimate the impacts of specified activities on marine species. However, in many places, vessel availability, lack of funding, inclement weather conditions, and high sea states prevent the completion of comprehensive year-round surveys. Even with surveys that are completed, poor conditions may result in lower sighting rates for species that would typically be sighted with greater frequency under favorable conditions. Lower sighting rates preclude having an acceptably low uncertainty in the density estimates. A high level of uncertainty, indicating a low level of confidence in the density estimate, is typical for species that are rare or difficult to sight. In areas where survey data are limited or non-existent, known or inferred associations between marine habitat features and the likely presence of specific species are sometimes used to predict densities in the absence of actual animal sightings. Consequently, there is no single source of density data for every area, species, and season because of the fiscal costs, resources, and effort involved in providing enough survey coverage to sufficiently estimate density.
To characterize the marine species density for large oceanic regions, the Navy reviewed, critically assessed, and prioritized existing density estimates from multiple sources, requiring the development of a systematic method for selecting the most appropriate density estimate for each combination of species/stock, area, and season. The Navy obtained published and unpublished marine mammal data from NMFS Science Centers, foreign experts, NMFS-affiliated subject matter experts, and references from across the Pacific and Eastern Indian Oceans, where available. The selection and compilation of the best available marine species density data resulted in the Navy's Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). The purpose of the Navy's NMSDD is to document the best available sources of density data for marine mammal species occurring in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian ocean areas where the SURTASS LFA systems are operated, and to provide a summary of species-specific and area-specific density estimates incorporated into the NMSDD. This database is described in the “U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database for the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar Systems” technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2024), hereafter referred to as the Density Technical Report. NMFS reviewed all marine mammal densities provided by the Navy prior to use in their acoustic analysis for the current rulemaking process.
To accurately assess the potential effects of SURTASS LFA sonar activities, the Navy selected 15 representative modeling sites covering the spatial extent of the Study Area to provide representative regional coverage (see figure 1.1-1 of the Density Technical Report). Three of the SURTASS modeling sites overlap other Navy study areas: Two of the SURTASS modeling sites (10 and 11) overlap the Hawaii portion of the Hawaii-California Training and Testing (HCTT) Phase IV Study Area and one modeling site (4) is encompassed within the Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) Phase IV Study Area. Marine mammal density estimates used for the recent Phase IV HCTT (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025a/b/c) and MITT (U.S. Department of the Navy,
A variety of density data and density models are needed to develop a density database that encompasses the entirety of the Study Area. Because these data are collected using different methods with varying amounts of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy has developed a hierarchy to ensure the most accurate data are used when available. The Density Technical Report describes these models in detail and provides detailed explanations of the best available density estimate for each species. The list below describes possible sources of density data in order of preference for cetaceans in the Study Area:
1. Density spatial models are preferred and used when available because they provide spatially-explicit density estimates (typically at 10 km by 10 km spatial resolution) throughout the study area with the least amount of uncertainty. These models (see Becker
2. Stratified design-based density estimates use line-transect survey data with the sampling area divided (
3. Design-based density estimations use line-transect survey data collected from ship or aerial surveys designed to cover a specific geographic area (see Carretta
When interpreting the results of the quantitative analysis, the description provided in a previous technical report, the Density Technical Report for the Phase III Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a), includes a useful reminder: “It is important to consider that even the best estimate of marine species density is really a model representation of the values of concentration where these animals might occur. Each model is limited to the variables and assumptions considered by the original data source provider. No mathematical model representation of any biological population is perfect and with regards to marine species biodiversity, any single model method will not completely explain the actual distribution and abundance of marine mammal species. It is expected that there would be anomalies in the results that need to be evaluated, with independent information for each case, to support if we might accept or reject a model or portions of the model.”
For pinnipeds, density estimates are not model based and are essentially calculated as an in-water abundance divided by an area. Densities for pinnipeds relied on published data on the abundance, occurrence, and distribution of the species, including data from telemetry studies when available, that enabled the Navy to define spatial strata with greater precision and to better represent species' distribution than in previous analyses.
Except for Hawaiian monk seal, pinniped occurrence in the Study Area is likely only at or near the more northerly sites (1, 2, 5, 8, and 15).
Chernook
Temporal variations in species-specific distribution patterns were incorporated into density estimates to more accurately match pinniped migration and haul-out behaviors that are unique to each species. This resulted in some species' in-water distributions varying by breeding and non-breeding seasons instead of the traditional winter, spring, summer, and fall seasons. Spatial strata to represent the species' seasonal distribution in the density calculation were developed for each species based on published data on habitat preferences and species range maps. The primary factors used to define spatial strata were bathymetry and distance from shore.
The Navy's estimates of abundance (based on density estimates used in the Study Area) are limited to those species or stocks with a stock designation under NMFS' SARs. For some species, the stock assessment for a given species may exceed the Navy's density prediction because those species' home range extends beyond the study area boundaries. For most species in the Study Area, the stock assessment abundance may be much less than the number of animals in the Navy's modeling given that the Study Area extends beyond the U.S. waters covered by the SAR abundance estimate. The primary source of density estimates are geographically specific survey data and either peer-reviewed line-transect estimates or habitat-based density models that have been extensively validated to provide the most accurate estimates possible.
Table 7 through 50 summarize the seasonal density estimates of the marine mammal species and stocks that have confirmed or possible occurrence within the 15 SURTASS LFA sonar modeling areas in the central and western North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean. Given that substantial acoustic effects (PTS or auditory injury) would occur closest to the SURTASS LFA sound source, the Navy applied a 250 km buffer around the center of each modeling site to focus on the areas where the most serious impacts and likely the majority of less serious impacts (
NMFS coordinated with the Navy in the development of its take estimates and concurs that the Navy's approach for density appropriately utilizes the best available science. Later, in the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section, we assess how the estimated take numbers compare to stock abundance in order to better understand the potential number of individuals impacted, and the rationale for which abundance estimate is used is included there.
The 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS considered all SURTASS LFA sonar activities proposed to occur in the Study Area that have the potential to result in the MMPA defined take of marine mammals. The Navy determined that the only stressors that could result in the incidental taking of marine mammals are acoustic (
The Navy is seeking authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 1,100 hours of SURTASS LFA sonar training per year, which is an increase from the 592 hours estimated for the 2019 regulations; however, this increase does not reflect new or additional training requirements. Instead, it is the result of a change in how the Navy counts an “hour” of transmission. Previously, SURTASS LFA sonar hours were calculated by adding the portions of time a sonar emits sound during its “duty cycle” (ratio of time the signal is on compared to off). Other Navy sonar systems, such as mid-frequency and high-frequency active sonar, calculate hours based on total “duration” time (total time the source is active, including silent periods between pings). To bring SURTASS LFA sonar in line with these other sonar systems, the Navy developed a conversion method that considers various factors including LFA sonar pings, wave trains, and other classified considerations. As a result, the 1,100 hours of annual SURTASS LFA training requested are equivalent to the 592 hours authorized under the previous counting method.
The quantitative analysis process used for the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS and the application to estimate potential exposures to marine mammals resulting from acoustic stressors is detailed in the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report.
Regarding how avoidance of loud sources is considered in the take estimation, NAEMO does not simulate horizontal animat (
The ability to reduce cumulative SEL depends on susceptibility to auditory effects, sensitivity to behavioral disturbance, and characteristics of the sonar source, including duty cycle, source level, and frequency. Table 2-2 of appendix B to the application shows the percentage reduction of AUD INJ across the modeled activities in this analysis due to avoidance. The reduction in AUD INJ due to avoidance differs across the proposed action and between auditory and behavioral groups. Groups that are relatively less sensitive to behavioral disturbance compared to susceptibility to auditory effects are less likely to avoid AUD INJ, which include the mysticete and odontocete behavioral groups. Groups that are relatively more sensitive to behavioral disturbance compared to susceptibility to auditory effects are more likely to avoid AUD INJ, which include the Sensitive Species and Pinniped behavioral groups. The reduction in AUD INJ for most groups is less than assumed in prior analyses. Avoidance was able to be applied only for pinnipeds. It is likely that no reduction of AUD INJ could be applied to any other hearing group due to the high source level and low frequency of the SURTASS LFA.
Regarding the consideration of mitigation effectiveness in the take estimation, this quantitative analysis does not reduce model-estimated impacts to account for activity-based mitigation. While the activity-based mitigation is not quantitatively included in the take estimates (which, of note, would result in a reduction in the number of takes), section 2.3.2 of appendix B of the application indicates the percentage of the instances of take where an animal's closest point of approach was within a mitigation zone and, therefore, AUD INJ could potentially be mitigated. Only mysticetes in the VLF and LF hearing groups have at least one model-predicted AUD INJ. The potential mitigation opportunities for VLF and LF hearing groups during SURTASS LFA training and testing activities are 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Note that these percentages do not account for other factors, such as the sightability of a given species or viewing conditions.
For additional information on the quantitative analysis process, refer to the Acoustic Impacts Technical Report and appendices B and C of the application.
As a general matter, NMFS does not prescribe the methods for estimating take for any applicant, but we review and ensure that applicants use the best available science, and methodologies that are logical and technically sound. Applicants may use different methods of calculating take (especially when using models) and still get to a result that is representative of the best available science and that allows for a rigorous and accurate evaluation of the effects on the affected populations. There are multiple pieces of the Navy's take estimation methods (
The Navy uses rigorous review processes (
In summary, we believe the Navy's methods, including the method for incorporating avoidance, are the most appropriate methods for predicting AUD INJ, non-auditory injury, TTS, and behavioral disturbance. But even with the consideration of avoidance, given some of the more conservative components of the methodology (
The Navy does not expect physical or non-auditory injury or mortality to any of the marine mammal species in the Study Area due to the proposed activities; therefore, it is not further discussed. Additionally, masking effects from vessel noise during the operation of T-AGOS vessels are not expected to qualify as take.
Based on the methods discussed in the previous sections and NAEMO, the Navy provided their take estimate and request for authorization of takes incidental to the use of acoustic sources for military readiness activities annually (based on the maximum number of activities that could occur per 12-month period) and over the 7-year period, covered by the application. NMFS agrees that the estimates for incidental takes by harassment from SURTASS LFA sonar sources requested for authorization are the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals are reasonably expected to be taken.
Table 51 summarizes the maximum annual and 7-year total amount and type of Level A harassment and Level B harassment that NMFS concurs is reasonably expected to occur by species or stock for SURTASS training and testing activities.
Table 52 provides estimated take by effect type from sonar (with most take from LFA sonar), including the comparative amounts of TTS and behavioral disturbance for each species or stock annually, noting that if a
Additionally, the updated Phase IV HF cetacean criteria reflect greater susceptibility to auditory effects at low and mid-frequencies than previously analyzed for the 2019 SURTASS final rule. Consequently, the predicted auditory effects due to sources under 10 kHz, including SURTASS LFA sonar, are substantially higher for this auditory group than in prior analyses of the same activities. Thus, some modeled exposures that would previously have been categorized as significant behavioral responses may now instead be counted as auditory effects (TTS and AUD INJ). For VHF cetaceans, susceptibility to auditory effects has not changed substantially since the prior analysis.
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses (“least practicable adverse impact”). NMFS does not have a regulatory definition for least practicable adverse impact. The 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the ITA process such that a determination of “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. For additional discussion of NMFS' interpretation of the least practicable adverse impact standard, see the Mitigation Measures section of the Gulf of Alaska Study Area final rule (88 FR 604, January 4, 2023).
Here, we discuss how we determine whether a measure or set of measures meets the “least practicable adverse impact” standard. Our separate analysis of whether the take anticipated to result from the Navy's activities meets the “negligible impact” standard appears in the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section below.
Our evaluation of potential mitigation measures includes consideration of two primary factors:
1. The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of the potential measure(s) is expected to reduce adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, or their availability for subsistence uses (where relevant). This analysis considers such things as the nature of the potential adverse impact (
2. The practicability of the measure(s) for applicant implementation. Practicability of implementation may consider such things as cost, impact on activities, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, specifically considers personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
While the language of the least practicable adverse impact standard calls for minimizing impacts to affected species or stocks, we recognize that the reduction of impacts to those species or stocks accrues through the application of mitigation measures that limit impacts to individual animals. Accordingly, NMFS' analysis focuses on measures that are designed to avoid or minimize impacts on individual marine mammals that are more likely to increase the probability or severity of population-level effects.
While direct evidence of impacts to species or stocks from a specified activity is rarely available, and additional study is still needed to understand how specific disturbance events affect the fitness of individuals of certain species, there have been improvements in understanding the process by which disturbance effects are translated to the population. With recent scientific advancements (both marine mammal energetic research and the development of energetic frameworks), the relative likelihood or degree of impacts on species or stocks may often be inferred given a detailed understanding of the activity, the environment, and the affected species or stocks—and the best available science has been used here. This same information is used in the development of mitigation measures and helps us understand how mitigation measures contribute to lessening effects (or the risk thereof) to species or stocks. We also acknowledge that there is always the potential that new information, or a new recommendation, could become available in the future and necessitate reevaluation of mitigation measures (which may be addressed through adaptive management) to see if further reductions of population impacts are possible and practicable.
In the evaluation of specific measures, the details of the specified activity will necessarily inform each of the two primary factors discussed above (expected reduction of impacts and practicability) and are carefully considered to determine the types of mitigation that are appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard. Analysis of how a potential mitigation measure may reduce adverse impacts on a marine mammal stock or species, consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and consideration of the impact on effectiveness of military readiness activities are not issues that can be meaningfully evaluated through a yes/no lens. The manner in which, and the degree to which, implementation of a measure is expected to reduce impacts, as well as its practicability in terms of these considerations, can vary widely. For example, a time/area restriction could be of very high value for decreasing population-level impacts (
Reduction of adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.
The emphasis given to a measure's ability to reduce the impacts on a species or stock considers the degree, likelihood, and context of the anticipated reduction of impacts to individuals (and how many individuals) as well as the status of the species or stock.
The ultimate impact on any individual from a disturbance event (which informs the likelihood of adverse species- or stock-level effects) is dependent on the circumstances and associated contextual factors, such as duration of exposure to stressors. Though any proposed mitigation needs to be evaluated in the context of the specific activity and the species or stocks affected, measures with the following types of effects have greater value in reducing the likelihood or severity of adverse species- or stock-level impacts: (1) avoiding or minimizing injury or mortality; (2) limiting interruption of known feeding, breeding, mother/young, or resting behaviors; (3) minimizing the abandonment of important habitat (temporally and spatially); (4) minimizing the number of individuals
The status of the species or stock is also relevant in evaluating the appropriateness of potential mitigation measures in the context of least practicable adverse impact. The following are examples of factors that may, alone or in combination, result in greater emphasis on the importance of a mitigation measure in reducing impacts on a species or stock: (1) the stock is known to be decreasing or status is unknown, but believed to be declining; (2) the known annual mortality (from any source) is approaching or exceeding the PBR level (as defined in MMPA section 3(20)); (3) the affected species or stock is a small, resident population; or (4) the stock is involved in a UME or has other known vulnerabilities (
Habitat mitigation, particularly as it relates to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, is also relevant to achieving the standard and can include measures such as reducing impacts of the activity on known prey utilized in the activity area or reducing impacts on physical habitat. As with species- or stock-related mitigation, the emphasis given to a measure's ability to reduce impacts on a species or stock's habitat considers the degree, likelihood, and context of the anticipated reduction of impacts to habitat. Because habitat value is informed by marine mammal presence and use, in some cases there may be overlap in measures for the species or stock and for use of habitat.
We consider available information indicating the likelihood of any measure to accomplish its objective. If evidence shows that a measure has not typically been effective nor successful, then either that measure should be modified or the potential value of the measure to reduce effects should be lowered.
Factors considered may include cost, impact on activities, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, will include personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(iii)).
NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures included in the application and the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of their initially proposed measures, which are informed by years of implementation and monitoring. A complete discussion of the Navy's evaluation process used to develop, assess, and select mitigation measures, which was informed by input from NMFS, can be found in chapter 4 (Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting) and appendix F (Marine Mammal Offshore Biologically Important Area (OBIA) Analysis) of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS. The process described in these sections of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS robustly supported NMFS' independent evaluation of whether the mitigation measures would meet the least practicable adverse impact standard. The Navy would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified in this proposed rule for the full 7 years to avoid or reduce potential impacts from acoustic stressors.
As a general matter, where an applicant proposes measures that are likely to reduce impacts to marine mammals, the fact that they are included in the application indicates that the measures are practicable, and it is not necessary for NMFS to conduct a detailed analysis of the measures the applicant proposed (rather, they are simply included). However, it is still necessary for NMFS to consider whether there are additional practicable measures that would meaningfully reduce the probability or severity of impacts that could affect reproductive success or survivorship.
The Navy has agreed to mitigation measures that would reduce the probability and/or severity of impacts expected to result from acute exposure to acoustic sources and impacts to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, the Navy would use a combination of delayed starts, sonar ramp-ups, and shutdowns to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance typically caused by exposure to higher received sound levels from acoustic sources. The Navy would implement the following primary mitigation measures, which are described in more detail below:
• Mitigation Monitoring: Use of a comprehensive suite of mitigation monitoring methods to support activity-based mitigation, including the use of visual monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring, and active acoustic monitoring using the HF/M3 system described below:
• Activity-Based Measures: Use of a combination of real-time measures to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance typically caused by exposure to higher received sound levels from acoustic sources, including delayed starts and shutdowns of the LFA sonar source, as well as ramp-ups of the HF/M3 system.
• Geographic Measures: Application of multiple time/area restrictions, including a year-round, 22-km CSR and avoiding identified OBIAs for marine mammals in areas or at times where they are known to engage in important behaviors (
The Navy assessed the practicability of the proposed measures in the context of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and their impacts on the Navy's ability to meet their congressionally mandated requirements and found that the measures are supportable. As described in more detail below, NMFS has independently evaluated the measures the Navy proposed in the manner described earlier in this section (
The Navy also evaluated numerous measures in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS that were not included in the application, and NMFS independently reviewed and preliminarily concurs with the Navy's analysis that their inclusion was not appropriate under the least practicable adverse impact standard based on our assessment. The Navy considered these additional potential mitigation measures in the context of the potential benefits to marine mammals and whether they are practical or impractical.
Section 4.6 (Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Considered but Eliminated) of chapter 4 of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, includes an analysis of an array of different types of mitigation that have been recommended over the years by non-governmental organizations or the public, through scoping or public comment on environmental compliance documents. These recommendations generally fall into three categories, discussed below: (1) reduction of activity; (2) activity-based operational measures; and (3) time/area limitations.
As described in section 4.6 of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, the Navy considered reducing the overall amount of training and testing activities, longer suspension or delay period (clearance time), restricting transmission to daylight hours, increased CSR, and expanded geographic sound field operational constraints. Many of these mitigation measures could potentially reduce the number of marine mammals taken via direct reduction of the activities or amount of sound energy put in the water. However, as described in chapter 4 of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, the Navy needs to train in the conditions in which they fight. These types of modifications fundamentally change the activity in a manner that would not support the purpose and need for the training (
Lastly, chapter 4 and appendix F of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS also describe a comprehensive analysis of potential geographic mitigation that includes consideration of both a biological assessment of how the potential time/area limitation would benefit the species and its habitat (
NMFS has reviewed the Navy's analyses in the application and chapter 4 and appendix F of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS, which considers the same factors that NMFS considers to satisfy the least practicable adverse impact standard, and concurs with the analysis and conclusions. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to include any of the measures that the Navy ruled out in the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS. Below are the mitigation measures that NMFS has preliminarily determined would ensure the least practicable adverse impact on all affected species and their habitat, including the specific considerations for military readiness activities.
The following sections describe the mitigation measures that would be implemented in association with the activities analyzed in this document. The mitigation measures are discussed in three sections: (1) mitigation monitoring methods; (2) activity-based mitigation; and (3) geographic mitigation. Additionally, table 53 describes the information designed to aid Lookouts and other applicable personnel with their observation, environmental compliance, and reporting responsibilities.
Additionally, in the event of a live stranding (or near-shore atypical milling) event within the Study Area or within 50 km of the boundary of the Study Area, where the stranding network is engaged in herding or other interventions to return animals to the water, NMFS OPR will advise the Navy of the need to implement shutdown procedures for SURTASS LFA sonar within 50 km of the stranding or near-shore atypical milling event. Following this initial shutdown, NMFS will communicate with the Navy to determine if circumstances support any modification of the shutdown zone. The Navy may decline to implement all or part of the shutdown if it determines that continuation of the military readiness activities is necessary for national security. Shutdown procedures for live stranding or milling cetaceans include the following:
• If at any time, the marine mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if herding/intervention efforts are stopped, NMFS will immediately advise that the shutdown around the animals' location is no longer needed;
• Otherwise, shutdown procedures will remain in effect until NMFS determines and advises that all live animals involved have left the area (either of their own volition or following an intervention); and
• If further observations of the marine mammals indicate the potential for re-stranding, additional coordination will be required to determine what measures are necessary to minimize that likelihood (
The Navy would use a comprehensive three-part monitoring program to support the implementation of real-time, activity-based mitigation measures described in the next section. The combined use of all three types of monitoring (
The primary objective of activity-based mitigation is to reduce overlap of marine mammals with stressors that have the potential to cause injury or mortality in real time. The Navy customizes mitigation for each applicable activity category or stressor. Activity-based mitigation generally involves: (1) the use of one or more trained Lookouts to diligently observe for marine mammals within a mitigation zone; (2) requirements for Lookouts to immediately communicate sightings of marine mammals to the appropriate watch station for information dissemination; and (3) requirements for the watch station to implement mitigation (
For SURTASS LFA sonar, the Navy must implement the proposed activity-based mitigation measures described below (manned surface vessel mitigation (table 55), ramp up of HF/M3 sonar (table 56), and the SURTASS LFA mitigation zone and suspension/delay (table 57)), as appropriate, in response to an applicable detection within, or entering into, the relevant mitigation zone.
In addition to activity-based mitigation, the Navy would implement geographic mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts on marine mammals (see figure 11-1 of the application), including a CSR and activity limitations around OBIAs. A full technical analysis of the geographic mitigation that the Navy considered for marine mammals is provided in section 4.6 and appendix F of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS. The Navy took into account public comments received on the 2019 SURTASS Supplemental EIS/OEIS, the best available science, and the practicability of implementing additional mitigation measures.
NMFS conducted an independent analysis of the geographic mitigation measures that the Navy proposed, which are described below. NMFS
Table 58 details geographic mitigation related to the implementation of a CSR.
Given the unique transmission characteristics of SURTASS LFA sonar and recognizing that certain areas of biological importance lie outside of the CSR (
Appendix F of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS describes the selection criteria and stepwise analysis used to identify OBIAs. In summary, the comprehensive assessment of marine areas as OBIA candidates included a thorough review of the Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs), Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs), areas listed in the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), Mission Blue Hope Spots, Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Sites, High Seas Alliance Hot Spots, NOAA NMSs, NMFS ESA Critical Habitat, and areas previously included on the OBIA Watch List or that otherwise previously received full assessment for potential OBIA designation. The OBIA Watch List includes potential marine areas already identified and reviewed by the Navy and NMFS but for which documentation on the importance of the area to marine mammals has not been established or is lacking in detail. A total of 413 candidate marine areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were identified and added to a database for recordkeeping and analysis.
While the BIAs identified by Kratofil
The process for selection of OBIAs for SURTASS LFA sonar, from the candidate list, includes a stepwise analysis based on four criteria: (1) Geographic; (2) LF-Hearing Cetaceans; (3) Biological Importance, and (4) Navy Practicability:
A marine area must be located at least partly in the Study Area (figure 1) and partly outside of the CSR (
A marine area must have evidence of the presence of cetaceans that specialize in LF-hearing, such as all baleen whales, or marine mammals that have demonstrated sensitivity to LF sounds, such as sperm whales and elephant seals. SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions are well below the range of best hearing sensitivity for most other odontocetes and pinnipeds based on the measured hearing thresholds (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2025; Houser
If a marine area meets Criteria 1 and 2, it must also have known biological importance to the relevant species present. As such, the marine area must meet at least one of the following biological sub-criteria to be considered as an OBIA: (1) have a presence of small, distinct populations with limited distributions; (2) have a presence of particularly high densities; (3) be a known breeding/calving ground(s); be a known foraging ground(s); (4) known migration routes; or (5) be a Critical Habitat as designated under the ESA. When direct data relevant to one of the biological subcriteria are limited, other available data and information may be used if those data and information, either alone or in combination with the limited direct data, are sufficient to establish that the biological criteria are met.
If an area meets the (1) geographic, (2) presence of LF cetaceans, and (3) biological importance criteria, it is considered a candidate OBIA, and the Navy conducts a practicability assessment (
Of the 38 marine areas assessed, the Navy and NMFS' analysis resulted in the recommendation of 5 new marine areas for identification as OBIAs, pending Navy fleet review for practicability. One OBIA is an expansion of an existing OBIA (OBIA 35, Western Australia—Blue Whale), to include the entirety of the Indian Ocean Blue Whale Migratory Route Important Marine Mammal Area (a designation by the International Union for Conservation of Nature). A second OBIA (OBIA 43, South of Lombok and Sumbawa Islands) represents an area that connects an existing OBIA (OBIA 37, Southern Bali) to the newly expanded OBIA 35, Western Australia-Blue Whale. The remaining three OBIAs are standalone areas (OBIA 40, 41, 42), disconnected from any existing OBIAs in the Study Area.
The five candidate OBIAs underwent Navy fleet practicability review. The Navy fleet determined that the identification of the five candidate OBIAs in the Study Area and the relevant seasonal effectiveness periods would not impede the effectiveness of SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities, would be practicable to implement as a geographic mitigation measure, and would not impact personnel safety. As a result, five new marine mammal OBIAs for SURTASS LFA sonar have been identified: OBIA 35 (expansion), 40, 41, 42, and 43 (table 59).
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures—many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the previous phases of SURTASS LFA sonar activities—and considered a range of other measures (
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by the Navy and NMFS (see section 4.6 of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS), NMFS has preliminarily determined that these proposed mitigation measures are appropriate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and considering specifically personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. Additionally, an adaptive management component helps further ensure that mitigation is regularly assessed and provides a mechanism to improve the mitigation, based on the factors above, through modification as appropriate.
The proposed rule comment period provides the public with an opportunity to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding the Navy's activities and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has preliminarily determined that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures would effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species and their habitat, NMFS will consider all public comments to help inform our final determination. Consequently, proposed mitigation measures may be refined, modified, removed, or added prior to the issuance of the final rule based on public comments received and, as appropriate, analysis of additional potential mitigation measures.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to authorize incidental take for an activity, NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
A Marine Mammal Monitoring program became part of the research, monitoring, and reporting program for SURTASS LFA sonar's environmental compliance in 2001. A monitoring and research provision was included in the 2012 final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and subsequent LOAs for SURTASS LFA sonar that required the Navy to consider research or monitoring strategies that would increase the understanding of the potential effects of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions.
The Navy would continue collecting monitoring data to inform our understanding of the occurrence of marine mammals in the Study Area, the likely exposure of marine mammals to stressors in the Study Area, the response of marine mammals to exposures to stressors, the consequences of a particular marine mammal response to their individual fitness and, ultimately, populations, and the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures. Taken together, mitigation and monitoring comprise the Navy's integrated approach for reducing environmental impacts from the specified activities. The Navy's overall monitoring approach seeks to leverage and build on existing research efforts whenever possible.
As agreed upon between the Navy and NMFS, the monitoring measures presented here, as well as the mitigation measures described above, focus on the protection and management of potentially affected marine mammals. A well-designed monitoring program can provide important feedback for validating assumptions made in analyses and allow for adaptive management of marine mammals and their habitat, and other marine resources. Monitoring is required under the MMPA, and details of the monitoring program for the specified activities have been developed through coordination between NMFS and the Navy through the regulatory process for previous SURTASS training and testing activities.
The SURTASS LFA sonar Marine Mammal Monitoring (M3) Program uses the Navy's fixed and mobile passive acoustic monitoring systems to enhance the Navy's collection of long-term data on individual and population levels of acoustically active marine mammals, principally baleen and sperm whales. Work using these sensors began under Navy funding in 1993.
The data that the M3 program collects are classified; however, analysts are working to develop reports that can be declassified and result in scientific papers that are peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals (Clark
Regarding the suggested means of coordinating research opportunities and activities, collaboration between the monitoring program and the Navy's research and development (
Specifically, the Navy's LMR Program is funding a two-phase SURTASS LFA sonar BRS. The BRS is intended to update previous LFAS studies completed during the 1990s. The Phase I feasibility study (conducted 2021-2022) investigated the best approach to designing a scientific study to assess behavioral response to LFA sonar. After the Phase I feasibility study, Navy determined that an adequate LFAS amplifier was not available within the Navy or commercially. Therefore, for Phase II, LMR is funding the construction of a new amplifier specific to the LFS source. Construction of the amplifier began in FY 2025 and will continue through FY 2026. The BRS field research is expected to begin in FY 2028 and will incorporate lessons learned and best practices from controlled and observational BRSs using other sonar sources conducted over the last 10 years and will aim to supplement understanding of how SURTASS LFA sonar may affect marine resources, including mysticetes and beaked whales.
The proposed regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to military readiness activities in the Study Area contain an adaptive management component. Our understanding of the effects of military readiness activities (
The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow NMFS to consider whether any changes to existing mitigation and monitoring requirements are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring and if the measures are practicable. If the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS would publish a notice of the planned LOA in the
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) results from monitoring and exercise reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (3) results from specific stranding investigations; (4) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (5) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOA. The results from monitoring reports and other studies may be viewed at:
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
The Navy would consult the Notification and Reporting Plan, which sets out notification, reporting, and other requirements when injured, live stranded, or dead marine mammals are detected. The Notification and Reporting Plan is available for review at:
The Navy would submit an unclassified annual report of the Study Area marine species monitoring, describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar year. Data collection will adhere to methods that allow for comparison to other range complexes and Study Areas in different geographic regions. The draft report must be submitted to the Director of OPR of NMFS annually as specified in the LOA. NMFS will submit comments or questions on the report, if any, within 3 months of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide comments on the draft report. The report would describe progress of knowledge made with respect to new or continuing scientific knowledge of marine mammals.
In the event that the analyzed sound levels were exceeded, the Navy would submit a preliminary report detailing the exceedance within 21 days after the anniversary date of issuance of the LOA. Regardless of whether analyzed sound levels were exceeded, the Navy would submit a detailed report (SURTASS LFA Annual Training and Testing Report) to NMFS annually within 3 months of the 1-year anniversary of the date of the issuance of the LOA. NMFS will submit comments or questions on the report, if any, within 1 month of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments, or 1 month after submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide comments on the draft report. For the final reporting year, Navy must submit a final/close out (year 7) SURTASS LFA Annual Training and Testing Report.
The SURTASS LFA Annual Training and Testing Report must include the following: (1) dates, times, and locations of each vessel during each training and testing activity; (2) information on sonar transmissions during each training and testing activity, including total annual hours or quantity of each bin of sonar used in all training and testing events, cumulative sonar use quantity from previous years' reports through the current year, and records of any sonar delays or suspensions due to the presence of marine mammals; and (3) marine mammal sighting information for each sighting in each exercise where mitigation was implemented. Marine mammal sighting information would include: (1) date, time, and location of sighting; (2) species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped), number of individuals, and the initial detection sensor (
The final/close-out (year 7) SURTASS LFA Annual Training and Testing Report will also serve as the comprehensive close-out report and provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual amount analyzed and the 7-year total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the 7-year amount analyzed. NMFS must submit comments on the draft final/close-out report, if any, within 3 months of receipt. The reports will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after submittal of the drafts if NMFS does not provide comments.
The Navy would continue to report and coordinate with NMFS for the following:
• Annual marine species monitoring technical review meetings that also include researchers and the Marine Mammal Commission; and
• Annual Adaptive Management meetings that also include the Marine Mammal Commission (and could occur in conjunction with the annual marine species monitoring technical review meetings).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
In the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, we identified the subset of potential effects that would be expected to qualify as take under the MMPA both annually and over the 7-year period covered by this proposed rule and then identified the maximum number of takes we believe are reasonably expected to occur (harassment) based on the methods described. The impact that any given take will have is dependent on many case-specific factors that need to be considered in the negligible impact analysis (
In this section, we discuss multiple factors in the context of the Navy's activity, including the calculation of take by harassment, direct behavioral disturbance, the diel cycle, assessing the number of individuals taken and the likelihood of repeated takes, physiological stress responses, TTS, masking, AUD INJ, impacts on marine mammal habitat, and the proposed mitigation measures, and how they are considered in the negligible impact analysis.
The specified activities reflect best estimates of the number of hours the Navy will conduct SURTASS LFA training and testing activities. The Description of the Proposed Activity section describes annual activities. There may be some flexibility in the exact number of transmission hours from year to year, but it will not exceed the annual total of 1,100 transmission hours for all vessels and take totals would not exceed the maximum annual total and 7-year total indicated in table 51. We base our analysis and negligible impact determination on the maximum number of takes that would be reasonably expected to occur annually and are proposed to be authorized, although, as stated before, the number of takes is only one part of the analysis, which includes qualitative consideration of other contextual factors that influence the degree of impact of the takes on the affected individuals.
The Navy's harassment take request was calculated using a model (NAEMO) for acoustic stressors, which NMFS reviewed and concurs appropriately estimates the maximum amount of harassment that is reasonably likely to occur based on the maximum number of hours and equal distribution of hours across the 15 geographic modeling areas. As described in more detail in the
The Navy and NMFS anticipate more severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to higher received levels (though this is in no way a strictly linear relationship for behavioral effects throughout species, individuals, or circumstances) and less severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to lower received levels. However, there is also growing evidence of the importance of distance in predicting marine mammal behavioral response to sound, (
The estimates calculated using the BRF do not differentiate between the different types of behavioral responses that qualify as Level B harassment. As described in the application, the Navy identified, with NMFS' input, that moderate behavioral responses, as characterized in Southall
The use of SURTASS LFA sonar in a given region would generally be considered transient and temporary; however, we note the comparatively large ensonified areas generated by the higher-power LF source. In the range of potential behavioral effects that might be expected as part of a response that qualifies as an instance of Level B harassment (which, by nature of the way it is modeled/counted, occurs within 1 day), the less severe end might include exposure to comparatively lower levels of a sound, at a detectably greater distance from the animal, for a few or several minutes to multiple hours within the day of the exposure (though not more than 8 hours, which is the maximum transmission time proposed for any single day), which could result in a behavioral response such as avoiding an area that an animal would otherwise have chosen to move through or feed in for some amount of time or breaking off one or a few feeding bouts. More severe effects could occur when the animal gets close enough to the SURTASS LFA sonar source to receive a comparatively higher level or is exposed continuously to one source for a longer time. Such effects might result in an animal having a more severe flight response and leaving a larger area for a day or more or potentially losing feeding opportunities for a day. However, such severe behavioral effects are expected to occur infrequently. Of note, required monitoring reports indicate that there have been no apparent avoidance responses observed since use of SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities began in the Study Area in 2002.
To help assess this, for SURTASS LFA sonar used in the Study Area, the Navy provided information estimating the instances of take by Level B harassment by behavioral disturbance under each BRF that would occur within 6-dB increments, and by distance in 5-km bins in section 2.3.3 of appendix A of the application. As mentioned above, all else being equal, an animal's exposure to a higher received level is more likely to result in a behavioral disturbance that could more likely accumulate to impacts on reproductive success or survivorship of the animal, but other contextual factors (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral responses to noise exposure, when taking place in a biologically important context (
As described previously, Navy modeling uses the best available science to predict the instances of exposure above certain acoustic thresholds, which are equated, as appropriate, to harassment takes. As further noted, for active acoustics it is typically more challenging to parse out the number of individuals taken by Level B harassment and the number of times those individuals are taken from this larger number of instances, though factors such as movement ecology (
For SURTASS LFA sonar, given the limited maximum annual number of hours of sonar spread across four vessels and a large geographic area, the fact that the training and testing occurs far from shore (>22 km) and outside of known areas of concentration of LFA sonar-sensitive species (OBIAs), and considering the predicted take numbers as compared to known stock abundances (with the exception of beaked whales and the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whales (take as a percentage of stock abundance ranges from 104-207 percent), it is unlikely that the individuals of most species or stocks are taken on multiple days (<1 percent for most, 1-10 percent for three stocks). Further, takes of single stocks are expected across multiple regions. All beaked whale stocks and species have comparatively higher numbers of takes and percentages as compared to known abundances. These higher numbers are driven by the BRF for sensitive species, which appropriately reflects the known higher sensitivity of beaked whales to acoustic stressors. However, we note that the BRFs used to predict takes from active acoustic sources do not take into account how loud the animal may perceive the sonar signal to be based on the frequency of the sonar versus the animal's hearing range and, as noted previously, HF hearing specialists (
When calculating the proportion of a population taken (
Some of the lower level physiological stress responses (
NMFS and the Navy have estimated that 30 species of marine mammals may incur some level of TTS from SURTASS LFA sonar. As mentioned previously, in general, TTS can last from a few minutes to days, be of varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths, all of which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected individual, which can range from minor to more severe. Table 52 indicates the number of takes by TTS that may be incurred by different species from exposure to active sonar. The TTS incurred by an animal is primarily characterized by three characteristics:
1.
2.
In short, given the anticipated duration and levels of sound exposure, we would not expect marine mammals to incur more than low levels of TTS in most cases for sonar exposure, with potentially occasional moderate levels for some mysticete individuals. To add context to this degree of TTS, individual marine mammals may regularly experience variations of 6 dB differences in hearing sensitivity in their lifetime (Finneran
3.
Compared to laboratory studies, marine mammals are likely to experience lower SELs from SURTASS LFA sonar in the Study Area due to movement of the source and animals and the duty cycle of SURTASS LFA sonar, though the larger ensonified area may result in longer exposures than some other sonar sources. Also, for the same reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle section of the Preliminary Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination section, and because of the short distance between the source and animals needed to reach high SELs, it is unlikely that marine mammals would be exposed to the levels necessary to induce TTS in subsequent time periods such that hearing recovery is impeded. Additionally, though the frequency range of TTS that marine mammals might incur would overlap with some of the frequency ranges of their vocalization types, the frequency range of TTS from SURTASS LFA sonar does not span the entire frequency range of one vocalization type, much less span all types of vocalizations or other critical auditory cues.
As described above, we expect the majority of TTS takes to be in the form of milder, relatively short-term (minutes to hours), narrower band (only affecting a portion of the animal's hearing range) TTS. This means that for one to several times per year, for several minutes, maybe a few hours, or at most in limited circumstances a few days, a taken individual will have diminished hearing sensitivity (
The ultimate potential impacts of masking on an individual (if it were to occur) are similar to those discussed for TTS, but an important difference is that masking occurs only during the time of the signal, versus TTS, which continues beyond the duration of the signal. Fundamentally, masking is referred to as a chronic effect because one of the key harmful components of masking is its duration—the fact that an animal would have reduced ability to hear or interpret critical cues becomes much more likely to cause a problem the longer it occurs. Also inherent in the concept of masking is the fact that the potential for the effect is present only during the times that the animal and the source are in close enough proximity for the effect to occur (and further, this time period would need to coincide with a time that the animal was utilizing sounds at the masked frequency). As our analysis has indicated, because of the relative movement of vessels and the sound sources primarily involved in this proposed rule, as well as the fact that the Navy proposes a maximum of 8 hours of SURTASS LFA sonar transmission per day, we do not expect the exposures with the potential for masking to be of a long duration.
Masking is fundamentally more of a concern at lower frequencies because low-frequency signals propagate significantly farther than higher frequencies and because they are more likely to overlap both the narrower LF calls of mysticetes and pinnipeds and many non-communication cues (
In conclusion, the bandwidth of a given SURTASS LFA sonar transmitted signal is limited (100 to 500 Hz), the average pulse length 60 seconds, the signals do not remain at a single frequency for more than 10 seconds, and the system is silent nominally 90-92.5 percent of the time during at-sea training activities. With the nominal duty cycle of 7.5-10 percent, masking by SURTASS LFA sonar would occur only over a very small temporal scale. Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as from vessels; however, masking effects from vessel noise during the operation of T-AGOS vessels are not expected to rise to the level of take. The duration of temporal and spatial overlap with any individual marine mammal and the SURTASS LFA sonar would not be expected to result in more than short-term, low impact masking that would neither have a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impact on marine mammals nor affect reproduction or survival.
Table 52 indicates the number of takes of each species by Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury resulting from exposure to active sonar is estimated to occur, and table 51 indicates the totals across all SURTASS LFA sonar activities. The number of takes estimated to result from auditory injury annually from sonar for each species or stock ranges from 0 (for 35 species) to 32 (1-9 AUD INJ takes for 9 species or stocks, and 32 for fin whales with NSD). As described previously, the Navy's model likely overestimates the number of injurious takes. Nonetheless, these Level A harassment take numbers represent the maximum number of instances in which marine mammals would be reasonably expected to incur auditory injury, and we have analyzed them accordingly.
As discussed previously in relation to TTS, the likely consequences to the health of an individual that incurs auditory injury can range from mild to more serious and is dependent upon the degree of auditory injury and the frequency band associated with auditory injury. The majority of any auditory injury incurred as a result of exposure to SURTASS LFA sonar would be expected to be in the 100-500 Hz range and could overlap a small portion of the hearing and communication frequency range of mysticetes and some pinnipeds. The SURTASS frequency range is higher than the typically pelagic large whale main foraging and communication range (
The Navy implements mitigation measures during SURTASS LFA sonar activities that are expected to minimize the severity of any AUD INJ accrued. This includes visual, active acoustic, and passive acoustic monitoring (the combination of which has been shown to be over 98 percent effective at detecting marine mammals) to support delaying initial sonar transmissions and suspending ongoing transmission when a marine mammal is observed in the shutdown zone (1.8 km around the LFA sonar array and T-AGOS vessel). These measures are described further in the Proposed Mitigation Measures section. Monitoring for marine mammals during the SURTASS LFA sonar activities would also include active (HF/M3) and passive acoustic detection methods before the activity begins and continue until 15 minutes after LFA sonar transmissions are terminated, in order to cover the mitigation zone. These mitigation measures are considered near 100 percent effective in avoiding exposures within the 1.8 km mitigation zone and reduce the severity of any auditory injury exposures (if incurred).
It is unlikely that any of the limited number of auditory injuries accrued to any one species would result in reduced reproductive success of any individuals, and auditory injury of the low severity anticipated here is not expected to affect the survival of any individual marine mammals.
As described in the
Any anthropogenic noise attributed to SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities in the Study Area would be temporary and the acoustic habitat of the affected area would be expected to immediately return to its original state when these activities cease. The proposed activities would add sound to the ambient ocean environment, and water quality may potentially be affected should pollutants be discharged from T-AGOS vessels into oceanic waters. However, no impacts to the sediment or benthic environment would be expected because all equipment would be deployed in the marine water column.
The proposed SURTASS LFA sonar activities would not affect the physical characteristics of marine mammal habitats. Unless the sound source is stationary and/or continuous over a long duration in one area (noting the 8-hour daily maximum for SURTASS LFA sonar), the effects of the introduction of sound into the environment are generally considered to have a less severe impact on marine mammal habitat than actions involving physical alteration of the habitat. Marine mammals may be temporarily displaced from areas where SURTASS LFA training and testing activities are occurring to avoid noise exposure (
NMFS does not expect any short- or long-term effects to marine mammal food resources from SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities. It is unlikely that the activities of the T-AGOS vessels transmitting LFA sonar at any place in the Study Area over the course of a year would implicate all of the areas for a given species or stock in any year. It is anticipated that ample similar nearby habitat areas are available for species/stocks in the event that portions of preferred areas are ensonified. Implementation of the 1.8 km LFA shutdown zone would ensure that most marine mammal takes are limited to lower-level Level B harassment. Further, in areas of known or likely biological importance for marine mammal functions (feeding, reproduction,
As described in the Proposed Mitigation Measures section, this proposed rule includes mitigation measures that would reduce the probability and/or severity of impacts expected to result from acute exposure to acoustic sources and impacts to marine mammal habitat. Specifically, the Navy would use a comprehensive suite of mitigation monitoring methods to support activity-specific mitigation, including the use of visual monitoring, passive acoustic monitoring, and active acoustic monitoring using the HF/M3 system. Real-time activity specific measures would include a combination of delayed starts, sonar ramp-ups, and shutdowns to minimize the likelihood or severity of AUD INJ and reduce instances of TTS or more severe behavioral disturbance caused by acoustic sources. Navy would also apply time/area restrictions, including a 22-km CSR and avoiding identified OBIAs for marine mammals. The CSR and OBIA geographic restrictions on SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities are expected to minimize the likelihood of disruption of marine mammals in areas where important behavior patterns (
In examining the results of the mitigation monitoring procedures over the previous 22 years of SURTASS LFA sonar activities, NMFS has concluded that the mitigation and monitoring measures for initiating shutdowns of the LFA sonar system have been implemented properly and have successfully minimized the potential adverse effects of SURTASS LFA sonar to marine mammals in the 1.8 km LFA sonar mitigation zone around the vessel.
As described above and in detail in table 61, NMFS has estimated and proposed to authorize the take, by harassment only, of 44 species of marine mammals, including 34 stocks identified pursuant to the MMPA. A subset of nine of those species could also be taken by Level A harassment over the course of the 7-year period. For reasons stated previously, no mortalities or serious injuries are anticipated to occur as a result of the Navy's proposed SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing activities, and none are proposed to be authorized by NMFS.
For the following summarized reasons, based on the analysis and information in this proposed rule, as well as the referenced supporting
• No mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization, nor is any non-auditory injury. Neither acoustic impacts resulting in stranding nor vessel strikes are expected to result from SURTASS LFA sonar training and testing. There is no empirical evidence of strandings or vessel strikes of marine mammals associated spatially or temporally with the use of SURTASS LFA sonar. Moreover, the sonar system acoustic characteristics differ between LFA sonar and MFA sonars that have been associated with strandings.
• The maximum annual allowable instances of take under this proposed rule by Level A harassment (AUD INJ only) range from 0 to 32 (fin whales with NSD).
• Regarding potential takes associated with auditory impairment, as described in the Temporary Threshold Shift section, any takes in the form of TTS are expected to be lower-level and of short duration. Any associated lost opportunities or capabilities that individuals might experience as a result of TTS would not be at a level or duration that would be expected to impact reproductive success or survival. For similar reasons, as discussed in the Auditory Injury section, while auditory injury impacts last longer, the low anticipated levels of AUD INJ that could be reasonably expected to result from these activities, should they occur, are unlikely to have any effect on fitness.
• The operational characteristics of the specified activities, including the limited maximum annual number of hours of SURTASS LFA sonar (1,100) shared across multiple vessels (likely not in close proximity to one another) and spread over the entire western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean (including multiple smaller and separated seas for some species), as well as the 8-hour maximum daily transmission, thus minimize the likelihood of multi-day or long-duration exposures for any individual marine mammals. Further, and as noted above, the context of exposures is important in evaluating the ultimate impacts of Level B harassment on individuals, and in the case of SURTASS LFA sonar, the approaching sound source would be moving through the open ocean at low speeds, so concerns of noise exposure are somewhat lessened in this context compared to situations where animals may not be as able to avoid strong or rapidly approaching sound sources.
• Regarding the potential takes associated with behavioral harassment, as described in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, behavioral disturbance from SURTASS LFA sonar activities in a given region would generally be considered transient and temporary, though the ensonified area generated by the higher-power LF source is comparatively large. Behavioral disturbance is likely variable between species, individuals within a species, and context of the exposure, and responses are likely to range from less severe (
• Previous reports indicate that the HF/M3 active sonar system has proven to be the most effective of the mitigation monitoring measures to detect possible marine mammals in proximity to the transmitting LFA sonar array, and the use of this system substantially increases the probability of detecting marine mammals within the mitigation zone. Because the HF/M3 system is able to monitor marine mammals out to an effective range of 2-2.5 km from the vessel, it is unlikely that the SURTASS LFA sonar operations would expose marine mammals to an SPL greater than about 174 dB re 1 μPa. Past results of the HF/M3 system tests provide confirmation that the system has a demonstrated probability of single-ping detection of 95 percent or greater for single marine mammals that are 10 m in length or larger, and a probability approaching 100 percent for multiple pings of any sized marine mammal (see chapter 4 of the 2025 SURTASS Draft SEIS/OEIS).
• In areas of known or likely biological importance for functions such as feeding, reproduction,
• Based on the information in the
• As noted above, there is a higher likelihood that some number of individual beaked whales (of all species and stocks) or humpback whales (Western North Pacific stock) may be taken on up to several days within a year, considering annual take maxima and the total across 7 years. However, as described, given the magnitude and severity of the potential take (especially noting the reduced sensitivity of beaked whales to SURTASS LFA sonar signal), and in consideration of the required mitigation measures and other information presented, the Navy's activities are not expected to result in impacts on the reproduction or survival of any individuals, much less affect annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the specified activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The Navy will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in Arctic waters nor in the Gulf of Alaska, or off the Aleutian Island chain where subsistence uses of marine mammals protected through sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA occur. Therefore, there are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. As such, there would be no
There are 10 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area: (1) blue whale; (2) fin whale; (3) humpback whale; (4) NPRW; (5) sei whale; (6) sperm whale; (7) false killer whale; (8) bearded seal; (9) Hawaiian monk seal; and (10) Steller sea lion. The humpback whale (86 FR 21082, April 21, 2021), false killer whale (83 FR 35062, July 24, 2018), and Hawaiian monk seal (51 FR 16047, April 30, 1986; revised in 1988 (53 FR 18988, May 26, 1988) and in 2015 (80 FR 50925, August 21, 2015)) have critical habitat designated under the ESA in the Study Area.
The Navy will consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA for the Study Area activities. NMFS will also consult internally on the issuance of the regulations and an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
The Navy and NMFS will work with NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to fulfill our responsibilities under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act as warranted and will complete any NMSA requirements prior to a determination on the issuance of the final rule and LOA.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the MMPA rule and request for LOA.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a Federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is the only entity that would be affected by this proposed rulemaking and is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated LOA to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect only the Navy and not any small entities, NMFS concludes that the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain any collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Fish, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 218 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section. Requirements imposed on the Navy must be implemented by
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy under this subpart may be authorized in a letter of authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the Pacific Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Study Area. The Pacific SURTASS LFA Sonar Study Area is delineated in Figure 1 to this paragraph (b) and includes the western and central North Pacific Ocean and eastern Indian Ocean, not including the western Indian Ocean or Sea of Okhotsk.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is authorized only if it occurs incidental to the Navy conducting military readiness activities, including those in the following categories:
(1) Training;
(2) Maintenance and upgrades; and
(3) Exercises.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from August 13, 2026, through August 12, 2033.
(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart, the Navy may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 218.230(b) by Level A harassment and Level B harassment associated with the use of SURTASS LFA sonar, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart and the applicable LOA.
(b) The incidental take of marine mammals by the activities listed in § 218.230(c) is limited to the following species:
Except incidental take described in § 218.232 and authorized by a LOA issued under this subpart, it shall be unlawful for any person to do the following in connection with the activities described in this subpart:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and this subpart;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.232(b);
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) in any manner other than as specified in the LOA;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) after NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.232(b) after NMFS determines such taking is having, or may have, an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting the activities identified in § 218.230(c), the mitigation measures contained in this section and any LOA issued under this subpart must be implemented by Navy personnel or contractors who are trained according to the requirements in the LOA. If Navy contractors are serving on behalf of Navy personnel, Navy contractors must follow the mitigation applicable to Navy personnel. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) Prior to SURTASS LFA sonar activities, the Navy must promulgate executive guidance for the administration, execution, and compliance with the environmental regulations under these regulations and LOA.
(c)
(1) Immediately prior to getting underway and while underway, Lookouts will observe for marine mammals;
(2) While underway, Navy personnel must maneuver the manned surface vessels (which may include reducing speed) to maintain a distance of at least 457.2 meters (m) (500 yards (yd)) around observed whales and 182.9 m (200 yd) around all other marine mammals (except bow- or wake-riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so. No further action is necessary if a dolphin continues to approach the vessel after the vessel has made one course and/or speed change.
(3) Pedestal-mounted `Big Eye' (20 x 110) binoculars (if installed) shall be used to assist in the detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel. If the presence of marine mammals is detected acoustically, Lookouts posted on the vessel shall increase the vigilance of their visual observation.
(4) Manned surface vessel mitigation will not be implemented if one of the following conditions applies:
(i) Dolphins are determined to be intentionally swimming at the bow, alongside the vessel or vehicle, or directly behind the vessel or vehicle (
(ii) The vessel's safety is threatened, or
(iii) Doing so is impractical based on mission requirements (
(d)
(e)
(1) Navy personnel must not commence or recommence SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions earlier than 15 minutes after:
(i) All marine mammals have left the area of the 2,000-yd (1.8 km) LFA sonar mitigation zone; and
(ii) There is no further detection of any marine mammal within the 2,000-yd (1.8 km) LFA sonar mitigation zone as determined by the visual, passive acoustic, and active acoustic high frequency monitoring described in § 218.235.
(2) [Reserved]
(f)
(1) Prior to full-power use, Navy personnel must ramp up the HF/M3 active sonar power level beginning at a maximum source sound pressure level of 180 decibels referenced to 1 microPascal (dB re 1 μPa) root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) in 10-dB increments to full operating levels over a period of no less than 5 minutes. Navy personnel must implement this ramp-up procedure:
(i) At least 30 minutes prior to any SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions; and
(ii) Any time after the HF/M3 source has been powered down for more than 2 minutes.
(2) Navy personnel must not increase the HF/M3 SPL once a marine mammal is detected; and
(3) Ramp-up may recommence once marine mammals are no longer detected.
(g)
(1) LFA sonar training and testing activities must be conducted such that:
(i) The received level of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions will not exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL within 22 km (12 nautical miles (nmi)) from any emergent land, including offshore islands;
(ii) The received level of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions will not exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS SPL at a distance of 1 km (0.5 nmi) seaward of the outer perimeter of any Offshore Biologically Important Area (OBIA) in the SURTASS LFA Study Area during the effective period specified. OBIAs and the related effective periods are listed in paragraph (g)(2) of this section or may be subsequently identified through the adaptive management process specified in § 218.237(c)(1). The boundaries and effective periods of the OBIAs will be kept on file in NMFS' Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and on its website.
(iii) No more than 25 percent of the sound source amount analyzed (no more than 275 hours in a given year) of SURTASS LFA sonar for training and testing will be conducted within 18.5 km (10 nmi) of any single OBIA during any year; and
(iv) SURTASS LFA sonar activities will not occur within territorial seas of foreign nations, which are areas from 0-22 km (0-12 nmi) from shore.
(2) Figure 1 to this paragraph (g)(1) shows the location of the OBIAs. Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) shows the specified timeframes when the requirements from paragraph (g)(1) apply.
(3) Should national security require the Navy to exceed a requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, personnel conducting the activity are required to obtain approval through the chain of command prior to commencement of the activity. The Navy must provide NMFS with notification as soon as is practicable and include the information (
(h)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Navy must implement the following monitoring and reporting requirements when conducting the specified activities:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i) Lookouts must conduct visual monitoring from the vessel's bridge during all daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset);
(ii) During training and testing activities that employ SURTASS LFA sonar in the active mode, Lookouts must conduct visual monitoring beginning 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes before SURTASS LFA sonar begins to transmit and continue until 30 minutes after sunset or until 15 minutes after the SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions cease.
(iii) Lookouts must log all detections of marine mammals during SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions during training and testing activities;
(iv) Lookouts must record the number, identification, bearing, and range of observed marine mammals during training and testing activities, and must identify marine mammals to the lowest taxonomic level possible; and
(v) Lookouts must continue visual observations until 15 minutes have passed since the last detection of the marine mammal.
(2)
(i) Passive acoustic monitoring must begin 30 minutes before the SURTASS LFA sonar begins to transmit and continue until 15 minutes after SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions cease.
(ii) If a detected sound is estimated to be from a vocalizing marine mammal, the sonar technician will notify the senior military member-in-charge, who must alert the HF/M3 sonar operator and Lookouts (during daylight).
(3)
(i) HF/M3 sonar monitoring must begin 30 minutes before the SURTASS
(ii) If a marine mammal is detected during HF/M3 monitoring within the SURTASS LFA mitigation zone, the sonar operator must notify the senior military member-in-charge.
(4)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1)
(i) Dates, times, and locations of each vessel during each training and testing activity;
(ii) Information on sonar transmissions during each training and testing activity, including:
(A) Total annual hours or quantity of each bin of sonar used in all training and testing events,
(B) Cumulative sonar use quantity from previous years' reports through the current year, and
(C) Records of any sonar delays or suspensions due to the presence of marine mammals.
(iii) Marine mammal sighting information for each sighting in each exercise where mitigation was implemented:
(A) Date, time, and location of sighting;
(B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped);
(C) Number of individuals;
(D) Initial Detection Sensor (
(E) Indication of specific type of platform observation was made from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing platform);
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal;
(G) Sea state;
(H) Visibility;
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting;
(J) Indication of whether animal was less than 200 yd (182.9 m), 200 to 500 yd (182.9 to 457.2 m), 500 to 1,000 yd (457.2 to 914.4 m), 1,000 to 2,000 yd (914.4 m to 1.8 km), or greater than 2,000 yd (1.8 km) from sonar source;
(K) Whether operation of sonar sensor was delayed, or sonar was powered or shut down, and the length of delay;
(L) Bearing and range from the vessel; and
(M) For visual observations, Lookouts must report the observed behavior of the animal(s) in plain language and without trying to categorize in any way (such as animal closing to bow ride, paralleling course/speed, floating on surface and not swimming,
(iv) An evaluation (based on data gathered during the reporting year) of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the received level to which marine mammals may be exposed. This evaluation must identify the specific observations that support any conclusions the Navy reaches about the effectiveness of the mitigation.
(2)
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to this subpart, the Navy must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of this subpart.
(c) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of § 218.237(c)(1)) required by an LOA, the Navy must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.237.
(d) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Geographic areas for incidental taking;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA must be based on a determination that the level of
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of the LOA will be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.236 for the activity identified in § 218.230(c) shall be modified, upon request by the Navy, provided that:
(1) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for the regulations in this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under this subpart were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), the LOA should be modified provided that:
(1) NMFS determines that the change(s) to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting do not change the findings made for this subpart and do not result in more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or stock or years); and
(2) NMFS may publish a notice of proposed modified LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.236 for the activities identified in § 218.230(c) may be modified by NMFS OPR under the following circumstances:
(1) After consulting with the Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications, through adaptive management, NMFS may modify (including remove, revise, or add to) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring measures set forth in this subpart.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include, but are not limited to:
(A) Results from the Navy's monitoring report and annual exercise reports from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by this subpart or a subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS shall publish a notice of proposed LOA(s) in the
(2) If NMFS OPR determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.236, a LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; harvest specifications and closures.
NMFS announces the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications, apportionments, and prohibited species catch (PSC) allowances for the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for groundfish during the remainder of the 2026 and the start of the 2027 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the BSAI (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Harvest specifications and closures are effective from 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 18, 2026, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2027.
Electronic copies of the Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final EIS, and the annual Supplementary Information Reports (SIR) to the Final EIS prepared for this action are available at:
Andrew Olson and Steven Whitney, 907-586-7228.
Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMP and govern the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS approved it, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify annually an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species (§ 679.20(a) and (c)). The sum of all TACs for target groundfish species in the BSAI must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt) (§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A) and (a)(2)). This final rule specifies the sum of the TACs at 2.0 million mt for 2026 and 2.0 million mt for 2027. NMFS also must specify: (1) apportionments of TACs; (2) PSC limits and prohibited species quota (PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21; (3) seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC; (4) American Fisheries Act (AFA) allocations; (5) Amendment 80 allocations; (6) Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserve amounts established by § 679.20(b)(1)(ii); (7) ABC surpluses and ABC reserves for CDQ groups and any Amendment 80 cooperatives for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole; and (8) halibut discard mortality rates (DMR). The final harvest specifications set forth in tables 1 through 25 of this action satisfy these requirements.
Section 679.20(c)(3)(i) requires that NMFS consider public comment on the proposed harvest specifications and, after consultation with the Council, publish final harvest specifications in the
Under § 679.20(c)(3), NMFS is publishing the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications after: (1) considering comments received within the comment period; (2) consulting with the Council at its December 2025 meeting; (3) considering information presented in the 2026 SIR to the Final EIS that assesses the need to prepare a Supplemental EIS (see
The specifications are based on the most recent biological, ecosystem, socioeconomic, and harvest information about the condition of the BSAI groundfish stocks and the review and recommendations of the BSAI Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Advisory Panel (AP), and the Council. These specifications were developed in compliance with the harvest strategy from the FMP and the Final EIS and ROD.
The most recent reviewed information available to inform these specifications includes the 2024 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish stocks (see
The ESRs are a component of the SAFE report. The ESRs compile and summarize information about the status of the Alaska marine ecosystems for the Plan Team, SSC, AP, Council, NMFS, and the public, and are updated annually. The ESRs include ecosystem report cards, ecosystem assessments,
In September 2025, the Plan Team met and recommended proposed harvest specifications for 2026 and 2027 based on the 2024 SAFE report. In October 2025, the SSC reviewed these recommendations and other available relevant information and made recommendations on proposed OFLs and ABCs to the Council. After reviewing the available information, the Council recommended proposed 2026 and 2027 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs in October 2025. NMFS subsequently reviewed those recommendations, and NMFS published the proposed specifications for public comment on December 16, 2025 (90 FR 58204). The proposed 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications were based on the 2024 SAFE report and on the final 2026 specifications that were reviewed by the Plan Team, SSC, and the Council in 2024 and published in the
NMFS was unable to prepare new stock assessments that were scheduled for updates this year for the 2025 SAFE report or new ESRs. The November Groundfish Plan Team meetings were canceled since there were no updated stock assessments to review at that time. At the December Council meeting, the SSC used the best scientific information available to make recommendations on final 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs. This information included the 2024 stock assessments (which already included projected OFLs and ABCs for 2026) and the stock-specific risk tables included with those assessments; Plan Team recommendations from its 2024 and September 2025 meetings; catch reports for each stock and stock complex comparing recent catch data to TACs, ABCs, and OFLs; tables summarizing relevant information on groundfish stocks and stock complexes that included biomass and survey trends; information available from the 2025 Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) surveys; and available ESR information that included the 2024 ESRs and the ESR previews presented to Plan Team and SSC in September and October 2025, respectively. More information on the SSC's review is provided in the December 2025 report:
The 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs are based on the best available biological and scientific information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. The FMP specifies the tiers to be used to calculate OFLs and ABCs. The tier applicable to a particular stock or stock complex is determined by the level of reliable information available to the fisheries scientists. This information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers to define OFLs and ABCs, with tier 1 representing the highest level of information quality available and tier 6 representing the lowest level of information quality available. This tier structure was used to calculate the 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs for each stock or stock complex. In December 2025, the SSC adopted the 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs that were recommended as proposed specifications by the Plan Team for all groundfish species in September 2025 and the SSC in October 2025. Because the 2024 SAFE report does not set OFLs and ABCs for 2027, the SSC set the 2027 OFLs and ABCs equal to 2026. These 2027 OFLs and ABCs will be superseded by the final 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications.
The 2026 and 2027 TACs are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information consistent with § 679.20(a)(3). In making its recommendations, the Council adopted the SSC's OFL and ABC recommendations and the AP's TAC recommendations for all groundfish stocks and stock complexes.
NMFS finds that the recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the groundfish stocks as described in the 2024 SAFE report and in consideration of ecosystem information presented in the ESRs. NMFS also finds that the Council's recommendations for TACs are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of all TACs within the OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt (§ 679.20(a)(2) and (a)(3)). Consistent with National Standard 1 guidelines (50 CFR 600.310), the annual catch limit rules for all fisheries (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009), and the FMP, none of the Council's recommended 2026 or 2027 TACs exceed the final 2026 or 2027 ABCs for any stock or stock complex. NMFS finds that the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy outlined in the FMP, as well as the Final EIS and ROD, and the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2024 SAFE report that was approved by the Council, while accounting for ecosystem, socioeconomic, and harvest information presented in the final 2024 SAFE report, including the ESRs for both the BS and AI.
NMFS has reviewed the recommendations of the SSC and Council for OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for stocks and stock complexes in the BSAI as well as any other relevant information. Based on that review, NMFS is specifying the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs set forth in the tables of this final rule as consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable law. Therefore, this final rule provides notification that NMFS approves the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications as recommended by the Council.
The 2026 harvest specifications set in this final action supersede the 2026 harvest specifications previously set in the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). Pursuant to this final action, the 2026 harvest specifications are effective from 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2026, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2026, and the 2027 harvest specifications are effective from 0001 hours, A.l.t., January 1, 2027, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2027.
The State of Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) established the guideline harvest level (GHL) for vessels using pot,
The State's GHL for Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in State waters in the BS is equal to 13 percent of the Pacific cod ABC for the BS subarea. Under the State's management plan, the BS GHL will increase by 1 percent if 90 percent of the GHL is harvested by November 15 of the preceding year for 2 consecutive years but may not exceed 15 percent of the BS subarea ABC. If 90 percent of the GHL is not harvested by November 15 of the preceding year for 2 consecutive years, the GHL will decrease by 1 percent, but the GHL may not decrease below 10 percent of the BS subarea ABC. For 2026, the GHL for vessels using pot gear will remain the same as the GHL set in 2025 at 13 percent of the BS subarea ABC, which is 18,398 mt. The GHL for 2027 may change based on harvest during the preceding fishing years, and any adjustment based on the 2027 GHL will be accounted for in the final 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications. Additionally, the State has established a GHL for vessels using jig gear in State waters in the BS equal to 45 mt of Pacific cod in the BS. The Council and its Plan Team, SSC, and AP recommended that the sum of all State and Federal Pacific cod removals not exceed the ABC recommendations for Pacific cod in the BS subarea. Accordingly, after reviewing the Council recommendations, NMFS approves 2026 and 2027 Pacific cod TACs in the BS subarea that account for the State's GHLs for Pacific cod caught in State waters in the BS.
In 2025, the State's GHL for Pacific cod in State waters in the AI was equal to 35 percent of the AI ABC. The AI GHL will increase annually by 4 percent of the AI subarea ABC if 90 percent of the GHL is harvested by November 15 of the preceding year, but may not exceed 39 percent of the AI subarea ABC or 15 million pounds (6,804 mt). If 90 percent of the GHL is not harvested by November 15 of the preceding year for 2 consecutive years, the GHL will decrease by 4 percent, but the GHL may not decrease below 15 percent of the AI subarea ABC. For 2026, the GHL decreased to 31 percent (a 4 percent reduction) of the AI subarea ABC, which is 4,022 mt. The GHL for 2027 may change based on harvest during the preceding fishing years, and any adjustment based on the 2027 GHL will be accounted for in the final 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications. The Council and its Plan Team, SSC, and AP recommended that the sum of all State and Federal Pacific cod removals not exceed the ABC recommendations for Pacific cod in the AI subarea. Accordingly, after reviewing the Council recommendations, NMFS approves 2026 and 2027 Pacific cod TACs in the AI subarea that account for the State's GHLs for Pacific cod caught in State waters in the AI.
In November of each year, the Plan Team typically updates the SAFE report to include new information collected such as NMFS surveys, revised stock assessments drafted by stock assessment authors, and catch data. This past November, there was a disruption in the completion of the stock assessments that were scheduled for update in 2025. The stock assessments were not completed in time for the Plan Team's meeting in November and the Plan Team was unable to meet to review, update, and finalize the 2025 SAFE report.
At the September 2025 Plan Team meeting, NMFS scientists presented updated and new survey results and a preview of ecosystem status information for the ESRs. Scientists also discussed potential changes to assessment models, and accompanying preliminary stock estimates. At the October 2025 Council meeting, the SSC reviewed this information. Normally, the Plan Team would then review at the November Plan Team meeting survey results, model changes, and updated stock assessments for groundfish stocks (consistent with the schedule for review of those stock assessments), which the SSC would then review, along with the Plan Team recommendations, at the December SSC meeting. Model changes based on SSC recommendations often result in changes to final OFLs, ABCs, and TACs. This year, however, there are limited changes between the proposed and final specifications because no updated stock assessments could be prepared and so no model changes or additional review were completed by the Plan Team in November 2025 due to the lapse in appropriations and the government shutdown.
In October 2025, the Council's recommendations for the proposed 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications (90 FR 58204, December 16, 2025) were based on information contained in the 2024 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2024. In October 2025, the Council recommended that proposed 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs be based on rollovers of the 2026 amounts from the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). In making this recommendation, the Council used the best information available from the 2024 stock assessments.
In December 2025, the Council's recommendations for the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications were based on information contained in the 2024 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2024, due to a disruption in the completion of the stock assessments that were scheduled for update in 2025 and the Plan Team did not meet in November to review, update, and finalize the 2025 SAFE report. However, the 2024 SAFE report as well as the additional information available for the SSC's and Council's review is the best scientific information available. The 2024 SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters (including stock projections for 2026), as well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem, including the stock-specific risk tables and information from the BS ESR and AI ESR. SSC and Council recommendations were also informed by Plan Team recommendations from 2024 and September 2025 meetings; catch reports and relevant information on biomass and survey trends for each stock and stock complex; 2025 AFSC surveys; and ESR information in addition to the 2024 ESRs (ESR previews presented to Plan Team and SSC in September and October 2025).
The AP and Council review the recommended OFLs and ABCs, and in turn recommended TACs for each stock and stock complex such that TACs do not exceed ABCs and ABCs do not exceed OFLs. The Council recommended to increase the AI subarea Pacific cod TAC by 519 mt in 2026 and to increase the TAC by 519 mt in 2027 from the proposed TAC. This increase corresponds to the decrease in the State GHL. The only TAC reduction was for Alaska plaice, which was reduced from the TAC in the proposed rule by 518 mt in 2026 and by 518 mt in 2027 due to anticipated decreased incidental catches in other fisheries. This decrease was necessitated by the increase of Pacific cod TACs in order to keep the sum of TACs in the BSAI from exceeding the 2.0 million mt limit. These changes are compared in table A. The final TACs, including the limited changes to TACs between the proposed and final harvest specifications, are based on the most recent scientific, biological, and socioeconomic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations, and the harvest strategy from the Final EIS and ROD as described in the proposed and final harvest specifications, including the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt.
Table 1 lists the final 2026 OFL, ABC, TAC, initial TAC (ITAC), CDQ reserve allocations, and nonspecified reserves of the BSAI groundfish stocks and stock complexes; and table 2 lists the final 2027 OFL, ABC, TAC, ITAC, CDQ reserve allocations, and nonspecified reserves of the BSAI groundfish stocks and stock complexes. These final 2026 and 2027 TAC amounts for the BSAI are within the OY range established for the BSAI and do not exceed the ABC for any stock and stock complex. These final 2026 and 2027 ABCs do not exceed the OFL for any stock and stock complex. The apportionment of TAC amounts among fisheries and seasons is discussed below.
Section 679.20(b)(1)(i) requires that NMFS reserve 15 percent of the TAC for each target species category (except for pollock, fixed gear allocation of sablefish, and Amendment 80 species) in a nonspecified reserve. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) requires that NMFS allocate 20 percent of the fixed gear allocation of sablefish to the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve for each subarea. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D) requires that NMFS allocate 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocations of sablefish for each subarea from the nonspecified reserve and 10.7 percent of the BS subarea Greenland turbot and BSAI arrowtooth flounder TACs to the respective CDQ reserves. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) requires that NMFS allocate 10.7 percent of the TACs for Atka mackerel, AI Pacific ocean perch, yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead sole, and Pacific cod (the Amendment 80 species) to the respective CDQ reserves.
Sections 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A) and 679.31(a) require allocation of 10 percent of the BS subarea pollock TAC to the pollock CDQ directed fishing allowance (DFA). Sections 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(
After subtracting the 10.7 percent CDQ reserve and pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8) and (10), NMFS allocates ICAs of 2,000 mt of flathead sole, 3,000 mt of rock sole, 2,000 mt of yellowfin sole, 10 mt of Western Aleutian District (WAI) Pacific ocean perch, 60 mt of Central Aleutian District (CAI) Pacific ocean perch, 100 mt of Eastern Aleutian District (EAI) Pacific ocean perch, 20 mt of WAI Atka mackerel, 100 mt of CAI Atka mackerel, and 800 mt of EAI and BS subarea Atka mackerel. These ICAs are based on NMFS's examination of the incidentally retained and discarded catch in other target fisheries in recent years.
The regulations do not designate the remainder of the nonspecified reserve by species or species group. Any amount of the reserve may be apportioned during the year to a target species that contributed to the nonspecified reserve, provided that such apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(a)(3) and do not result in overfishing (§ 679.20(b)(1)(i)). The Regional Administrator has determined that amounts from the nonspecified reserve will be apportioned to two species groups that contributed to the nonspecified reserve. Because U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the full TACs specified in tables 1 and 2, the total reserve amounts for each species group is included in the full TACs specified in tables 1 and 2. These apportionments of the reserve amounts for these species groups are consistent with NMFS regulations (§ 679.20(a)(3), (b)) and will not result in overfishing as the TACs with the reserve amounts included do not exceed ABCs (and ABCs do not exceed OFLs, see tables 1 and 2 above). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b), NMFS is apportioning the reserve amounts shown in table 3 from the nonspecified reserve to BS and AI “other rockfish” and BS/EAI and CAI/WAI blackspotted/rougheye rockfish for 2026 and 2027.
Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A) requires that the BS subarea pollock TAC be apportioned as a DFA, after subtracting 10 percent for the CDQ program and 46,000 mt for the ICA in both 2026 and 2027, as follows: 50 percent to the inshore sector, 40 percent to the catcher/processor (C/P) sector, and 10 percent to the mothership sector. In the BS subarea, 45 percent of the DFAs are
Section 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(
Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(
Tables 4 and 5 also list seasonal apportionments of pollock and harvest limits within the Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA). The harvest of pollock within the SCA, as defined at § 679.22(a)(7)(vii), is limited to no more than 28 percent of the annual pollock DFA before 12 p.m. A.l.t. (noon), April 1, as provided in § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C). The A season pollock SCA harvest limit is apportioned to each sector in proportion to each sector's allocated percentage of the DFA.
Section 679.20(a)(8) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors, after subtracting the CDQ reserves, ICAs for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and non-trawl gear sector, and the jig gear allocation (tables 7 and 8). The percentage of the ITAC for Atka mackerel allocated to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is listed in table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and in § 679.91. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8)(i), up to 2 percent of the EAI District and the BS subarea Atka mackerel TAC may be allocated to vessels using jig gear. The percent of this allocation is recommended annually by the Council and is based on several criteria, including the amount of Atka mackerel harvested by vessels using jig gear during recent fishing years and the anticipated harvest capacity of the jig gear fleet. In December 2025, the Council recommended a 2026 and 2027 EAI District and BS subarea Atka mackerel TAC allocated to vessels using jig gear of 0 percent. In recent years no vessels have used jig gear to harvest Atka mackerel, and the Council and NMFS received no public comment on anticipated harvest in future years. After reviewing the Council's recommendation and the regulatory criteria (§ 679.20(a)(8)(i)), NMFS approves a 0 percent allocation of the Atka mackerel TAC in the EAI District
Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) apportions the Atka mackerel TAC, after subtraction of the jig gear allocation, into two equal seasonal allowances. Section 679.23(e)(3) sets the first seasonal allowance for directed fishing with trawl gear from January 20 through June 10 (A season), and the second seasonal allowance from June 10 through December 31 (B season). Section 679.23(e)(4)(iii) applies Atka mackerel seasons to CDQ Atka mackerel trawl fishing. Within any fishing year, any under harvest or over harvest of a seasonal allowance may be added to or subtracted from a subsequent seasonal allowance (§ 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(B)). The ICAs and jig gear allocations are not apportioned by season.
Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(
Tables 7 and 8 list these 2026 and 2027 Atka mackerel seasonal and area allowances, and the sector allocations. One Amendment 80 cooperative has formed for the 2026 fishing year. Because all Amendment 80 vessels are part of the sole Amendment 80 cooperative, no allocation to the Amendment 80 limited access sector is required for 2026. The 2027 allocations for Atka mackerel between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2026. Table 21 lists the allocation of CDQ Atka mackerel among the CDQ groups.
Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) allocates 10.7 percent of the BS TAC and the AI TAC to the CDQ program. After CDQ allocations have been deducted from the respective BS and AI Pacific cod TACs, the remaining BSAI Pacific cod TACs are combined for calculating further BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations and seasonal allowances. If the non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC is or will be reached in either the BS or the AI subareas, NMFS will prohibit non-CDQ directed fishing for Pacific cod in that subarea as provided in § 679.20(d)(1)(iii).
Section 679.20(a)(7)(ii) allocates to the non-CDQ sectors the Pacific cod TAC in the combined BSAI, after subtracting 10.7 percent for the CDQ program, as follows: 1.4 percent to vessels using jig gear; 2.0 percent to hook-and-line or pot CVs less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; 0.2 percent to hook-and-line CVs greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; 48.7 percent to hook-and-line C/Ps; 8.4 percent to pot CVs greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; 1.5 percent to pot C/Ps; 2.3 percent to AFA trawl C/Ps; 13.4 percent to Amendment 80 sector; and 22.1 percent to trawl CVs. The ICA for the hook-and-line and pot sectors will be deducted from the aggregate portion of Pacific cod TAC allocated to the hook-and-line and pot sectors. For 2026 and 2027, the Regional Administrator establishes an ICA of 500 mt based on anticipated incidental catch by these sectors in directed fisheries for groundfish other than Pacific cod. During the fishing year, NMFS may reallocate unharvested Pacific cod among sectors, consistent with the reallocation hierarchy set forth at § 679.20(a)(7)(iii).
The BSAI ITAC allocation of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector is established in table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.91. One Amendment 80 cooperative has formed for the 2026 fishing year. Because all Amendment 80 vessels are part of the sole Amendment 80 cooperative, no allocation to the Amendment 80 limited access sector is required for 2026. The 2027 allocations for Pacific cod between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2026.
The BSAI ITAC allocation of Pacific cod to the Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative (PCTC) Program is established in § 679.131(b). Section 679.131(b)(1)(i) also requires NMFS to establish an ICA for incidental catch of Pacific cod in the A and B seasons by trawl CVs engaged in directed fishing for groundfish other than PCTC Program Pacific cod. For 2026 and 2027 NMFS sets an ICA amount of 1,500 mt in the A season and 600 mt in the B season. These ICA amounts are based on incidental catch in recent years. In the annual harvest specification process, NMFS determines the Pacific cod trawl CV TAC and the annual apportionment of Pacific cod in the A and B seasons between the PCTC Program DFA and the ICA (§ 679.131(b)(2)) (tables 9 and 10 below). The 2026 PCTC cooperative allocations and PSC limits are listed in table 11. The 2027 cooperative allocations and PSC limits for PCTC Program cooperatives will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2026.
The sector allocations of Pacific cod are apportioned into seasonal allowances to disperse the Pacific cod fisheries over the fishing year (§§ 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) (CDQ), 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(A) (non-CDQ), and 679.23(e)(5) (seasons)). Tables 9 and 10 list the CDQ and non-CDQ sector allocations and the non-CDQ seasonal allowances. In accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(B) and (C), any unused portion of a non-CDQ Pacific cod seasonal allowance for any sector, except the jig sector, will become available at the beginning of that sector's next seasonal allowance. Section 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) sets forth the CDQ Pacific cod gear allowances by season, and CDQ groups are prohibited from exceeding those seasonal allowances (§ 679.7(d)(6)).
Section 679.20(a)(7)(vii) requires that the Regional Administrator establish an Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit based on Pacific cod abundance in Area 543 as determined by the annual stock assessment process. Based on the 2024 stock assessment, the Regional Administrator determined for 2026 and 2027 the estimated amount of Pacific cod abundance in Area 543 is 32 percent of the total AI abundance. To calculate the Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit, NMFS first subtracts the State GHL Pacific cod amount from the AI Pacific cod ABC. Then NMFS determines the harvest limit in Area 543 by multiplying the percentage of Pacific cod estimated in Area 543 (32 percent) by the remaining ABC for AI Pacific cod. Based on these calculations, the Area 543 harvest limit is 2,864 mt for 2026, and 2,864 mt for 2027.
Under the PCTC Program, NMFS is required to specify an AI set-aside of up to 12 percent of the PCTC Program A season cooperative quota for delivery to an AI shoreplant in years in which an AI community representative notifies NMFS of the intent to process PCTC Program Pacific cod in the City of Adak or City of Atka (§ 679.132). A notice of intent to process PCTC Program Pacific cod must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator by a representative of the City of Adak or the City of Atka no later than October 15. A notice of intent was not received by October 15, 2025, and accordingly the AI set-aside will not be in effect for 2026. The 2027 set-aside will be determined after the October 15, 2026, deadline in conjunction with the 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications process.
Based on the final 2026 and 2027 Pacific cod TACs, tables 9 and 10 list the CDQ and non-CDQ TAC amounts; non-CDQ seasonal allowances by gear; the sector allocations of Pacific cod; and the seasons set forth at § 679.23(e)(5). The CDQ allocation of BS and AI Pacific cod among the CDQ groups is listed in table 21.
Sections 679.20(a)(4)(iii) and (iv) require allocation of the sablefish TAC for the BS and AI subareas between the trawl gear and fixed gear sectors. Gear allocations of the sablefish TAC for the BS subarea are 50 percent for trawl gear and 50 percent for fixed gear. Gear allocations of the sablefish TAC for the AI subarea are 25 percent for trawl gear and 75 percent for fixed gear. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) requires that NMFS apportion 20 percent of the fixed gear allocation of sablefish TAC to the CDQ reserve for each subarea. Also, § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D)(
The Council recommended, and NMFS agrees, that only trawl sablefish TAC be established biennially and that fixed gear sablefish TAC be established for 1 year. The harvest specifications for the fixed gear sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fisheries are limited to the 2026 fishing year to ensure those fisheries are conducted concurrently with the halibut IFQ fishery, which opens March 26, 2026. Concurrent sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries reduce the potential for discards of halibut and sablefish in those fisheries. The sablefish IFQ fisheries remain closed at the beginning of each fishing year until the final harvest specifications for the sablefish IFQ fisheries are in effect. Table 12 lists the 2026 and 2027 gear allocations of the sablefish TAC and CDQ reserve amounts. Allocations among CDQ groups are listed in table 21.
Sections 679.20(a)(10)(i) and (ii) require that NMFS allocate AI Pacific ocean perch and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole ITACs between the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector, after subtracting 10.7 percent for the CDQ reserves and ICAs for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and vessels using non-trawl gear. The allocations of the ITACs for AI Pacific ocean perch and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector are established in accordance with tables 33 and 34 to 50 CFR part 679 and with § 679.91.
One Amendment 80 cooperative has formed for the 2026 fishing year. Because all Amendment 80 vessels are part of the sole Amendment 80 cooperative, no allocation to the Amendment 80 limited access sector is required for 2026. The 2027 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2026. Tables 13 and 14 list the 2026 and 2027 allocations of the AI Pacific ocean perch and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TACs. Allocations among the CDQ groups are listed in table 21.
Section 679.2 defines the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole as the difference between the annual ABC and TAC for each species. Section 679.20(b)(1)(iii) establishes ABC reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The ABC surpluses and the ABC reserves are necessary to mitigate the operational variability, environmental conditions, and economic factors that may constrain the CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 cooperatives from fully harvesting their allocations and to improve the likelihood of achieving and maintaining, on a continuing basis, the OY in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, may set the ABC reserve at or below the ABC surplus for each species, thus maintaining the TAC at or below ABC limits. An amount equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC reserves will be allocated as CDQ ABC reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. Section 679.31(b)(4) establishes the annual allocations of CDQ ABC reserves among the CDQ groups. The Amendment 80 ABC reserves are the ABC reserves minus the CDQ ABC reserves. Section 679.91(i)(2) establishes the Amendment 80 cooperatives' ABC reserve to be the ratio of each cooperatives' quota share units and the total Amendment 80 quota share units, multiplied by the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for each respective species. Table 15 lists the 2026 and 2027 ABC surplus and ABC reserves for BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The ABC reserves for the CDQ groups are listed in table 21.
Sections 679.21(b) and (e) set forth the BSAI PSC limits for halibut, crab, and herring. Section 679.21(b)(1) establishes three fixed halibut PSC limits totaling 1,770 mt, and assigns 315 mt of the halibut PSC limit as the PSQ reserve for use by the groundfish CDQ Program, 745 mt of the halibut PSC limit for the BSAI trawl limited access sector, and 710 mt of the halibut PSC limit for the BSAI non-trawl sector. An additional amount of BSAI halibut PSC limit for the Amendment 80 sector is determined annually based on the most recent halibut biomass estimates from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) setline survey index and the NMFS AFSC Eastern Bering Sea shelf trawl survey index. In accordance with § 679.21(b)(1)(i), NMFS uses both halibut biomass estimates such that the value at the intercept of those survey indices from table 58 to 50 CFR part 679 is the Amendment 80 sector halibut PSC limit. The 2025 AFSC Eastern Bering Sea shelf trawl survey index estimate of halibut abundance is 133,705 mt, which is below the threshold level of 150,000 mt and is in the “low” abundance state. The 2025 IPHC setline survey index is 6,664 mt and is in the “low” abundance state. Pursuant to table 58 to 50 CFR part 679, the 2026 Amendment 80 sector halibut PSC limit is 1,309 mt. NMFS will publish the 2027 Amendment 80 sector halibut PSC limit in the 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications.
Sections 679.21(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) require apportionment of the BSAI non-trawl halibut PSC limit into PSC allowances among six fishery categories (see table 19). Sections 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), (e)(3)(i)(B), and (e)(3)(iv) require apportionment of the trawl PSC limits into PSC allowances among seven fishery categories (see tables 16, 17, and 18). These apportionments into PSC allowances are based on the fishery categories' share of anticipated halibut PSC during the fishing year and the need to optimize the amount of total groundfish harvested under the halibut PSC limit for the non-trawl and trawl sectors.
Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the FMP, the Council recommends that certain specified non-trawl fisheries be exempt from the halibut PSC limit. NMFS concurs with this recommendation and exempts the pot gear fishery, the jig gear fishery, and the sablefish IFQ fixed gear fishery categories from halibut bycatch restrictions for the following reasons: (1) the pot gear fishery has low halibut bycatch mortality; (2) NMFS estimates halibut mortality for the jig gear fleet to be negligible because of the small size of the fishery and the selectivity of the gear; and (3) the sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries have low halibut bycatch mortality because the IFQ program requires that legal-size halibut be retained by vessels using fixed gear if a halibut IFQ permit holder or a hired master is aboard and is holding unused halibut IFQ for that vessel category and the IFQ regulatory area in which the vessel is operating (see § 679.7(f)(11)).
The 2025 total groundfish catch for the pot gear fishery in the BSAI was 37,446 mt, with an associated halibut bycatch mortality of 8 mt. The 2025 jig gear fishery harvested 0 mt of total groundfish.
Pursuant to § 679.21(e), PSC limits for crab and herring are specified annually based on abundance and spawning biomass. Based on the most recent (2025) survey data, the red king crab mature female abundance is estimated at 12.7 million red king crabs, and the effective spawning biomass is estimated at 25.9 million pounds (lbs) (11,750 mt). Based on the criteria set out at § 679.21(e)(1)(i), the calculated 2026 and 2027 PSC limit of red king crab in Zone 1 for trawl gear is 97,000 animals. This limit derives from the mature female abundance estimate above 8.4 million mature red king crab and an effective spawning biomass between 14.5 and 55 million lbs.
Section 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)(
Based on the most recent (2025) survey data from the NMFS annual bottom trawl survey, Tanner crab (
Pursuant to § 679.21(e)(1)(iii), the PSC limit for trawl gear for snow crab (
Pursuant to § 679.21(e)(1)(v), the PSC limit of Pacific herring caught while conducting any trawl operation for BSAI groundfish is 1 percent of the annual eastern BS herring biomass. The regulation does not specify how to determine the eastern BS herring biomass for calculating the PSC limit. The Council and NMFS have relied on the State's annual estimate. This year, the AP did not consider the 2025 forecasted biomass estimate because the State submitted their 2025 forecasted biomass estimate after the AP had met and had considered recommendations for apportionments among trawl fishery categories. The Council considered the available forecasted biomass estimates (2024 and 2025) and the AP's recommendation for apportionments among trawl fishery categories that was based on the 2024 estimate. The Council ultimately recommended a herring PSC limit based on the 2024 forecasted biomass estimate of 265,096 mt and apportionments among the trawl fishery categories consistent with the AP's recommendations. For 2026 and 2027, NMFS implements a PSC limit for Pacific herring based on the 2024 forecasted biomass estimate, which was developed by the State in 2024 based on biomass for spawning aggregations, and based on the Council's recommendations for apportionments among trawl fishery categories, which were developed with the benefit of the AP's recommendations for apportionments. The herring PSC limit for 2026 and 2027 is 2,651 mt for all trawl gear as listed in tables 16 and 17.
Section 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A)(
The BSAI allocation of halibut and crab PSC limits to the PCTC Program is established in § 679.131(c) and (d). The halibut PSC apportioned to the trawl CV sector is 98 percent of the halibut PSC limit apportioned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector's Pacific cod fishery category, and the remaining 2 percent is apportioned to the AFA C/P sector. The trawl CV sector apportionment is further assigned to the A and B seasons (95 percent) and the C season (5 percent), and the A and B season limit is reduced by 25 percent to determine the overall PCTC Program halibut PSC limit. The crab PSC apportioned to the trawl CV sector is 90.6 percent of the crab PSC limit apportioned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector's Pacific cod fishery category, and the remaining 9.4 percent is apportioned to the AFA C/P sector. The trawl CV sector apportionment is further assigned to the A and B seasons (95 percent) and the C season (5 percent), and the A and B season limit is reduced by 35 percent to determine the overall PCTC Program crab PSC limit. The limits of halibut and crab PSC for the PCTC Program are listed in table 18, and in table 11 for PSC limits for PCTC Program cooperatives.
Sections 679.21(b)(2) and (e)(5) authorize NMFS, after consulting with the Council, to establish seasonal apportionments of halibut and crab PSC limits for the BSAI trawl limited access and non-trawl sectors to maximize the ability of the fleets to harvest the available groundfish TAC and to minimize bycatch. The factors to be considered are: (1) seasonal distribution of prohibited species; (2) seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to prohibited species distribution; (3) PSC bycatch needs on a seasonal basis relevant to prohibited species biomass and expected catches of target groundfish species; (4) the expected variations in bycatch rates throughout the year; (5) the expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons; (6) the expected start of fishing effort; and (7) economic effects of establishing seasonal prohibited species apportionments on segments of the target groundfish industry. Based on these criteria, the Council recommended and NMFS approves the seasonal PSC apportionments in tables 18 and 19 to maximize harvest among gear types, fisheries, and seasons while minimizing bycatch of PSC. PSC limits for PCTC Program cooperatives are listed in table 11. PSC limits among the CDQ groups are listed in table 21.
The IPHC annually assesses the abundance and potential yield of the Pacific halibut stock using all available data from the commercial and sport fisheries, other removals, and scientific surveys. Additional information on the Pacific halibut stock assessment may be found in the IPHC's 2025 Pacific halibut stock assessment (December 2025) available on the IPHC website at:
To monitor halibut bycatch mortality allowances and apportionments, the Regional Administrator uses observed halibut bycatch rates, DMRs, and estimates of groundfish catch to project when a fishery's halibut bycatch mortality allowance or seasonal apportionment is reached. Halibut bycatch rates are based on observed estimates of halibut bycatch in the groundfish fishery. DMRs are estimates of the proportion of halibut bycatch that do not survive after being returned to the sea. The cumulative halibut mortality that accrues to a particular halibut PSC limit is the product of a DMR multiplied by the estimated halibut PSC. DMRs are estimated using the best scientific information available in conjunction with the annual BSAI stock assessment process.
The DMRs are calculated annually based on a methodology developed by a halibut working group (IPHC, Council, and NMFS staff). The DMR methodology and findings are included as an appendix to the 2024 SAFE report. The updated DMRs calculated using the DMR methodology are reviewed by the Plan Team in September and the SSC in October. The Plan Team and SSC reviewed the 2026 and 2027 DMRs in September 2025 and October 2025, respectively, and that review is available at
The halibut working group continues to consider improvements to the methodology used to calculate halibut mortality, including potential changes to the reference period (the period of data used for calculating the DMRs). Future DMRs may change based on additional years of observer sampling, which could provide more recent and accurate data and could improve the accuracy of estimation and progress on methodology. The methodology continues to ensure that NMFS is using DMRs that accurately reflect halibut mortality, which will inform the sectors of their estimated halibut mortality and allow sectors to respond with methods that could reduce mortality and, eventually, the DMR for that sector.
At the October 2025 meeting, the SSC reviewed updated DMRs recommended by the Plan Team that were derived from the DMR methodology, which uses a 2-year and 4-year reference period depending on data availability. The Council then reviewed and recommended proposed 2026 and 2027 DMRs. NMFS adopts for 2026 and 2027 the DMRs reviewed by the Plan Team and SSC and recommended by the Council in October 2025. The final 2026 and 2027 DMRs in this rule are unchanged from the DMRs in the proposed 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications (90 FR 58204, December 16, 2025). Table 20 lists these final 2026 and 2027 DMRs.
Under § 679.21(f)(2), NMFS annually allocates portions of either 33,318, 45,000, 47,591, or 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limits among the AFA sectors, depending on: (1) past bycatch performance; (2) whether Chinook salmon bycatch incentive plan agreements (IPAs) are formed and approved by NMFS; and (3) whether NMFS determines it is a low Chinook salmon abundance year. NMFS will determine that it is a low Chinook salmon abundance year when abundance of Chinook salmon in western Alaska is less than or equal to 250,000 Chinook salmon. The State provides to NMFS an estimate of Chinook salmon abundance using the 3-System Index for western Alaska based on the Kuskokwim, Unalakleet, and Upper Yukon aggregate stock grouping.
If an AFA sector participates in an approved IPA and has not exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), and if it is not a low Chinook salmon abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(A). If no IPA is approved, or if the sector has exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), and if it is not a low abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(C). If an AFA sector participates in an approved IPA and has not exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), and if in a low abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 45,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(B). If no IPA is approved, or if the sector has exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), and if in a low abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 33,318 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(D).
NMFS has determined that 2025 was a low Chinook salmon abundance year, based on the State's estimate that Chinook salmon abundance in western Alaska is less than 250,000 Chinook salmon. In addition, all AFA sectors are participating in NMFS-approved IPAs, and no sector has exceeded the sector's annual Chinook salmon bycatch performance standard in any 3 of 7 consecutive years. Therefore, in 2026, the Chinook salmon PSC limit is 45,000 Chinook salmon, allocated to each sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(B). In 2026, the Chinook salmon bycatch performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6) is 33,318 Chinook salmon, allocated to each sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(D). The AFA sector Chinook salmon PSC limits are also seasonally apportioned with 70 percent for the A season pollock fishery and 30 percent for the B season pollock fishery (§§ 679.21(f)(3)(i) and 679.23(e)(2)). NMFS publishes the approved IPAs, allocations, and reports at:
Section 679.21(g)(2)(i) specifies 700 fish as the Chinook salmon PSC limit for the AI pollock fishery. Section 679.21(g)(2)(ii) allocates 7.5 percent, or 53 Chinook salmon, as the AI PSQ reserve for the CDQ program, and allocates the remaining 647 Chinook salmon to the non-CDQ fisheries.
Section 679.21(f)(14)(i) specifies 42,000 fish as the non-Chinook salmon PSC limit for vessels using trawl gear from August 15 through October 14 in the Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA). Section 679.21(f)(14)(ii) allocates 10.7 percent, or 4,494 non-Chinook salmon, in the CVOA as the PSQ reserve for the CDQ program, and allocates the remaining 37,506 non-Chinook salmon in the CVOA to the non-CDQ fisheries. Section 679.21(f)(14)(iv) exempts from closures in the Chum Salmon Savings Area trawl vessels participating in directed fishing for pollock and operating under an IPA approved by NMFS.
In 2006, Public Law 109-241 amended section 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). This law specifies the allocation of CDQ groundfish among the six CDQ groups. The six CDQ groups are the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Central Bering Sea Fisherman's Association (CBSFA), Coastal Villages Regional Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA). NMFS published the CDQ and CDQ PSQ percentages on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51804). The groundfish and PSC amounts for each CDQ group are based on those percentages as applied to the total CDQ amounts in these harvest specifications. These amounts for each CDQ group are shown in table 21.
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator may establish a DFA for a species or species group if the Regional Administrator determines that any allocation or apportionment of a target species has been or will be reached. If the Regional Administrator establishes a DFA, and that allowance is or will be reached before the end of the fishing year, NMFS will prohibit directed fishing for that species or species group in the specified subarea, regulatory area, or district (§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii)). Pursuant to § 679.21(b)(4) and (e)(7), if the Regional Administrator determines that a fishery category's bycatch allowance or seasonal apportionment of halibut, red king crab,
Based on historical catch patterns and anticipated fishing activity, the Regional Administrator has determined that the groundfish allocation amounts in table 22 will be necessary as incidental catch, in addition to ICAs previously mentioned, to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2026 and 2027 fishing years. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator establishes the DFA for the species and species groups in table 22 as zero mt. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for these sectors and species or species groups in the specified areas effective at 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2026, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 18, 2027. Also, for the BSAI trawl limited access sector, bycatch allowances of halibut, red king crab,
Inseason closures implemented under the final 2025 and 2026 BSAI harvest specifications for groundfish (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) remain effective
While these closures are in effect, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a fishing trip. These closures to directed fishing are in addition to closures and prohibitions found at 50 CFR part 679. NMFS may implement other openings and closures during the 2026 and 2027 fishing years as necessary for effective conservation and management and consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR part 679.
Section 679.64 establishes groundfish harvesting sideboard limits on AFA C/Ps and CVs in the BSAI. These sideboard limits are necessary to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who do not directly benefit from the AFA from those fishermen and processors who received exclusive harvesting and processing privileges under the AFA.
Pursuant to § 679.64(a)(1), the Regional Administrator establishes annual AFA C/P harvest limits for each groundfish species or species group in which a TAC is specified for an area or subarea of the BSAI. Section 679.20(d)(1)(iv)(D) and table 54 to 50 CFR part 679 prohibit listed AFA C/Ps from directed fishing for all groundfish species or species groups subject to sideboard limits. Section 679.64(a)(1)(v) exempts AFA C/Ps from a yellowfin sole sideboard limit because the final aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is greater than 125,000 mt. Section 679.64(a)(1)(iii) sets the procedures for calculating AFA C/P sideboard limits when they apply.
Section 679.64(a)(2) and tables 40 and 41 to 50 CFR part 679 establish a formula for calculating PSC sideboard limits for halibut and crab caught by listed AFA C/Ps. The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). PSC species listed in table 23 that are caught by listed AFA C/Ps participating in any groundfish fishery other than pollock will accrue against the final 2026 and 2027 PSC sideboard limits for the listed AFA C/Ps. Section 679.21(b)(4)(iii), (e)(3)(v), and (e)(7) authorizes NMFS to close directed fishing for groundfish other than pollock for listed AFA C/Ps once a final 2026 or 2027 PSC sideboard limit listed in table 23 is reached. Pursuant to § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(C) and (e)(3)(ii)(C), halibut or crab PSC by listed AFA C/Ps while fishing for pollock will accrue against the PSC allowances annually specified for the pollock/Atka mackerel/“other species” fishery categories, according to § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (e)(3)(iv).
Section 679.64(b)(3) and (b)(4) and tables 40 and 41 to 50 CFR part 679 establish formulas for setting AFA CV groundfish sideboard limits and halibut and crab PSC sideboard limits for the BSAI. The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002), Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007), and Amendment 122 (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023). Section 679.64(b)(6) exempts AFA CVs from a yellowfin sole sideboard limit because the final aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is greater than 125,000 mt.
Section 679.20(d)(1)(iv)(D) and table 55 to 50 CFR part 679 prohibit non-exempt AFA CVs from directed fishing for a majority of the groundfish species or species groups subject to sideboard limits. The only remaining sideboard limit for non-exempt AFA CVs is for Pacific cod. Pursuant to amendment 122 to the FMP, the Pacific cod sideboard limit is no longer necessary in the A and B seasons because directed fishing in the BSAI for Pacific cod by trawl CVs is now managed under the PCTC Program, and accordingly the sideboard limit is in effect in the C season only
Halibut and crab PSC limits listed in table 25 that are caught by AFA CVs participating in any groundfish fishery other than pollock will accrue against the final 2026 and 2027 PSC sideboard limits for the AFA CVs. Section 679.21(b)(4)(iii), (e)(3)(v), and (e)(7) authorizes NMFS to close directed fishing for groundfish other than pollock for AFA CVs once a final 2026 or 2027 PSC sideboard limit listed in table 25 is reached. Pursuant to § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(C) and (e)(3)(ii)(C), halibut or crab PSC by AFA CVs while fishing for pollock will accrue against the PSC allowances annually specified for the pollock/Atka mackerel/“other species” fishery categories, according to § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (e)(3)(iv).
NMFS received 5 letters with 15 unique comments during the public comment period for the proposed BSAI groundfish harvest specifications (90 FR 58204, December 16, 2025). Four letters were from organizations, and one letter was from an individual. NMFS's responses are below.
Groundfish harvests are managed subject to annual limits on the retained and discarded catch amounts of each stock and stock complex. The “harvest strategy” is the method used to calculate these annual limits, referred to as “harvest specifications,” and the process of establishing them is referred to as the “specifications process.” NMFS prepared the Final EIS to analyze the environmental, social, and economic impacts of alternative harvest strategies used to determine the annual harvest specifications for the federally managed groundfish fisheries in the GOA and BSAI management area.
The purpose of the harvest strategy is to: (1) provide for orderly and controlled commercial fishing for groundfish; (2) promote sustainable incomes to the fishing, fish processing, and support industries; (3) support sustainable fishing communities; and (4) provide sustainable flows of fish products to consumers. The harvest strategy balances groundfish harvest in the fishing year with ecosystem needs (
In the ROD, NMFS selected one of the alternative harvest strategies analyzed in the Final EIS: to set TACs that fall within the range of ABCs recommended through the harvest specifications process. NMFS concluded that the preferred harvest strategy analyzed in the Final EIS and selected in the ROD provides the best balance among relevant environmental, social, and economic considerations and allows for continued management of the groundfish fisheries based on the most recent, best scientific information. While the specific numbers that the harvest strategy produces may vary from year to year, the methodology used for the preferred harvest strategy remains constant. NMFS has not changed the harvest strategy or specifications process from what was analyzed in the Final EIS.
As recognized in the ROD, the preferred alternative harvest strategy (1) prevents overfishing because it is consistent with the ABCs for the target species recommended on the basis of the best scientific information; (2) sets TACs that fall within the BSAI OY range, which is set to reflect ecosystem constraints; (3) works within a broad range of existing and evolving fishery management measures meant to balance harvest for fishing and processing industries and communities and environmental harm and ecosystem impacts, while also facilitating continued harvests of BSAI groundfish; and (4) allows for management of target species within harvest limits that are based on the best scientific information available, including ecosystem information.
The harvest strategy employs the same process each year but is designed to consider the most current, available information on stock status and ecosystem conditions so that the outputs of the process (OFLs, ABCs, and TACs) are adaptive and reflective of current conditions. Each year the strategy uses the best scientific information available in the SAFE reports to derive the annual harvest specifications for OFLs, ABCs, and TACs. Through this process, each year, the Groundfish Plan Teams for the BSAI and GOA (Groundfish Plan Teams) use the most recent stock assessments based on survey results and other biological data to calculate biomass, OFLs, and ABCs for each stock and stock complex. The OFLs and ABCs are published with the harvest specifications, and provide the foundation for the Council and NMFS to develop the TACs. The OFLs and ABCs reflect fishery science, applied in light of the requirements of the FMPs. The Council uses the AP report as a basis for TAC recommendations, which are consistent with the SSC's OFL and ABC recommendations (
The Final EIS evaluated the consequences of alternative harvest strategies on ecosystem components and on the ecosystem as a whole. The Final EIS evaluated the alternatives for their effects within the action area. The environmental consequences of each alternative were considered for the following resource components: target species, non-specified species, forage species, prohibited species, marine mammals, seabirds, habitat (Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)), ecosystem relationships, and socioeconomic impacts. These considerations were evaluated based on the conditions as they existed at the time the Final EIS was developed, but the Final EIS also anticipated potential changes in these conditions, including climate variability, would be incorporated, as appropriate, through the annual implementation of the harvest strategy. Each year since 2007 NMFS has considered in the SIR process relevant changes (
Consistent with the NEPA and NOAA's Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the NEPA and Related Authorities, Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, NMFS should prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if a major federal action remains to occur and: (i) the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) there are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis (
NMFS prepares a SIR each year to take that hard look and document the evaluation and decision whether a supplemental EIS (SEIS) is necessary to implement the annual groundfish harvest specifications. To do this, NMFS analyzes the available information to determine whether an SEIS must be prepared. The primary sources of information are the SAFE reports, which represent the best scientific information available for the harvest specifications. Included in the SAFE reports are the groundfish stock assessments and any ESPs and the ESRs. Several other regularly updated reports are available as resources, including reports on ecosystem component species (
The SIR recognizes the preferred harvest strategy analyzed in the Final EIS and selected in the ROD was built on an annual process to compile and utilize the most recent, best scientific information available on stock abundance and condition, harvest and survey data, environmental and ecosystem factors, and socioeconomic conditions. The Final EIS contemplates that the annual process was built on flexibility to allow for the implementation of annual harvest specifications that reflect new information and changing circumstances in the context of the considerations in the Final EIS.
NMFS utilizes a two-part inquiry to assess the need for an SEIS. First, NMFS analyzes whether there are substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or, in other words, NMFS considers whether the harvest strategy changed in such a way that it is meaningfully different than how the strategy was considered and evaluated in the Final EIS. Second, NMFS assesses if there are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis in the Final EIS, or, in other words, NMFS considers whether there is new information that would alter the conclusions on impacts of the implementation of the harvest strategy that were made in that EIS. Ultimately, NMFS considers whether there is substantial new information that indicates implementation of the harvest specifications will affect the environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not considered in the Final EIS.
First, NMFS has determined that the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for the BSAI are consistent with the preferred alternative harvest strategy analyzed in the Final EIS and selected in the ROD because they were developed through the harvest specifications process, are within the OY established for the BSAI, and do not set TAC to exceed the ABC for any single stock or stock complex.
Second, NMFS has concluded that the best available, most recent information presented on stock abundance and condition, harvest and survey data, environmental and ecosystem factors, and socioeconomic conditions and used to set the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications does not represent a significant change relative to the environmental impacts of the preferred harvest strategy analyzed in the Final EIS. As documented in the 2026 SIR, NMFS assessed relevant information and circumstances regarding the following resource components: (1) systemic ecosystem effects; (2) target species, non-specified and forage species, and prohibited species catch; (3) marine mammals; (4) seabirds; and (5) habitat impacts. In this assessment, the SIR summarizes the analysis of impacts to each resource component in the Final EIS. The SIR relies on the most recent and best available information on each of the resource components to then evaluate whether any new information and circumstances present a seriously different picture of the likely environmental harms of the action to occur (the annual implementation of the 2026 and 2027 groundfish harvest specifications) beyond what was considered in the Final EIS. For each resource component, NMFS concluded in the 2026 SIR that the implementation of the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications will not affect the resource component in a significant manner or to a significant extent not considered in the Final EIS.
Based on the SIR prepared in conjunction with these harvest specifications, NMFS determined that the 2026 and 2027 groundfish harvest specifications do not constitute a substantial change in the proposed action analyzed in the Final EIS and there are no substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis in the Final EIS. More details are provided in the 2026 SIR (see
The harvest specifications process uses the best scientific information available on climate variability, as summarized primarily from the SAFE reports (including the ESRs). The information from SAFE reports and other sources are considered during the harvest specifications process and used to evaluate risk, uncertainty, and ecosystem factors when setting TACs in the manner consistent with the preferred strategy contemplated by the Final EIS and ROD.
Chapter 3.5 of the Final EIS examined existing physical and oceanographic conditions in the BSAI and GOA, and addressed climate and ecological regime shifts, warming and loss of sea ice, and acidification. Climate variability is known to impact all three issues used to assess systemic ecosystem impacts in the Final EIS: (1) predator-prey relationships, (2) energy flow and removal, and (3) diversity.
The annual harvest specifications process continues to assess systemic ecosystem impacts across the three issues analyzed in the Final EIS. Ongoing research has increased NMFS's understanding of the interactions among ecosystem components, including how they are impacted by changing environmental and climate conditions. Advances in research (
SAFE reports and ESRs summarize and present information about ecosystem status and trends, physical oceanography, biological data, and socio-ecological dimensions. There are many examples of climate variability considerations presented in the ESRs, including: (1) physical indicators and oceanographic metrics (
The Groundfish Plan Teams, SSC, AP, and the Council review the ESRs prior to the review of the stock assessments and advancing recommendations to NMFS for the annual OFLs, ABCs, and TACs. The ESRs provide the scientific
Finally, the FMP indicated that the ongoing consideration of factors like climate variability would be addressed in the SAFE reports (FMP Sections 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.3.1.2), as is currently the case with both the individual stock assessments and the ESRs. As a result, the annual harvest specifications process, which implements the preferred alternative harvest strategy under the Final EIS and ROD, allows for the consideration of the best scientific information available on climate variability (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2); § 600.315).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures be based on the best scientific information available (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)) and that the SSC provide scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for ABCs, preventing overfishing, and reports on stock status and health (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B)). Regulations implementing the FMP require NMFS to publish proposed specifications after consultation with the Council and provide an opportunity for public comment before finalizing specifications (§ 679.20(c)).
Under the FMP, the Council develops harvest specification recommendations for NMFS's consideration based on: (1) recommendations and supporting information from the Groundfish Plan Teams and SSC; (2) information from the AP and the public; and (3) other relevant information. The SAFE report that informs harvest specifications is reviewed by the Groundfish Plan Teams, SSC, AP, and Council. The FMP and SSC Handbook specify that SSC review constitutes the official scientific review under the Information Quality Act and that SAFE reports accepted by the SSC constitute the best scientific information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (FMP Section 3.2.3.1.2). The SSC Handbook also indicates that the SSC recommends OFLs and ABCs after reviewing the stock assessment and the report of the Plan Team that reviewed the stock assessment. The SSC Handbook is available at:
NMFS acknowledges there was a disruption in the completion of the stock assessments that were scheduled for update in 2025, and the November 2025 Plan Team meetings were canceled (since there were no updated stock assessments to review at that time). However, this disruption does not render the final harvest specifications inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, implementing regulations, or the FMP. The 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs are unchanged from specifications previously reviewed by the Plan Team and SSC. The OFLs and ABCs recommended in 2025 were based on the 2024 SAFE report, which underwent full review by the Plan Team and SSC in 2024 and informed the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications. The same OFLs and ABCs were subsequently reviewed again by the Plan Team in October 2025 and by the SSC in October 2025 for the proposed specifications using the 2024 SAFE report, the same as in prior years. This year, the OFLs and ABCs were then reviewed again by SSC in December 2025 using the 2024 SAFE report for the final harvest specifications. Even with the disruptions in 2025, this review by the Plan Team and SSC remains consistent with the FMP and aligns with the SSC Handbook. The SSC further fulfilled its statutory role by recommending ABCs and OFLs to prevent overfishing and by reviewing stock status and health.
In addition to the 2024 stock assessments, additional information was reviewed and considered during the process: prior SAFE reports, BSAI catch reports for 2024 and 2025, biomass and survey trend summaries, 2025 survey information, the 2024 ESRs, and preliminary ESRs and ESPs from October 2025. The information accepted by the SSC constitutes the best scientific information available for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The annual harvest specification process this year therefore relies on the best scientific information available, including peer-reviewed stock assessments by the Plan Team in 2024 and September 2025 and the SSC in 2024 and 2025 (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2); § 600.315).
The Council recommended proposed TACs at its October 2025 meeting and final TACs at its December 2025 meeting. The Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council meetings are open to the public both virtually and in person and provide an opportunity for public comment. The SAFE reports are available online (see
NMFS is now implementing these final harvest specifications after consultation with the Council and consideration of public comment received on the proposed specifications. This is consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing regulations and consistent with the process described in the FMP.
The FMP and implementing regulations direct that the sum of the TACs for the BSAI “must be within the OY range specified” in regulation (§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)). The sum of the TACs for 2026 and 2027 are 2.0 million mt per year, which are within the OY range specified in regulation of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt. This OY, which was previously recommended by the Council and approved by NMFS, is set forth in the FMP and in regulation. NMFS has therefore determined that, in any given year, setting the TACs to fall within the OY range is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and provides the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,
Setting the TACs to meet the upper bound of the OY range of 2.0 million mt represents a 37 percent reduction below the total groundfish ABC and balances relevant National Standard 1 considerations. Setting TACs at the higher bound of the OY will provide the greatest benefit for the Nation based on the benefits of maintaining viable groundfish fisheries and contributions to regional and local economies. The 37 percent reduction from total groundfish ABC recognizes the benefits that flow from that reduction, such as protections afforded to marine ecosystems, forage for ecosystem components, and other ecological factors (§ 600.310(e)(3)(iii)).
NMFS does not agree that TACs should be set any lower than the current sum. These TACs account for the current status of fish stocks and the BSAI ecosystem, while also accounting for current uncertainties and socioeconomic considerations across the fisheries and communities of the BSAI. The harvest specifications process is a robust process that involves significant scientific review and input and uses the best scientific information available when applying the harvest strategy to establish annual harvest specifications. Scientists from the AFSC prepare the stock assessments using sophisticated statistical analyses of fish populations. The assessments for the BSAI are informed by the survey and harvest data available, including multiple annual surveys in the Eastern Bering Sea and biennial surveys in the AI. The stock assessments undergo rigorous review, during public meetings, by the scientists and resource managers on the Plan Team and SSC. The Plan Team first reviews the stock assessments and recommends OFLs and ABCs for each stock or stock complex for specified management areas. The SSC then reviews the assessments and recommends OFLs and ABCs, which provide the foundation for the Council to recommend and NMFS to establish the TAC for each stock or stock complex. The status of fish stocks in the BSAI is reviewed in each stock assessment; the status of the BS and AI ecosystems are compiled in ESRs and other reports that are expressly considered throughout the process; and the status of fisheries and fishing communities are also compiled in several reports and presented during public comment.
Precaution that accounts for uncertainties and risk is embedded in the harvest strategy and in the annual stock assessment process for specifying OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for BSAI groundfish stocks. First, OFL and ABC are calculated for each stock and stock complex using prescribed methods set forth in the FMP. These methods become more precautionary depending on the tier level and stock status: for example, with less reliable information, the larger the buffer (reduction) between OFL and ABC, and as stock status declines, the OFL and ABC are reduced. Calculating OFLs and ABCs using this tier system accounts for uncertainties as it is based on the level of reliable information about the stock and is adaptive based on stock status. Precaution built into the specification of OFL and ABC also influences TAC as TAC cannot exceed ABC and ABC cannot exceed OFL.
Second, the risk tables are a tool prepared for Alaska groundfish stocks to specifically address uncertainty across four considerations: assessment-related, population dynamics, environmental/ecosystem, and fishery performance. Risk tables account for additional scientific information and uncertainty that are not captured in the modeling, consistent with the FMP and National Standard 1 regulations that ABC accounts for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and “any other scientific uncertainty” (§ 600.310(f)(1)(ii)). The risk table is used to evaluate the severity and level of concern regarding those four considerations, including environmental/ecosystem considerations, and that evaluation can inform a scientific recommendation to further reduce ABC. Because TAC cannot exceed ABC, reductions in ABC for scientific uncertainty based on the risk table result in additional precaution in the catch limits (TACs) for groundfish of the BSAI.
Third, the sum of all TACs must be within the OY range, which in the BSAI constrains the TACs that NMFS can implement. Since the sum of all TACs in the BSAI well exceeds the upper range of OY, even though TACs can be set up to ABC, some TACs must be set lower than ABCs to ensure the sum of all TACs falls within the OY range (§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A) and (a)(2)). While there is precaution built into the specification of each ABC (a reduction from OFL, representing scientific uncertainty) and TAC (a reduction from ABC, representing management uncertainty), the OY range is further constraining and precautionary across the ecosystem in the BSAI by reducing fishery removals up to the TACs implemented in this final rule. This result further reduces impacts to the ecosystem from fishing for groundfish species.
Any additional uncertainty in this year's process was addressed by the SSC in December 2025 and summarized in the SSC report. At its December 2025 meeting during which the SSC recommended final 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs, the SSC recognized that the lack of new assessments in 2025 due to the government shutdown increases uncertainty and elevates risk for all stocks. In implementing what the SSC called a “structured process” for developing its OFL and ABC recommendations in light of this increased uncertainty and risk, the SSC used as a starting point the proposed OFLs and ABCs for 2026 that were recommended by the SSC in October 2025; these are the final OFLs and ABCs for 2026 that were reviewed in the 2024 cycle and are based on the 2024 SAFE report. Under the SSC's framework, the SSC then evaluated whether any stocks should be considered for potential changes to those proposed specifications and whether individual stocks warranted consideration of additional conservation. The SSC explained that “the framework established criteria for considering whether the [proposed] specifications, which were based on the most recent fully peer reviewed SAFE reports, remain the best available scientific advice.”
The SSC's stock-specific deliberations focused on whether additional uncertainty and risk were sufficient to warrant reductions in ABC (which influences TAC because TAC cannot exceed ABC). SSC discussions highlighted the need to explicitly consider the increase in uncertainty as stock trends and reference points are projected forward over multiple years, but noted that an approach for quantifying increased uncertainty could not be developed in the current timeframe. Ultimately, the SSC used the established qualitative risk table framework for consistency across years in order to inform whether reductions in ABC were warranted on the basis of the best information available during this year's specifications process. The SSC also explained that the specifications process is based on the tier system, precautionary harvest control rules, and assessment frequencies that reflect different life history dynamics and are periodically reviewed and adjusted. In sum, while the SSC recognized the potential for increased uncertainty and risk in developing the 2026 and 2027
National Standard 9 directs that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch, and, if bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize mortality of bycatch (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)). The Council recommends and NMFS develops and implements FMP amendments and regulations for new bycatch reduction measures, including PSC limits, based on those recommendations. Each of these actions establishing a PSC limit considered and balanced all the National Standards, including the direction to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, including PSC, to the extent practicable. Specifying PSC limits in the annual harvest specifications consistent with the existing PSC regulations is therefore consistent with National Standard 9. The Council and NMFS are committed to continued improvements in bycatch management and have undertaken or are currently considering actions to address PSC (this includes amendment 123 to address halibut PSC in the Amendment 80 sector). However, changes to PSC limits and bycatch management are outside the scope of this final rule to implement the 2026 and 2027 groundfish harvest specifications for the BSAI.
Regulations at § 679.21 set forth PSC limits for the BSAI groundfish fisheries for PSC species (halibut, crab, herring, and salmon). Some PSC limits in the BSAI are fixed limits set in regulation such that there is no updated information needed: the halibut PSC limits for the BSAI trawl limited access sector, BSAI non-trawl sector, and CDQ Program; non-Chinook salmon PSC limit in the CVOA; and Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery (§ 679.21(b), (f), and (g)).
Other PSC limits in the BSAI are set in the groundfish harvest specifications based on specific regulatory criteria and updated information, as dictated in regulation: halibut PSC limit for Amendment 80 sector (AFSC Eastern Bering Sea shelf trawl survey index and IPHC setline survey index); Tanner crab and snow crab PSC limits for trawl fisheries (NMFS annual bottom trawl survey); and Chinook salmon PSC limits for Bering Sea pollock fishery (State of Alaska 3-System Index for western Alaska) (§ 679.21(b), (e), and (f)). In specifying these PSC limits in this final rule, NMFS used the 2025 AFSC Eastern Bering Sea shelf trawl survey index and IPHC setline survey index, the 2025 NMFS annual bottom trawl survey, and the 2025 State of Alaska 3-System Index for western Alaska, as required by § 679.21 (see sections above titled PSC Limits for Halibut, Crab, and Herring, and Salmon PSC Limits).
The regulations do not specify the information to be used to set the red king crab (based on abundance and spawning biomass) and herring (annual eastern Bering Sea herring biomass) PSC limits. For red king crab, NMFS used the 2025 NMFS annual bottom trawl survey, and for herring NMFS used the State's 2024 estimate of herring biomass.
Each year NMFS publishes an Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) describing how observers and electronic monitoring (EM) are assigned to Alaska halibut and groundfish fisheries to collect scientifically sound, representative data on catch and fishing activity. This information supports stock assessments, bycatch estimation, quota monitoring, and other fishery management and conservation needs, while allowing NMFS to meet monitoring objectives and adapt to changing fishery conditions and technologies. More information on the North Pacific Observer Program is available in the 2026 ADP:
As explained in the 2026 ADP, the Observer Program is the largest observer program in the country and is responsible for monitoring a fleet of nearly 1,000 vessels that fish a combination of hook-and-line, pot, and trawl gear across the Alaska EEZ. Fishing activities belong to either partial or full coverage components of the program. In the full coverage component of the program, every trip is monitored by 1 or 2 observers, or, in the case of pollock catcher vessels, has EM on 100 percent of the time, and the vast majority of groundfish harvest is covered by this portion of the program. The full coverage component includes the pollock trawl fishery, PCTC Program fishery, Amendment 80 fishery, and all mothership vessels. In the partial coverage component, a subset of trips are randomly selected for monitoring by an observer or EM system. In 2026, NMFS expects to monitor a total of 4,341 trips and 22,110 days, consisting of an estimated 2,868 trips and 17,461 days in the full coverage component of the program, and 1,473 trips and 4,649 days in the partial coverage component.
For more information on how this process accounts for uncertainty and risk, is precautionary, and includes ecosystem information, see Response to Comments 3, 4, 5, and 8.
One of the purposes of the harvest strategy used to develop the harvest specifications is to support sustainable fishing communities. The harvest specifications specify TAC amounts for harvest by fishing vessels and processing by fish processors, both of which are supported by businesses located in coastal communities. Many coastal communities rely on processing plants to generate revenue and employ community members, and reducing the amount of fish landed in these communities could have detrimental economic effects on these communities.
The TAC amounts are set each year based on consideration of the best scientific information available and public comment relevant to impacts on coastal communities. The Economic
The harvest specifications are also informed by public comment that can be provided at every step through the Council and NMFS process. Public comment can inform the Council's and NMFS's consideration in recommending and setting TACs, respectively, such as impacts to coastal communities. The AP also reviews and provides TAC recommendations to the Council. The Council appoints to the AP recognized experts from the fishing industry and related fields who represent a variety of gear types, industry, and related interests as well as a spread of geographic regions of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest having major interest in the fisheries off Alaska. The AP also has a designated Alaska Native Tribal Representative seat. The purpose of the AP is to represent and provide the perspectives of fishery participants and affected communities. Through its role, the AP provides perspectives on the socioeconomic and cultural impacts of TAC and PSC amounts on fishery participants and affected communities. During this annual process, NMFS also publishes the proposed specifications and invites public comment. This provides the public with another opportunity to offer NMFS information and input for consideration on the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed TACs for each stock or stock complex.
Ultimately, every final 2026 and 2027 TAC has been specified within the robust, precautionary framework outlined in Response to Comment 4; this framework is designed to prevent overfishing while achieving the OY for the BSAI groundfish fisheries. These TACs, as specified under the harvest strategy, are within the OY range for the BSAI groundfish fisheries and support sustainable fishing communities while also providing for sustainable incomes for fishery participants.
The annual process for specifying TACs for groundfish in the BSAI is a thorough, scientifically driven process informed by the best available information on the status of target and bycatch species and the marine ecosystems in the BS and AI as well as socioeconomic considerations like harvest data and impacts on fishery participants and communities. The primary sources of ecosystem information are the ESRs, which provide the Plan Team, SSC, AP, Council, scientific community, and the public, as well as NMFS, with information about ecosystem status and trends for the BS and AI ecosystems. The ESRs are drafted by scientists and staff from NOAA, other federal and state agencies, academic institutions, Tribes, and non-profits.
Ecosystem information from the ESRs, as well as ESPs, is integrated into the stock assessments for target species in several ways. Stock assessment authors will include, if possible, relevant ecosystem-related factors into their modeling. Many models use variables that are potentially ecosystem-related, climate-impacted like size and condition of fish (
The ESRs also provide information on the status of PSC species like salmon, halibut, and crab. The 2024 ESRs included information on salmon in the BS ecosystem and AI ecosystem, including a synthesis of the status of adult and juvenile chum, king, and sockeye salmon; updated information on the abundance of salmon; fish condition and trends; trends in the run size of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon; the increasing abundance and role of eastern Kamchatka pink salmon in the Aleutian Islands; and trends in directed commercial catch of salmon. The 2024 EBS ESR also included an overview of foraging and energetics for halibut, and the 2024 AI ESR evaluated changes in the biomass of fish apex predators, including halibut. The 2024 EBS ESR evaluated trends influencing commercial crab stock biomass (including snow crab).
As a result, the Plan Team and SSC review a robust set of information on the status of target and bycatch species and the marine ecosystems in the BS and AI ecosystems. This information is fully incorporated in the groundfish harvest specifications process such that the setting of OFL and ABC for stocks and stock complexes accounts for the best scientific information available, including on the BS and AI ecosystems. Stock assessments that utilize this information are thoroughly reviewed by the Plan Team and the SSC through a public process.
The TAC setting process is likewise informed by this information, which is the best scientific information available, on the biological condition of the stocks and socioeconomic considerations. The ESRs and ESPs provide relevant information for setting TACs, and information from the ESRs and ESPs is presented and reviewed by the Plan Team, SSC, AP, and Council during the process. In the TAC setting process, the Council reviews the Plan Team and SSC reports. With this information, public comment, and TAC recommendations from the Council's AP, the Council recommends TACs to NMFS. NMFS reviews those recommendations, the Plan Team and SSC reports, the SAFE reports, and other relevant documents.
For specifying TAC, the FMP provides that TAC may be lower than the ABC if warranted on the basis of bycatch considerations, management uncertainty, or socioeconomic considerations, or if required in order to cause the sum of the TACs to fall within the OY range (FMP Section 3.2.3.4). TAC is the annual catch target for a stock or stock complex, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty (
Consistent with National Standard 1 guidelines in Federal regulations at § 600.310 and the FMP, the TAC cannot exceed ABC and ABC cannot exceed the OFL (§ 600.310(f)(3), (f)(4), and (g)(4)). For all stocks and stock complexes in the BSAI, ABCs do not exceed the OFLs, and TACs do not exceed the ABCs (and therefore annual catch limits (ACLs)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY for each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)). The OFL is the catch level above which overfishing is occurring; overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or annual total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis (FMP Section 3.2.1). This rule specifies an OFL for each stock and stock complex. NMFS manages fisheries inseason to ensure that TACs are not exceeded. Managing the TAC ensures that the ABC (and therefore ACL) and OFL are not exceeded. Each stock assessment also notes whether overfishing has occurred for that stock or stock complex, and none of the groundfish of the BSAI are subject to overfishing.
NMFS categorizes all U.S. commercial fisheries under the MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF) according to the levels of marine mammal mortality and serious injury (M/SI). Each fishery is classified through an analysis that assesses the potential cumulative impact of all fisheries, as well as individual fishery impacts, on a marine mammal stock by comparing M/SI levels to the potential biological removal (PBR) for the marine mammal stock. PBR is defined as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (50 CFR 229.2). Category I fisheries have frequent M/SI of marine mammals resulting in annual mortality greater than or equal to 50 percent of PBR. Category II fisheries have a level of M/SI that exceeds 1 percent but is less than 50 percent of the stock's PBR level, if total fishery related mortality is greater than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR. Category III fisheries interact with
According to the most recent final LOF, no Alaska groundfish fisheries are Category I (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024). Three Alaska groundfish fisheries are Category II, and two of these fisheries are BSAI groundfish fisheries: the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery (the Amendment 80 fishery) and the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery (the pollock trawl fishery). The rest of the Alaska groundfish fisheries are categorized as Category III.
For Category II fisheries that take ESA-listed species, section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA directs that NMFS shall allow taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations if NMFS makes a number of determinations regarding negligible impact, recovery plans, and where required take reduction plans, monitoring programs, and vessel registration (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(E)). In June 2024, NMFS issued a permit for the two BSAI groundfish fisheries that require MMPA permits for the incidental take of ESA-listed species (89 FR 50270, June 13, 2024). Accordingly, both the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery and the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery have a valid MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) permit for the incidental, but not intentional, take of ESA-listed species during commercial fishing operations. When issuing the section 101(a)(5)(E) permit, NMFS determined the issuance of that permit complied with the MMPA and implementing regulations regarding the negligible impact determination, recovery plans, take reductions plans, monitoring programs, and vessel registration (89 FR 50270, June 13, 2024). Details on the permit and the analyses that informed NMFS's determinations, as well as NMFS's responses to comments on NMFS's proposed notice of issuance of a permit under the MMPA, are in the
While NMFS remains concerned about the higher number of killer whale incidental catches in the BSAI trawl fisheries in 2023 compared to previous years, industry mitigation efforts have reduced the incidental catches in 2024 and 2025. NMFS continues to investigate and prepare updated analyses on killer whale stocks, including through NMFS's marine mammal stock assessment reports and reports of human-caused mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals. NMFS also released a technical memorandum, Killer Whale Entanglements in Alaska: Summary Report 1991-2022. More information is available at the following websites:
The commenter alludes to increasing fishery interactions with humpback whales off the U.S. West Coast. There is no evidence of a recent increase in interactions with the groundfish trawl fisheries in the BSAI. The AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery has 100 percent observer coverage for each fishing trip, and there have been no reported or observed M/SI of the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery in the most recent stock assessment report. The AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has 100 percent observer coverage, either with a physical observer or through EM. Two humpback whale mortalities (of unknown Distinct Population Segment) were observed in the BSAI pollock trawl fishery between 2016 and 2020. After being prorated for their probability of occurrence, NMFS estimates a mean annual M/SI of 0.008, which remains below 10 percent of the stock's PBR, based on the most recent stock assessment report. The stock assessment reports are available at:
The commenter also asserts that the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whales consists of two distinct stocks, but changes to the stock definitions of marine mammals managed under the MMPA are outside of the scope of this final rule to implement the 2026 and 2027 groundfish harvest specifications for the BSAI.
We recognize the potential for temporal and spatial competition exists and that understanding these impacts is an ongoing research focus. The commenter's claims of “extensive scientific research” proving the link between the pollock trawl fishery and the fur seal decline overstates the findings of these studies, as most cited studies only suggest potential competition or nutritional limitation, with only one study directly implicating the pollock fishery. The differential trends and habitat relationships of foraging fur seals from the Pribilof Islands emphasizes the importance of continued research and scientific debate on the causes of the northern fur seal trends in abundance, measures of health, and other behavioral attributes
NMFS undertook a thorough review of the relevant comments received during the public comment period. For reasons described in the preceding section, no changes to the final rule were made in response to any of the comments received.
This year there are limited changes to TACs between the proposed and final specifications because no updated stock assessments could be prepared due to a disruption in the completion of the stock assessments that were scheduled to be updated in 2025. The AI subarea Pacific cod TAC increased by 519 mt in 2026 and by 519 mt in 2027 from the proposed TAC. This increase corresponds to the decrease in the State GHL. The only reduction was for Alaska plaice, which was reduced from the proposed rule by 518 mt in 2026 and by 518 mt in 2027. This decrease was necessitated by the increase of Pacific cod TACs in order to keep the sum of TACs in the BSAI from exceeding the 2.0 million mt limit. These changes are compared in table A and the section Changes in TACs from the Proposed 2026 and 2027 Harvest Specifications for the BSAI.
The Atka mackerel TAC allocation for the jig sector in the EAI District and BS subarea decreased by 182 mt due to receiving a zero percent allocation in 2026 and 2027. This decrease was necessitated due to the jig sector not utilizing any of its Atka mackerel TAC allocation in recent years, and NMFS does not anticipate harvest by vessels using jig gear in 2026 and 2027. The final TACs, including the limited changes to TACs between the proposed and final harvest specifications, are based on the most recent scientific, biological, ecosystem, harvest, and socioeconomic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations (including the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt), and the harvest strategy from the Final EIS and ROD.
NMFS is issuing this final rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Through previous actions, the FMP and regulations are designed to authorize NMFS to take this action pursuant to section 305(d) (see 50 CFR part 679). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final harvest specifications are consistent with the FMP and with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because it only implements annual catch limits in the BSAI. This action is exempt from E.O. 14192 because it is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Alaska Native Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Alaska Native Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Alaska Native Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2) is not required and has not been prepared. No formal consultations were requested or held on the BSAI harvest specifications.
NMFS prepared a Final EIS for the Alaska groundfish harvest specifications and alternative harvest strategies (see
The preferred alternative is a harvest strategy in which TACs are set at a level within the range of ABCs recommended through the harvest specifications process. The sum of the TACs also must achieve the OY specified in the FMP and regulations. While the specific numbers that the harvest strategy produces may vary from year to year, the methodology used for the preferred harvest strategy remains constant.
NMFS prepared the 2026 SIR to evaluate whether NMFS should prepare a SEIS for the 2026 and 2027 groundfish harvest specifications. A SEIS should be prepared if a major federal action remains to occur and: (1) the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2) there are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis. After reviewing the most recent, best available information, including the information contained in the SIR and SAFE report, the Regional Administrator has determined that (1) the 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications, which were set according to the preferred alternative harvest strategy, do not constitute a substantial change in the action; and (2) there are no substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis in the Final EIS. Any new information and circumstances do not present a seriously different picture of the likely environmental harms of the action to
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The following constitutes the FRFA prepared for these final 2026 and 2027 BSAI harvest specifications.
Section 604 of the RFA describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) a statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
A description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are contained at the beginning of the preamble to this final rule and are not repeated here.
NMFS published the proposed rule for 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications, apportionments, and PSC limits for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI on December 16, 2025 (90 FR 58204). NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to accompany the proposed action and included the IRFA in the proposed rule. The comment period closed on January 5, 2026. No comments were received on the IRFA or the economic impacts of this rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.
The entities directly regulated by this action are: (1) entities operating vessels with groundfish Federal fishing permits (FFPs) catching FMP groundfish in Federal waters; (2) all entities operating vessels, regardless of whether they hold groundfish FFPs, catching FMP groundfish in the State-waters parallel fisheries; and (3) all entities operating vessels fishing for halibut that have incidental catch of FMP groundfish (whether or not they have FFPs). These include entities operating CVs and CPs within the action area and entities receiving direct allocations of groundfish.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS formally reviewed this size standard determination in 2025 and has issued a Notice of Determination that after review consistent with NMFS's small business size standards regulations, the SBA's review requirements under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the SBA's regulations establishing size standards, and SBA's size standards methodology, the NMFS-established and codified single small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry continues to reflect the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry and is appropriate for continued use for RFA purposes only (90 FR 52917, November 24, 2025). Therefore, no revision to the standard is warranted at this time.
Using the most recent year of data (2024), there were 92 individual CVs and 1 C/P with gross revenues less than or equal to $11 million. The six CDQ groups are also considered small entities. This represents the potential suite of directly regulated small entities. The determination of entity size is based on vessel revenues and affiliated group revenues. This determination also includes an assessment of fisheries cooperative affiliations, although actual vessel ownership affiliations have not been completely established. However, the estimate of these 93 vessels may be an overstatement of the number of small entities because of the complexity of analyzing the links and affiliations across these vessels, particularly since many of them conduct operations in both Federal and State fisheries. This group of vessels had average gross revenues that varied by gear type. Average gross revenues for hook-and-line CVs, pot gear CVs, and trawl gear CVs are estimated to be $0.73 million, $1.47 million, and $3.39 million, respectively. Average gross revenues for C/P entities are confidential. There are 3 AFA cooperative affiliated motherships that appear to fall under the 750 worker threshold and are therefore small entities. The average gross revenues for the AFA motherships are confidential because all three members are in a cooperative and have operated two of their three vessels in recent years.
This action does not impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This action sets TAC and groundfish PSC limits that NMFS utilizes for the management of the groundfish fishery in the BSAI. If a TAC or PSC limit has been or will be reached, NMFS can take action to prevent exceeding the specified limit. Entities operating in the BSAI must follow any inseason actions NMFS issues. The specific compliance requirements for entities operating in the BSAI are set by regulations that are separate from this action. This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
This action implements the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications, apportionments, and PSC limits for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for groundfish during the 2026 and 2027 fishing years and is taken in accordance with the FMP implemented by NMFS and recommended by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The establishment of the final harvest specifications is governed by NMFS's harvest strategy, in consultation with the Council, for the catch of groundfish in the BSAI. The harvest strategy was selected previously from among five alternatives as described in the Final EIS, with the preferred alternative harvest strategy being one in which the TACs fall within the range of ABCs recommended through the harvest specifications process. The sum of the TACs must be within the OY range specified in the FMP and regulations. Under this preferred alternative harvest strategy, TACs are set to a level that falls within the range of ABCs recommended by the SSC and the sum of the TACs achieve the OY specified in the FMP and regulations. While the specific TAC numbers that the harvest strategy produces may vary from year to year, the methodology used for the preferred harvest strategy remains constant.
The final 2026 and 2027 TACs associated with preferred harvest strategy are those recommended by the Council in December 2025. Final OFLs and ABCs are based on recommendations prepared by the Plan Team and SSC in 2024 for final 2025 and 2026 OFLs and ABCs. The final OFLs and ABCs for 2026 are unchanged from these previously reviewed 2025 and 2026 final amounts, and the 2027 amounts were set equal to 2026 amounts and will be superseded in the final 2027 and 2028 harvest specifications. The 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs were reviewed by the Plan Team in September 2025 and were reviewed and recommended by the SSC in October and December 2025. The Council based its TAC recommendations on those of its AP, and those recommendations are consistent with the SSC's recommendations for final 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs. The sum of all TACs remains within the OY for the BSAI consistent with § 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A). Because setting all TACs equal to ABCs would cause the sum of TACs to exceed the maximum OY of 2.0 million mt, TACs for some stocks and stock complexes are lower than the ABCs recommended by the Plan Team and the SSC.
The final 2026 and 2027 OFLs and ABCs are based on the best available biological information from the 2024 SAFE report, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods to calculate stock biomass. The final 2026 and 2027 TACs are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information. The final 2026 and 2027 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2024 SAFE report, which is the most recent, completed SAFE report, as well as the ecosystem and socioeconomic information presented in the 2024 SAFE report (including the BS and AI ESRs and any ESPs). Accounting for the most recent information to set the final OFLs, ABCs, and TACs is consistent with the objectives for this action, as well as National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2); § 600.315), which states that actions shall be based on the best scientific information available. The SAFE report also includes information on the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska through the Economic SAFE report. Data are available through 2024.
Under this action, the final ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified OFLs. The final TACs are within the range of final ABCs recommended by the SSC and do not exceed the biological limits recommended by the SSC (the ABCs and OFLs). Specifying TACs that do not exceed ABCs and ABCs that do not exceed OFLs is consistent with the objectives for this action, the FMP, and National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)) and implementing regulations (§ 600.310). NMFS sets, and the Council recommended, final TACs equal to final ABCs, which is intended to maximize harvest opportunities in the BSAI, unless other conservation or management reasons support setting TAC amounts less than the ABCs. Although under the FMP and regulations, NMFS could specify TACs equal to ABCs, NMFS cannot set TACs for all species in the BSAI equal to their ABCs due to the constraining OY limit in the BSAI of 2.0 million mt. For this reason, some final TACs are less than the final ABCs. These specific reductions were reviewed and recommended by the Council's AP, and then reviewed and adopted by the Council as the Council's recommended final 2026 and 2027 TACs.
Based upon the best available scientific data, and in consideration of the objectives of this action, there are no significant alternatives to the final rule that have the potential to accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other applicable statutes and that have the potential to minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the final rule on small entities. This action is economically beneficial to entities operating in the BSAI, including small entities. The action specifies TACs for commercially valuable species in the BSAI and allows for the continued prosecution of the fishery, thereby creating the opportunity for fishery revenue. After public process, during which the Council and NMFS solicited input from stakeholders, the Council concluded and NMFS likewise determines that these final harvest specifications would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this final rule and in applicable statutes and would minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), the 30-day delay in effective date requirement does not apply to this rule because the immediate implementation of this rule will relieve a restriction on fishery participants and NMFS finds there is good cause for the measures to take effect on March 18, 2026. The Plan Team and the SSC recommended the OFL and ABC for each stock and stock complex based on the 2024 SAFE report. The Council recommended TACs set less than or equal to the ABC for each stock or stock complex in December 2025. Accordingly, NMFS's review of the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications could not begin until after the December 2025 Council meeting and after the public had time to comment on the proposed rule.
The 2026 harvest specifications expire on March 18, 2026. This action is necessary to timely establish harvest specifications for the remainder of the 2026 fishing year and for the start of the 2027 fishing year. If these final specifications are not effective by March 18, 2026, then the BSAI groundfish fisheries will be closed until new
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is sufficient good cause to establish that a 30-day delay is not required. If these final harvest specifications are not effective by the start of the 2026 Pacific halibut season as specified by the IPHC, the fixed gear sablefish fishery will not begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut IFQ season. Delayed effectiveness of this action would result in confusion for sablefish harvesters and economic harm from the unnecessary discard of sablefish that are caught along with Pacific halibut, as both fixed gear sablefish and Pacific halibut are managed under the same IFQ program. This action is necessary to allow the sablefish IFQ fishery to begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut IFQ season.
Finally, having this rule be effective on March 18, 2026 provides the fishing industry with the earliest possible opportunity to plan and conduct its fishing operations with respect to TACs. Changes from the proposed to final 2026 and 2027 TACs in the BSAI as discussed in the preamble of this action include an increase in the final AI Pacific cod TAC than the proposed TAC for 2026 and 2027 and a decrease in the final Alaska plaice TAC than the proposed TAC for 2026 and 2027. The changes to TACs between the proposed and final harvest specifications are based on the most recent scientific, biological, and socioeconomic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations, and the harvest strategy from the Final EIS and ROD as described in the proposed and final harvest specifications, including the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), NMFS has demonstrated good cause to show that the 30-day delay requirement does not apply to this rule.
A formal section 7 consultation under the ESA was reinitiated for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, and a biological opinion is being prepared. The BSAI groundfish fisheries continue to operate under terms and conditions implemented in prior biological opinions.
Adverse impacts on marine mammals resulting from fishing activities conducted under this action are discussed in the Final EIS. Through a separate action, NMFS has issued a valid MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) permit for the incidental, but not intentional, take of ESA-listed species during commercial fishing operations for the two BSAI groundfish fisheries identified as a Category II fishery that interact with ESA-listed species (89 FR 50270, June 13, 2024).
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules.
The tables contained in this final rule are provided online and serve as the plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this final rule as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule's primary purpose is to announce the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications and prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for groundfish during the 2026 and 2027 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the FMP. It is taken in accordance with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and regulations at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680. This action affects all fishermen who participate in the BSAI fisheries. The specific OFL, ABC, TAC, and PSC amounts are provided in tables in this final rule to assist the reader. Affected fishery participants are advised to review this final rule, including its tables.
Information to assist small entities in complying with this final rule is provided online. The OFL, ABC, TAC, and PSC tables are individually available online at:
16 U.S.C. 773
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for the large municipal waste combustion (MWC) source category. This final rule responds to a voluntary remand of the preceding rule for this source category and announces the results of the non-discretionary review at five-year intervals required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 129(a)(5), fulfilling the requirements of a consent decree for the source category. The final rule revises the remanded emission limits for cadmium, lead, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide for all sources subject to the NSPS and EG and the remanded emission limits for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide for some sources subject to the EG and all sources subject to the NSPS. This final rule also removes certain startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exclusions and exemptions. In addition, the EPA is taking this opportunity to streamline regulatory language; revise recordkeeping and reporting requirements; establish electronic notification; reestablish new and existing source applicability dates; eliminate title V requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber; close a 2007 proposed reconsideration action; and make certain typographical and technical corrections and clarifications. The EPA estimates this final rule will result in 3,269 tpy reduction in regulated pollutants from existing sources through implementation of the final emission limits.
This final rule is effective on May 11, 2026. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0183. All documents in the docket are listed at
For information about this final rule, contact Ms. Noel Cope, Natural Resources Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2128; and email address:
In December 1995, the EPA adopted emissions guidelines (EG) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb) and new source performance standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb) for large municipal waste combustors (MWC), which have a combustion capacity of greater than 250 tons per day (tpd) of municipal solid waste (MSW), pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 129.
Following promulgation of the 2006 rulemaking, environmental groups filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging the rulemaking. The petitioners challenged the emission limits which the EPA promulgated in 1995. In light of then-recent precedents casting doubt on the soundness of emission limits derived in part from state-issued air permits as the 1995 emission limits for large MWCs were, the EPA sought a voluntary remand of the 2006 rule.
In 2024, the EPA proposed to revise the NSPS and EG under CAA section 129 for large MWCs by amending existing standards for the large MWC source category.
In 2025, the Agency reopened the comment period for an additional four months to gather additional information on the proposed amendments to the large MWC regulations.
In this final rule, the EPA is revising the remanded emission limits for cadmium, lead, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide for all sources subject to the NSPS and EG and the remanded emission limits for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide for some sources subject to the EG and all sources subject to the NSPS. The EPA is also finalizing the following amendments: removal of SSM exclusions and exemptions; streamlined regulatory language; revisions to recordkeeping and reporting requirements; addition of electronic reporting requirements; reestablishment of new and existing source applicability dates; elimination of title V requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber and are not located at a major source or subject to title V for
Following consideration of comments and additional information received on the proposed rule and the reopened comment period, the EPA is revising its reassessment of the MACT floor limits for the EG and NSPS. The EPA is finalizing an approach similar to that in the proposed rule, using separate methodologies for pollutants with stack test data (Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, and PCDD/PCDF) and pollutants with CEMS data (or CEMS pollutants) (CO, NO
The EPA estimates that this final rule will result in present value costs of $330 million at a three percent discount rate and $210 million at a seven percent discount rate over the 2030 to 2049 time frame, with equivalent annualized values of $25 and $28 million per year, respectively (in 2024 dollars, discounted to 2025).
The EPA does not intend Table 1 of this preamble to be exhaustive but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities that this final action likely affects. To determine whether this action affects your facility, you should examine the applicability criteria found in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 60.5690 of subpart VVVV and 40 CFR 60.6300 of subpart WWWW. If you have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the final subparts to a particular entity, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will be available on the internet. In accordance with 5 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 553(b)(4), a brief summary of this rule may be found at
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) by May 11, 2026. CAA section 307(b)(2) prohibits a party from challenging this final action separately in any civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also requires the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
CAA section 129 provides the statutory authority for this action. CAA section 129(a)(1) requires the EPA to establish NSPS and EG pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129 for new and existing solid waste incineration units, including “incineration units with capacity greater than 250 tons per day combusting municipal waste.”
CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units promulgated under [section 111] and this section shall reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new and existing units in each category.”
In promulgating a MACT standard, the EPA must calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and existing solid waste incineration units in a category based on levels of emissions control achieved in practice by the subject units. The minimum level of stringency is called the MACT floor. Different approaches exist for determining the MACT floors for new and existing sources. For new, modified, and reconstructed sources, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in emissions that is deemed achievable . . . shall not be less stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined by the Administrator.”
The MACT analysis involves assessing emissions from the best performing units in a source category. The EPA can base this assessment on actual emissions data and other information, such as State regulatory requirements, that enable the EPA to estimate the performance of the regulated units. For each source category, the assessment involves a review of available emissions data and information with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. The EPA can use other methods of estimating emissions, provided that the methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of a source or sources in practice. Where there is more than one method or technology to control emissions, the analysis may result in several potential regulatory options, one of which the EPA selects as the MACT for each pollutant. Each regulatory option must be at least as stringent as the minimum-stringency floor requirements. The EPA also examines, but is not required to adopt, more stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options to select the MACT. Based on the EPA's consideration of the factors outlined in CAA section 129(a)(2), including the costs, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements, the EPA selects either the MACT floor level of control or a beyond-the-floor level of control as the MACT standard.
CAA section 129(a)(5) requires the EPA to review the NSPS and EG at five-year intervals and, in accordance with CAA sections 129 and 111, revise the NSPS and EG.
CAA section 129 provides guidance on the criteria relevant to determining whether revising a CAA section 129 standard is “appropriate.” Specifically, CAA section 129(a)(3) states that standards for solid waste incineration units under CAA sections 111 and 129 “shall be based on methods and technologies for removal or destruction of pollutants before, during and after combustion.”
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) directs the EPA to “review and, if appropriate, revise [section 111 NSPS] following the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards.”
The EPA does not interpret CAA section 129(a)(5), together with CAA section 111, as requiring the Agency to recalculate MACT floors in connection with this periodic review.
The EPA believes that CAA section 129(a)(5) is best read as conferring discretion to revise as “appropriate” taking into consideration all relevant factors.
For these reasons, the EPA does not recalculate the MACT floor in a section 129(a)(5) review. Rather, as directed by section 129(a)(5), the EPA follows the guidance in sections 111 and 129 and assesses advances in existing control technologies, both in terms of performance and cost, as well as the availability of new technologies, and then, on the basis of this evaluation, the EPA determines whether it is appropriate to revise the NSPS and EG.
In December 1995, the EPA promulgated EG and NSPS for large MWC units pursuant to CAA section 129.
In 2006, the EPA promulgated amendments to the 1995 standards after completing a periodic review under CAA section 129(a)(5). The EPA increased the stringency of the Cd and Hg NSPS emission limits based on new compliance test data showing that large MWC units operating with a full set of controls could comply with more stringent limits; similar data were not available when the EPA previously set the NSPS emission limits. The EPA also revised the PCDD/PCDF, Hg, and NO
Following promulgation of the 2006 final rule, environmental groups challenged the MACT floor limits that the EPA promulgated in 1995 in connection with their challenge to the revised standards, citing a then-recent decision questioning the legality of MACT floors derived in part from State-issued air permits.
In December 2021, another environmental group petitioned in the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus related to the 2008 order granting voluntary remand.
On January 23, 2024, the EPA proposed revisions to the NSPS and EG for large MWCs to reflect the results of the EPA's reevaluation of the MACT floors, pursuant to the 2008 voluntary remand, and the results of the EPA's five-year review, pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(5).
• Revisions to all existing-source emission limits in the EG, except the existing CO and NO
• Simultaneously, the EPA conducted a five-year review as required by CAA section 129(a)(5). Based on this review, the EPA proposed NO
• Removal of the alternative percent reduction standards to establish a consistent approach to compliance for all facilities and removal of the NO
• Removal of the SSM exclusions and exemptions and significant revisions to the monitoring provisions during these periods. For NO
• Conversion of the 1995 large MWC regulatory text describing emission standards and performance testing requirements from paragraphs into tables to facilitate easier implementation and understanding of the requirements.
• Requiring source owners and operators to submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, semiannual compliance reports, and annual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), to increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports and to improve availability and transparency of data.
• Reestablishing new and existing source applicability so that large MWC units currently subject to the 2006 NSPS would become “existing” sources under the proposed amended standards and would be required to meet the revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the revised guidelines. Large MWC units that commence construction after the date of the proposal or commence a modification on or after the date six months after promulgation of the amended standards would be “new” units subject to the more stringent NSPS emission limits.
• Eliminating the regulatory title V permitting requirement for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber and are not located at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons.
• Other technical amendments, including closing a 2007 proposed reconsideration action, correcting certain typographical errors, making certain technical corrections, and clarifying certain provisions in the NSPS and EG.
In developing this final rule, the EPA conducted post-proposal outreach activities with communities, States, local governments, industry, and Tribes. On January 11, 2024, the EPA emailed a consultation letter to Tribal nations explaining how to comment on the proposed rulemaking and how to request consultation with the EPA. The EPA participated in the National Tribal Air Association monthly meeting on January 25, 2024. On January 16, 2024, the EPA presented details of the large MWC proposal to members of interested communities and environmental organizations. Additionally, the EPA held an informational webinar with air pollution control agencies on February 29, 2024. The EPA's outreach activities also included meetings with the following: Waste-to-Energy Association (WTEA) to discuss varying aspects of the proposal, including waste variability, Reworld Waste (formerly Covanta) to discuss their concerns about the proposed emission limits, compliance implications, and costs of the proposal, and a coalition of community representatives and organizations to discuss their concerns about the rulemaking and impacts of air pollution near large industrial facilities. The EPA subsequently reopened the comment period on the proposed amendments to the large MWC regulations for an additional 4 months, from January 16, 2025, to May 30, 2025,
In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the NSPS and EG for large MWC units. We discuss the significant comments on the proposal and changes the EPA made to the final NSPS and EG in more detail in section IV of this preamble. A comment summary and the EPA's responses are available in the docket.
This final rule sets out the EPA's determinations resulting from our reevaluation of the 1995 MACT floor standards for large MWCs pursuant to the 2008 voluntary remand and from our five-year review of large MWC standards under CAA section 129(a)(5), as well as the final amendments to the large MWC NSPS and EG based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes to the NSPS and EG largely as proposed, including the following: removal of SSM exclusions and exemptions; streamlined regulatory language; revisions to recordkeeping and reporting requirements; addition of electronic reporting requirements; reestablishment of new and existing source applicability dates; elimination of title V requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber and are not located at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons; closing the 2007 proposed reconsideration action; and other technical, typographical, and clarifying corrections to certain provisions in the NSPS and EG.
The EPA is finalizing the amendments as new subparts VVVV (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors) and WWWW (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before January 23, 2024), in lieu of revising existing subparts Cb (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994) and Eb (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996). As proposed, we are reserving (removing without replacing) subpart Ea (NSPS limits for units constructed after December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 1994). Although we proposed to promulgate amendments as revisions to subparts Cb and Eb, the EPA has determined that creating new subparts will lessen confusion for affected sources and implementing agencies. Therefore, we have created new subparts for the NSPS and EG at 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVVV and WWWW, respectively, which will replace subparts Cb, Ea, and Eb once facilities are required to comply with the new subparts. The revised standards and new subparts will become effective May 11, 2026. For the EG, States must submit revised State plans to the EPA within one year after promulgating the amendments, by March 10, 2027. Existing large MWC units must demonstrate compliance with the updated standards as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a State plan, but no later than three years after the date of approval of a State plan or five years after promulgation of the revised standards, whichever is earlier. For NSPS, new sources must be in compliance with the updated standards within six months from promulgation, by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
By incorporating these amendments as new subparts, we hope to alleviate confusion that may arise from significant amendments to the current subpart Cb and subpart Eb regulatory text. For example, to support making the format and structure of the regulations more understandable based on Federal Plain Language Guidelines, we are moving the requirements in subparts Cb and Eb to subparts VVVV and WWWW. Additionally, by creating new subparts VVVV and WWWW, we can omit transitional regulatory requirement language and have a single applicability date (
In the proposed rule, the EPA presented amendments resulting from its reevaluation of the 1995 large MWCs MACT standards undertaken pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 voluntary remand and the EPA's five-year review of large MWC standards, undertaken pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(5). Based on the EPA's reevaluation of the MACT floors and beyond-the-floor options and review of the standards and requirements, the EPA proposed revised limits at the MACT floor for all covered pollutants except for NO
Following consideration of comments, input from stakeholder meetings, and additional data received post-proposal, the EPA revised its initial reevaluation of the 1995 MACT floors and is finalizing recalculated emission limits.
Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble present the final EG and NSPS emission limits for large MWCs, respectively. For comparison, the table presents current emission limits (from the 2006 rule) for both existing and new units as well. The EPA assessed NO
This final rule fulfills the EPA's reevaluation of the 1995 MACT floors for the large MWC source category pursuant the D.C. Circuit's 2008 voluntary remand of the 2006 large MWC rule, as discussed in section II.B of this preamble. In response to the remand, the EPA explained at proposal that the Agency lacked sufficient data from the time period of the 1995 large MWC rulemaking to now characterize the performance of all units needed to reassess the original MACT floors. The EPA proposed to recalculate the MACT floors for large MWCs based on compliance data from 2000 through 2009 reported for the population of units that were operating at the time of the original EG development (1990), adjusted to account for the installation of air pollution control devices (APCD) and other improvements that sources made to meet the 1995 standards. The EPA subsequently ranked the best performing units in the source category for each covered pollutant based on the adjusted emissions, analyzed the data to determine the average performance of those units, considered beyond-the-floor options, and established MACT floor emission limits.
Following consideration of comments and additional information received on the proposed rule, the EPA is revising its reassessment of the MACT floor limits for the EG and NSPS. The EPA is finalizing a similar approach as that in the proposed rule, using separate methodologies for pollutants having stack test data (Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, and PCDD/PCDF) and pollutants having CEMS data (or CEMS pollutants) (CO, NO
For CEMS pollutants (CO, NO
Table 4 of this preamble presents the UPL results and the derived final EG and NSPS MACT floor limits for stack test pollutants. Tables 5 and 6 of this preamble summarize the averages and subsequent MACT floor EG and NSPS limits, respectively, for CEMS pollutants. Additional discussion of the methodology, detailed results, and a copy of the UPL template are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Following consideration of comments received on the proposed rule, the EPA is not finalizing the beyond-the-floor and five-year review assessments for the EG as proposed. The final rule uses the MACT floor calculations to establish EG and NSPS limits for existing and new units for all pollutants except for NO
For its proposed assessment of beyond-the-floor in the reevaluation of the 1995 standards, the EPA assumed that the beyond-the-floor option for existing sources is the new source MACT floor (emissions control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as required by CAA section 129(a)(2)) which is more stringent than the existing source MACT floor (an average of a broader range of best performing units, also as required by CAA section 129(a)(2)). To assess additional, currently in-use control options as part of the five-year review pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(5), the EPA evaluated the performance of control measures at large MWC sources (including the installed emissions control equipment), and recent developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, including the recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan rulemaking. The EPA proposed NO
Following its evaluation of these scenarios, the EPA proposed a 110 ppmvd (24-hour) NO
Based on the consideration of several factors, including the stay of the Good Neighbor Plan,
Second, at the same time, emission reductions from the proposed 110 ppmvd NO
For these reasons, the EPA is not finalizing the 110 ppmvd limit for NO
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the SSM provisions of the NSPS and EG in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision in
The EPA notes that on September 5, 2025, the D.C. Circuit held in
The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, revisions to eliminate the exclusions of periods of warmup, startup, and shutdown from CEMS data averaging calculations and to replace
As noted earlier in section III of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing the amendments as 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVVV (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors) and WWWW (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before January 23, 2024), in lieu of revising existing subparts Cb (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994) and Eb (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996).
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that large MWC units currently subject to the NSPS are existing sources with respect to the emission standards promulgated in this final rule. Under this final rule, large MWC units that currently are subject to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb will be subject to the revised EG standards at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW through meeting requirements of the relevant approved State or Federal plans. Those sources will continue to be NSPS units subject to the current large MWC NSPS until the sources come into compliance with the requirements of the revised EG standards. The revised EG standards are as stringent as, or more protective than, the 1995 large MWC new source emission limits, as revised in 2006, with the sole exception of PCDD/PCDF. For the PCDD/PCDF limit, large MWC units that are subject to NSPS subpart Eb but are existing sources under the new EG subpart WWWW remain new sources under NSPS subpart Eb and, as such, must continue to comply with the more stringent NSPS limit (
Under the final rule, large MWC units that commence construction after January 23, 2024, and units that are modified or reconstructed after September 10, 2026 are new units subject to the NSPS emission limits. Large MWC units that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification prior to those dates would be existing units subject to the revised EG standards under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW. Under the final rule, any large MWC unit that commenced construction on or before January 23, 2024, or that is reconstructed or modified prior to September 10, 2026, remains subject to 40 CFR part 60 subparts Cb, Ea, or Eb, as appropriate, until the unit comes into compliance with the relevant approved State or Federal plan to implement and enforce the revised EG. Large MWC units that commence construction after January 23, 2024, or that are reconstructed or modified on or after September 10, 2026 must meet the revised NSPS emission limits in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVVV by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
As stated in the proposal, the EPA intends to “reserve” 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea NSPS standards once the revised EG emission limits are implemented. Due to the resetting of the “new” and “existing” definitions, any units that meet 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea applicability would become existing units subject to the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW once implemented through a relevant State or Federal plan. Additionally, based on changes the EPA has made since proposal to introduce the new subparts to 40 CFR part 60 for large MWC regulations, once all existing units are in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW through a State or Federal plan, subparts Cb and Eb will no longer be necessary. Therefore, we intend to reserve all three subparts (40 CFR part 60 subparts Cb, Ea, and Eb) in a future action for potential use in a future rulemaking once all large MWC units are in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW through either a State or Federal plan.
The EPA is not finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the alternative percent reduction standards, including the 85 percent reduction allowed for Hg (NSPS and EG), the 95 percent allowed for HCl (NSPS and EG), and the 80 percent (NSPS) and 75 percent (EG) allowed for SO
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the removal of the NO
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the incorporation of new performance specifications for the optional use of PM CEMS, HCl CEMS or Hg CEMS in place of stack testing and for the optional use of multi-metal, PCDD/PCDF CEMS in place of stack tests after promulgation of a performance specification or approval of a site-specific monitoring plan. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the 2006 final amendments to the large MWC requirements, the EPA revised the PM and Hg compliance testing requirements to allow the optional use of a PM CEMS or Hg CEMS in place of stack testing and the optional use of multi-metal, HCl, PCDD/PCDF CEMS in place of stack tests after promulgation of performance specifications for these CEMS.
The EPA is finalizing, with revisions, proposed changes to the regulatory format of the large MWC standards. The final rule converts text describing emission standards and performance testing requirements to tables to facilitate easier implementation and understanding of the requirements. As noted throughout this section of the preamble, the EPA is finalizing the large MWC NSPS and EG as new subparts VVVV (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors) and WWWW (Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That are Constructed on or Before January 23, 2024), in lieu of revising existing subparts Cb and Eb. The EPA has converted the proposed streamlining changes to the new subparts to reduce potential confusion for affected sources and implementing agencies. The EPA also developed the new final subparts VVVV and WWWW to update the format and structure of the regulations to be more accessible, based on Federal Plain Language Guidelines, and establish section-numbering increments of five to allow for adequate numeric spacing to revise or add new regulatory text sections, if needed, in the future.
In 2007, the EPA announced that the Agency would reconsider three aspects of the 2006 final rule in response to requests by stakeholders: (1) operator stand-in provisions, (2) data requirements for continuous monitors, and (3) the status of operating parameters during the two weeks prior to Hg and PCDD/PCDF testing.
The final rule updates the citation to and incorporates by reference the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators (QRO) to reflect 2005 updates made to the QRO by ASME. The rule and text of 40 CFR 60.17(g), 60.5865, and 60.6420 update the citation to this document and incorporate it by reference as QRO-1-2005.
For air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste and that are not located at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, removal of the requirement in the 1995 large MWC final rule that air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste and comply with the opacity limits established under CAA section 129(g)(1)(C)) must apply for and obtain a title V operating permit.
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that owners and operators of large MWC units submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, semiannual compliance reports, annual reports, and certain notifications through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. Owners or operators must submit performance test results collected using test methods that the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) supports, as listed on the ERT website at the time of the test, and in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the XML schema on the ERT website. Owners or operators must submit other performance test results in PDF format using the attachment module of the ERT.
The final rule also provides extensions for electronic reporting in two specific circumstances: (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports, and (2) force majeure events, which the rule defines as events that have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically.
The EPA is finalizing corrections and clarifications to the NSPS and EG that the Agency and stakeholders identified during implementation of the previous regulations as proposed, with minimal revisions to accommodate the new subparts.
The revisions to the NSPS and EG standards that the EPA is promulgating in this action are effective on May 11, 2026.
The EPA is finalizing the compliance dates of the NSPS and EG as proposed. Under the final EG and consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2), revised State plans containing the revised existing source emission limits and other requirements in the proposed amendments are due within one year after promulgation of the amendments. States must submit revised plans to the EPA by March 10, 2027.
The final EG allow existing large MWC units to demonstrate compliance with the amended standards as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a State plan, but no later than three years after the date of approval of a State plan or five years after promulgation of the revised standards, whichever is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2), the EPA expects States to require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. Because we anticipate that several large MWC units will need to retrofit existing emission control equipment and/or install additional emission control equipment to meet the final revised limits, the EPA anticipates that some States may choose to provide the three-year compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2).
In revising the standards in a State plan, a State may have two options, depending on the performance of the large MWC units in that State. First, a State could include both the 2006 large MWC standards and the new standards in its revised State plan, which would allow a phased approach for applying the new emissions limits. The State plan would clarify that the standards in the 2006 large MWC final rule remain in effect for large MWC units and apply until the compliance date of the revised existing source standards (as defined in the State plan).
The EPA will revise or replace the existing Federal plan to incorporate changes to the existing source emission limits and other requirements that the EPA is promulgating in this action.
For new sources, the final NSPS requires compliance within six months after promulgation of this final rule, or upon startup of the new MWC, whichever is later. This compliance timeline for new sources is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 129(f)(1).
This final action contains several discrete components, which the EPA views as severable as a practical matter—
For each issue, this section describes what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. The EPA solicited comment on the proposed rule from January 23, 2024, to March 25, 2024. Specifically, we gathered general comments, additional data, and information regarding developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that reduce pollutant emissions as well as associated costs, feasibility concerns, and other drawbacks. The EPA subsequently reopened the comment period on the proposal for an additional four months, from January 16, 2025, to May 30, 2025. Specifically, we then gathered additional information and documentation on verifiable historic pollutant emission concentration information (
In developing the proposed standards, the EPA considered four scenarios for setting new EG and NSPS emission limits and conducted the five-year review under CAA section 129(a)(5). In the first scenario, we considered the MACT floor limits established by the best performing units for each covered pollutant. In a second scenario, we considered the appropriateness of additional beyond-the-floor controls for each covered pollutant. In a third scenario, we evaluated a combination of MACT floor emission limits for some covered pollutants and limits based on technology innovations identified in the five-year review for others. In the fourth scenario, we evaluated a combination of beyond-the-floor emission limits for some covered pollutants and limits based on technology innovations identified in the five-year review for others. As part of the EPA's reevaluation of the MACT floors established in 1995, we first considered the best performing units to establish MACT floor limits and then further considered whether beyond-the-floor controls are appropriate, including by evaluating improvements in pollution controls and associated costs and other drawbacks. Following its reevaluation, the EPA proposed standards resulting from the third scenario, which includes the MACT floor limits (as assessed and described in section IV.A.1.b of this preamble) for all covered pollutants except for NO
As discussed in sections II.B and III.A.2 of this preamble, the EPA sought and received a voluntary remand of the 2006 revisions to the large MWC regulations to reevaluate the 1995 MACT floors. In this rulemaking, the EPA proposed to recalculate the large MWC MACT floors from its initial analysis in 1995.
While reviewing the data and information originally used to calculate the 1995 MACT floors, the EPA determined that it did not have sufficient data from that time period to characterize the performance of all units necessary to re-evaluate MACT floors. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to base the calculation of the MACT floors on additional emissions data from sources in the large MWC source category. The EPA also proposed to reevaluate the MACT floors based on the state of the industry at the time the EPA first calculated limits for large MWCs in 1995. The EPA proposed using 1990-1995 performance levels to reestablish MACT floor requirements to acknowledge the steps that large MWC facilities took to reduce emissions following the promulgated 1995 standards and to meet the EPA's obligation to correctly set MACT floor standards for each source category regulated under CAA section 129.
In other words, the EPA accounted for the fact that the 1995 regulations resulted in changes to the operation and APCDs of many large MWCs in a manner that altered the characteristics of the “best” performing units. As explained in the proposed rule, the composition of the industry remained relatively stable between the promulgation of the 1995 MACT floors and the time of our reevaluation. The EPA thus proposed to recalculate the MACT floors for large MWCs based on the population of units operating at the time of the original EG development (
The EPA proposed separate methodologies for pollutants having stack test data (Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, and PCDD/PCDF) and pollutants having CEMS data (CO, NO
For CEMS pollutants (CO, NO
The proposed EG and NSPS MACT floor limits for stack test pollutants and CEMS pollutants and additional information regarding the EPA's MACT floor assessment are available in section III.A.2 of the preamble to the proposed rule.
For assessing beyond-the-floor options in the reevaluation of the 1995 standards, in conjunction with addressing the remand of the original rule's MACT floors, the EPA proposed to represent the beyond-the-floor emission limits for existing sources numerically by assuming that the beyond-the-floor option for existing sources is the new source MACT floor (emissions control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as required by CAA section 129(a)(2)) which is more stringent than the existing source MACT floor (an average of a broader range of best performing units, also as required by CAA section 129(a)(2)).
As part of the five-year review pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(5), to assess additional control options, the EPA evaluated the performance of, and variability associated with control measures affecting emissions performance at large MWC sources (including the installed emissions control equipment) and recent developments in practices, processes, and control technologies along with associated costs and other drawbacks. As part of this review, the EPA considered at proposal developments from the Good Neighbor Plan rulemaking, which found cost-effective advances in NO
In the proposed rule, the EPA found that the 14,200 tpy emissions reductions achieved by the third scenario (the combination of MACT floors for all covered pollutants except for NO
In the proposal, through selection of the third scenario, the combination of MACT floor emission limits for all covered pollutants except for NO
The EPA proposed the 110 ppmvd (24-hour) NO
For all new units, the EPA proposed a NSPS NO
Although the EPA considered other potential improvements that could be technically feasible for large MWCs as part of the five-year review, including circulating fluidized bed scrubbers (CFBS) for acid gas control and oxidation catalysts for CO control, we did not propose standards based on the performance improvements these technologies might yield. The EPA determined that retrofitting existing large MWC units with CO oxidation catalysts would be prohibitively costly, as accommodating an entirely new piece of equipment in the APCD system would require new facility footprint space and flue gas routing. For CFBS, the EPA acknowledged that although theoretically owners or operators could replace existing acid gas control devices with a CFBS to achieve slightly better acid gas control, the EPA lacked data demonstrating technical feasibility for new or existing MWC units.
As introduced in section III.A of this preamble, the EPA has revised its MACT floor assessment for the EG and NSPS in response to new data and associated comments since the proposal. The EPA is finalizing the same fundamental analytical approach as proposed, specifically using separate methodologies for pollutants with stack test data (Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, and PCDD/PCDF) and pollutants with CEMS data (CO, NO
The emissions test data that the EPA used for the UPL analyses for stack test pollutants includes the 2000 through 2009 compliance data and newly received data from 1990 through 1995. The EPA made minor revisions to the 2000 through 2009 data set based on comments received. The 1990s data came from test reports and related documents submitted via email to the EPA in 2024 and 2025 by the WTEA or from attachments to comments submitted to the docket. The EPA assessed the performance of large MWCs operating in 1990 primarily based on the 1990s data. However, these data accounted for 75% of units operating in 1990, so we filled data gaps, where possible, based on adjusted emissions data from the 2000s dataset. Similar to the approach used at proposal, we accounted for performance improvement over time by adjusting the 2000 through 2009 emissions data to reflect 1990s performance. In the revised analysis, the EPA used paired 1990s and 2000s data to inform its adjustment factor development based on combustor/APCD combinations rather than relying on default APCD efficiencies alone, as the EPA did at proposal.
For the NSPS analysis for stack test pollutants, the EPA revised the UPL approach to address variability concerns raised by commenters regarding the limited number of data points available for the top performers. For every stack test pollutant, only one test was available for the top performer. To account both for more recent operational practices and waste characteristics that a single test from the 1990s may not sufficiently characterize and for the fact that we could not obtain additional years of data from the early 1990s, we assessed the distribution and variance of 2000s test averages (
For CEMS pollutants, the EPA made no changes to the MACT floor calculation methodology; however, revisions to the dataset as described in this section yielded a new EG limit for SO
For the five-year review and beyond-the-MACT floor approaches, the EPA is not finalizing our determinations as proposed for existing units, meaning that the EPA is not basing the NO
The EPA assessed the performance of large MWCs operating in 1990 primarily based on the 1990s data. However, these data accounted for 75% of units operating in 1990, so the EPA filled data gaps, where possible, based on adjusted emissions data from the 2000s dataset. Similar to the approach used in the proposal, the EPA accounted for performance improvement over time by adjusting the 2000s emissions data to reflect 1990s performance. In the revised analysis, we used paired 1990s and 2000s data to inform its adjustment factor development on combustor/APCD combinations rather than relying on default APCD control efficiencies alone, as we did at proposal.
For the NSPS analysis for stack test pollutants, the EPA revised the UPL approach to address variability concerns that commenters raised regarding the limited number of data points available for the top performers. For every stack test pollutant, only one test was available for the top performer. To account both for more recent operational practices and waste characteristics that a single test from the 1990s may not sufficiently characterize and for the fact that we could not obtain additional years of data from the early 1990s, we assessed the distribution and variance of 2000s test averages (
For CEMS pollutants, the EPA made no changes to the MACT floor calculation methodology; however, revisions to the dataset yielded a new EG limit for SO
The EPA disagrees with some commenters' argument that using data from more recently constructed units to
There are no known operational differences that would cause the Wheelabrator Bridgeport units to be distinct from the rest of the best performers. Wheelabrator Bridgeport did not report emissions that occurred during SSM, which is inconsistent with the new standard (which includes periods of SSM), while other units included SSM data. While emissions of covered pollutants are typically low during periods of startup and shutdown because no waste has been added to the large MWC, this is not always true of CO because low emissions of CO in a combustor is an indicator of good combustion efficiency. The goal of warmup and startup in a combustor is to establish steady-state, maintainable good combustor efficiency to begin normal operations; before the combustor reaches steady-state, the CO emissions can vary widely with the changes in the combustion environment characteristic of warmup, startup, and shutdown. For large MWCs, annual maximum average CO emission concentrations frequently occur during periods of SSM.
In addition, the EPA recognizes significant uncertainty in the emission reductions and cost effectiveness estimates from proposal, based on a likely overestimation when using the average of peak 24-hour CEMs data to calculate baseline NO
The underlying approach to and premise for our reevaluation of the 1995 MACT floors as described in the proposed rule remains the same. As discussed in sections II.B and III.A of this preamble and in the proposed rule, the EPA has recalculated the large MWC MACT floors using actual 1990-1995 test data in order to correct the EPA's 1995 analysis of MACT floors to account for case law questioning standards based on State-issued permit levels without evidence that the permit levels reflect the performance of the best performing sources. In recalculating the 1995 MACT floors to correct errors in our initial analysis, the EPA is assessing the state of the industry at the time that we first calculated limits for large MWCs. Given the history of limited data availability of this source category, the EPA views this approach as appropriate to establish MACT floors that reflect the emission levels actually achieved by the best performing sources using the MACT before sources in the category first complied with the 1995 standards. The EPA determined that utilizing 1990s performance levels to reestablish MACT floor requirements appropriately balances competing interest in this rulemaking, by recognizing on one hand that large MWC facilities have taken steps to reduce emissions since the EPA first promulgated 1995 standards, and on the other hand the EPA's obligation to correctly set MACT floor standards for each source category regulated under CAA section 129. At proposal, the EPA determined that it did not have sufficient data from the 1990s to characterize the performance of all units during that time period and that it was necessary to utilize a different dataset to recalculate new MACT floors from the one used to set the initial MACT floors in 1995. Emissions data received during the public comment periods allowed the EPA to develop a 1990-1995 data set, which the EPA used in conjunction with the 2000-2009 compliance data to better reflect 1990s performance when reevaluating the MACT floors for the final rule.
In the related context of hospital, medical, and infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI) also regulated under CAA section 129, the EPA issued a rule on remand from the D.C. Circuit to further explain our reasoning in determining MACT floors for new and existing HMIWI.
The EPA is also functionally establishing new MACT floors for large MWCs on a blank slate because the 1995 MACT floors were originally calculated using a data set—state air permitting levels—that was not appropriate absent evidence of actual emissions. Unlike in the HMIWI rulemaking, however, there have not been significant retirements in the large MWC industry since we first introduced standards in 1995, and the industry today consists largely of the same units that were operating before the original MACT floors went into effect. Instead of retirements, the majority of the industry installed APCD and made other improvements to meet the 1995 standards. Because the industry today consists of largely the same units that were operating in 1995, we are able, as proposed, to calculate revised MACT floors for large MWCs that are appropriate for the current fleet, based on the industry's 1995 performance level.
Sections III.A.2 and IV.A.2 of this preamble explain the data and methodology the EPA used to reevaluate the MACT floors for large MWCs. In general, the EPA has used the 1990s emissions data to the fullest extent possible considering the documentation available for the data. For example, the EPA used emissions concentration data extracted from emission test reports, test report executive summaries, and State-provided compliance data that contained sufficient information to convert the data into useable and consistent units of measure (
The EPA did not change the UPL calculation methodology for the EG MACT floor standards from proposal, but recognized that the best performers used for calculating the NSPS standards for stack test pollutants only had one test available from the 1990s. The EPA acknowledged that municipal waste streams are a uniquely variable fuel source with numerous factors that can directly impact emissions (such as seasonal changes in waste composition or consumer habits), and one stack test
Likewise, the EPA analyzed the data from the CO best performer at proposal (CEMS data from Wheelabrator Bridgeport units) and, as described in section III.A.2 of this preamble, determined that these data are statistically unique from the remainder of the large MWC fleet's data due to the probable non-reporting of data during SSM. Therefore, the EPA has excluded the Wheelabrator Bridgeport CEMS data from the CEMS pollutant MACT calculations.
Finally, after review of comments and considering the stay of the Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is not finalizing the results of our five-year review as proposed. Mainly, the EPA is setting the emission standards for NO
The EPA does not see this situation for large MWC sources that have yet to commence construction. As noted at proposal, a facility designed with SCR NO
The EPA proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the large MWC NSPS and EG to ensure that these provisions are consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in
The EPA did not propose a separate emission standard for large MWC units during periods of startup and shutdown. We determined that large MWC units would be able to meet the emission limits during periods of warmup and startup because most units use natural gas or clean distillate oil to warm up the unit and do not add waste until the unit has reached combustion temperatures during a brief startup period. Emissions from burning natural gas or distillate fuel oil would generally be significantly lower than from burning solid wastes, for most pollutants, specifically those where owners or operators measure compliance by using stack tests (
The EPA also proposed to eliminate the exclusions of periods of warmup, startup, and shutdown from CEMS data averaging calculations present in the 1995 large MWC rules for NO
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
The EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the NSPS and EG. We received comments both supporting and opposed to the proposed approach, but none presented sufficient information to cause us to determine that the approach proposed would be unachievable for large MWC units or otherwise as inappropriate. Moreover, in
We note that large MWC units operating in Florida have operating permits with practically the same requirements for startup and shutdown events as those the EPA proposed. For example, the Covanta Lake II, Inc. facility has limits that apply during startup and shutdown but “[t]hese limits do not utilize any diluent correction.”
The EPA proposed new applicability dates for determining whether units are “existing” or “new” sources. Specifically, we proposed that large MWC units that are currently subject to the NSPS would become existing sources under the proposed amended standards and subject to the revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the revised guidelines. However, those units would continue to be NSPS units subject to the 1995 large MWC final rule until they become subject to the amended existing source EG. We proposed that large MWC units that commence construction after the date of the proposal, or for which a modification is commenced on or after the date six months after promulgation of the amended standards, would be new units subject to the NSPS emission limits. Units for which owners or operators commence construction or modification prior to those dates would be existing units subject to the proposed EG.
As discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA proposed to reserve 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea standards, which apply to units for which construction commenced after December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 1994. The EPA proposed that any units that meet subpart Ea applicability would become existing units subject to the EG once implemented through a State or Federal plan.
The EPA did not receive comments on the proposed resetting of the applicability dates, so we are finalizing these revisions as proposed. However, as noted earlier in the preamble, we recognize that the Agency may need subparts Cb and Eb at a future date once all large MWC units are complying with the requirements of subpart WWWW through an approved State plan or the Federal Plan. Therefore, we intend to reserve all three subparts (40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb, Ea, and Eb) in a future rulemaking once all large MWC units are in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW via either State plan or Federal plan means of implementation.
The EPA proposed to remove all alternative percent reduction standards that the original 1991 final rule allowed, including the 85 percent reduction allowed for Hg (NSPS and EG), the 95 percent allowed for HCl (NSPS and EG), and the 80 percent (NSPS) and 75 percent (EG) allowed for SO
The EPA also proposed to remove the NO
After considering public comments and upon further review, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed removal of the alternative percent reduction standards allowed in the existing NSPS and EG. Instead, we are finalizing recalculated alternative percent reduction standards based on additional 1990-1995 removal efficiency data for the best performing units used in the re-evaluated MACT standards for Hg, HCl and SO
The EPA also recognizes, however, that the Agency relied heavily on engineering judgement while developing the existing alternative percent reduction standards rather than data demonstrating the performance of the best performing sources. Therefore, as discussed above, the EPA has recalculated these alternative standards based on emissions data using LPL predictive statistics. The resulting alternative percent reduction standards are generally similar to the existing standards but now reflect a standard based on actual emissions performance data. For example, the EG Hg and SO
The EPA is not including the NO
Second, an analysis of the air pollution controls installed at large MWC facilities shows that almost all units are similarly equipped at any given facility. For NO
The EPA proposed to incorporate updated performance specifications for the optional use of a PM CEMS or Hg CEMS or the use of multi-metal, HCl, PCDD/PCDF CEMS in place of stack tests into the large MWC requirements. The proposed changes would update the 2006 final amendments to the large MWC rules, which revised the PM and Hg compliance testing requirements to allow the optional use of a PM CEMS or Hg CEMS in place of stack testing and allow the optional use of multi-metal, HCl, PCDD/PCDF CEMS in place of stack tests after performance specifications for these CEMS are promulgated.
The EPA also requested comment on whether the use of CEMS for compliance testing requires adopting alternative emission limits. We noted that more recent combustion rulemakings have included 30-day hourly rolling averages for pollutants measured with Hg CEMS (
The EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to continue to allow the optional use of CEMS in place of stack testing after performance specifications for the CEMS are promulgated and incorporate currently available applicable performance specifications. This allows flexibility for a facility to use CEMS for which performance specifications do not yet exist through the use of site-specific performance evaluation plans. Additionally, we are not finalizing 30-day averaging times for any of the required CEMS pollutant monitoring (CO, SO
The EPA proposed changes to the regulatory format of the large MWC standards to be more accessible and easier to follow than the 1995 large MWC final rule. The proposed rule converted paragraph text describing emission standards and performance testing requirements to tables to facilitate easier implementation and understanding of the requirements. The EPA added these new tables to the ends of the subparts for these requirements, similar to the approach in other, recent CAA section 129 rulemakings.
The EPA is finalizing changes to the regulatory format of the large MWC standards as proposed, with additional revisions to convert the text and tables to new subparts VVVV and WWWW, incorporate Federal Plain Language Guidelines, and establish section-numbering increments of five to allow or adequate numeric spacing to revise or add new regulatory text sections if needed in the future. The EPA received no substantive comments on streamlining the regulatory text.
The EPA proposed to complete action on the March 20, 2007 reconsideration that the EPA had not finalized. In that 2007 notice, we announced our reconsideration of three aspects of the 2007 final rule based on stakeholder requests: operator stand-in provisions, data requirements for continuous monitors, and the status of operating parameters during the two weeks prior to Hg and PCDD/PCDF testing.
The EPA is making no additional changes to the final rule as a result of the proposed closing of the issues raised in the 2007 reconsideration, as recent comments received generally support closing these issues. We received comments both supporting the operator stand-in provisions as they exist and supporting revisions to the provisions to shorten the timeframe that provisionally certified operators may operate the MWC unit. Additionally, commenters supported not changing the mass carbon feed rate operating parameter provisions for PCDD/PCDF and Hg testing. Our response to these comments is in the Comment Response Document in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA proposed to include and incorporate by reference the updated QRO in the final rulemaking. The 1995 large MWC final rule cited the 1994 version, QRO-1-1994. However, ASME released an updated version in 2005, identified as QRO-1-2005, which the EPA proposed to include in the regulatory text and incorporate by reference.
The EPA is promulgating as proposed with no additional changes to the final rule. We received one comment requesting increased training requirements for MWC operators, supervisors, and personnel. Our response to this comment is in the Comment Response Document in the docket for this rulemaking. The reference to QRO-1-2005 has been added to 40 CFR 60.17(g), 60.5865, and 60.6420.
The EPA proposed to remove a title V permitting requirement in the 1995 large MWC final rule for air curtain incinerators that only burn wood wastes, yard wastes, and clean lumber (and that comply with applicable opacity limitations) and are not at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons.
The EPA received comments supporting and opposing the removal of the title V permitting requirements for air curtain incinerators that only burn wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste; comply with opacity limitations; and that are not at a major source or subject to title V for other reasons. After
The EPA proposed that owners and operators of large MWC units submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, semiannual compliance reports, annual reports, and certain notifications through CDX using CEDRI. We proposed that owners or operators must collect performance test results using test methods that ERT supports, as listed on the ERT website at the time of the test; submit theses in the format generated by the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the XML schema on the ERT website; and submit other performance test results in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
The EPA proposed two broad circumstances in which the Agency may provide electronic reporting extensions: first, outages of CDX or CEDRI that preclude an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports, and second, force majeure events, defined as events that will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically.
Commenters generally supported the proposed requirements for electronic reporting. One commenter requested flexibility on the effective dates for electronic reporting, and another commenter suggested that the EPA require reporting of all large MWC CEMS data in averaging times that an entity can compare to the standard. To address this, the EPA has revised the regulatory text at 40 CFR 60.6090(c)(2) and 60.6630(c)(2) to add the requirement that owners or operators report all block averages during the reporting period as well as identify the periods of warmup, startup, and shutdown during which they collect all CEMS data and the large MWC is operating. We are not changing the effective dates for electronic reporting in response to comments received. Our complete responses to these comments are in the Comment Response Document in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA proposed corrections and clarifications to the NSPS and EG that the Agency and stakeholders identified during implementation of the previous regulations, as follows:
• Adding 40 CFR 60.6300(d) and 60.5705 to clarify that large MWC units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db. This makes the NSPS and EG consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, which exempts large MWC units from that subpart.
• Revising 40 CFR 60.6255 to clarify that the EPA Administrator retains approval of certain exemption claims in 40 CFR 60.6305(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g); approval of major alternatives to test methods and monitoring; approval of waivers of recordkeeping; performance test and data reduction waivers; and approval of alternatives to electronic reporting to the EPA and that the approval authority does not transfer to a State upon delegation of authority to that State to implement an approved State plan.
• Revising 40 CFR 60.5710 to clarify that the EPA Administrator retains sole authority to issue the federally enforceable 11 tpd limit for exemptions in 40 CFR 60.5700(a) and the 30 percent municipal waste limit for co-fired units in 40 CFR 60.5700b(g).
• Revising 40 CFR 60.5710(a)(4) to correct a typographical error and clarify that the EPA Administrator retains sole authority to review and approve demonstrations that establish the relationship between carbon dioxide (not CO) and oxygen as part of initial and annual performance tests.
• Amending the definition of “federally enforceable” in 40 CFR 60.6145 to correct a cross-referencing error,
• Revising 40 CFR 60.5960 and 60.5970(b) to correct an oversight and clarify that the revised testing schedule (once per calendar year but no less than nine months and no more than 15 months following the previous test) also applies to fugitive ash and HCl testing.
• Revising 40 CFR 60.6255 to clarify that State plans are due on March 10, 2027.
• Adding 40 CFR 60.6045(h)(i) to clarify that owners or operators must record all data for continuous monitoring systems using “local time” for the location of the affected facility unless the Administrator approves an alternative time system.
• Revising 40 CFR 60.6090(c) to require owners and operators to additionally report the annual arithmetic average of all hourly values recorded during operations for the reporting year.
The EPA received minimal comments on these proposed revisions, and is not making significant changes to the final rule from the proposed clarifications and corrections. The EPA has converted the proposed clarifications and corrections to text in the final rule at 40 CFR part 60, subparts VVVV and WWWW and updated citations and
The large MWC source category comprises units with a capacity greater than 250 tpd of MSW. The EPA estimates the current fleet of large MWC units to include 152 units at 57 facilities nationwide. Of these, 129 (85 percent) are mass-burn units, and the remaining are refuse-derived fuel systems. Approximately 30 percent of currently operating large MWCs are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb (2006 NSPS limits), with the remaining subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea (NSPS limits for units constructed after December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 1994), or Cb (EG for units constructed before September 20, 1994). The EPA estimates that there are 22 municipally owned or operated facilities, with a total of 62 municipally owned or operated large MWC units. As discussed in section III of this preamble, the final rule creates new subparts VVVV (NSPS for facilities for which construction is commenced after January 23, 2024) and WWWW (EG for units constructed on or before January 23, 2024), which will replace subparts Ea, Eb, and Cb, once effective. All units currently subject to subparts Ea, Eb, and Cb will need to be in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW not later than three years after the Administrator approves the applicable State plan but not later than five years after the EPA promulgates the guidelines, as required by CAA section 129(b)(2).
The EPA estimates this final rule will result in 3,269 tpy reduction in regulated pollutants from existing sources through implementation of the final emission limits. The EPA estimated emissions reductions for all units that would likely need add-on controls, improvements to existing control devices, or increased carbon or lime injection rates to meet a given limit.
Indirect or secondary air emissions can result from the increased energy requirements associated with the operation of new control devices (
We expect increases in power demand for existing systems and demand for new systems to be minimal and met with a small fraction of the power generation from the facility. Similarly, we expect power demand increases for acid gas control systems to be minimal and met with power that facilities are already generating. Sources typically control acid gases with a dry sorbent injector scrubber or spray dryer absorber. Additional control (
As a result of these assessments, the reevaluated emission limits for large MWCs are unlikely to have any consequential secondary air impacts because the increase in energy requirements due to new control measures is minimal, and power already being generated at the plant would support what little additional energy may be required. For the same reason, impacts on the overall nationwide energy requirements are expected to be negligible.
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add the necessary controls to meet the final standards.
Table 9 summarizes the cost effectiveness of the final rule amendments by pollutant category. As these pollutant categories are linked to inseparable control technology assumptions, whether by rule construction or by the nature in which specific controls may capture multiple pollutants, the information is not presented or calculated with any additional granularity. These cost effectiveness estimates also assume that the costs of the rule and that the emissions reductions achieved are accurately estimated. If the costs were underestimated, these cost effectiveness estimates would be underestimated by an equivalent ratio, and the reverse would be true as well. If the emissions estimates were overestimated, the potential for which is discussed in the RIA with specific attention to NO
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for the final rule in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket for this action. This analysis took the form of a “cost-to-sales” analysis. If the compliance costs are small relative to the receipts of the affected companies, the impact analysis may consist of a calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for affected parent companies. The EPA often applies this type of analysis when the Agency considers a partial equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis approach unnecessary given the expected size of the impacts. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the maximum price increase in the affected product or service needed for the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation, assuming no changes in affected services or outputs.
The EPA estimated the annualized compliance cost that the Agency expects each owner to incur and determined the estimated cost-to-sales ratio for affected units. To reflect the total impact of the rule on the regulated entities, the EPA aggregated these costs to the owner level and compared the costs to all jointly owned and operated facilities to the ultimate parent company revenues for all regulated units and facilities. The estimated cost-to-sales ratio for affected entities, none of which are small according to Small Business Administration size standards, is 0.38 percent of annual revenues for the regulated entities. This ratio only exceeds one percent for two facilities and does not exceed 2.1 percent for any
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the RIA for this final action analyzes the benefits associated with the projected emissions reductions under this final rule to inform the EPA and the public about these projected impacts. The EPA projects this final rule to reduce emissions of HAP and NO
The EPA is obligated to present the agency's best scientific understanding and the implications of that science when developing policies and regulations. However, the EPA's analytical practices may not have presented the full range of uncertainties and associated confidence level regarding the potential benefit estimates from reduction in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM
In addition, the EPA historically provided point estimates rather than ranges of emission-related effects or only quantifying emissions when monetizing proved to be too uncertain. Therefore, to address these concerns, the EPA is refraining in providing primary estimates resulting from changes in PM
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a “significant regulatory action” as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the OMB for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
Table 10 of this preamble presents the estimated PV and EAV of the projected compliance costs of the final rule in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025.
As explained in detail in the RIA, the EPA was unable to quantify and monetize the potential impacts associated with reductions of HAP.
The compliance costs presented in Table 10 are the estimated costs of control technologies and measures applied to meet the emissions limits in the final rule. In simple terms, these costs are an estimate of the increased expenditures for large MWCs to implement the final requirements. These cost estimates include the PRA cost of subpart WWWW (detailed below in section VI.C).
The projected compliance costs have a present value of $330 million using a three percent discount rate and $210 million using a seven percent discount rate. The EAVs of these values are $25 million and $28 million respectively.
These results present an incomplete overview of the potential effects of the final rule because important categories of benefits—including benefits from reducing HAP, benefits from reducing PM, benefits from reducing ozone, and the benefits from increased transparency of emission data—were not monetized
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. For regulatory accounting purposes, the estimated present value and annualized value of the costs of this rule are $210 million and $28 million, respectively (7% discount rate, 2024$, 2024 present value year, perpetuity time horizon). Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA ICR number 1847.11 (OMB Control number 2060-0390) for subpart WWWW (formerly subpart Cb) and EPA ICR number 1506.17 (OMB Control number 2060-0210) for subpart VVVV (formerly subparts Ea and Eb). You can find a copy of the ICR documents in the docket for this rule, and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
These regulations apply to facilities that own and operate MWC units with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tpd of MSW that were constructed on or before January 23, 2024 (subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW) and to facilities for which construction is commenced after January 23, 2024 (subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVVV). The reporting and recordkeeping requirements discussed here result from the EG that apply to large MWCs covered by the EPA-approved and effective State plans and, where a State plan has not been approved, large MWCs covered by the Federal plan, and large MWCs subject to the NSPS. This information is being collected to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWWW and VVVV. In general, all EG and NSPS require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners or operators of the affected facilities. Owners or operators of the affected facilities are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any SSM event in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities subject to EG or NSPS.
The final EG and NSPS remove SSM exclusions and exemptions. These amendments also streamline regulatory language, revise recordkeeping requirements, require electronic reporting, reestablish new and existing source applicability dates, clarify requirements for air curtain incinerators, correct certain typographical errors, make certain technical corrections, and clarify certain provisions in the NSPS and EG.
For the final EG in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW, the EPA is revising all emission limits, except CO for two subcategories of combustors and for NO
Because the EPA is revising applicability dates and ultimately reserving subpart Ea, the burden associated with subpart WWWW includes the burden for units currently subject to subparts Ea and Eb combined with the burden for those currently subject to subpart Cb. Although no new sources are currently expected to commence construction within the next three years, the burden a new source would incur under subpart VVVV would be very similar to the current subpart Eb burden. That is, the burden would be the total of the existing new source burden (such as site selection analysis/report, initial notifications, etc.) associated with subpart Eb plus the small amount of incremental burden due to electronic reporting associated (familiarization with CEDRI and electronic data submittal) with subpart VVVV. Therefore, the EPA estimates the overall burden for a new source to comply with the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the NSPS as 3,800 hours at a total cost of $410,000.
For subpart VVVV, the EPA does not anticipate any construction of new units or NSPS-triggering reconstruction or modifications of existing units within the next 3 years.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. We have estimated that no small entities would be affected by the final changes to the EG and NSPS. For more information, please refer to the RIA for the final rule.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) and described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The costs involved in this action are estimated not to exceed $187
Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action.
The EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. The EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the process of developing this action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA conducted federalism/UMRA consultations, conducted additional outreach meetings, and considered input and additional letters received from a number of State and local government organizations in the development of this rule, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule.
The EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement as required by section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132. Based on the estimates in the EPA's RIA for this action, the regulatory option may have federalism implications because the action may impose approximately $28 million (2024 dollars) in total annualized cost (including operating and maintenance costs), with approximately 22 large MWC facilities, or 40 percent of the total large MWC facility population, being owned by a State or local government.
The EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA conducted a federalism/UMRA consultation outreach briefing on March 16, 2023. Invited participants included representatives from the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of America, and the Environmental Council of States. Additionally, the Agency invited representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and other groups representing State and local government professionals. Due to interest in the proposal, the EPA held additional outreach meetings on April 17, 2023, and April 27, 2023. The consultations included discussion of a preliminary listing of State or municipal-owned large MWCs, the elements of the rulemaking, reevaluation of the MACT floors, the five-year review, potential costs and air emission impacts of regulatory options being considered, and other issues such as SSM provisions.
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA's policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from State and local officials. The EPA received comments from 19 entities representing State and local governments. The EPA submitted these letters to the pre-proposal non-rulemaking docket.
Several themes emerged from State and local government comments. Commenters raised concerns regarding the timeliness of the five-year review, lack of a residual risk review for the existing rules, cost estimates for the regulatory options, impacts of rulemaking on operations of MWCs and associated taxpayer impacts, and both support for and opposition to the NO
For the final rule, in response to stakeholder comments, the EPA has refined the cost estimates for acid gas control to reflect higher lime costs and landfill tipping fees to reflect regional differences and has maintained the longest compliance deadline for implementing the new emission standards allowable by the CAA. Additionally, the EPA is not finalizing the standards for NO
Comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposed rule (
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of any large MWC units owned or operated by Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the development of this action. A summary of that consultation is provided here. During the development of this action, the EPA offered pre-proposal government-to-government consultation with Tribal nations. No Tribal nations requested consultation with the EPA. On January 11, 2024, the EPA emailed a consultation letter with information to Tribal nations explaining how to comment on the proposed rulemaking and how to request a consultation with the EPA. The EPA held a roundtable with the National Tribal Air Association on January 25, 2024, to provide an overview of the proposed rule. This action will not have substantial direct costs or impacts on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
This action also is subject to the EPA's Policy on Children's Health because the rule has considerations for human health. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health effects of Cd, Pb, HCl, PCDD/PCDF, PM
In summary, the RIA found that children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents (such as HCl) than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Lead is associated with toxic effects in every organ system including adverse renal, cardiovascular, hematological, reproductive, and developmental effects. However, the major target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child's mental and physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effects may persist beyond childhood.
Further, this action does not describe the health impacts that are associated with reduced NO
This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed because this provides society with a substantial net gain of health and environmental benefits at the lowest cost to industry and local government entities that operate large municipal waste combustors. Furthermore, the EPA's
This action is not a “significant energy action” because the final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. There would be no change in energy consumption resulting from the final rule, and the EPA does not expect any price increase for any energy type. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with regard to energy supplies.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA previously conducted searches to determine if there are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are relevant to this action and reviewed any potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for these rules.
• The manual portion only and not the instrumental portion of VCS, American National Standard Institute (ANSI)/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10 (2010), “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, and 7C. The EPA incorporates by reference VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” a method for quantitatively determining the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion and includes a description of the apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, and 7C of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 method incorporates both manual and instrumental methodologies for the determination of oxygen content. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination is performed through the absorption of oxygen. This method is available at the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
• The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D7520-16, “Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,” is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 only if the following conditions are followed:
1. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue
2. You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
3. You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
5. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and conditions 1 to 4 above is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. The ASTM D7520-16 method describes procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software, and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine and report plume opacity. This method is available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036.
• The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-24, “Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),” as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for Hg only) as a method for measuring elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and total Hg concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating results. ASTM D6784-24 allows for the use of either an EPA Method 17 sampling configuration with a fixed (single) point where the flue gas is not stratified, or an EPA Method 5 sampling configuration with a multi-point traverse. This updated 2024 version of the standard includes additional procedures that make the method applicable to sources with high levels of HCl and low levels of SO
• The EPA also cited the use of facility operator certification standard ASME QRO-1-2005 (R2015), Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators. The 1995 rule cited a certification for facility operator ASME QRO-1-1994. Since that time, ASME has released a 2005 version as the most recent one available. This certification standard is intended as a qualification and certification program for shift supervisors and chief facility supervisors at large MWC facilities and includes both provisional and full certification levels. Knowledge areas covered by the certification standard include, but are not limited to, refuse and ash handling, combustion processing, steam cycle, electrical, environmental controls, safety, and administration (chief facility operator only). This standard is available at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Additionally, there were two VCS incorporated by reference into current subpart Cb and subpart Eb that the EPA is incorporating into new subparts VVVV and WWWW:
• The EPA is incorporating by reference section 4 of ASME PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991), Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and 1969 Addenda). This code provides instructions and rules for conducting performance tests of fuel-fired steam generators. For context, this code is incorporated within the large municipal waste combustor standards as the method to calculate the steam or feed water flow rate of the combustor. This standard is available at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
• The EPA is incorporating by reference ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th Edition (1971) (Redesignated ASME PTC 19.5-2004, Flow Measurement). This document describes methods of flow measurement, including differential, pulsating, sonic and ultrasonic metering techniques, among others. For context, this code is incorporated within the large municipal waste combustor standards as recommended guidance on the design, construction, installation, calibration and use of nozzles and orifices for steam or feed water flowmeters. This standard is available at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the memorandum,
Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of subpart A of the general provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 60 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(g) * * *
(1) ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th Edition (1971), IBR approved for §§ 60.58a(h), 60.58b(i), 60.1320(a), 60.1810(a), 60.5995(a), and 60.6550(a).
(13) ASME PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991), Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and 1969 Addenda), IBR approved for §§ 60.46b, 60.58a(h), 60.58b(i), 60.1320(a), 60.1810(a), 60.5995(a), and 60.6550(a).
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], Issued August 31, 1981; IBR approved for §§ 60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e); 60.104a(d), (h), (i), and (j); 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a), (c), and (d); 60.275(e); 60.275a(e); 60.275b(e); Tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE; Tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF; Table 2 to subpart JJJJ; §§ 60.285a(f); 60.396(a); 60.614a(b); 60.664a(b); 60.704(b); 60.704a(b); 60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s) and (t); 60.2730(q); 60.4415(a); 60.4415a(b); 60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); Tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL; Tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM; §§ 60.5406(c); 60.5406a(c); 60.5406b(c); 60.5407a(g); 60.5407b(g); 60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b) and (d); 60.5413b(b) and (d); 60.5413c(b) and (d); 60.5930(a); Tables 3 and 4 to subpart VVVV; 60.6485(a); Tables 4 and 5 to subpart WWWW.
(18) ASME QRO-1-2005 (R2015), Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators; IBR approved for §§ 60.54b(a) and (b); 60.5865(a) and (c); 60.6420(a) and (c).
(h) * * *
(215) ASTM D6784-24, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved March 1, 2024; IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart VVVV; Table 5 to subpart WWWW.
(220) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016; IBR approved for §§ 60.123(c); 60.123a(c); 60.271(k); 60.272(a) and (b); 60.273(c) and (d); 60.274(i); 60.275(e); 60.276(c); 60.271a; 60.272a(a) and (b); 60.273a(c) and (d); 60.274a(h); 60.275a(e); 60.276a(f); 60.271b; 60.272b(a) and (b); 60.273b(c) and (d); 60.274b(h); 60.275b(e); 60.276b(f); 60.374a(d); 60.2972(a); Tables 1, 1a, and 1b to subpart EEEE; 60.3067(a); Tables 2 and 2a to subpart FFFF; 60.6145; Table 4 to subpart VVVV; 60.6685; and Table 5 to subpart WWWW.
(o) Municipal waste combustors subject to this subpart will remain subject to this subpart until the municipal waste combustor must comply with the requirements of an approved state plan or federal plan that implements subpart WWWW of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before January 23, 2024).
(q) Municipal waste combustors that commenced construction after September 20, 1994 but no later than January 23, 2024 or that commenced reconstruction or modification after June 19, 1996, but no later than September 10, 2026, remain subject to this subpart until the municipal waste combustor must comply with the requirements of an approved state plan or federal plan that implements subpart WWWW of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before January 23, 2024).
(a) No later than the date 6 months after the date of startup of an affected facility or on December 19, 1996, whichever is later, each chief facility operator and shift supervisor shall obtain and maintain a current provisional operator certification from either the American Society of Mechanical Engineers [QRO-1-2005 (incorporated by reference,see § 60.17)] or a state certification program.
(b) No later than the date 6 months after the date of startup of an affected facility or on December 19, 1996, whichever is later, each chief facility operator and shift supervisor shall have completed full certification or shall have scheduled a full certification exam with either the American Society of Mechanical Engineers [QRO-1-2005 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17)] or a state certification program.
This subpart establishes new source performance standards for municipal waste combustors with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.
This subpart takes effect May 11, 2026. Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to municipal waste combustor planning and must be completed before construction is commenced on the municipal waste combustor. In particular, the preconstruction requirements in §§ 60.5730 through 60.5830 must be completed prior to commencing construction. Other requirements (such as the emission limits) apply when the municipal waste combustor begins operation.
Yes, if your municipal waste combustor meets both of the following criteria:
(a) Your municipal waste combustor is a new municipal waste combustor.
(b) Your municipal waste combustor has the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.
(a) A new municipal waste combustor meets either of two criteria:
(1) Commenced construction after January 23, 2024.
(2) Commenced reconstruction or modification after September 10, 2026.
(b) This subpart does not apply to your municipal waste combustor if you make physical or operational changes to an existing municipal waste combustor primarily to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart WWWW of this part. Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or modification under this subpart.
(a)
(1) Your municipal waste combustor that is capable of combusting more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste is subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the maximum amount of municipal solid waste that may be combusted in the unit to less than or equal to 11 tons per day.
(2) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit the notification and copy of the federally enforceable permit required by (a)(2) and (3) of this section as a portable document format (PDF) file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(3) You provide the Administrator with a copy of the federally enforceable permit that limits the firing of municipal solid waste to less than 11 tons per day. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit the notification and copy of the federally enforceable permit required by (a)(2) and (3) of this section as a portable document format (PDF) file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(4) You keep daily records of the amount of municipal solid waste combusted.
(b)
(1) Your unit qualifies as a small power production facility under section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)).
(2) Your unit combusts homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity.
(3) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit this notification as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(4) You provide the Administrator with data documenting that the unit qualifies for this exemption.
(c)
(1) Your unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)).
(2) Your unit combusts homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil but excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of useful energy (such as heat) used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes.
(3) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit this notification as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(4) You provide the Administrator with documentation that the unit qualifies for this exemption.
(d)
(1) Your municipal waste combustor combusts a single-item waste stream of tires.
(2) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption.
(3) You provide the Administrator with data documenting that the unit qualifies for this exemption. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit the notification and data required under (d)(2) and (3) of this section as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Your municipal waste combustor is a co-fired combustor as defined under § 60.6145.
(2) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption.
(3) You provide the Administrator with a copy of the federally enforceable permit (specified in the definition of cofired combustor in § 60.6145). Beginning September 10, 2026, you submit the notification and copy of the
(4) You record the weights, each quarter, of municipal solid waste and of all other fuels combusted.
(h)
(1) Your pyrolysis/combustion unit is an integrated part of a plastics/rubber recycling unit as defined under “Definitions” (§ 60.6145).
(2) You notify the Administrator that the unit qualifies for this exemption. Beginning September 10, 2026, you must submit this notification as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(3) You keep and maintain records of the weights, each calendar quarter, of plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed.
(4) You keep and maintain records of the weights, each calendar quarter, of chemical plant feed stocks and petroleum refinery feedstocks produced and marketed.
(5) You keep and maintain records of the name and address of the purchaser of those feed stocks.
(i)
(1) Your unit combusts gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke, liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by plastics/rubber recycling units.
(2) Your unit does not combust any other municipal solid waste.
(j)
(k)
If this subpart VVVV applies to your municipal waste combustor, then subparts Db, E, Ea, or Eb of this part do not apply to your municipal waste combustor.
(a) The U.S. EPA Administrator retains the following authorities which are not transferred to a state:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in § 60.5700(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), and (h).
(2) Enforceability under federal law of the federally enforceable (as defined in § 60.6145) permits specified in § 60.5700(a) and (g).
(3) Determination of compliance with the siting requirements as specified in § 60.5790.
(4) Acceptance of relationship between carbon dioxide and oxygen as part of initial and annual performance tests as specified in §§ 60.6080(g) and 60.6090(k).
(5) Approval of other monitoring systems used to obtain emissions data when data is not obtained by CEMS as specified in §§ 60.5955 and 60.5985(g)(11).
(6) Approval of a site-specific monitoring plan for the continuous emission monitoring system specified in § 60.5985(c) and (d) or the continuous automated sampling system specified in § 60.5985(g)(10) and (h) of this section.
(7) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
(8) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
(9) Waiver of recordkeeping.
(10) Performance test and data reduction waivers under § 60.8(b).
(11) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(b) The Administrator can delegate all other authorities in all other sections of this subpart to the state for direct state enforcement.
These new source performance standards contain five major components:
(a)
(1) Materials separation plan.
(2) Siting analysis.
(b)
(1) Operator training.
(2) Operator certification.
(3) Operating requirements.
(c)
(d)
(e)
No, you must meet the preconstruction requirements before you commence construction of the municipal waste combustor. After the municipal waste combustor begins operation, you must meet all of the good combustion practices, emission limits, monitoring, stack testing, and most recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
The requirements for new municipal waste combustors of all types are identical except that carbon monoxide emissions limits are set separately for mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel combustor types (see Table 1 to Subpart VVVV).
(a) You must prepare a materials separation plan for your municipal waste combustor if you commence construction of a new large municipal waste combustor after January 23, 2024.
(b) You must prepare a materials separation plan if you are required to submit an initial application for a construction permit, under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, for the reconstruction or modification of your municipal waste combustor.
The plan identifies a goal and an approach for separating certain components of municipal solid waste for a given service area prior to waste combustion and making them available for recycling.
(a) For your materials separation plan, you must complete all of the following nine steps:
(1) Prepare a draft materials separation plan.
(2) Make your draft plan available to the public.
(3) Hold a public meeting on your draft plan.
(4) Prepare responses to public comments received during the public comment period on your draft plan.
(5) Prepare a revised materials separation plan.
(6) Discuss the revised plan at the public meeting for review of the siting analysis.
(7) Prepare responses to public comments received on your revised plan.
(8) Prepare a final materials separation plan.
(9) Submit the final materials separation plan.
(b) You may use analyses conducted under the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, to comply with some of the materials separation requirements of this subpart.
(a) You must prepare and submit a draft materials separation plan for your municipal waste combustor and its service area.
(b) Your draft materials separation plan must identify a goal and an approach for separating certain components of municipal solid waste for a given service area prior to waste combustion and making them available for recycling. A materials separation plan may include such elements as drop off facilities, buy-back or deposit-return incentives, programs for curbside pickup, and centralized systems for mechanical separation.
(c) Your materials separation plan may include different goals or approaches for different subareas in the service area.
(d) Your materials separation plan may exclude materials separation activities for certain subareas or, if warranted, the entire service area.
(a) Distribute your draft materials separation plan to the principal public libraries in the area where you will construct the municipal waste combustor.
(b) Publish a notice of a public meeting in the principal newspapers that serve two areas:
(1) The area where you will construct the municipal waste combustor.
(2) The areas where the waste that your municipal waste combustor combusts will be collected.
(c) Include six items in your notice of the public meeting:
(1) The date of the public meeting.
(2) The time of the public meeting.
(3) The location of the public meeting.
(4) The location of the public libraries where the public can find your materials separation plan. Include the normal business hours of each library.
(5) An agenda of the topics that will be discussed at the public meeting.
(6) The beginning and ending dates of the public comment period on your draft materials separation plan.
(a) You must accept verbal comments at the public meeting.
(b) You must accept written comments any time during the period that begins on the date the document is distributed to the principal public libraries and ends 30 days after the date of the public meeting.
(a) You must hold a public meeting and accept comments on your draft materials separation plan.
(b) You must hold the public meeting in the county where you will construct the municipal waste combustor.
(c) You must schedule the public meeting to occur 30 days or more after you make your draft materials separation plan available to the public.
(d) You may combine the public meeting with any other public meeting required as part of any other federal, state, or local permit review. However, you may not combine it with the public meeting required for the siting analysis under “Preconstruction Requirements: Siting Analysis” (§ 60.5820).
(e) You are encouraged to address eight topics at the public meeting for your draft materials separation plan:
(1) Expected size of the service area for your municipal waste combustor.
(2) Amount of waste generation (waste collection) anticipated in the service area.
(3) Types and estimated amounts of materials proposed for separation.
(4) Methods proposed for materials separation.
(5) Amount of residual waste for disposal.
(6) Alternate disposal methods for handling the residual waste.
(7) Where your responses to public comments on the draft materials separation plan will be available for inspection.
(8) Where your revised materials separation plan will be available for inspection.
(f) You must prepare a transcript of the public meeting on your draft materials separation plan.
You must do all of the following three steps:
(a) Prepare written responses to any public comments you received during the public comment period. Summarize the responses to public comments in a document that is separate from your revised materials separation plan.
(b) Make the comment response document available to the public (including distribution of the document at least to the principal public libraries used to announce the public meeting) in the service area where you will construct your municipal waste combustor.
(c) Prepare a revised materials separation plan for the municipal waste combustor that includes, as appropriate, changes made in response to any public comments you received during the public comment period.
You must do the following two tasks:
(a) As specified under “Reporting” (§ 60.6055), submit copies of all of the following five items to the Administrator on or before the date you submit the application for a construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52. (If you are not required to submit an application for a construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, submit copies of the five items to the Administrator by the date of your notice of construction under § 60.6060):
(1) Your draft materials separation plan.
(2) Your revised materials separation plan.
(3) Your notice of the public meeting for your draft materials separation plan.
(4) A transcript of the public meeting on your draft materials separation plan.
(5) The document that summarizes your responses to the public comments you received during the public comment period on your draft materials separation plan.
(b) Make your revised materials separation plan available to the public as part of the distribution of the siting analysis procedures under “Preconstruction Requirements: Siting Analysis” (§ 60.5810).
As part of the public meeting for review of the siting analysis, as specified under “Preconstruction Requirements: Siting Analysis” (§ 60.5820), you must discuss the two following areas:
(a) How the revised materials separation plan has changed from your
(b) Questions about your revised materials separation plan.
(a) If you receive any comments on the revised materials separation plan, you must prepare written responses to any public comments and include them in the document that summarizes your responses to public comments on the siting analysis.
(b) Prepare a final materials separation plan that includes, as appropriate, changes made in response to any public comments you received on your revised materials separation plan.
As specified under “Reporting” (§ 60.6060), submit your final materials separation plan to the Administrator as part of the initial notice of construction for the municipal waste combustor.
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you commence construction of a large municipal waste combustor after January 23, 2024.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to submit an initial application for a construction permit, under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the reconstruction or modification of your municipal waste combustor.
The siting analysis addresses how your municipal waste combustor affects ambient air quality, visibility, soils, vegetation, and other relevant factors. The analysis shall consider air pollution control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks to the public health or the environment.
(a) For your siting analysis, you must complete all of the following five steps:
(1) Prepare an analysis.
(2) Make your analysis available to the public.
(3) Hold a public meeting on your analysis.
(4) Prepare responses to public comments received on your analysis.
(5) Submit your analysis.
(b) If you commence construction after January 23, 2024, you must prepare a siting analysis according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, and must submit the siting analysis as part of the initial notification of construction. You may use analyses conducted under the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52 to comply with some of the siting analysis requirements of this subpart.
(a) Include an analysis of how your municipal waste combustor affects the following four areas:
(1) Ambient air quality.
(2) Visibility.
(3) Soils.
(4) Vegetation.
(b) Include an analysis of air pollution control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, the potential risks to the public health and the environment to the maximum extent practicable.
(a) Distribute your siting analysis and revised materials separation plan to the principal public libraries in the area where you will construct your municipal waste combustor.
(b) Publish a notice of a public meeting in the principal newspapers that serve the following two areas:
(1) The area where you will construct your municipal waste combustor.
(2) The areas where the waste that your municipal waste combustor combusts will be collected.
(c) Include six items in your notice of the public meeting:
(1) The date of the public meeting.
(2) The time of the public meeting.
(3) The location of the public meeting.
(4) The location of the public libraries where the public can find your siting analysis and revised materials separation plan. Include the normal business hours of each library.
(5) An agenda of the topics that will be discussed at the public meeting.
(6) The beginning and ending dates of the public comment period on your siting analysis and revised materials separation plan.
(a) You must accept verbal comments at the public meeting.
(b) You must accept written comments anytime during the period that begins on the date the document is distributed to the principal public libraries and ends 30 days after the date of the public meeting.
(a) You must hold a public meeting to discuss and accept comments on your siting analysis and your revised materials separation plan.
(b) You must hold the public meeting in the county where you will construct your municipal waste combustor.
(c) You must schedule the public meeting to occur 30 days or more after you make your siting analysis and revised materials separation plan available to the public.
(d) You must prepare a transcript of the public meeting on your siting analysis.
If you receive any comments on the siting analysis, you must do the following three things:
(a) Prepare written responses to any public comments on your siting analysis and the revised materials separation plan you received during the public comment period. Summarize the responses to public comments in a document that is separate from your materials separation plan and siting analysis.
(b) Make the document summarizing responses to public comments available to the public in the service area where you will construct your municipal waste combustor. You must distribute the document to all public libraries in the service area where the affected facility is to be located, including the public libraries used to announce the meeting.
(c) Prepare a final siting analysis for the municipal waste combustor that includes, as appropriate, changes made in response to any public comments you received during the public comment period.
As specified under “Reporting” (§ 60.6060), submit all four of the following items as part of the notice of construction:
(a) Your final siting analysis.
(b) Your notice of the public meeting on your siting analysis.
(c) A transcript of the public meeting on your siting analysis.
(d) The document that summarizes your responses to the public comments you received during the public comment period.
There are two types of required training:
(a) Training of operators of municipal waste combustors using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state-approved training course.
(b) Training of plant personnel using a site-specific training course.
(a) Three types of employees must complete the EPA or state-approved operator training course:
(1) Chief facility operators.
(2) Shift supervisors.
(3) Control room operators.
(b) Those employees must complete the operator training course by the later of three dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor initial startup.
(2) September 10, 2026.
(3) The date before an employee assumes responsibilities that affect operation of the municipal waste combustor.
All employees with responsibilities that affect how a municipal waste combustor operates must complete the site-specific training course, this includes at least six types of employees:
(a) Chief facility operators.
(b) Shift supervisors.
(c) Control room operators.
(d) Ash handlers.
(e) Maintenance personnel.
(f) Crane or load handlers.
For site-specific training, you must do all of the following four things:
(a) For training at a particular facility, develop a site-specific operating manual for that facility by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor initial startup.
(2) September 10, 2026.
(b) Establish a training program to review the site-specific operating manual with people whose responsibilities affect the operation of your municipal waste combustor. Complete the initial review by the later of three dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor initial startup.
(2) September 10, 2026.
(3) The date prior to the date an employee assumes responsibilities that affect operation of the municipal waste combustor.
(c) Update your manual annually.
(d) Following the initial review, review your operating manual with staff annually.
You must include all of the following 11 items in the operating manual for your facility:
(a) A summary of all applicable standards in this subpart.
(b) A description of the basic combustion theory that applies to a municipal waste combustor.
(c) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding municipal solid waste.
(d) Procedures to be followed during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the municipal waste combustor.
(e) Procedures for maintaining a proper level of combustion air supply.
(f) Procedures for operating the municipal waste combustor in compliance with the standards contained in this subpart.
(g) Procedures for responding to periodic upset or off-specification conditions.
(h) Procedures for minimizing carryover of particulate matter.
(i) Procedures for handling ash.
(j) Procedures for monitoring emissions from the municipal waste combustor.
(k) Procedures for recordkeeping and reporting.
You must keep your operating manual in a readily accessible location at your facility. It must be available for review or inspection for all persons required to undergo training as specified in § 60.5850. The operating manual and records of training as specified in § 60.6035 shall be available for inspection by the EPA or its delegated enforcement agency upon request.
(a) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must obtain and keep a current provisional operator certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (QRO-1-2005) (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) or a current provisional operator certification from your state certification program, by the later of three dates:
(1) Six months after the municipal waste combustor initial startup.
(2) September 10, 2026.
(3) Six months after they transfer to the municipal waste combustor or 6 months after they are hired to work at the municipal waste combustor.
(b) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must obtain and maintain a current provisional certification, and must complete the full certification or be scheduled to take the full certification exam, by the later of three dates:
(1) Six months after the municipal waste combustor initial startup.
(2) September 10, 2026.
(3) For a provisionally certified operator who is newly promoted or recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or a chief facility operator position, a full certification exam must be completed within 6 months after they transfer to the municipal waste combustor or 6 months after they are hired to work at the municipal waste combustor.
(c) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must take one of three actions:
(1) Obtain and maintain a current provisional operator certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or a state certification program in your state.
(2) Schedule a full certification exam with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (QRO-1-2005) (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
(3) Schedule a full certification exam with your state certification program.
After the required date for full or provisional certifications, you must not operate your municipal waste combustor unless one of four employees is on duty:
(a) A fully certified chief facility operator.
(b) A fully certified shift supervisor.
(c) A provisionally certified chief facility operator or a provisionally certified shift supervisor who is scheduled to take the full certification exam specified in § 60.5865.
If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor both are unavailable, a provisionally certified control room operator at the municipal waste combustor may fulfill the certified operator requirement. Depending on the length of time that a certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are away, you must meet one of the three following criteria:
(a) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are both offsite for 12 hours or less, and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor.
(b) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or less, and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform those duties without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, you must record the period when the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite and include that information in the annual report as specified under § 60.6090(l).
(c) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 2 weeks, and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform those duties without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, you must take the following two actions:
(1) Notify the Administrator in writing. In the notice, state what caused the absence and what you are doing to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor is onsite as expeditiously as practicable. Beginning September 10, 2026, submit this notification as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(2) Submit a status report and corrective action summary to the Administrator every 4 weeks following the initial notification. If the Administrator notifies you that your status report or corrective action summary is disapproved, the municipal waste combustor may continue operation for 90 days, but then must cease operation. If corrective actions are taken in the 90-day period such that the Administrator withdraws the disapproval, municipal waste combustor operation may continue. Beginning September 10, 2026, submit this status report as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6065(d).
(d) A provisionally certified operator who is newly promoted or recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or a chief facility operator position at the municipal waste combustor may perform the duties of the certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator for up to 6 months before taking the ASME QRO certification exam as specified in § 60.5865.
(a) You must meet the carbon monoxide emission limits specified in Table 1 to Subpart VVVV within 60 days of your municipal waste combustor reaching the maximum load level at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after its initial startup.
(b) You must not operate your municipal waste combustor at loads greater than 110 percent of the maximum demonstrated load of the municipal waste combustor (4-hour block average), as specified under “Definitions” (§ 60.6145) except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. The averaging time is specified under § 60.5995.
(1) During the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test and the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test, the municipal waste combustor load limit is not applicable if the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The Administrator may waive in writing the municipal waste combustor load limit for the purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. The municipal waste combustor load limit continues to apply, and remains enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the waiver.
(c) You must not operate your municipal waste combustor so that the temperature measured at the inlet of the particulate matter control device exceeds 17 °C above the maximum demonstrated temperature of the particulate matter control device (4-hour block average), as specified under “Definitions” (§ 60.6145) except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. The averaging time is specified under § 60.6000. The requirements specified in this paragraph apply to each particulate matter control device used.
(1) During the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test and the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test, the particulate matter control device temperature limitations are not applicable if the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The Administrator may waive in writing the particulate matter control device temperature limits for the purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. The temperature limits continue to apply, and remain enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the waiver.
(d) If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must meet the requirements for activated carbon injection rate during dioxins/furans or mercury testing as specified in § 60.6005.
The operating requirements under this subpart apply at all times including periods of municipal waste combustor warmup, startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Monitoring data cannot be dismissed or excluded from compliance calculations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, but must be recorded and reported in accordance with the provisions of § 60.6045(e). The provisions applicable to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of § 60.8(c) of subpart A of this part do not apply.
Eleven pollutants, in four groupings, are regulated:
(a) Organics. Dioxins/furans.
(b) Metals.
(1) Cadmium.
(2) Lead.
(3) Mercury.
(4) Opacity.
(5) Particulate matter.
(c) Acid gases.
(1) Hydrogen chloride.
(2) Nitrogen oxides.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.
(d) Other.
(1) Carbon monoxide.
(2) Fugitive ash.
(a) You must meet the emission limits specified in Table 1 and Table 2 to Subpart VVVV. You must meet the limits 60 days after your municipal waste combustor reaches the maximum load level but no later than 180 days after its initial startup.
(b) The visible emissions of combustion ash discharged to the atmosphere from an ash conveying
(a) The emission limits of this subpart apply at all times including periods of warmup, startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The provisions applicable to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of § 60.11(c) of subpart A of this part do not apply.
To continuously monitor emissions, you must perform all of the following four tasks:
(a) Install continuous emission monitoring systems for certain gaseous pollutants.
(b) Make sure your continuous emission monitoring systems are operating correctly.
(c) Make sure you obtain the minimum amount of monitoring data.
(d) Install a continuous opacity monitoring system for measuring opacity.
(a) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitoring systems for oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart VVVV. Install the continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) at the outlet of the air pollution control device.
(b) If you elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride in lieu of performance testing, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems for monitoring the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere and continuous emissions monitoring systems for oxygen (or carbon dioxide) at the outlet of the air pollution control device.
(c) You must install, evaluate, and operate each continuous emission monitoring system according to the “Monitoring Requirements” in § 60.13.
(d) You must monitor the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) concentration at each location where you monitor carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. If you elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you must monitor the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) concentration at each location where you monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride.
(e) You may choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas. If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide, then an oxygen monitor is not required, and you must follow the requirements in § 60.5930.
(a) You must use data from the continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart VVVV. To demonstrate compliance for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash, see § 60.5965.
(b) You may elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV.
(c) For pollutants that you continuously monitor as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, you may request that compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.5930.
(d) For pollutants that you continuously monitor as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart VVVV by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified § 60.5910 to collect the minimum amount of monitoring data specified in § 60.5935 and calculating the average emission concentration as specified in § 60.5940 and Table 4 to Subpart VVVV, as applicable.
(a) Conduct initial, daily, quarterly, and annual evaluations of your continuous emission monitoring systems that measure oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide and your continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate.
(b) Complete your initial evaluation of the continuous emission monitoring systems within 60 days after your municipal waste combustor reaches the maximum load level at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after the initial startup of your municipal waste combustor, as specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, or, for pollutants for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions and for which you previously determined compliance by conducting a performance test, within 180 days of notification of the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring system, whichever is later.
(c) For initial and annual evaluations, you must collect data concurrently (or within 30 to 60 minutes) from: your oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system; your sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring systems, as appropriate; your continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate; and the appropriate test methods specified in Tables 3 and 4 to Subpart VVVV. Collect the data during each initial and annual evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems following the applicable performance specifications in Table 3 to Subpart VVVV
(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems that measure oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, follow the quality assurance procedures in Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part for each continuous emission monitoring system. The procedures include annual relative accuracy test audit, daily calibration drift, and quarterly accuracy determinations. For continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate, follow the quality assurance procedures of the applicable procedures of appendix F as specified in Table 3 to Subpart VVVV or the site-specific monitoring plan.
(a) Conduct annual relative accuracy test audits of your continuous emission monitoring systems no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test; you must complete five relative accuracy test audits in each 5-year calendar period.
(b) Evaluate your continuous emission monitoring systems daily and quarterly as specified in procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
You must establish the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide during the initial evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems. You may reestablish the relationship during annual performance compliance tests. To establish the relationship, use three procedures:
(a) Use EPA Reference Method 3, 3A or 3B in appendix A of this part, or as an alternative the manual method portion of ASME PTC-19-10-1981—part 10 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, to determine oxygen concentration at the location of your carbon dioxide monitor.
(b) Conduct at least three test runs for oxygen. Make sure each test run represents a 1-hour average and that sampling continues for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(c) Use the fuel-factor equation in EPA Reference Method 3B in appendix A of this part to determine the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide.
(a) Where continuous emission monitoring systems are required, obtain 1-hour arithmetic averages. Make sure the averages for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, and, if you elect to continuously monitor emissions, the averages for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, are in the units specified in Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart VVVV at 7 percent oxygen (or the equivalent carbon dioxide level). Use the 1-hour averages of oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data from your continuous emission monitoring system to determine the actual oxygen (or carbon dioxide) level and to calculate emissions at 7 percent oxygen (or the equivalent carbon dioxide level). The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be calculated using the data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of this part. Do not correct CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, to 7 percent oxygen. CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown are used as measured.
(b) Obtain at least two data points per hour in order to calculate a valid 1-hour arithmetic average.
(c) Valid continuous monitoring system hourly averages shall be obtained for all times the affected facility is operated except as specified in § 60.13(e).
(d) If you do not obtain the minimum data required in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, you must still use all valid data from the continuous emission monitoring systems in calculating emission concentrations in accordance with § 60.5940.
(a) Use equation 1 in § 60.6140(a) to calculate emissions at 7 percent oxygen.
(b) Use the test methods in Table 4 to Subpart VVVV to calculate the 24-hr daily geometric average concentrations and percent reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions and the 24-hr daily arithmetic average for concentrations of nitrogen oxides.
(c) Calculate the 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic averages specified in Table 1 to Subpart VVVV (as applicable) from 1-hour arithmetic averages expressed in parts per million by volume corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) for concentrations of carbon monoxide. CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and are used as measured.
(d) If you elect to continuously monitor emissions of particulate matter, mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride, use EPA Reference Method 19, section 12.4.1, in appendix A of this part, to calculate a 24-hour daily block arithmetic average for emission concentrations.
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system.
(b) Install, evaluate, and operate each continuous opacity monitoring system according to § 60.13.
(c) The output of the continuous opacity monitoring system shall be recorded on a 6-minute average basis.
(d) Complete an initial evaluation of your continuous opacity monitoring system according to Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part. Complete the evaluation no later than 180 days after the date of the initial startup of the municipal waste combustor, as specified under § 60.8.
(e) Follow Table 4 to Subpart VVVV to establish the procedures and test methods to determine compliance with the opacity limit in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV. The data obtained from your continuous opacity monitoring system are not used to determine compliance with the opacity limit.
(a) Use the required span values and applicable performance specifications in Table 3 to Subpart VVVV.
(b) For continuous emission monitoring systems measuring carbon monoxide, if your municipal waste combustor is subject to the 100 parts per million dry volume carbon monoxide standard, the relative accuracy criterion of 5 parts per million dry volume is calculated as the absolute value of the mean difference between the reference method and continuous emission monitoring systems.
(a) When you are unable to obtain emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you
(b) If you are unable to obtain emissions of carbon monoxide emissions because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you must obtain emissions data by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 10 and provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for all times that the municipal waste combustor is operated.
(c) If you elect to continuously monitor mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride and you are unable to obtain emissions data because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you must obtain emissions data by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator.
Conduct initial and annual stack tests to measure the emission levels of particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, and fugitive ash in accordance with the methods specified in Table 4 to Subpart VVVV.
You must use results of stack tests for particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, and fugitive ash to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV. When calculating total dioxins/furans, zero may be used for congeners that are below the estimated detection limit (EDL). For estimated maximum possible concentration (EMPC) results, zero may be used when the EMPC is below the EDL, otherwise the EMPC must be used in determining total dioxins/furans. To demonstrate compliance for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, see § 60.5910.
(a) Conduct initial stack tests for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and each of the pollutants listed in § 60.5960 within 60 days after your municipal waste combustor reaches the maximum load level at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after its initial startup.
(b) Conduct annual stack tests for the each of the pollutants listed in § 60.5960 after the initial stack test. Conduct each annual stack test no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test, except as specified in § 60.5985 of this section. You must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period.
(a) Follow Table 4 to Subpart VVVV to establish the procedures and test methods, and other specific testing requirements for the different pollutants.
(b) Stack tests for all the pollutants must consist of at least three test runs, as specified in § 60.8, conducted under representative full load operating conditions. For particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans use the arithmetic average of the pollutant emission concentrations from the three test runs to determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV. For fugitive ash, use the arithmetic average duration of visible emissions per hour as calculated from three 1-hr observations to determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV.
(c) Obtain an oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement at the same time as your pollutant measurements to determine diluent gas levels, as specified in § 60.5910.
(d) You may request that compliance with emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.5930.
(e) Use equation 1 in § 60.6140(a) to calculate emission levels at 7 percent oxygen (or an equivalent carbon dioxide basis). See the individual test methods in Table 4 to Subpart VVVV for other required equations.
(a) For annual performance stack tests for dioxins/furans, you may conduct annual stack tests on an alternate performance testing schedule for the purposes of evaluating system performance to establish new operating parameter levels, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. You may test one unit for dioxins/furans and apply the dioxins/furans operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site if you meet both of the following conditions. First, you have multiple municipal waste combustors onsite that are subject to this subpart. Second, all those municipal waste combustors have demonstrated levels of dioxins/furans emissions less than or equal to 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for 2 consecutive years. In that case, you may choose to conduct annual stack tests on only one municipal waste combustor per year at your facility. The provision only applies to performance stack testing for dioxins/furans emissions. You must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) At a minimum, you must conduct a performance test for dioxins/furans emissions for one municipal waste combustor on an annual basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 months following the previous performance test), and you must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period. Each year a different municipal waste combustor must be tested, and the municipal waste combustors must be tested in sequence (
(1) If each annual performance test continues to indicate a dioxins/furans emission level less than or equal to 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), you may continue to conduct a performance test on only one municipal waste combustor per year.
(2) If any annual performance test indicates a dioxins/furans emission level greater than 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), you must conduct all subsequent annual performance tests on all municipal waste combustors. You must continue to conduct performance tests on all units annually until you can demonstrate dioxins/furans emission level less than or equal to 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) through performance tests for all units subject to this subpart for 2 consecutive years.
(c) Upon meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for one affected facility, you may elect to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection system operating parameter levels for dioxins/furans as established in § 60.6005 to
(d) Upon testing each subsequent unit in accordance with the testing schedule established in paragraph (b) of this section, the dioxins/furans and mercury emissions of the subsequent unit must not exceed the dioxins/furans and mercury emissions measured in the most recent test of that unit prior to the revised operating parameter limits.
(e) If you follow the performance testing schedule specified in paragraph (b) of this section and apply the carbon injection system operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site, you must follow the procedures specified in § 60.6090(j) for reporting, including the procedures specified in § 60.6090(i) for reporting the selection of this schedule.
(a) In lieu of conducting performance stack tests according to the requirements of § 60.5960 to demonstrate continuous compliance for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you may install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems for monitoring emissions according to the requirements of § 60.5905 through § 60.5955. If you elect to continuously monitor emissions instead of conducting performance testing, you are not required to complete annual performance testing as specified in Table 4 to Subpart VVVV. If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter emissions, you are not required to continuously monitor opacity as specified in § 60.5905(d) and § 60.5945.
(b) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you must also meet the following requirements:
(1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the system.
(c) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, develop and submit for approval by EPA, a site-specific mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride monitoring plan that addresses the elements and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous emission monitoring system sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each municipal waste combustor such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (
(4) Provisions for periods when the continuous emission monitoring system is out of control, including the requirements described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A continuous emission monitoring system is out of control if either of the following conditions are met: the zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the relevant standard; or the continuous emission monitoring system fails a performance test audit (
(ii) When the continuous emission monitoring system is out of control, you must take corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the system is out of control until the performance requirements are within the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (
(iii) You must submit all information concerning out-of-control periods for your continuous emission monitoring system, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required in § 60.6105(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous emission monitoring systems as described in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A continuous emission monitoring system quality control program. You must develop and submit to EPA for approval, upon request, a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous emission monitoring system performance evaluation required under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the operations described in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (c)(5)(i)(F) of this section.
(A) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous emission monitoring system;
(B) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the continuous emission monitoring system;
(C) Preventive maintenance of the continuous emission monitoring system, including spare parts inventory;
(D) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
(E) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods; and
(F) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous emission monitoring system.
(ii) Your performance evaluation test plan must include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data. The internal quality assurance program must include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of continuous emission monitoring system performance, for example, plans for relative accuracy testing using the appropriate reference method in § 60.5920(c). The external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
(6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
(7) You must operate and maintain the continuous emission monitoring system in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan and procedures 5 and 6 of appendix F of this part.
(d) You may use a continuous emission monitoring system for mercury or hydrogen chloride following the date of approval of the site-specific monitoring plan required in paragraph (c) of this section. You may use a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium or lead following the date a final performance specification applicable to a cadmium or lead monitor is published in the
(e) In lieu of conducting performance stack tests according to the requirements of § 60.5960 to demonstrate continuous compliance for mercury or dioxins/furans, you may install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for monitoring mercury or dioxins/furans emissions and record the output of the system. For dioxins/furans emissions, you must also analyze the sample using EPA Method 23.
(f) You may use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans following the date a final performance specification applicable to dioxins/furans from monitors is published in the
(g) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, you must meet the following requirements:
(1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the system.
(3) Complete your initial performance evaluation of the continuous automated sampling system no later than 180 days after the date of initial startup of your municipal waste combustor, as specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part, or, if you previously determined compliance by conducting a performance test, within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous automated sampling system, whichever is later.
(4) You may request that compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.5930.
(5) Conduct an initial performance test for emissions as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part. Determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV using the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (e) of this section to collect integrated samples and analyze emissions for the following time periods:
(i) For dioxins/furans, collect an integrated sample over each 2-week period. Analyze the collected samples using Method 23.
(ii) For mercury, collect an integrated sample over each 24-hour daily period. Analyze the sample according to the applicable final performance specification or the approved site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (h) of this section.
(6) Determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV based on 2-week emission concentrations for dioxins/furans and on the 24-hour daily emission concentrations for mercury using samples collected at the system outlet. For mercury percent reductions, also use the corresponding 24-hour daily emission concentration samples collected at the system inlet. The emission concentrations shall be expressed in nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for dioxins/furans and micrograms per dry standard cubic meter for mercury, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). Do not correct CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown to 7 percent oxygen. CEMs data during warmup, startup, and shutdown are used as measured.
(7) Beginning on the date two years after the final performance specification for continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans is published in the
(8) Use all valid data in calculating emission concentrations.
(9) For mercury, operate the continuous automated sampling system according to Performance Specification 12B in appendix B of this part or, for mercury or dioxins/furans, the approved site-specific monitoring plan.
(10) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, develop and implement a site-specific monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (h) of this section. If you rely on a performance specification, you may refer to that document in addressing the applicable procedures and criteria. For mercury, you must incorporate procedure 5 of appendix F to this part into the site-specific monitoring plan.
(11) When you are unable to obtain emissions data because of continuous automated sampling system breakdowns, repairs, quality assurance checks, or adjustments, you must obtain parametric monitoring data by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA.
(h) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, develop and submit for approval by EPA a site-specific monitoring plan that has sufficient detail to assure the validity of the continuous automated sampling system data and that addresses the elements and requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous automated sampling system sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each municipal waste combustor such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration analytical method, and the data collection system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
(4) Provisions for periods when the continuous automated sampling system is malfunctioning or is out of control, including the requirements described in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The site-specific monitoring plan must identify criteria for determining that the continuous automated sampling system is out of control, including periods when the sampling system is not collecting a representative sample or is malfunctioning, or when the analytical method does not meet site-specific quality criteria established in paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
(ii) When the continuous automated sampling system is out of control, take corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the system is out of control until the performance requirements are within the applicable limits. The out-of-control period includes all hours that the sampling system was not collecting a representative sample or was malfunctioning, or hours represented by a sample for which the analysis did not meet the relevant quality criteria. You may not use emissions data from the period the continuous automated sampling system is out-of-control period to determine compliance with the emission limits or to meet any data availability requirements.
(iii) You must submit all information concerning out-of-control periods for your continuous automated sampling system, including start and end dates and hours, estimates of emissions during the out-of-control period and the basis of the estimate, and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required in § 60.6105(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous automated sampling systems as described in paragraphs (h)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A continuous automated sampling system and analysis quality control program. You must develop and submit to EPA for approval, upon request, a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous automated sampling system performance evaluation required in paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the operations described in paragraphs (h)(5)(i)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) Correct placement, installation of the continuous automated sampling system such that the system is collecting a representative sample of gas;
(B) Initial and subsequent calibration of flow such that the sample collection rate of the continuous automated sampling system is known and verifiable;
(C) Procedures to assure representative (
(D) Preventive maintenance of the continuous automated sampling system, including spare parts inventory and procedures for cleaning equipment, replacing sample collection media, or other servicing at the end of each sample collection period;
(E) Data recording and reporting, including an automated indicator and recording device to show when the continuous automated monitoring system is operating and collecting data and when it is not collecting data;
(F) Accuracy audit procedures for analytical methods; and
(G) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous automated sampling system.
(ii) Your performance evaluation test plan must include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data. The internal quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of continuous automated sampling system performance, for example, plans for relative accuracy testing using the appropriate reference method in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, and an assessment of quality of analysis results. The external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
(6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous automated sampling system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
(7) You must operate and maintain the continuous automated sampling system in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
You must also monitor all the following three operating parameters:
(a) Load level of each municipal waste combustor.
(b) Temperature of flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter air pollution control device.
(c) Carbon feed rate if activated carbon is used to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(a) If your municipal waste combustor generates steam, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a steam flowmeter or a feed water flowmeter and meet all the following five requirements:
(1) Continuously measure and record the measurements of steam (or feed water) flow in kilograms (or pounds) per hour.
(2) Calculate your steam (or feed water) flow in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(3) Calculate the steam (or feed water) flow rate using the method in “American Society of Mechanical Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units, Power Test Code 4.1—1964 (R1991),” section 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
(4) Design, construct, install, calibrate, and use nozzles or orifices for flow rate measurements, using the recommendations in “American Society of Mechanical Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, part II of Fluid Meters,” 6th Edition (1971), chapter 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
(5) Before each dioxins/furans performance stack test, or at least once a year, calibrate all signal conversion elements associated with steam (or feed water) flow measurements according to the manufacturer instructions. Measurement devices such as flow nozzles and orifices are not required to be recalibrated after they are installed.
(b) Determine the maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor load during the initial performance test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test specified in § 60.5970 during which you achieve compliance with the dioxins/furans emission limit in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV. The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor load is the highest 4-hour arithmetic average load achieved during four consecutive hours during the most recent test. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.5980, you may apply the same maximum municipal waste combustor load from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and operated municipal waste combustors.
(a) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to continuously measure the temperature of the flue gas stream at the inlet of each particulate matter control device.
(b) Calculate the temperature of the flue gas stream in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(c) Determine the maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature for each particulate matter control device during the initial performance test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test specified in § 60.5970 during which you achieve compliance with the dioxins/furans emission limit. The maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature is the highest 4-hour arithmetic average temperature achieved at the particulate matter control device inlet during four consecutive hours during the most recent test. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.5980, you may apply the same maximum particulate matter control device temperature from the tested
If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must meet three requirements:
(a) Select a carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that can be used to calculate carbon feed rate (for example, screw feeder speed, hopper volume, or hopper refill frequency).
(b) During the initial and each subsequent dioxins/furans and mercury performance stack test specified in § 60.5970, estimate an average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour. You must determine an average operating parameter level that correlates to the carbon feed rate and establish a relationship between the operating parameter(s) and the carbon feed rate in order to estimate the average carbon feed rate. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.5980, you may apply the same estimated average carbon mass feed rate from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and operated municipal waste combustors.
(c) Continuously monitor the selected carbon injection operating parameter(s) (as specified in paragraph (b) of this section) during all periods when the municipal waste combustor is operating and combusting waste, and calculate the 8-hour block average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour, based on the selected operating parameter. The 8-hour block average must equal or exceed the level(s) documented during the performance tests specified under paragraph (b) of this section, except that during the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test and the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test, the limit for average mass carbon feed rate may be waived following permission of the Administrator if the tests are for the purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions.
(d) You must estimate the total carbon usage of the facility (kilograms or pounds) for each calendar quarter using two independent methods:
(1) The weight of carbon delivered to the facility.
(2) Estimate the average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour or pounds per hour for each hour of operation for each municipal waste combustor, based on the selected carbon injection operating parameter(s) specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and as specified in equation 2 to § 60.6140.
(e) Use pneumatic injection pressure or another carbon injection system operational indicator for additional verification of proper carbon injection system operation. The operational indicator must provide an instantaneous visual and/or audible alarm to alert the operator of a potential interruption in the carbon feed that would not normally be indicated by direct monitoring of carbon mass feed rate (
(a) Where continuous parameter monitoring systems are used, obtain 1-hour arithmetic averages for all the following three parameters:
(1) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(2) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter control device.
(3) Carbon feed rate if activated carbon is used to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(b) Obtain at least two data points per hour in order to calculate a valid 1-hour arithmetic average.
(c) Obtain valid 1-hour arithmetic averages for at least 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter.
(a) You must calculate the capacity for each continuous municipal waste combustor (
(1) For combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, calculate the maximum charging rate based on the maximum design heat input capacity of the unit and a heating value of 12,800 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing refuse-derived fuel, or a heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing municipal solid waste that is not refuse-derived fuel.
(2) For combustors that are not designed based on heat capacity, the maximum charging rate is the maximum design charging rate.
(b) You must calculate the capacity for each batch feed municipal waste combustor based on the maximum design amount of municipal solid waste that can be charged per batch multiplied by the maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period.
(1) You must calculate the maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period by dividing 24 hours by the design number of hours required to process one batch of municipal solid waste. The maximum number of batches may include a fraction (
(2) For batch combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, calculate the municipal waste combustor capacity in megagrams per day, based on the design heating value of 12,800 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing refuse-derived fuel or a heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing municipal solid waste that is not refuse-derived fuel.
You must keep all the following five types of records:
(a) Notification of construction, materials separation plan, and siting analysis.
(b) Operator training and certification.
(c) Stack tests.
(d) Continuously monitored pollutants and parameters.
(e) Carbon feed rate.
(a) Keep all records onsite in paper copy or electronic format unless the Administrator approves another format. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a
(b) Keep all records on each municipal waste combustor for at least 5 years.
(c) Make all records available for submittal to the Administrator, or for onsite review by an inspector.
You must keep records of all the following five items:
(a) The date of each record.
(b) The final materials separation plan.
(c) The final siting analysis.
(d) A record of the location and date of the public meetings.
(e) Your responses to the public comments received during the public comment periods for the materials separation plan and siting analysis.
You must keep records of all the following six items:
(a)
(1) Names of the municipal waste combustor chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who are provisionally certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent state-approved certification program.
(2) Dates of the initial and renewal provisional certifications.
(3) Documentation showing current provisional certifications.
(b)
(1) Names of the chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who are fully certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent state-approved certification program.
(2) Dates of initial and renewal full certifications.
(3) Documentation showing current full certifications.
(c)
(1) Names of the chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who have completed the EPA or state municipal waste combustion operator training course.
(2) Dates of completion of the operator training course.
(3) Documentation showing completion of the operator training course.
(d)
(1) Names of persons who have reviewed the operating manual.
(2) Date of the initial review.
(3) Dates of subsequent annual reviews.
(e)
(1) If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or less, and no other certified operator is onsite, record the dates that the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor were offsite.
(2) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 2 weeks and no other certified operator is onsite, keep records of all the following four items:
(i) Time of day that all certified persons are offsite.
(ii) The conditions that cause those people to be offsite.
(iii) The corrective actions you are taking to ensure a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor is onsite as soon as practicable.
(iv) Copies of the written reports submitted every 4 weeks that summarize the actions taken to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor will be onsite as soon as practicable.
(f)
For stack tests required under § 60.5960, you must keep records of all the following four items:
(a) The results of the initial and annual performance stack tests for eight pollutants or parameters recorded in the appropriate units of measure specified in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV:
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead.
(4) Mercury.
(5) Opacity.
(6) Particulate matter.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(b) Test reports including supporting calculations that document the results of all stack tests.
(c) The maximum demonstrated load of your municipal waste combustor and maximum temperature at the inlet of your particulate matter control device during all stack tests for dioxins/furans emissions.
(d) The calendar date of each record.
You must keep records of all the following eight items:
(a)
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All 1-hour average load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(6) All 1-hour average flue gas temperatures at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(7) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(8) If you monitor emissions with a CEMS, you must indicate which data are CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown.
(b)
(1) All 24-hour daily block geometric average concentrations and percent reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) All 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) All 4-hour block or 24-hour daily block arithmetic average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions, as applicable.
(4) All 4-hour block arithmetic average load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) All 4-hour block arithmetic average flue gas temperatures at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations and percent reductions, as appropriate, of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system to monitor mercury or dioxins/furans instead of conducting performance testing, all integrated 24-hour mercury concentrations (or percent reductions)
(c)
(1) Calendar dates whenever any of the seven pollutant or parameter levels recorded in paragraph (b) of this section or the opacity level recorded in paragraph (a)(1) of this section did not meet the emission limits or operating levels specified in this subpart.
(2) Reasons you exceeded the applicable emission limits or operating levels.
(3) Corrective actions you took, or are taking, to meet the emission limits or operating levels.
(d)
(1) Calendar dates for which you did not collect the minimum amount of data required under §§ 60.5935 and 60.6010. Record the dates for the following types of pollutants and parameters:
(i) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(ii) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(iii) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(iv) Load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(v) Temperatures of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(vi) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance tests, the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vii) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, dates and times when the sampling systems were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample.
(2) Reasons you did not collect the minimum data.
(3) Corrective actions you took, or are taking, to obtain the required amount of data.
(e)
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperatures of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or who elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, instead of conducting performance tests:
(i) Particulate matter emissions data.
(ii) Cadmium emissions data.
(iii) Lead emissions data.
(iv) Mercury emissions data.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions data.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions data.
(f)
(1) For sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxides, according to Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part. Keep the records for the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring systems.
(2) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter instead of conducting performance testing, according to Procedure 2, appendix F of this part. Keep the records for the particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring systems.
(3) If you elect to continuously monitor cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride instead of conducting performance testing, maintain the results of all quality evaluations, including daily drift tests and periodic accuracy determinations, specified in the approved site-specific performance evaluation test plan or as specified in Procedures 5 and 6 of appendix F of this part, as applicable.
(4) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the results of all quality evaluations specified in the approved site-specific performance evaluation test plan or Procedure 5 of appendix F of this part, as applicable.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) All required continuous emission monitoring measurements (including monitoring data recorded during unavoidable continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
(2) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous emission monitoring system was inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous emission monitoring system was out of control, as defined in § 60.5985.
(4) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) The date and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances, that occurs during periods other than warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known).
(7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions.
(8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous emission monitoring system that was inoperative or out of control.
(9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program developed and implemented for the continuous emission monitoring system.
(10) When more than one continuous emission monitoring system is used to measure the emissions from one municipal waste combustor (
(k)
(1) All required 24-hour integrated mercury concentration (or percent reduction) or 2-week integrated dioxins/furans concentration data (including any data obtained during unavoidable system breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
(2) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous automated sampling system was inoperative.
(3) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous automated sampling system was out of control.
(4) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) The date and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during periods other than warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known).
(7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions.
(8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous automated sampling system that was inoperative or out of control.
(9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program developed and implemented for the continuous automated sampling system.
(10) When more than one continuous automated sampling system is used to measure the emissions from one municipal waste combustor (
For municipal waste combustors that use activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must keep records of all the following five items:
(a)
(1) Average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour during all stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting calculations in the records.
(2) For the operating parameter chosen to monitor carbon feed rate, average operating level during all stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting data that document the relationship between the operating parameter and the carbon feed rate.
(3) Average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour estimated for each hour of operation. Include supporting calculations in the records.
(4) Total carbon usage for each calendar quarter as estimated in § 60.6005(d). Include supporting calculations in the records.
(5) Carbon injection system operating parameter data for the parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon feed rate (
(b)
(1) The calendar dates when the average carbon feed rate was less than the average hourly carbon feed rates determined during the most recent stack test for dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(2) Reasons for the low carbon feed rates.
(3) Corrective actions you took, or are taking, to meet the average carbon feed rate requirement.
(c)
(1) Calendar dates for which the carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate (
(2) Reasons for the occurrences.
(3) Corrective actions you took or are taking to meet the levels estimated during the performance tests.
(d)
(e)
You must submit all the following five items on or before the date that the application for a construction permit is submitted under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable:
(a) Your preliminary draft materials separation plan, as specified in § 60.5745.
(b) Your revised materials separation plan, as specified in § 60.5765(c).
(c) Your notice of the initial public meeting for your draft materials separation plan, as specified in § 60.5750(b).
(d) A transcript of the initial public meeting, as specified in § 60.5760(f).
(e) A copy of the document that summarizes your responses to the public comments you received during the initial public comment period, as specified in § 60.5765(a).
(a) Include all the following ten items:
(1) A statement of your intent to construct the municipal waste combustor.
(2) The planned initial startup date of your municipal waste combustor.
(3) The types of fuels you plan to combust in your municipal waste combustor.
(4) The capacity of your municipal waste combustor including supporting capacity calculations, as specified in § 60.6015.
(5) Your siting analysis, as specified in § 60.5805.
(6) Your final materials separation plan, as specified in § 60.5785.
(7) Your notice of the second public meeting (siting analysis meeting), as specified in § 60.5810(b).
(8) A transcript of the second public meeting, as specified in § 60.5820(d).
(9) A copy of the document that summarizes your responses to the public comments you received during the second public comment period, as specified in § 60.5825(a).
(10) Your final siting analysis, as specified in § 60.5825(c).
(b) Submit your notice of construction no later than 30 days after you commence construction, reconstruction, or modification of your municipal waste combustor.
(a) Submit an initial report and annual reports, plus semiannual reports for any emission or parameter level that does not meet the limits specified in this subpart.
(b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test or continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) performance evaluation that includes a relative accuracy test audit (RATA), you must submit the results following the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section. Data collected using test methods and performance evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(c) For the semiannual and annual reports specified under paragraph (a) of this section, beginning on March 10, 2027 or once the report template for this subpart has been available on the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website (
(d) If you are required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (d), you must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via the CEDRI website, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send CBI information through the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the Branch Manager, Measurement Strategies Branch, and all other files should be sent to the attention of the Large Municipal Waste Combustor Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the
(g) Keep a copy of all reports required by §§ 60.6080, 60.6090, and 60.6105 onsite for 5 years.
(h) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride or to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury emissions instead of conducting performance tests, you must notify the Administrator one month prior to starting or stopping use of the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans continuous emission monitoring systems or continuous automated sampling systems.
(i) If you elect to install a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or you elect to install a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, you must also submit to EPA for approval, the site-specific monitoring plan, including the site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous emission monitoring system or the continuous automated sampling system. You must maintain copies of the site-specific monitoring plan on record for the life of the municipal waste combustor to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the site-specific monitoring plan is revised and approved, you must maintain the previous (
See Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart VVVV for appropriate units of measurement.
As specified in § 60.8(a), submit your initial performance test report within 60 days after your municipal waste combustor reaches the maximum load level at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after its initial startup.
You must include seven items:
(a) The emission levels measured on the date of the initial evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems for all of the following pollutants or parameters as recorded in accordance with § 60.6045(b).
(1) The 24-hour daily block geometric average concentration or percent reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) The 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentration of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) The 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentration of carbon monoxide emissions, as applicable.
(4) The 4-hour block arithmetic average load level of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) The 4-hour block arithmetic average flue gas temperature at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(7) If you monitor emissions with a CEMS, you must indicate which data are CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown.
(b) The results of the initial performance stack tests for eight pollutants or parameters (use appropriate units as specified in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV):
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead.
(4) Mercury.
(5) Opacity.
(6) Particulate matter.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(c) The test report that documents the initial stack tests including supporting calculations.
(d) The initial performance evaluation of your continuous emissions monitoring systems. Use the applicable performance specifications in appendix B of this part in conducting the evaluation.
(e) The maximum demonstrated load of your municipal waste combustor and the maximum demonstrated temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device. Use values established during your initial stack test for dioxins/furans emissions and include supporting calculations.
(f) If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, the average carbon mass feed rates that you recorded during the stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting calculations as specified in § 60.6050(a)(1) and (2).
(g) If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas, documentation of the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide, as specified in § 60.5930.
Submit the annual report no later than February 1 of each year that follows the calendar year in which you collected the data. If you have an operating permit for any unit under title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA), you must submit semiannual reports. Parts 70 and 71 of this chapter contain program requirements for permits.
Summarize data collected for all pollutants and parameters regulated under this subpart. Your summary must include twelve items:
(a) A list of the results achieved during the annual stack test, using appropriate units, for eight pollutants, as recorded under § 60.6040(a):
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead.
(4) Mercury.
(5) Particulate matter.
(6) Opacity.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(b) List of the highest average levels recorded, in the appropriate units for the following pollutants or parameters:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device (4-hour block average).
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(c) For continuously monitored pollutants identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(6) of this section, a list of the block averages recorded during all operations for the reporting year, identifying measurements recorded during periods of warmup, startup, and shutdown as defined in this subpart.
(d) The highest 6-minute opacity level measured. Base the value on all 6-minute average opacity levels recorded by your continuous opacity monitoring system (§ 60.6045(a)(1)).
(e) The total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours per calendar year that you did not obtain valid data for the following pollutants or parameters. For each continuously monitored pollutant or parameter, the hours of valid emissions data per calendar quarter and per calendar year expressed as a percent of the hours per calendar quarter or year that the municipal waste combustor was operating and combusting municipal solid waste. Include data on:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(7) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours per calendar year that the sampling systems were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample. Include the number of hours during which the continuous automated sampling system was operating and collecting a valid sample as a percent of hours per calendar quarter or year that the municipal waste combustor was operating and combusting municipal solid waste.
(f) The total number of hours you have excluded data from the calculation of average levels (include the reasons for excluding it). Include data for the following pollutants or parameters:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(7) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the total number of hours that the data for mercury and dioxins/furans were excluded from the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters.
(g) A summary of the data in paragraphs (a) through (f), excluding (c), of this section from the year preceding the reporting year which gives the Administrator a summary of the performance of the municipal waste combustor over a 2-year period.
(h) A summary of any emission or parameter level, including the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section, that did not meet the limits specified in this subpart.
(i) A notice of your intent to begin a reduced stack testing schedule for dioxins/furans emissions during the following calendar year, if you are eligible for alternative scheduling (§ 60.5980(a) or (b)).
(j) A notice of your intent to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection system operating parameter levels to similarly designed and equipped units on site. (§ 60.5980(c)).
(k) If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas, documentation of the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide, as specified in § 60.5930.
(l) Documentation of periods when all certified chief facility operators and certified shift supervisors are offsite for more than 12 hours.
You must submit a semiannual report on any recorded emission or parameter level that does not meet the requirements specified in this subpart.
(a) For data collected during the first half of a calendar year, submit your semiannual report by August 1 of that year.
(b) For data you collected during the second half of the calendar year, submit your semiannual report by February 1 of the following year.
You must include all of the following items in the semiannual report:
(a) For any of the pollutants or parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1)-(8) of this section that exceeded the limits specified in this subpart, include the calendar date they exceeded the limits, the reasons for exceeding the limits, and your corrective actions. You must also include the averaged and recorded data for that date:
(1) Concentration of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Concentration of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Concentration of carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) Average 6-minute opacity level. The data obtained from your continuous opacity monitoring system are not used to determine compliance with the limit on opacity emissions.
(7) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Concentration of particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Concentration of cadmium emissions.
(iii) Concentration of lead emissions.
(iv) Concentration of mercury emissions.
(v) Concentration of hydrogen chloride emissions.
(8) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system to monitor mercury or dioxins/furans instead of conducting performance testing, the integrated 24-hour mercury concentrations (or percent reductions) or the integrated 2-week dioxins/furans concentration.
(b) If the results of your annual stack tests (as recorded in § 60.6040(a)) show emissions above the limits specified in Table 2 to Subpart VVVV for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash, include a
(c) For municipal waste combustors that apply activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, include documentation of all dates when the carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate (
(1) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per hour or pounds per hour) estimated for each hour of operation.
(2) Reasons for occurrences of low carbon feed rates.
(3) The corrective actions you have taken to meet the carbon feed rate requirement.
(4) The calendar date.
(d) If you elect to install a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or you elect to install a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, submit information concerning all out-of-control periods for each continuous emission monitoring system or each continuous automated sampling system, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(a) If the Administrator agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting dates.
(b) See § 60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
An air curtain incinerator operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or pit in which combustion occurs. Incinerators of that type can be constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor.
Yard waste is grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs. They come from residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part of maintaining yards or other private or public lands. Yard waste does not include two items:
(a) Construction, renovation, and demolition wastes that are exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in § 60.6145.
(b) Clean wood that is exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in § 60.6145.
If your air curtain incinerator with a capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste combusts a fuel feed stream of 100 percent wood waste, 100 percent clean lumber, 100 percent yard waste, or a 100 percent mixture of only wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste, and no other municipal solid waste materials, you must meet only the emission limits in this section.
(a) Within 60 days after your air curtain incinerator reaches the maximum load level at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after its initial startup, you must meet two limits:
(1) The opacity limit is 10 percent (6-minute average) except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The opacity limit is 35 percent (6-minute average) during the startup period that is within the first 30 minutes of operation.
(a) Use the procedures specified in to Subpart VVVV to determine compliance with the opacity limit for air curtain incinerators under § 60.6125.
(b) Conduct an initial test for opacity as specified in § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(c) After the initial test for opacity, conduct annual tests (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous test). You must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period.
(a) Provide a notice of construction that includes four items:
(1) Your intent to construct the air curtain incinerator.
(2) Your planned initial startup date.
(3) Types of fuels you plan to combust in your air curtain incinerator.
(4) The capacity of your incinerator, including supporting capacity calculations, as specified in § 60.6015.
(b) Keep records of results of the initial opacity performance test and all subsequent opacity performance tests onsite in either paper copy or electronic format unless the Administrator approves another format.
(c) Keep all records for each incinerator for at least 5 years.
(d) Make all records available for submittal to the Administrator or for onsite review by an inspector.
(e) Submit the results (each 6-minute average) of the initial opacity performance test and all subsequent annual opacity performance tests by February 1 of the year following the year of the opacity emission test.
(f) Submit reports in either paper copy or electronic format on or before the applicable submittal date.
(g) If the Administrator agrees, you may change the annual reporting dates (see § 60.19(c)).
(h) Keep a copy of all reports onsite for a period of 5 years.
(a)
(b)
(1) Facility basis.
(2) Unit basis.
(c)
Terms used but not defined in this section are defined in the CAA and in subparts A and B of this part.
(1) For approved and effective state plans, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency that is delegated the authority to perform the specified task;
(2) For federal plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified task; and
(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified task.
(1) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT
(2) You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
(3) You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
(4) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 4 independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(1) 12:00 midnight to 4:00 a.m.
(2) 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
(3) 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
(4) 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.
(5) 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
(6) 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of construction and installation the unit (not including the cost of any land purchased in connection with such construction or installation) updated to current costs.
(2) Any physical change in the municipal waste combustor or change in the method of operating the municipal waste combustor that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for which standards have been established under section 129 or section 111 of the CAA. Increases in the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the municipal waste combustor are determined when the municipal waste combustor operates at 100 percent of its physical load capability and are measured downstream of all air pollution control devices. Load restrictions based on permits or other nonphysical operational restrictions cannot be considered in the determination.
(1) Yard waste;
(2) Refuse-derived fuel; and
(3) Motor vehicle maintenance materials limited to vehicle batteries and tires except as specified in § 60.5700(d).
(1) Municipal waste combustors do not include pyrolysis or combustion units located at a plastics or rubber recycling unit as specified under Applicability (§ 60.5700(h) and (i)). Municipal waste combustors also do not include cement kilns firing municipal solid waste as specified under Applicability (§ 60.5700(j)). Municipal waste combustors also do not include internal combustion engines, gas turbines, or other combustion devices that combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas collection systems.
(2) The boundaries of a municipal waste combustor are defined as follows. The municipal waste combustor includes, but is not limited to, the municipal solid waste fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the combustor water system. The municipal waste combustor boundary starts at the municipal solid waste pit or hopper and extends through three areas:
(i) The combustor flue gas system, which ends immediately following the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat recovery equipment, immediately following the combustion chamber.
(ii) The combustor bottom ash system, which ends at the truck loading station or similar ash handling equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. It includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system.
(iii) The combustor water system, which starts at the feed water pump and ends at the piping that exits the steam drum or superheater.
(3) The municipal waste combustor does not include air pollution control equipment, the stack, water treatment equipment, or the turbine-generator set.
(1) Each calendar quarter, the combined weight of the chemical plant feedstock and petroleum refinery feedstock that a plastics/rubber recycling unit produces must be more than 70 percent of the combined weight of the plastics, rubber, and rubber tires that the plastics/rubber recycling unit processes.
(2) The plastics, rubber, or rubber tires fed to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may originate from separating or diverting plastics, rubber, or rubber tires from MSW or industrial solid waste. The feed materials may include manufacturing scraps, trimmings, and off-specification plastics, rubber, and rubber tire discards.
(3) The plastics, rubber, and rubber tires fed to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may contain incidental contaminants (
(1) Low-density fluff refuse-derived fuel through densified refuse-derived fuel.
(2) Pelletized refuse-derived fuel.
(1) Construction, renovation, and demolition wastes that are exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in this section.
(2) Clean wood that is exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in this section.
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from existing large municipal waste combustors. The pollutants addressed by the emission guidelines are listed in Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW. The emission guidelines are developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and subpart B of this part.
(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a state or United
(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by March 10, 2027.
(c) You must submit a state plan that meets the requirements of this subpart and contains the more stringent emission limit for the respective pollutant in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW or the limits specified in § 60.52b of subpart Eb of this part to EPA by March 10, 2027 for large municipal waste combustors that commenced construction after September 20, 1994, but no later than January 23, 2024, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 19, 1996 but no later than September 10, 2026.
(d) The following authorities are retained by EPA and not transferred to the state upon delegation of authority to the state to implement an approved state plan:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in § 60.6305(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g);
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods;
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring;
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping;
(5) Performance test and data reduction waivers under § 60.8(b);
(6) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
No, you are not required to submit a state plan if there are no existing large municipal waste combustors in your state and you submit a negative declaration letter in place of the state plan.
(a) Include nine items:
(1) Inventory of affected municipal waste combustors, including those that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled.
(2) Inventory of emissions from affected municipal waste combustors in your state.
(3) Compliance schedules for each affected municipal waste combustor.
(4) Good combustion practices and emission limits for affected municipal waste combustors that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart.
(5) Stack testing, continuous emission monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission.
(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA.
(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines of this subpart.
(9) Demonstration of your state's legal authority to carry out the CAA sections 111(d) and 129 state plan.
(b) Your state plan can deviate from the format and content of the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate, you must demonstrate that your state plan is as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and certification, operating practice, emission limits, continuous emission monitoring, stack testing, recordkeeping, reporting, and air curtain incinerator requirements.
(c) For approval, your state plan must include the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in § 60.6460 through § 60.6650 of this part, as applicable, except as provided for under § 60.24(b)(1) of subpart B of this part and paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) For approval, your state plan must include the alternative performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans specified in § 60.6535 of this section, as applicable, for those municipal waste combustors that achieve a dioxins/furans emission level less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(e) Follow the requirements of subpart B of this part in your state plan.
The EPA will review your state plan according to § 60.27.
If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative declaration letter), EPA will develop a federal plan, according to § 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of municipal waste combustors not covered by an approved and currently effective state plan must comply with the federal plan. The federal plan is an interim action and, by its own terms, will cease to apply when your state plan is approved and becomes effective.
No, the EPA has no formal review process for negative declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public docket and publish a notice in the
(a) Your state plan must include compliance schedules that require large municipal waste combustors to achieve final compliance or cease operation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than the earlier of two dates:
(1) [March 10, 2031.
(2) Within 1 year after the effective date of state plan approval, but no later than 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval, as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) For compliance schedules longer than 1 year but less than 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval, or if a permit modification is required, more than 1 year but less than 3 years following the date of issuance of a revised construction or operation permit, state plans must include dates for enforceable increments of progress as specified in § 60.6340.
(c) For compliance schedules that allow designated facilities longer than 1 year but up to 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval to close, the state plan must require a closure agreement. The closure agreement must include the date of facility closure.
(d) The owner or operator of a municipal waste combustor who is planning an extensive emission control system upgrade may petition the Administrator for a longer compliance schedule than the schedule in paragraph (a)(1) of this section but must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator the need for the additional time. If approved, the compliance schedule may exceed the schedule in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but cannot exceed March 10, 2031.
Subpart B of this part establishes general requirements for developing and processing CAA section 111(d) plans. This subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of this part, for three items:
(a)
(b)
(1) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm regarding the air pollution control device(s);
(2) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control device(s);
(3) Date for submittal of permit modifications, if necessary;
(4) Date for submittal of the final control plan to the Administrator [§ 60.21 (h)(1) of subpart B of this part.];
(5) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s);
(6) Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution control device(s);
(7) Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the air pollution control device(s);
(8) Date for initiation of installation of the air pollution control device(s);
(9) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s); and
(10) Date for initial performance test(s) of the air pollution control device(s).
(c)
(a) No, this subpart does not directly affect large municipal waste combustor owners and operators in your state. However, large municipal waste combustor owners and operators must comply with the state plan you develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Some states may incorporate the emission guidelines contained in this subpart into their state plans by direct incorporation by reference. Others may include the model rule text directly in their state plan.
(b) All municipal waste combustors must be in compliance with the requirements established in this subpart by March 10, 2031, whether the municipal waste combustor is regulated under a state or federal plan.
(a) Your state plan must address all existing large municipal waste combustors in your state that meet two criteria:
(1) The municipal waste combustor has the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.
(2) The municipal waste combustor commenced construction on or before January 23, 2024.
(b) If an owner or operator of a municipal waste combustor makes changes that meet the definition of modification or reconstruction after September 10, 2026 for subpart VVVV of this part, the municipal waste combustor becomes subject to subpart VVVV of this part and the state plan no longer applies to that unit.
(c) If an owner or operator of a municipal waste combustor makes physical or operational changes to an existing municipal waste combustor primarily to comply with your state plan, subpart VVVV of this part (Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors) does not apply to that unit. Such changes do not constitute modifications or reconstructions under subpart VVVV of this part.
(d) If an owner or operator of a municipal waste combustor meets the applicability requirements of this section, the unit is not subject to subparts Db or E of this part.
(a)
(1) The municipal waste combustor is subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the amount of municipal solid waste combusted to less than 11 tons per day.
(2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(3) You receive from the owner or operator of the unit a copy of the federally enforceable permit.
(4) The owner or operator of the unit keeps daily records of the amount of municipal solid waste combusted.
(5) The owner or operator of the unit submits the notification and data required by (a)(2) and (3) of this section as a portable document format (PDF) file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(b)
(1) The unit qualifies as a small power production facility under section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)).
(2) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity.
(3) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(4) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(5) The owner or operator of the unit submits the notification and data required by (b)(3) and (4) of this section as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(c)
(1) The unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)).
(2) The unit combusts homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but excluding refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes.
(3) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(4) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(5) The owner or operator of the unit submits the notification and data required by (c)(3) and (4) of this section as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(d)
(1) The municipal waste combustor combusts a single-item waste stream of tires.
(2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(3) You receive documentation from the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(4) The owner or operator of the unit submits the notification and data required by (d)(2) and (3) of this section as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) The unit is a co-fired combustor as defined under § 60.6685 and has a federally enforceable permit limiting municipal solid waste combustion to 30 percent of the total fuel input by weight.
(2) You are notified by the owner or operator that the unit qualifies for the exemption.
(3) You receive from the owner or operator of the unit a copy of the federally enforceable permit.
(4) The owner or operator records the weights, each quarter, of municipal solid waste and of all other fuels combusted.
(5) The owner or operator of the unit submits the notification and data required by (g)(2) and (3) of this section as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(h)
(1) The pyrolysis/combustion unit is an integrated part of a plastics/rubber recycling unit as defined under “Definitions” (§ 60.6685).
(2) The owner or operator of the unit records the weight, each quarter, of plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed.
(3) The owner or operator of the unit records the weight, each quarter, of feed stocks produced and marketed from chemical plants and petroleum refineries.
(4) The owner or operator of the unit keeps the name and address of the purchaser of the feed stocks.
(5) The owner or operator of the unit submits a notification that the pyrolysis/combustion is not subject to this subpart as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(i)
(1) The unit combusts gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke, liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants or petroleum refineries that use feed stocks produced by plastics/rubber recycling units.
(2) The unit does not combust any other municipal solid waste.
(j)
(k)
(a) This subpart specifies different requirements for different subcategories of municipal waste combustors. You must use those same subcategories in your state plan. Those subcategories are based on the municipal waste combustor type as follows (see § 60.6685 for definitions):
(1) Mass burn refractory.
(2) Mass burn rotary waterwall.
(3) Mass burn waterwall.
(4) Modular starved air.
(5) Modular excess air.
(6) Refuse-derived fuel stoker.
(7) Bubbling fluidized bed combustor.
(8) Circulating fluidized bed combustor.
(9) Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor.
(10) Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor.
(b) The requirements for municipal waste combustors of all types are identical except that carbon monoxide emissions limits are set separately for mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel combustor types (see Table 2 to Subpart WWWW).
(a) The model rule is the portion of the emission guidelines (§§ 60.6330 through 60.6680) that addresses the regulatory requirements applicable to large municipal waste combustors. The model rule provides the requirements in a regulation format.
(b) In the model rule, “you” means the owner or operator of a large municipal waste combustor.
The model rule may be used to satisfy the state plan requirements specified in § 60.6265(a)(4) and (5). Alternative language may be used in your state plan, but only if you can demonstrate that the alternative language is as protective as the model rule.
The model rule contains five major components:
(a) Increments of progress toward compliance.
(b) Good combustion practices:
(1) Operator training.
(2) Operator certification.
(3) Operating requirements.
(c) Emission limits.
(d) Monitoring and stack testing.
(e) Recordkeeping and reporting.
If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year but less than 3 years following the effective date of state plan
(a) Submit a final control plan.
(b) Submit a notification of retrofit contract award.
(c) Initiate onsite construction.
(d) Complete onsite construction.
(e) Achieve final compliance.
Table 1 to Subpart WWWW specifies compliance dates for each of the increments of progress.
Your notification of achievement of increments of progress must include three items:
(a) Notification that the increment of progress has been achieved.
(b) Any items required to be submitted with the increment of progress (§§ 60.6355 through 60.6375).
(c) The notification must be signed by the owner or operator of the municipal waste combustor.
Notifications of the achievement of increments of progress must be postmarked no later than 10 days after the compliance date for the increment.
If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days after the specified date in Table 1 to Subpart WWWW for achieving that increment of progress. The notification must inform the Administrator that you did not meet the increment. You must include in the notification an explanation of why the increment of progress was not met and your plan for meeting the increment as expeditiously as possible. You must continue to submit reports each subsequent month until the increment of progress is met.
For your control plan increment of progress, you must complete two items:
(a) Submit the final control plan, including a description of the devices for air pollution control and process changes that you will use to comply with the emission limits and other requirements of this subpart.
(b) You must maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan.
You must submit a signed copy of the contracts awarded to initiate onsite construction, initiate onsite installation of emission control equipment, and incorporate process changes. Submit the copy of the contracts with the notification that the increment of progress has been achieved. You do not need to include documents incorporated by reference or the attachments to the contracts.
You must initiate onsite construction and installation of emission control equipment and initiate the process changes outlined in the final control plan.
You must complete onsite construction and installation of emission control equipment and complete process changes outlined in the final control plan.
For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete two items:
(a) Complete all process changes and complete retrofit construction as specified in the final control plan.
(b) Connect the air pollution control equipment with the municipal waste combustor identified in the final control plan and complete process changes to the municipal waste combustor so that if the affected municipal waste combustor is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control equipment are operating as designed.
(a) If you close your municipal waste combustor but will reopen it prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you must meet the increments of progress specified in § 60.6380.
(b) If you close your municipal waste combustor but will restart it after your final compliance date, you must complete emission control retrofit and meet the emission limits and good combustion practices on the date your municipal waste combustor restarts operation.
(a) If you plan to close your municipal waste combustor rather than comply with the state plan, you must submit a closure notification, including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the date your final control plan is due.
(b) If the closure date is later than 1 year but up to 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval, you must enter into a legally binding closure agreement with the Administrator by the date your final control plan is due. The agreement must specify the date by which operation will cease.
There are two types of required training:
(a) Training of operators of municipal waste combustors using the EPA or a state-approved training course.
(b) Training of plant personnel using a site-specific training course.
(a) Three types of employees must complete the EPA or state-approved operator training course:
(1) Chief facility operators.
(2) Shift supervisors.
(3) Control room operators.
(b) Those employees must complete the operator training course by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor starts up.
(2) The date before an employee assumes responsibilities that affect operation of the municipal waste combustor.
(c) The requirement in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained full certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on or before the effective date of state plan approval.
(d) You may request that the EPA Administrator waive the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section for chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained provisional certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on or before the effective date of state plan approval.
All employees with responsibilities that affect how a municipal waste combustor operates must complete the site-specific training course. Include at least six types of employees:
(a) Chief facility operators.
(b) Shift supervisors.
(c) Control room operators.
(d) Ash handlers.
(e) Maintenance personnel.
(f) Crane or load handlers.
For site-specific training, you must do four things:
(a) For training at a particular facility, develop a site-specific operating manual for that facility by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor starts up.
(2) The date prior to the date an employee assumes responsibilities that affect operation of the municipal waste combustor.
(b) Establish a training program to review the site-specific operating manual with people whose responsibilities affect the operation of your municipal waste combustor. Complete the initial review by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after your municipal waste combustor starts up.
(2) The date prior to the date an employee assumes responsibilities that affect operation of the municipal waste combustor.
(c) Update your manual annually.
(d) Following the initial review, review your operating manual with staff annually.
You must include 11 items in the operating manual for your facility:
(a) A summary of all applicable standards in this subpart.
(b) A description of the basic combustion theory that applies to a municipal waste combustor.
(c) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding municipal solid waste.
(d) Procedures to be followed during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the municipal waste combustor.
(e) Procedures for maintaining a proper level of combustion air supply.
(f) Procedures for operating the municipal waste combustor in compliance with the standards contained in this subpart.
(g) Procedures for responding to periodic upset or off-specification conditions.
(h) Procedures for minimizing carryover of particulate matter.
(i) Procedures for handling ash.
(j) Procedures for monitoring emissions from the municipal waste combustor.
(k) Procedures for recordkeeping and reporting.
You must keep your operating manual in a readily accessible location at your facility. It must be available for review or inspection for all persons required to undergo training as specified in § 60.6395. The operating manual and records of training as specified in § 60.6585 shall be available for inspection by the EPA or its delegated enforcement agency upon request.
(a) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must obtain and keep a current provisional operator certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (QRO-1-2005) (incorporated by reference in § 60.17 of subpart A of this part) or a current provisional operator certification from your state certification program by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after the municipal waste combustor starts up.
(2) Six months after they transfer to the municipal waste combustor or 6 months after they are hired to work at the municipal waste combustor.
(b) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must obtain and maintain a provisional certification, and must complete the full certification or be scheduled to take the full certification exam, by the later of two dates:
(1) Six months after the municipal waste combustor starts up.
(2) For a provisionally certified operator who is newly promoted or recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or a chief facility operator position, a full certification exam must be completed within six months after they transfer to the municipal waste combustor or 6 months after they are hired to work at the municipal waste combustor.
(c) Each chief facility operator and shift supervisor must take one of three actions:
(1) Obtain and maintain a current provisional operator certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or a state certification program in your state.
(2) Schedule a full certification exam with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (QRO-1-2005) (incorporated by reference in § 60.17 of subpart A of this part).
(3) Schedule a full certification exam with your state certification program.
After the required date for full or provisional certification, you must not operate your municipal waste combustor unless one of four employees is on duty:
(a) A fully certified chief facility operator.
(b) A fully certified shift supervisor.
(c) A provisionally certified chief facility operator or a provisionally certified shift supervisor who is scheduled to take the full certification exam specified in § 60.6420.
If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor both are unavailable, a provisionally certified control room operator at the municipal waste combustor may fulfill the certified operator requirement. Depending on the length of time that a certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are away, you must meet one of three criteria:
(a) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are both offsite for 12 hours or less and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor.
(b) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or less, and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform those duties without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, you must record the periods when the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite and include the information in the annual report as specified under § 60.6630(l).
(c) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 2 weeks, and no other certified operator is onsite, the provisionally certified control room operator may perform those duties without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, you must take two actions:
(1) Notify the Administrator in writing. In the notice, state what caused the absence and what you are doing to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor is onsite. as expeditiously as practicable. Submit this notification as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(2) Submit a status report and corrective action summary to the Administrator every 4 weeks following the initial notification. If the Administrator notifies you that your status report or corrective action summary is disapproved, the municipal waste combustor may continue operation for 90 days, but then must cease operation. If corrective actions are taken in the 90-day period such that the Administrator withdraws the disapproval, municipal waste combustor operation may continue. Submit this status report as a PDF file electronically according to § 60.6605(e).
(d) A provisionally certified operator who is newly promoted or recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or a chief facility operator position at the municipal waste combustor may perform the duties of the certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator for up to six months before taking the ASME QRO certification exam as specified in § 60.6420.
(a) You must meet the carbon monoxide emission limits specified in Table 2 to Subpart WWWW no later than March 10, 2031.
(b) You must not operate your municipal waste combustor at loads greater than 110 percent of the maximum demonstrated load of the municipal waste combustor (4-hour block average), as specified under “Definitions” (§ 60.6685), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. The averaging time is specified under § 60.6550.
(1) During the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test and the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test, the municipal waste combustor load limit is not applicable if the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The Administrator may waive in writing the municipal waste combustor load limit for the purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. The municipal waste combustor load limit continues to apply, and remains enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the waiver.
(c) You must not operate your municipal waste combustor so that the temperature measured at the inlet of the particulate matter control device exceeds 17 °C above the maximum demonstrated temperature of the particulate matter control device (4-hour block average), as specified under “Definitions” (§ 60.6685), except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. The averaging time is specified under § 60.6555. The requirements specified in this paragraph apply to each particulate matter control device used.
(1) During the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test and the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxins/furans or mercury performance test, the particulate matter control device temperature limitations are not applicable if the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The Administrator may waive in writing the particulate matter control device temperature limits for the purpose of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. The temperature limits continue to apply, and remain enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the waiver.
(d) If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must meet the requirements for activated carbon injection rate during dioxins/furans or mercury testing as specified in § 60.6560.
The operating requirements under this subpart apply at all times including periods of municipal waste combustor warmup, startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Monitoring data cannot be dismissed or excluded from compliance calculations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, but must be recorded and reported in accordance with the provisions of § 60.6595(e).
Eleven pollutants, in four groupings, are regulated:
(a) Organics. Dioxins/furans.
(b) Metals.
(1) Cadmium.
(2) Lead.
(3) Mercury.
(4) Opacity.
(5) Particulate matter.
(c) Acid gases.
(1) Hydrogen chloride.
(2) Nitrogen oxides.
(3) Sulfur dioxide.
(d) Other.
(1) Carbon monoxide.
(2) Fugitive ash.
(a) You must meet the emission limits specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW. You must meet the limits no later than March 10, 2031.
(b) The visible emissions of combustion ash discharged to the atmosphere from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) must not exceed 5 percent of the observation period (
The emission limits under this subpart apply at all times including periods of municipal waste combustor warmup, startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Monitoring data cannot be dismissed or excluded from compliance calculations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, but must be recorded and reported in accordance with the provisions of § 60.6595(e).
To continuously monitor emissions, you must perform four tasks:
(a) Install continuous emission monitoring systems for certain gaseous pollutants.
(b) Make sure your continuous emission monitoring systems are operating correctly.
(c) Make sure you obtain the minimum amount of monitoring data.
(d) Install a continuous opacity monitoring system.
(a) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitoring systems for oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW. Install the continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) at the outlet of the air pollution control device.
(b) If you elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride in lieu of performance testing, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems for monitoring the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere and continuous emissions monitoring systems for oxygen (or carbon dioxide) at the outlet of the air pollution control device.
(c) You must install, evaluate, and operate each continuous emission monitoring system according to the “Monitoring Requirements” in § 60.13.
(d) You must monitor the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) concentration at each location where you monitor carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. If you elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you must monitor the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) concentration at each location where you monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride.
(e) You may choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas. If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide, then an oxygen monitor is not required and you must follow the requirements in § 60.6485.
(a) You must use data from the continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide to demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW. To demonstrate compliance for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash, see § 60.6520.
(b) You may elect to continuously monitor emissions for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW.
(c) For pollutants that you continuously monitor as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, you may request that compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.6485.
(d) For pollutants that you continuously monitor as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified § 60.6465 to collect the minimum amount of monitoring data specified in § 60.6490 and calculating the average emission concentration as specified in § 60.6495 and Table 5 to Subpart WWWW, as applicable.
(a) Conduct initial, daily, quarterly, and annual evaluations of your continuous emission monitoring systems that measure oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide and your continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate.
(b) Complete your initial evaluation of the continuous emission monitoring systems no later than 180 days after your final compliance date, or, for pollutants for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions and for which you previously determined compliance by conducting a performance test, within 180 days of notification of the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring system, whichever is later.
(c) For initial and annual evaluations, you must collect data concurrently (or within 30 to 60 minutes) from your oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system, your sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring systems, as appropriate, from continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate, and the appropriate test methods specified in Tables 4 and 5 to Subpart WWWW. Collect the data during each initial and annual evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems following the applicable performance specifications in Table 4 to Subpart WWWW.
(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems that measure oxygen (or carbon dioxide), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, follow the quality assurance procedures in Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part for each continuous emission monitoring system. The procedures include annual relative accuracy test audit, daily calibration drift, and quarterly accuracy determinations. For continuous emission monitoring systems for any pollutants (particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride) for which you elect to continuously monitor emissions, as appropriate, follow the quality assurance procedures of the applicable procedures of appendix F as specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW or the site-specific monitoring plan.
(a) Conduct annual relative accuracy test audits of your continuous emission monitoring systems no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test; you must complete five relative accuracy test audits in each 5-year calendar period.
(b) Evaluate your continuous emission monitoring systems daily and quarterly as specified in procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
You must establish the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide during the initial evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems. You may reestablish the relationship during annual performance
(a) Use EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B in appendix A of this part, or as an alternative the manual method portion of ASME PTC-19-10-1981—part 10, as applicable, to determine oxygen concentration at the location of your carbon dioxide monitor.
(b) Conduct at least three test runs for oxygen. Make sure each test run represents a 1-hour average and that sampling continues for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(c) Use the fuel-factor equation in EPA Reference Method 3B in appendix A of this part to determine the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide.
(a) Where continuous emission monitoring systems are required, obtain 1-hour arithmetic averages. Make sure the averages for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, and, if you elect to continuously monitor emissions, the averages for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, are in the units specified in Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW at 7 percent oxygen (or the equivalent carbon dioxide level). Use the 1-hour averages of oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data from your continuous emission monitoring system to determine the actual oxygen (or carbon dioxide) level and to calculate emissions at 7 percent oxygen (or the equivalent carbon dioxide level). The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be calculated using the data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of this part. Do not correct CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, to 7 percent oxygen. CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown are used as measured.
(b) Obtain at least two data points per hour in order to calculate a valid 1-hour arithmetic average.
(c) Valid continuous monitoring system hourly averages shall be obtained for all times the affected facility is operated except as specified in § 60.13(e).
(d) If you do not obtain the minimum data required in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, you must still use all valid data from the continuous emission monitoring systems in calculating emission concentrations in accordance with § 60.6495.
(a) Use equation 1 in § 60.6680(a) to calculate emissions at 7 percent oxygen.
(b) Use the test methods in Table 4 to Subpart WWWW to calculate the 24-hr daily geometric average concentrations and percent reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions and the 24-hr daily arithmetic average for concentrations of nitrogen oxides.
(c) Calculate the 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic averages specified in Table 2 to Subpart WWWW (as applicable) from 1-hour arithmetic averages expressed in parts per million by volume corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) for concentrations of carbon monoxide. CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and are used as measured.
(d) If you elect to continuously monitor emissions of particulate matter, mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride, use EPA Reference Method 19, section 12.4.1, in appendix A of this part, to calculate a 24-hour daily block arithmetic average for emission concentrations.
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system.
(b) Install, evaluate, and operate each continuous opacity monitoring system according to § 60.13.
(c) The output of the continuous opacity monitoring system shall be recorded on a 6-minute average basis.
(d) Complete an initial evaluation of your continuous opacity monitoring system according to Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part. Complete the evaluation no later than 180 days after your final compliance date.
(e) Follow Table 4 to Subpart WWWW to establish the procedures and test methods to determine compliance with the opacity limit in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW. The data obtained from your continuous opacity monitoring system are not used to determine compliance with the opacity limit.
(a) Use the required span values and applicable performance specifications in Table 4 to Subpart WWWW.
(b) For continuous emission monitoring systems measuring carbon monoxide, if your municipal waste combustor is subject to the 100 parts per million dry volume carbon monoxide standard, the relative accuracy criterion of 5 parts per million dry volume is calculated as the absolute value of the mean difference between the reference method and continuous emission monitoring systems.
(a) When you are unable to obtain emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you must obtain emissions data by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 and provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for all times that the municipal waste combustor is operated.
(b) If you are unable to obtain emissions of carbon monoxide emissions because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you must obtain emissions data by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 10 and provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for all times that the municipal waste combustor is operated.
(c) If you elect to continuously monitor mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride and you are unable to obtain emissions data because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, you must obtain emissions data by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator.
Conduct initial and annual stack tests to measure the emission levels of particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, and fugitive ash in accordance with the methods specified in Table 5 to Subpart WWWW.
You must use results of stack tests for particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride,
(a) Conduct initial stack tests for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and each of the pollutants listed in § 60.6515 by 180 days after your final compliance date.
(b) Conduct annual stack tests for each of the pollutants listed in § 60.6515 after the initial stack test. Conduct each annual stack test no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test, except as specified in § 60.6540 of this section. You must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period.
(a) Follow Table 5 to Subpart WWWW to establish the procedures and test methods, and other specific testing requirements for the different pollutants.
(b) Stack tests for all the pollutants must consist of at least three test runs, as specified in § 60.8, conducted under representative full load operating conditions. For particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans, use the arithmetic average of the pollutant emission concentrations from the three test runs to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW. For fugitive ash, use the average duration of visible emissions per hour as calculated from three 1-hr observations to determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart WWWW.
(c) Obtain an oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement at the same time as your pollutant measurements to determine diluent gas levels, as specified in § 60.6465.
(d) You may request that compliance with emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.6485.
(e) Use equation 1 in § 60.6680(a) to calculate emission levels at 7 percent oxygen (or an equivalent carbon dioxide basis). See the individual test methods in Table 5 to Subpart WWWW for other required equations.
(a) For annual performance stack tests for dioxins/furans, you may conduct annual stack tests on an alternate performance testing schedule for the purposes of evaluating system performance to establish new operating parameter levels, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. You may test one unit for dioxins/furans and apply the dioxins/furans operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site if you meet the following conditions. First, you have multiple municipal waste combustors onsite that are subject to this subpart. Second, all those municipal waste combustors have demonstrated levels of dioxins/furans emissions less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for 2 consecutive years. In that case, you may choose to conduct annual stack tests on only one municipal waste combustor per year at your plant. The provision only applies to performance testing for dioxins/furans emissions. You must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) At a minimum, you must conduct a performance test for dioxins/furans emissions for one municipal waste combustor on an annual basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 months following the previous performance test), and you must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period. Each year a different municipal waste combustor must be tested, and the municipal waste combustor must be tested in sequence (
(1) If each annual performance test continues to indicate a dioxins/furans emission level less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), you may continue to conduct a performance test on only one municipal waste combustor per year.
(2) If any annual performance test indicates a dioxins/furans emission level greater than 3.6 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), you must conduct all subsequent annual performance tests on all municipal waste combustor. You must continue to conduct performance tests on all units annually until you can demonstrate dioxins/furans emission level less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) through performance tests for all units subject to this subpart for 2 consecutive years.
(c) Upon meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section for one affected facility, you may elect to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection system operating parameter levels for dioxins/furans as established in § 60.6560 to similarly designed and equipped units on site.
(d) Upon testing each subsequent unit in accordance with the testing schedule established in paragraph (b) of this section, the dioxins/furans and mercury emissions of the subsequent unit must not exceed the dioxins/furans and mercury emissions measured in the most recent test of that unit prior to the revised operating parameter levels.
(e) If you follow the performance testing schedule specified in paragraph (b) of this section and apply the carbon injection system operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site, you must follow the procedures specified in § 60.6630(j) for reporting, including the procedures specified in § 60.6630(i) for reporting the selection of this schedule.
(a) In lieu of conducting performance stack tests according to the requirements of § 60.6515 to demonstrate continuous compliance for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you may install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems for monitoring emissions according to the requirements of § 60.6460 through § 60.6510. If you elect to continuously monitor emissions instead of conducting performance testing, you are not required to complete annual performance testing as specified in Table 5 to Subpart WWWW. If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter emissions, you are not required to continuously monitor opacity as specified in § 60.6460(d) and § 60.6500.
(b) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, you must also meet the following requirements:
(1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the system.
(c) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, develop and submit for approval by EPA, a site-specific mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride monitoring plan that addresses the elements and requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous emission monitoring system sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each municipal waste combustor such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (
(4) Provisions for periods when the continuous emission monitoring system is out of control, including the requirements described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A continuous emission monitoring system is out of control if either of the following conditions are met: the zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the relevant standard; or the continuous emission monitoring system fails a performance test audit (
(ii) When the continuous emission monitoring system is out of control, take corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the system is out of control until the performance requirements are within the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (
(iii) You must submit all information concerning out-of-control periods for your continuous emission monitoring system, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required in § 60.6645(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous emission monitoring systems as described in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A continuous emission monitoring system quality control program. You must develop and, upon request, submit to EPA for approval a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous emission monitoring system performance evaluation required under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the operations described in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (c)(5)(i)(F) of this section.
(A) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous emission monitoring system;
(B) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the continuous emission monitoring system;
(C) Preventive maintenance of the continuous emission monitoring system, including spare parts inventory;
(D) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
(E) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods; and
(F) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous emission monitoring system.
(ii) Your performance evaluation test plan must include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data. The internal quality assurance program must include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of continuous emission monitoring system performance, for example, plans for relative accuracy testing using the appropriate reference method in § 60.6475(c). The external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
(6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
(7) You must operate and maintain the continuous emission monitoring system in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan and procedures 5 and 6 of appendix F of this part.
(d) You may use a continuous emission monitoring system for mercury or hydrogen chloride following the date of approval of the site-specific monitoring plan required in paragraph (c) of this section. You may use a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium or lead following the date a final performance specification applicable to a cadmium or lead monitor is published in the
(e) In lieu of conducting performance stack tests according to the requirements of § 60.6515 to demonstrate continuous compliance for mercury or dioxins/furans, you may install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for monitoring mercury or dioxins/furans emissions and record the output of the system. For dioxins/furans emissions, you must also analyze the sample using EPA Method 23.
(f) You may use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans following the date a final performance specification applicable to dioxins/furans from monitors is published in the
(g) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, you must meet the following requirements:
(1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the system.
(3) Complete your initial performance evaluation of the continuous automated sampling system no later than 180 days after your final compliance date, or, if you previously determined compliance by conducting a performance test, within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous
(4) You may request that compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in § 60.6485.
(5) Conduct an initial performance test for emissions as required under § 60.8 of subpart A of this part. Determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart WWWW using the continuous automated sampling system specified in paragraph (e) of this section to collect integrated samples and analyze emissions for the following time periods:
(i) For dioxins/furans, collect an integrated sample over each 2-week period. Analyze the collected samples using Method 23.
(ii) For mercury, collect an integrated sample over each 24-hour daily period. Analyze the sample according to the applicable final performance specification or the approved site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (h) of this section.
(6) Determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to Subpart WWWW based on 2-week emission concentrations for dioxins/furans and on the 24-hour daily emission concentrations for mercury using samples collected at the system outlet. For mercury percent reductions, also use the corresponding 24-hour daily emission concentration samples collected at the system inlet. The emission concentrations shall be expressed in nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for dioxins/furans and micrograms per dry standard cubic meter for mercury, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). Do not correct CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown to 7 percent oxygen. CEMs data during warmup, startup, and shutdown are used as measured.
(7) Beginning on the date two years after the respective final performance specification for continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans is published in the
(8) Use all valid data in calculating emission concentrations.
(9) For mercury, operate the continuous automated sampling system according to Performance Specification 12B in appendix B of this part or, for mercury or dioxins/furans, the approved site-specific monitoring plan.
(10) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, develop and implement a site-specific monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (h) of this section. If you rely on a performance specification, you may refer to that document in addressing the applicable procedures and criteria. For mercury, you must incorporate procedure 5 of appendix F to this part into the site-specific monitoring plan.
(11) When you are unable to obtain emissions data because of continuous automated sampling system breakdowns, repairs, quality assurance checks, or adjustments, you must obtain parametric monitoring data by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA.
(h) If you elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, develop and submit for approval by EPA a site-specific monitoring plan that has sufficient detail to assure the validity of the continuous automated sampling system data and that addresses the elements and requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous automated sampling system sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each municipal waste combustor such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration analytical method, and the data collection system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
(4) Provisions for periods when the continuous automated sampling system is malfunctioning or is out of control, including the requirements described in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The site-specific monitoring plan must identify criteria for determining that the continuous automated sampling system is out of control, including periods when the sampling system is not collecting a representative sample or is malfunctioning, or when the analytical method does not meet site-specific quality criteria established in paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
(ii) When the continuous automated sampling system is out of control, take corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the system is out of control until the performance requirements are within the applicable limits. The out-of-control period includes all hours that the sampling system was not collecting a representative sample or was malfunctioning, or hours represented by a sample for which the analysis did not meet the relevant quality criteria. You may not use emissions data from the period the continuous automated sampling system is out-of-control period to determine compliance with the emission limits or to meet any data availability requirements.
(iii) You must submit all information concerning out-of-control periods for your continuous automated sampling system, including start and end dates and hours, estimates of emissions during the out-of-control period and the basis of the estimate, and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required in § 60.6645(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous automated sampling systems as described in paragraphs (h)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A continuous automated sampling system and analysis quality control program. You must develop and submit to EPA for approval, upon request, a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous automated sampling system performance evaluation required in paragraph (h)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes procedures for each of the operations described in paragraphs (h)(5)(i)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) Correct placement, installation of the continuous automated sampling system such that the system is collecting a representative sample of gas;
(B) Initial and subsequent calibration of flow such that the sample collection rate of the continuous automated sampling system is known and verifiable;
(C) Procedures to assure representative (
(D) Preventive maintenance of the continuous automated sampling system, including spare parts inventory and procedures for cleaning equipment, replacing sample collection media, or other servicing at the end of each sample collection period;
(E) Data recording and reporting, including an automated indicator and recording device to show when the
(F) Accuracy audit procedures for analytical methods; and
(G) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous automated sampling system.
(ii) Your performance evaluation test plan must include the evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, and completeness of data. The internal quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of continuous automated sampling system performance, for example, plans for relative accuracy testing using the appropriate reference method in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, and an assessment of quality of analysis results. The external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data and field maintenance activities.
(6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous automated sampling system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
(7) You must operate and maintain the continuous automated sampling system in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
You must also monitor all the following three operating parameters:
(a) Load level of each municipal waste combustor.
(b) Temperature of flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter air pollution control device.
(c) Carbon feed rate if activated carbon is used to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(a) If your municipal waste combustor generates steam, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a steam flowmeter or a feed water flowmeter and meet all the following five requirements:
(1) Continuously measure and record the measurements of steam (or feed water) flow in kilograms (or pounds) per hour.
(2) Calculate your steam (or feed water) flow in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(3) Calculate the steam (or feed water) flow rate using the method in “American Society of Mechanical Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units, Power Test Code 4.1—1964 (R1991),” section 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of this part).
(4) Design, construct, install, calibrate, and use nozzles or orifices for flow rate measurements, using the recommendations in “American Society of Mechanical Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, part II of Fluid Meters,” 6th Edition (1971), chapter 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of this part).
(5) Before each dioxins/furans performance stack test, or at least once a year, calibrate all signal conversion elements associated with steam (or feed water) flow measurements according to the manufacturer instructions. Measurement devices such as flow nozzles and orifices are not required to be recalibrated after they are installed.
(b) Determine the maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor load during the initial performance test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test specified in § 60.6525 during which you achieve compliance with the dioxins/furans emission limit in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW. The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor load is the highest 4-hour arithmetic average load achieved during four consecutive hours during the most recent test. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.6535, you may apply the same maximum municipal waste combustor load from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and operated municipal waste combustors.
(a) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to continuously measure the temperature of the flue gas stream at the inlet of each particulate matter control device.
(b) Calculate the temperature of the flue gas stream in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(c) Determine the maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature for each particulate matter control device during the initial performance test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test specified in § 60.6525 during which you achieve compliance with the dioxins/furans emission limit. The maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature is the highest 4-hour arithmetic average temperature achieved at the particulate matter control device inlet during four consecutive hours during the most recent test. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.6535, you may apply the same maximum particulate matter control device temperature from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and operated municipal waste combustors.
If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must meet three requirements:
(a) Select a carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that can be used to calculate carbon feed rate (for example, screw feeder speed, hopper volume, or hopper refill frequency).
(b) During the initial and each subsequent dioxins/furans and mercury performance stack test specified in § 60.6525, estimate an average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour. You must determine an average operating parameter level that correlates to the carbon feed rate and establish a relationship between the operating parameter(s) and the carbon feed rate in order to estimate the average carbon feed rate. If a subsequent dioxins/furans performance test is being performed on only one municipal waste combustor as specified in § 60.6535, you may apply the same estimated average carbon mass feed rate from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and operated municipal waste combustors.
(c) Continuously monitor the selected carbon injection operating parameter(s) (as specified in paragraph (b) of this section) during all periods when the municipal waste combustor is operating and combusting waste and calculate the 8-hour block average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour, based on the selected operating parameter. The 8-hour block average must equal or exceed the level(s) documented during the performance tests specified under paragraph (b) of this section, except that during the annual dioxins/furans or
(d) You must estimate the total carbon usage of the facility (kilograms or pounds) for each calendar quarter using two independent methods:
(1) The weight of carbon delivered to the facility.
(2) Estimate the average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour or pounds per hour for each hour of operation for each municipal waste combustor, based on the selected carbon injection operating parameter(s) specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and as specified in equation 2 to § 60.6680.
(e) Use pneumatic injection pressure or another carbon injection system operational indicator for additional verification of proper carbon injection system operation. The operational indicator must provide an instantaneous visual and/or audible alarm to alert the operator of a potential interruption in the carbon feed that would not normally be indicated by direct monitoring of carbon mass feed rate (
(a) Where continuous parameter monitoring systems are used, obtain 1-hour arithmetic averages for all the following three parameters:
(1) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(2) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter control device.
(3) Carbon feed rate if activated carbon is used to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(b) Obtain at least two data points per hour in order to calculate a valid 1-hour arithmetic average.
(c) Obtain valid 1-hour arithmetic averages for at least 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter.
(a) You must calculate the capacity for each continuous municipal waste combustor (
(1) For combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, calculate the maximum charging rate based on the maximum design heat input capacity of the unit and a heating value of 12,800 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing refuse-derived fuel or a heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing municipal solid waste that is not refuse-derived fuel.
(2) For combustors that are not designed based on heat capacity, the maximum charging rate is the maximum design charging rate.
(b) You must calculate the capacity for each batch feed municipal waste combustor based on the maximum design amount of municipal solid waste that can be charged per batch multiplied by the maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period.
(1) You must calculate the maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period by dividing 24 hours by the design number of hours required to process one batch of municipal solid waste. The maximum number of batches may include a fraction (
(2) For batch combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, calculate the municipal waste combustor capacity in megagrams per day, based on the design heating value of 12,800 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing refuse-derived fuel, or a heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram for combustors firing municipal solid waste that is not refuse-derived fuel.
You must keep all the following four types of records:
(a) Operator training and certification.
(b) Stack tests.
(c) Continuously monitored pollutants and parameters.
(d) Carbon feed rate.
(a) Keep all records onsite in paper copy or electronic format unless the Administrator approves another format. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(b) Keep all records on each municipal waste combustor for at least 5 years.
(c) Make all records available for submittal to the Administrator, or for onsite review by an inspector.
You must keep records of all the following six items:
(a)
(1) Names of the municipal waste combustor chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who are provisionally certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent state-approved certification program.
(2) Dates of the initial and renewal provisional certifications.
(3) Documentation showing current provisional certifications.
(b)
(1) Names of the chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who are fully certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent state-approved certification program.
(2) Dates of initial and renewal full certifications.
(3) Documentation showing current full certifications.
(c)
(1) Names of the chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators who have completed the EPA or state municipal waste combustion operator training course.
(2) Dates of completion of the operator training course.
(3) Documentation showing completion of operator training course.
(d)
(1) Names of persons who have reviewed the operating manual.
(2) Date of the initial review.
(3) Dates of subsequent annual reviews.
(e)
(1) If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are offsite for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or less, and no other certified operator is onsite, record the dates that the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor were offsite.
(2) When all certified chief facility operators and certified shift supervisors are offsite for more than 2 weeks and no other certified operator is onsite, keep records of four items:
(i) Time of day that all certified persons are offsite.
(ii) The conditions that cause those people to be offsite.
(iii) The corrective actions you are taking to ensure a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor is onsite as soon as practicable.
(iv) Copies of the written reports submitted every 4 weeks that summarize the actions taken to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor will be onsite as soon as practicable.
(f)
For stack tests required under § 60.6515, you must keep records of all the following four items:
(a) The results of the stack tests for eight pollutants or parameters recorded in the appropriate units of measure specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW:
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead.
(4) Mercury.
(5) Opacity.
(6) Particulate matter.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(b) Test reports including supporting calculations that document the results of all stack tests.
(c) The maximum demonstrated load of your municipal waste combustors and maximum temperature at the inlet of your particulate matter control device during all stack tests for dioxins/furans emissions.
(d) The calendar date of each record.
You must keep records of all the following eight items.
(a)
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All 1-hour average load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(6) All 1-hour average flue gas temperatures at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(7) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(8) If you monitor emissions with a CEMS, you must indicate which data are CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown.
(b)
(1) All 24-hour daily block geometric average concentrations and percent reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) All 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) All 4-hour block or 24-hour daily block arithmetic average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions, as applicable.
(4) All 4-hour block arithmetic average load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) All 4-hour block arithmetic average flue gas temperatures at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations and percent reductions, as appropriate, of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system to monitor mercury or dioxins/furans instead of conducting performance testing, all integrated 24-hour mercury concentrations (or percent reductions) or all integrated 2-week dioxins/furans concentrations.
(c)
(1) Calendar dates whenever any of the seven pollutant or parameter levels recorded in paragraph (b) of this section or the opacity level recorded in paragraph (a)(1) of this section did not meet the emission limits or operating levels specified in this subpart.
(2) Reasons you exceeded the applicable emission limits or operating levels.
(3) Corrective actions you took, or are taking, to meet the emission limits or operating levels.
(d)
(1) Calendar dates for which you did not collect the minimum amount of data required under §§ 60.6490 and 60.6565. Record those dates for the following types of pollutants and parameters:
(i) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(ii) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(iii) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(iv) Load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(v) Temperatures of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(vi) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance tests, the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vii) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, dates and times when the sampling systems were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample.
(2) Reasons you did not collect the minimum data.
(3) Corrective actions you took or are taking to obtain the required amount of data.
(e)
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load levels of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperatures of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or to elect to use continuous automated
(i) Particulate matter emissions data.
(ii) Cadmium emissions data.
(iii) Lead emissions data.
(iv) Mercury emissions data.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions data.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions data.
(f)
(1) For sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxides, according to Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part. Keep the records for the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring systems.
(2) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter instead of conducting performance testing, according to Procedure 2, appendix F of this part. Keep the records for the particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring systems.
(3) If you elect to continuously monitor cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride instead of conducting performance testing, maintain the results of all quality evaluations, including daily drift tests and periodic accuracy determinations, specified in the approved site-specific performance evaluation test plan or as specified in Procedures 5 and 6 of appendix F of this part, as applicable.
(4) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the results of all quality evaluations specified in the approved site-specific performance evaluation test plan or Procedure 5 of appendix F of this part, as applicable.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) All required continuous emission monitoring measurements (including monitoring data recorded during unavoidable continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
(2) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous emission monitoring system was inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous emission monitoring system was out of control, as defined in § 60.6540.
(4) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) The date and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances, that occurs during periods other than warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known).
(7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions.
(8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous emission monitoring system that was inoperative or out of control.
(9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program developed and implemented for the continuous emission monitoring system.
(10) When more than one continuous emission monitoring system is used to measure the emissions from one municipal waste combustor (
(k)
(1) All required 24-hour integrated mercury concentration (or percent reduction) or 2-week integrated dioxins/furans concentration data (including any data obtained during unavoidable system breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
(2) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous automated sampling system was inoperative.
(3) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous automated sampling system was out of control.
(4) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) The date and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances that occurs during periods other than warmups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the municipal waste combustor.
(6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known).
(7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions.
(8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous automated sampling system that was inoperative or out of control.
(9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program developed and implemented for the continuous automated sampling system.
(10) When more than one continuous automated sampling system is used to measure the emissions from one municipal waste combustor (
For municipal waste combustors that use activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, you must keep records of all of the following five items:
(a)
(1) Average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour during all stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting calculations in the records.
(2) For the operating parameter chosen to monitor carbon feed rate, average operating level during all stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting data that document the relationship between the operating parameter and the carbon feed rate.
(3) Average carbon feed rate in kilograms (or pounds) per hour
(4) Total carbon usage for each calendar quarter as estimated in § 60.6560(d). Include supporting calculations in the records.
(5) Carbon injection system operating parameter data for the parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon feed rate (
(b)
(1) The calendar dates when the average carbon feed rate was less than the average hourly carbon feed rates determined during the most recent stack test for dioxins/furans or mercury emissions.
(2) Reasons for the low carbon feed rates.
(3) Corrective actions you took or are taking to meet the average carbon feed rate requirement.
(c)
(1) Calendar dates for which the carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate (
(2) Reasons for the occurrences.
(3) Corrective actions you took or are taking to meet the levels estimated during the performance tests.
(d)
(e)
(a) Submit an initial report and annual reports, plus semiannual reports for any emission or parameter level that does not meet the limits specified in this subpart.
(b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test or continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) performance evaluation that includes a relative accuracy test audit (RATA), you must submit the results following the procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Data collected using test methods and performance evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(c) For the semiannual and annual reports specified under paragraph (a) of this section, beginning on March 10, 2027 or once the report template for this subpart has been available on the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) website (
(d) If you are required to submit notifications or reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (d), you must submit notifications or reports to the EPA via the CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send CBI information through the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. ERT files should be sent to the attention of the Branch Manager, Measurement Strategies Branch, and all other files should be sent to the attention of the Large Municipal Waste Combustor Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the
(g) Keep a copy of all reports required by §§ 60.6615, 60.6625, and 60.6640 onsite for 5 years.
(h) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride or to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury emissions instead of conducting performance tests, notify the Administrator one month prior to starting or stopping use of the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans continuous emission monitoring systems or continuous automated sampling systems.
(i) If you elect to install a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or you elect to install a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, you must also submit to EPA for approval, the site-specific monitoring plan, including the site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous emission monitoring system or the continuous automated sampling system. You must maintain copies of the site-specific monitoring plan on record for the life of the municipal waste combustor to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the site-specific monitoring plan is revised and approved, you must maintain the previous (
See Tables 2 and 3 to Subpart WWWW for appropriate units of measurement.
As specified in § 60.8(a), submit your initial report by 180 days after your final compliance date.
You must include seven items:
(a) The emission levels measured on the date of the initial evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring systems for all of the following pollutants or parameters as recorded in accordance with § 60.6595(b).
(1) The 24-hour daily block geometric average concentration or percent reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) The 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentration of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) The 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentration of carbon monoxide emissions, as applicable.
(4) The 4-hour block arithmetic average load level of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) The 4-hour block arithmetic average flue gas temperature at the inlet of the particulate matter control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing, all 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions.
(7) If you monitor emissions with a CEMS, you must indicate which data are CEMS data during warmup, startup, and shutdown.
(b) The results of the initial performance stack tests for eight pollutants or parameters (use appropriate units as specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW):
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead.
(4) Mercury.
(5) Opacity.
(6) Particulate matter.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(c) The test report that documents the initial stack tests including supporting calculations.
(d) The initial performance evaluation of your continuous emissions monitoring systems. Use the applicable performance specifications in appendix
(e) The maximum demonstrated load of your municipal waste combustor and the maximum demonstrated temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter control device. Use values established during your initial stack test for dioxins/furans emissions and include supporting calculations.
(f) If your municipal waste combustor uses activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, the average carbon mass feed rates that you recorded during the stack tests for dioxins/furans and mercury emissions. Include supporting calculations as specified in § 60.6660(a)(1) and (2).
(g) If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas, documentation of the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide, as specified in § 60.6485.
Submit the annual report no later than February 1 of each year that follows the calendar year in which you collected the data. If you have an operating permit for any unit under title V of the CAA you must submit semiannual reports. Parts 70 and 71 of this chapter contain program requirements for permits.
Summarize data collected for all pollutants and parameters regulated under this subpart. Your summary must include twelve items:
(a) A list of the results achieved during the annual stack test, using appropriate units, for eight pollutants, as recorded under § 60.6590(a):
(1) Dioxins/furans.
(2) Cadmium.
(3) Lead
(4) Mercury.
(5) Particulate Matter.
(6) Opacity.
(7) Hydrogen chloride.
(8) Fugitive ash.
(b) List of the highest average levels recorded, in the appropriate units, for the following pollutants or parameters:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device (4-hour block average).
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(c) For continuously monitored pollutants identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(6) of this section, a list of the block averages recorded during all operations for the reporting year, identifying measurements recorded during periods of warmup, startup, and shutdown as defined in this subpart.
(d) The highest 6-minute opacity level measured. Base the value on all 6-minute average opacity levels recorded by your continuous opacity monitoring system (§ 60.6595(a)(1)).
(e) The total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours per calendar year that you did not obtain valid data for the following pollutants or parameters. For each continuously monitored pollutant or parameter, the hours of valid emissions data per calendar quarter and per calendar year expressed as a percent of the hours per calendar quarter or year that the municipal waste combustor was operating and combusting municipal solid waste. Include data on:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(7) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours per calendar year that the sampling systems were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample. Include the number of hours during which the continuous automated sampling system was operating and collecting a valid sample as a percent of hours per calendar quarter or year that the municipal waste combustor was operating and combusting municipal solid waste.
(f) The total number of hours you have excluded data from the calculation of average levels (include the reasons for excluding it). Include data for the following pollutants or parameters:
(1) Sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of the municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of the particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, or dioxins/furans emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Cadmium emissions.
(iii) Lead emissions.
(iv) Mercury emissions.
(v) Hydrogen chloride emissions.
(vi) Dioxins/furans emissions.
(7) If you elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury, the total number of hours that the data for mercury and dioxins/furans were excluded from the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters.
(g) A summary of the data in paragraphs (a) through (g), excluding (c), of this section from the year preceding the reporting year which gives the Administrator a summary of the performance of the municipal waste combustor over a 2-year period.
(h) A summary of any emission or parameter level, including the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, that did not meet the limits specified in this subpart.
(i) A notice of your intent to begin a reduced stack testing schedule for dioxins/furans emissions during the following calendar year if you are eligible for alternative scheduling (§ 60.6535(a) or (b)).
(j) A notice of your intent to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection system operating parameter levels to similarly designed and equipped units on site. (§ 60.6535(c)).
(k) If you choose to monitor carbon dioxide instead of oxygen as a diluent gas, documentation of the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide, as specified in § 60.6485.
(l) Documentation of periods when all certified chief facility operators and certified shift supervisors are offsite for more than 12 hours.
You must submit a semiannual report on any recorded emission or parameter
(a) For data collected during the first half of a calendar year, submit your semiannual report by August 1 of that year.
(b) For data you collected during the second half of the calendar year, submit your semiannual report by February 1 of the following year.
You must include all of the following three items in the semiannual report:
(a) For any of the pollutants or parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1)-(8) of this section that exceeded the limits specified in this subpart, include the calendar date they exceeded the limits, the reasons for exceeding the limits, and your corrective actions. You must also include the averaged and recorded data for that date:
(1) Concentration of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(2) Concentration of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(3) Concentration of carbon monoxide emissions.
(4) Load level of your municipal waste combustor.
(5) Temperature of the flue gases at the inlet of your particulate matter air pollution control device.
(6) Average 6-minute opacity level. The data obtained from your continuous opacity monitoring system are not used to determine compliance with the limit on opacity emissions.
(7) If you elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of conducting performance testing:
(i) Concentration of particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Concentration of cadmium emissions.
(iii) Concentration of lead emissions.
(iv) Concentration of mercury emissions.
(v) Concentration of hydrogen chloride emissions.
(8) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system to monitor mercury or dioxins/furans instead of conducting performance testing, the integrated 24-hour mercury concentrations (or percent reductions) or the integrated 2-week dioxins/furans concentration.
(b) If the results of your annual stack tests (as recorded in § 60.6590(a)) show emissions above the limits specified in Table 3 to Subpart WWWW as applicable for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash, include a copy of the test report that documents the emission levels and your corrective actions. The semiannual report shall contain a statement indicating that pollutant levels were exceeded during the performance test and list the pollutants whose limits were exceeded and a copy of the performance test is no longer required.
(c) For municipal waste combustors that apply activated carbon to control dioxins/furans or mercury emissions, include documentation of all dates when the carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate (
(1) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per hour or pounds per hour) estimated for each hour of operation.
(2) Reasons for occurrences of low carbon feed rates.
(3) The corrective actions you have taken to meet the carbon feed rate requirement.
(4) The calendar date.
(d) If you elect to install a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or you elect to install a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans or mercury, submit information concerning all out-of-control periods for each continuous emission monitoring system or each continuous automated sampling system, including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(a) If the Administrator agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting dates.
(b) See § 60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
An air curtain incinerator operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or open pit in which combustion occurs. Incinerators of that type can be constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor.
Yard waste is grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs. They come from residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part of maintaining yards or other private or public lands. Yard waste does not include two items:
(a) Construction, renovation, and demolition wastes that are exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in § 60.6685.
(b) Clean wood that is exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in § 60.6685.
If your air curtain incinerator with a capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste combusts a fuel feed stream of 100 percent wood waste, 100 percent clean lumber, 100 percent yard waste, or a 100 percent mixture of only wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste, and no other municipal solid waste materials, you must only meet the emission limits in this section.
(a) By 180 days after your final compliance date, you must meet two limits:
(1) The opacity limit is 10 percent (6-minute average) except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The opacity limit is 35 percent (6-minute average) during the startup period that is within the first 30 minutes of operation.
(b) Reserved
(a) Use the procedures specified in Table 5 to Subpart WWWW to determine compliance with the opacity limit for air curtain incinerators under § 60.6665.
(b) Conduct an initial test for opacity as specified in § 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(c) After the initial test for opacity, conduct annual tests (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous test). You must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period.
(a) Provide a notice of construction that includes four items:
(1) Your intent to construct the air curtain incinerator.
(2) Your planned initial startup date.
(3) Types of fuels you plan to combust in your air curtain incinerator.
(4) The capacity of your incinerator, including supporting capacity calculations, as specified in § 60.6570.
(b) Keep records of results of the initial opacity performance test and all subsequent opacity performance tests onsite in either paper copy or electronic format unless the Administrator approves another format.
(c) Keep all records for each incinerator for at least 5 years.
(d) Make all records available for submittal to the Administrator or for onsite review by an inspector.
(e) Submit the results (each 6-minute average) of the initial opacity performance test and all subsequent opacity performance tests by February 1 of the year following the year of the opacity emission test.
(f) Submit reports in either paper copy or electronic format on or before the applicable submittal date.
(g) If the Administrator agrees, you may change the annual reporting dates (see § 60.19(c)).
(h) Keep a copy of all reports onsite for a period of 5 years.
(a)
(b)
(1) Plant basis.
(2) Unit basis.
(c)
Terms used but not defined in this section are defined in the CAA and in subparts A and Ba of this part.
(1) For approved and effective state plans, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency that is delegated the authority to perform the specified task;
(2) For federal plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified task; and
(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the state air pollution control agency, or employee of the state air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified task.
(1) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(2) You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
(3) You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
(4) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 4 independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
(1) 12:00 midnight to 4:00 a.m.
(2) 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
(3) 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
(4) 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m.
(5) 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
(6) 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of construction and installation the unit (not including the cost of any land purchased in connection with such construction or installation) updated to current costs.
(2) Any physical change in the municipal waste combustor or change in the method of operating the municipal waste combustor that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for which standards have been established under section 129 or section
(1) Yard waste;
(2) Refuse-derived fuel; and
(3) Motor vehicle maintenance materials limited to vehicle batteries and tires except as specified in § 60.6305(d).
(1) Municipal waste combustors do not include pyrolysis or combustion units located at a plastics or rubber recycling unit as specified under Applicability (§ 60.6305(h) and (i)). Municipal waste combustors also do not include cement kilns firing municipal solid waste as specified under Applicability (§ 60.6305(j)). Municipal waste combustors also do not include internal combustion engines, gas turbines, or other combustion devices that combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas collection systems.
(2) The boundaries of a municipal waste combustor are defined as follows. The municipal waste combustor includes, but is not limited to, the municipal solid waste fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the combustor water system. The municipal waste combustor boundary starts at the municipal solid waste pit or hopper and extends through three areas:
(i) The combustor flue gas system, which ends immediately following the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat recovery equipment, immediately following the combustion chamber.
(ii) The combustor bottom ash system, which ends at the truck loading station or similar ash handling equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. It includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system.
(iii) The combustor water system, which starts at the feed water pump and ends at the piping that exits the steam drum or superheater.
(3) The municipal waste combustor does not include air pollution control equipment, the stack, water treatment equipment, or the turbine-generator set.
(1) Each calendar quarter, the combined weight of the chemical plant feedstock and petroleum refinery feedstock that a plastics/rubber recycling unit produces must be more than 70 percent of the combined weight of the plastics, rubber, and rubber tires that the plastics/rubber recycling unit processes.
(2) The plastics, rubber, or rubber tires fed to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may originate from separating or diverting plastics, rubber, or rubber tires from MSW or industrial solid waste. The feed materials may include manufacturing scraps, trimmings, and off-specification plastics, rubber, and rubber tire discards.
(3) The plastics, rubber, and rubber tires fed to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may contain incidental contaminants (
(1) Low-density fluff refuse-derived fuel through densified refuse-derived fuel.
(2) Pelletized refuse-derived fuel.
(1) Construction, renovation, and demolition wastes that are exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in this section.
(2) Clean wood that is exempt from the definition of “municipal solid waste” in this section.