This rulemaking is separate from NRC's comprehensive review and reform of its regulations in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (90 FR 22587; May 29, 2025). The rulemakings associated with that effort will comprehensively reexamine NRC requirements. While there could be additional revisions as a result of these future rulemakings, the NRC is moving forward with publication of this proposed rule at this time because it is a deregulatory action of high interest for stakeholders that was mandated by statute and in progress before the issuance of E.O. 14300.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0218 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0218.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Comments must be submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time on May 26, 2026. Please include Docket ID NRC-2024-0218 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register . The direct final rule will become effective on July 7, 2026. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by May 26, 2026, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments in a subsequent final rule or as otherwise appropriate. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register .

In July 2024, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) was signed into law. It requires the NRC to take a number of actions, particularly regarding licensing new reactors and fuels, while maintaining the NRC's core safety and security mission.

Section 301 of the ADVANCE Act designated certain exceptions from the foreign ownership, control, or domination (FOCD) provision set forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Sections 103 and 104 of the AEA prohibit the issuance of a license for utilization or production facilities ( e.g., a commercial nuclear power reactor) to an applicant that the Commission knows or has reason to believe is owned, controlled, or dominated by a foreign entity. Specifically, section 301 of the ADVANCE Act states that if the Commission determines that the issuance of the applicable license to that entity is not inimical to the common defense and security or public health and safety, then the FOCD restriction for utilization facility licenses shall not apply to an entity that is owned, controlled, or dominated by (1) the government of a country that is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or the Republic of India on the date of issuance of the ADVANCE Act, (2) a corporation that is incorporated in one of those countries, or (3) a citizen or national of one of those countries, subject to some additional exclusions in section 301(b)(2).

The additional exclusions in section 301(b)(2) are based on whether any government bodies or persons of the excepted countries were subject to certain sanctions under section 231 of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) of 2017 (22 U.S.C. 9525) or included on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of Treasury pursuant to section 231 of the CAATSA of 2017 (22 U.S.C. 9525) on the ADVANCE Act's date of enactment of July 9, 2024. The NRC has reviewed those lists and determined that Turkey falls within the exclusion in section 301(b)(2) because, as of that date, the Republic of Turkey's Presidency of Defense Industries was subject to sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA. The NRC's implementing regulation for the FOCD restrictions is section 50.38 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Ineligibility of certain applicants.” The NRC will continue to review sanctions lists as part of the agency's inimicality determination, which determines whether a proposed ownership structure would be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. That determination remains a precondition for the new FOCD exception.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

This proposed rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0155.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The following are Executive orders that are related to this proposed rule:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, the NRC submitted this proposed rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. However, NRC expects the costs of this rule to be minimal.

The NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.

This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192.

E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes proposed in this rule are required for statutory compliance. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.

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

The objective of this proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) is to address the apportionment of assessments among System banks and associations to account for the size and structure of the System as it exists today, including updating the example formula. Additionally, we propose two technical revisions to remove two references to entities that no longer exist.

The amendments in the Proposed Rule include changes to the regulations set forth in 12 CFR part 607 that:

• Revise the definition in § 607.2 for Non-System entities to remove the reference to the National Cooperative Bank Development Corporation from the regulation given this entity no longer exists.

• Revise the definition in § 607.2 for Other System entities to remove the reference to the Farm Credit Finance Corporation of Puerto Rico from the regulation given this entity no longer exists.

• In § 607.3(b)(1), increase from thirty (30) percent to seventy-five (75) percent the amount of the assessment apportioned to each bank, association, and designated other System entities on the basis of each institution's pro rata share of the total average risk-adjusted asset base.

• In § 607.3(b)(2):

○ Decrease from seventy (70) percent to twenty-five (25) percent the amount of the assessment apportioned to each bank, association, and designated other System entity based upon the amounts of the institution's average risk-adjusted assets that fall within the tiers contained in the table in § 607.3(b)(2).

○ Adjust the average risk-adjusted asset size range (in millions) set forth in the table:

from over “0 to $25” to over “$0 to $900.”

from over “$25 to $50” to over “$900 to $1,825.”

from over “$50 to $100” to over “$1,825 to $4,050.”

from over “$100 to $500” to over “$4,050 to $13,500.”

from over “$500 to $1,000” to over “$13,500 to $19,800.”

from over “$1,000 to $7,000” to over “$19,800 to $85,000.”

from over “$7,000 to $10,000” to over “$85,000 to $120,000.”

from over “$10,000” to over “$120,000.”

○ Update the example set forth in § 607.3(b)(2) to reflect the proposed changes.

FCA does not propose any changes to the regulations set forth in 12 CFR 607.1, covering the purpose and scope of Part 607. Furthermore, FCA does not propose any changes to the regulations set forth in 12 CFR 607.4 through 607.11, covering assessment of other System entities, processes for notice and payment of assessments, late-payment charges, reimbursements for services to non-System entities, reimbursable billings, adjustments for overpayment or underpayment of assessments, and report of assessments and expenses.

FCA's original assessment regulation, which was located at 12 CFR 618.8230, was promulgated in 1972 before Congress enacted the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (1987 Act). As explained in the 1993 preamble, the structural and regulatory changes brought about by the 1987 Act, which are described below, led FCA to evaluate its process to determine whether the assessment regulation remained equitable. 1 Based on this evaluation, FCA concluded the original assessment formula should be revised. 2 In 1992, FCA concluded that negotiated rulemaking might provide a creative means to achieve an equitable assessment formula. In 1993, based on the negotiated rulemaking committee's consensus recommendations, FCA promulgated the current regulation, 12 CFR part 607 and rescinded the original regulation. 3

Section 5.15(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires FCA to apportion the amount of the assessments among the System institutions on a basis that the agency determines to be equitable. This Proposed Rule, if adopted, would update the regulation to address the current composition of System banks and associations. Over time, the overall number of System banks and associations has significantly decreased; however, the size and complexity of the existing banks and associations has increased since 1993. The changes outlined in this Proposed Rule do not impact the overall total assessment to the System. 4 The Proposed Rule would reapportion assessments among the individual System banks and associations.

Financial Institution Rating System. FIRS is the rating system adopted by the FCA Board in 2011 and used by the FCA examiners for evaluating and categorizing the safety and soundness of System institutions on an ongoing, uniform and comprehensive basis.

Average risk-adjusted asset base. This term is defined in § 607.2 (b). After the implementation of the revised capital framework in 2017, the original metric of risk-adjusted assets used in the assessment apportionment was replaced with risk-weighted assets (RWA). 5 Within this preamble, we use the term ”risk-adjusted assets” for information presented prior to 2017 and the term “risk-weighted assets” for information presented beginning 2017 and thereafter.

System institutions. This term is defined in § 607.2(k). While Part 607 defines assessment requirements for System and non-System entities, this Proposed Rule would impact only System banks and associations. Therefore, this preamble's references to System institutions include only System banks and associations.

Over thirty years ago, as of June 30, 1993, there were 259 System institutions. The average risk-adjusted assets ranged from approximately $137,000 to $8.8 billion. 6 As of June 30, 2025, there were 59 System institutions. The average risk-weighted assets for these institutions ranged from $175 million to $103 billion.

From June 30, 1993, to June 30, 2025, the number of institutions declined from 259 to 59 and the average risk-adjusted assets of these institutions increased. However, since 1993, not all institutions experienced risk-adjusted asset growth at similar rates. As a result of the changes to the System, the average risk-weighted assets are assessed, in accordance with the methodology in the existing assessment regulations, at different proportional rates than when the regulations were enacted approximately 30 years ago. Our Proposed Rule would adjust the proportionality based on the current levels of average risk-weighted assets to bring the assessments closer to proportional levels experienced when the rule became effective.

In our analysis as of June 30, 2025, we grouped institutions into three primary groups by average risk-weighted asset size: (1) greater than $10 billion, (2) $1 to $10 billion, and (3) less than $1 billion. For group one, 13 institutions (including all four banks and nine associations) reported average risk-weighted assets greater than $10 billion. This group of institutions held 81.7 percent of the total average risk-weighted assets for all institutions. However, despite holding over 80 percent of the overall total average risk-weighted assets, this group of institutions was only assessed 68.6 percent of the total assessment for all institutions under the existing regulation.

The second group included 32 institutions and included only associations, which reported average risk-weighted assets between $1 and $10 billion. This group held 16.6 percent of total average risk-weighted assets. However, this second group of institutions was assessed 27.6 percent of the total assessment for all institutions.

The third group included 14 associations that reported average risk-weighted assets of less than $1 billion. This third group held 1.7 percent of the total average risk-weighted assets However, these institutions were assessed 3.8 percent of the total assessment for all institutions.

The institutions reporting lower levels of average risk-adjusted assets remain key institutions to the System in serving eligible farmer and producer borrowers in their chartered territories. The boards and management teams for these associations have indicated to FCA the challenges facing their associations, including concerns of experiencing an increased proportional assessment of the total assessment for institutions.

In addition to reviewing System structural changes, we analyzed the change in assessment apportionment ratios from June 30, 1993 (assessment year 1994), to June 30, 2025 (assessment year 2026). We define the assessment apportionment ratio as the ratio of the percentage of assessments for a System institution or group of institutions to the percentage of total average risk-adjusted assets reported by that same institution or group of institutions, where a ratio of 1.0 indicates an institution or group of institutions is assessed at the same exact percentage of its percentage of total average risk-adjusted assets for institutions.

For example, for the group of institutions with less than $1 billion in average risk-adjusted assets, we identified an assessment apportionment ratio of 1.26 in 1993. In 2025 for this group, we identified an assessment apportionment ratio of 2.24, which indicated this group of associations was assessed at over two times the proportionality of their combined share of risk-weighted assets.

For the group of institutions with average risk-adjusted assets of $1 to $10 billion, we identified a ratio of 0.80 in 1993, compared to a ratio of 1.66 in 2025. This difference in assessment apportionment ratio indicates this group of institutions was approximately assessed at over two times the proportionality of their combined share of risk-weighted assets in 2025 than in 1993.

In 2025, for the group of institutions reporting average risk-weighted assets greater than $10 billion, we identified an assessment apportionment ratio of 0.84 which indicates this group was assessed less than their proportional share of combined risk-adjusted assets. 7

Based on our historical review of the regulation, we propose to maintain the current assessment methodology while continuing to recognize the importance of the economies of scale concept in FCA's oversight and supervision of institutions. Additionally, FCA believes it is important to retain the risk premium concept based on a composite FIRS rating. Based on System changes since 1993 and our analysis of the current assessment formula, we propose changes to two parts of the assessment calculation. First, we propose to revise § 607.3(b)(1) and (2) to increase the portion of the assessment formula that is based on each institution's pro rata share of the total average risk-adjusted asset base. Second, we propose changes to the tier thresholds in the table in § 607.3(b)(2) to adjust the distribution of assessment apportionment among institutions.

Our analysis indicates our Proposed Rule results in assessment apportionment ratios of: 0.97 for the group of institutions that exceed $10 billion in average risk-weighted assets (compared to 0.84 in 2025); 1.12 for those associations that report between $1 and $10 billion in average risk-weighted assets (compared to 0.80 in 1993, and 1.66 in 2025); and 1.20 for the group of associations that report less than $1 billion in average risk-weighted assets (compared to 1.25 in 1993, and 2.24 in 2025). Our Proposed Rule adjusts proportionalities for all institutions and retains the current principles of the formula methodology.

We considered revising only the average risk-adjusted asset size ranges outlined in § 607.3(b)(2); however, the results from revising only the tier ranges were insufficient to bring the proportionality of individual assessments for associations with less than $1 billion in average risk-weighted assets closer to levels of proportionality in 1993. Additionally, although we also considered pro rata amounts of less than 75 percent, these amounts were also insufficient to bring proportionality ratios closer to 1993 levels. Based on our analysis, we believe that a proposed increase to 75 percent for the pro rata calculation of the formula is the most reasonable option.

We also considered a 100 percent pro rata approach, which would result in an exact proportional ratio of 1.0 for each institution and ensure each bank and association is assessed exactly as the percentage of total System average risk-weighted assets held. However, a 100 percent pro rata formula that includes a FIRS risk premium adjustment would allow anyone to determine an institution's assessment exceeds the 100 percent pro rata formula and included a premium based on an adverse composite FIRS rating. Therefore, we determined this type of formula would no longer maintain continued confidentiality in the composite FIRS rating. Additionally, this approach is inconsistent with our intent to continue to account for economies of scale. We believe the proposed methodology provides the most equitable results and maintains the intentions of the original negotiated rulemaking committee.

We specifically propose an increase, from 30 percent to 75 percent, of the portion of the assessment formula that bases the assessment on each institution's pro rata share of the total average risk-adjusted asset base. This change would result in a corresponding decrease in the apportionment calculation outlined in 607.3(b)(2) from 70 percent to 25 percent. We determined a proposed 75 percent pro rata minimum change is necessary to sufficiently adjust the proportionality of assessments for those associations with average risk-weighted assets of less than $1 billion in upholding cooperative principles. Within the calculation outlined in 607.3(b)(2), we also propose an increase in the average risk-adjusted asset tier thresholds to approximate the share of risk-adjusted assets as distributed in each tier in 1993. We propose amending the dollar thresholds to mirror the share of bank and association risk-adjusted assets in each tier for 1993. As a result of the above proposed changes, the ratio of the percentage of assessments to the percentage of average risk-adjusted assets moves each group closer to the proportionality of assessment amounts when the rule was finalized in 1994.

FCA concluded any change in the apportionment of the assessment methodology impacts each individual bank and association differently. However, we strove to ensure any proposed changes to the formula recognized the differences in all institutions, kept the spirit of the 1992 negotiated rulemaking committee's consensus recommendations, and did not place any undue burden on some institutions over others. We recognize these changes increase or decrease the individual assessment for each System bank and association. Based on average risk-weighted assets as of June 30, 2025, if the proposed formula became effective, most institutions' assessments decrease compared to their fiscal year 2026 assessments. However, for institutions reporting average risk-weighted assets of more than $25 billion as of June 30, 2025, assessments increase compared to their fiscal year 2026 assessments. 8

Finally, we considered adding a premium based on certain criteria to address institutions with increased complexity; however, we determined the criteria to support such a premium would be difficult to quantify.

FCA proposes revisions to significantly improve the assessment equitability by adjusting the proportionality of assessments in relation to the level of risk-adjusted assets across all institutions.

These revisions would:

○ Increase the pro rata percentage of assessment to 75 percent allocated to each institution to account for the growth and the reduced number of institutions and adjust the proportionality of an individual institution's assessment in relation to the level of risk-adjusted assets held.

○ Preserve the economies of scale concept by continuing to apportion a minimum 25 percent of each individual institution's holding of risk-adjusted assets assessment through a declining rate formula.

○ Revise the average risk-adjusted asset tier thresholds to allocate the average risk-adjusted assets at System institutions in tiers, consistent with the distribution of average risk-adjusted assets across the tiers established when the rule was finalized in 1994.

○ Retain the risk concept through the composite FIRS rating premium.

○ Keep the current formula to maintain the confidentiality of the composite FIRS rating in the calculation of any risk premium for those institutions assigned composite FIRS ratings of 3, 4, or 5.

FCA proposes amendments to § 607.2 to update the calculation of assessments on System banks, associations, and other System entities, update the example calculation, and eliminate references to the National Cooperative Bank Development Corporation and the Farm Credit Finance Corporation of Puerto Rico that no longer in existence.

FCA proposes amendments to § 607.3 (b)(1) and (2) to update the formula and example for the calculation of assessments.

The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, made applicable to FCA by Executive Order 14215. This action, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be neither an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action nor an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.

Pursuant to § 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), FCA hereby certifies that the Proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, Farm Credit System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 requires a notice of proposed rulemaking to include the internet address of a posted summary of the proposed rule, in plain language and less than 100 words. Public commenters may access the summary for this rulemaking under RIN 3052-AD66 at https://ww3.fca.gov/news/Lists/News%20Releases/Attachments/738/NR-26-03-3-12-26%20.pdf.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Farm Credit Administration proposes to amend parts 607 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

From:

To:

Example: XYZ association has a composite FIRS rating of 2 and average risk-adjusted assets of $2 billion. The value of X 1 has been determined to be .0000837, based on an FCA budget of $100.4 million.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3863; Project Identifier AD-2024-00567-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may revise this proposal because of those comments.

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

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 Isabel Saltzman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2020-02-17, Amendment 39-21025 (85 FR 7191, February 7, 2020) (AD 2020-02-17), for Sikorsky Model S-70, S-70A, S-70C, S-70C(M), and S-70C(M1) helicopters with a TRB part number 70101-31000 (all dash numbers) with a serial number up to and including A009-08915. AD 2020-02-17 was prompted by four incidents of disbonding between the TRB pitch horn and the torque tube. AD 2020-02-17 requires recurring visual and tap inspections of the TRB and, depending on the results, replacing the TRB. The agency issued AD 2020-02-17 to detect disbonding. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in increased tail rotor vibrations, physical failure of the torque tube, and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the FAA issued AD 2020-02-17, a determination was made that Sikorsky Model S-70M helicopters and restricted category military surplus Models EH-60A, HH-60L, UH-60A, and UH-60L helicopters are also affected by the unsafe condition defined in AD 2020-02-17. Sikorsky has developed a split pitch horn modification for certain TRBs and a safety enhancement modification kit for certain TRBs, which consists of a disbond indicator (three white stripes applied to both upper and lower airfoil blade surfaces). Sikorsky has also issued a temporary revision to the maintenance manual to specify procedures for recurring inspections of the disbond indicator for TRBs modified with the safety enhancement modification kit. In addition, Sikorsky updated the service information into two separate bulletins based on the TRB manufactured date. A manufacturing improvement was implemented between 2006 and 2007, and the service bulletin reflects this difference.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-70A Blackhawk Derivatives Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision No. 82, dated June 27, 2023. This material specifies procedures for the visual, tap test, and borescope inspections of the modified TRBs with the disbond indicator. This material also provides instructions for maintaining the disbond indicator.

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

This proposed AD would continue to require the actions of AD 2020-02-17. This proposed AD would require modifying and re-identifying the TRB. This proposed AD would also require revising the ALS of the existing helicopter maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate recurring inspections of the TRB disbond indicator. This proposed AD would also expand the applicability by adding helicopter models.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 96 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

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 that the 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.

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3866; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01200-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

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 David Enns, 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.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34, dated July 3, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. The MCAI states Bell Textron Canada Limited has discovered a quality escape in the production installation of the pitch link assemblies where a washer was installed in the wrong location. The MCAI further states this incorrect installation could cause fracture of the pitch horn stud due to fatigue or when the rotor blade exceeds the travel during certain control inputs and blade flapping angles. The MCAI requires a one-time inspection of the pitch link assembly for proper installation of washer, part number 206-010-795-105, and depending on the inspection results, reassembling the pitch link assembly and washer or replacing the pitch link assembly, tail rotor blade pitch horn, packings, and conical washer. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fracture of the pitch horn stud due to fatigue or when the rotor blade exceeds the travel during certain control inputs and blade flapping angles and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3866.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34, which specifies procedures for a one-time visual inspection for proper installation of the pitch link assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, reassembling the pitch link assembly and washer or removing and replacing the pitch link assembly, tail rotor pitch horn, packings, and conical washer.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing 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 proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34, described previously, as incorporated by reference, 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 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 Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3866 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 10 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this 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.

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

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 ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3865; Project Identifier AD-2025-01395-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

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 Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email: luis.a.cortez-muniz@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2021-02-13, Amendment 39-21396 (86 FR 10776, February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-13), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2021-02-13 was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear strap from station (STA) 290 to STA 296, and between stringers S-8R and S-9R, sometimes common to fasteners in the gap cover and emanating from rough sanding marks found on the surface of the bear strap. AD 2021-02-13 requires inspections of the fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward galley door between certain stations for cracks, and applicable on-condition actions. The agency issued AD 2021-02-13 to address cracking of the bear strap, which could result in severing of the bear strap, possibly leading to uncontrolled decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2021-02-13, the FAA received a report that during routine maintenance, a crack was found on the forward galley door bear strap of a Model 737-900ER series airplane, which is not included in the applicability of AD 2021-02-13. In addition, cracks were found in the bear strap between stringers S-7R and S-9R, and the FAA determined that inspections of the surrounding stub frame for cracking are necessary. The FAA has determined that these additional areas require inspections, and Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes having line numbers 1763 and subsequent are subject to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 3, dated July 30, 2025. This material specifies the following procedures including options, depending on configuration, and applicable on-condition actions:

• Internal general visual inspection of the bear strap and external general visual inspection of the fuselage skin and gap cover for any repair.

• External general visual inspection of the fuselage skin and gap cover for any external repair.

• Internal general visual inspection of the forward galley door cutout stub frame for any repair.

On-condition actions include obtaining and following alternative inspection instructions and doing the inspections if repairs are found, repetitive HFEC inspections for cracks, low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracks, and replacement or repair.

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

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2021-02-13, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2021-02-13. Those requirements are referenced in the material identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would revise the applicability to add Model 737-900ER series airplanes and would add inspections for an extended inspection area. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3865.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,965 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the bear strap replacement and other on-condition actions 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.

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

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 ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3864; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01215-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

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 Elizabeth Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228 7300; email: Elizabeth.M.Dowling@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53, dated September 22, 2022 (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10, BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states an in-service event occurred where a main landing gear tire burst upon landing. The investigation into the event found that with the loss of a 5V power supply in the BCU wheel control card, a residual current may build within the brake control valve (BCV) driver circuit. This residual current may result in uncommanded brake pressure during landing. If not corrected, this can cause one or more tires to burst due to a dragging brake or a locked brake, unexpected deceleration, degraded braking performance, directional difficulties, or brake(s) overheating.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3864.

Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53 specifies procedures for an inspection to determine if BCUs with part number (P/N) GW415-7125-7 (Crane P/N 42-965-3) are installed, and replacement of affected parts with BCU P/N GW415-7125-9 (Crane P/N 42-965-4). Transport Canada also prohibits the installation of affected parts.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority 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 Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53 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 Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2022-53 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3864 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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.

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

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

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy .

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/ .

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is proposing to establish: (1) RNAV Route T-583 that would extend between the Laredo (LRD), TX, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Waco (ACT), TX, VORTAC; and (2) RNAV Route T-585 that would extend between the Corpus Christi (CRP), TX, VORTAC and the Waco, TX, VORTAC. RNAV Route T-583 would bypass Austin Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) airspace on the west side, and RNAV Route T-585 would bypass Austin TRACON airspace on the east side. These routes would provide users a more direct and efficient route structure while reducing the volume of low altitude aircraft that routinely overfly the Austin Terminal area, creating potential conflicts with aircraft arriving and departing from AUS. The northern portion of both routes will assist with feeding arrival traffic into Austin TRACON airspace and will facilitate revised arrival procedures within the Austin Terminal area.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish RNAV Routes T-583 and T-585 in Texas.

T-583: T-583 would extend between the Laredo (LRD), TX VORTAC and the Waco (ACT), TX VORTAC.

T-585: T-585 would extend between the Corpus Christi (CRP), TX VORTAC and the Waco (ACT), TX VORTAC.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-3822, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on March 7, 2019, and supplemented on August 1, 2019. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 5.220 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer”. The purpose of the state regulation is to restrict volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the St. Louis metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. Missouri made multiple revisions to the rule. These revisions change the applicability threshold of the smaller tank size subject to the rule from 500-1,000 gallon tanks to 550-1,000 gallon tanks, eliminate the permitting requirement by adding a streamlined procedural process for modifications to vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities, clarify rule language on testing and reporting, update incorporations by reference to other state rules, add definitions specific to the rule, revise unnecessarily restrictive or duplicative language, and make administrative structure and wording changes. The EPA proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the CAA and do not interfere with the State's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. The full text of the rule revisions as well as EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD) included in this docket.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. Missouri received twenty-nine (29) comments from seven sources during the comment period on 10 CSR 10-5.220. The EPA provided three comments. Missouri included additional clarification to EPA by submitting supplemental information on August 1, 2019, to clarify and answer questions EPA made during the comment period. Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on some of the public comments made, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. As explained above and in more detail in the technical support document, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-5.220 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer.” We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.220 discussed in section II. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The purpose of this state regulation is to restrict VOC emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the St. Louis metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

On February 27, 2026 (91 FR 9793), the EPA proposed to approve revisions and additions to Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules (MAPCR) Parts 6 and 8 for inclusion in the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). Michigan submitted these SIP revisions to meet the Moderate Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxide Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas (Berrien, Western portion of Allegan, and Western portion of Muskegon counties) under the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA also proposed to approve MAPCR Rules that limit VOC emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, as SIP strengthening measures for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard. In response to a request in a public comment, the EPA is reopening the comment period for 30 days.

Organization of this document. Throughout this document the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on-road and non-road motor vehicles and engines, industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ground-level ozone pollution. 1 Exposure to ozone can harm the respiratory system (the upper airways and lungs), can aggravate asthma and other lung diseases, and is linked to premature death from respiratory causes. People most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. 2

Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS (or “standards”) for “each air pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued. . . .”, such as ozone. 3 The EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979, 1997, and 2008. 4 On October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards. 5 In that action, the EPA promulgated identical revised primary and secondary ozone standards designed to protect public health and welfare that specified an 8-hour ozone level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). 6 Specifically, the standards require that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration ( i.e., the design value (DV)) may not exceed 0.070 ppm. 7 Further, while the ozone NAAQS is expressed in units of ppm, ozone is also discussed in terms of parts per billion (ppb), with 0.001 ppm equaling 1 ppb. 8

Section 107(d) of the CAA provides that when the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether an area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. 9 Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emission control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) also requires the EPA to classify each ozone NAA at the time of designation, based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (based on the area's DV). 10 Classifications for ozone NAAs range from Marginal to Extreme. CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning requirements that apply to each ozone NAA based on its classification. 11 CAA section 182, as interpreted in the EPA's implementation regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.1308 through 51.1317, sets for air agencies to submit and implement State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to satisfy the applicable attainment planning elements. These provisions also establish the timeframes by which NAAs must attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 51 areas throughout the country, including the UB in Utah, as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 12 In a separate action, the EPA set classification thresholds and attainment dates based on each NAAs ozone DV. 13 The EPA established the attainment date for Marginal, Moderate, and Serious NAAs as 3 years, 6 years, and 9 years, respectively, from the effective date of designations. Thus, the attainment date for the UB ozone NAA was August 3, 2021, which was to be calculated using monitored ozone data from 2018-2020. 14 Applicable SIP requirements for Marginal ozone NAAs are provided in table 1 of this document. 15

The UB ozone NAA, initially classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, was granted a 1-year attainment date extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) in October 2022 which was requested by both the State and Tribe. 16 This extended the attainment date from August 3, 2021 to August 3, 2022. Because DVs are based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data preceding the attainment date, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year before the attainment date ( i.e., December 31, 2021, in the case of the UB Marginal NAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS).

On March 29, 2022 and December 20, 2022, respectively, the State and Tribe requested a second 1-year extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) of the Marginal attainment date which would have extended the Marginal attainment date from August 3, 2022 to August 3, 2023. In response to the State's and Tribe's requests, on April 10, 2024, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking, based on certified ozone monitoring information through 2022, to grant the requests for a second 1-year Marginal attainment date extension and determine that the area attained by the new attainment date. 17 While the EPA concluded that the area did not attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date of August 3, 2022, based on a final 2019-2021 DV of 0.078 ppm, and as required per CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we did conclude in both our April 10, 2024 proposal and December 16, 2024 final rule that the eligibility criteria for a state to request an attainment date extension had been met, per 40 CFR 51.1307(a)(1). 18 Namely, these criteria include submitting all Marginal area SIP elements to the EPA and having certified ozone monitoring data for specific years that are all at or below the CAA established thresholds. This conclusion was based on a two-year average fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration of 0.069 ppm for the years 2020 and 2021. 19 Additionally, certified data through December 31, 2022, showed that the three-year average for 2020-2022 was 0.067 ppm, which is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see table 2 of this document). Further, Utah certified that they complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to this area in their approved implementation plan and monitoring data completeness. 20

As part of the December 2024 rulemaking, the EPA held a public comment period that closed on May 9, 2024. The EPA received comments from nine commenters, with two in support and seven in opposition. 22 Two themes dominated the opposing comments: high 2023 ozone values and environmental justice (EJ) concerns. Consequently, on December 16, 2024, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register using its discretionary authority under CAA section 181(a)(5) to deny the request for a second 1-year extension and determined that the UB ozone NAA failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2022 attainment date. 23 As shown in table 2 of this document, two of the seven regulatory monitors in this area had a 2019-2021 DV greater than the standard of 0.070 ppm. 24 For that reason, the EPA reclassified the area to Moderate by operation of law with an effective date of January 15, 2025 and an attainment date of August 3, 2024, in the December 16, 2024 final rule. In that action, the EPA committed to addressing SIP revision and implementation deadlines for the UB in a separate rulemaking given the attainment date was in the past.

Following publication of the 2024 final rule, the EPA received requests for reconsideration from the State on February 14, 2025, the Tribe on January 14, 2025, UPA on February 14, 2025, and the Utah Congressional delegation on January 14, 2025. 25 Petitions to review the 2024 final rule were filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by the State on January 22, 2025, the Tribe on February 14, 2025, UPA on January 21, 2025, and Seven County Infrastructure Coalition on January 30, 2025. On February 25, 2025, the EPA granted the petitions for reconsideration and stated our intention to undergo a notice-and-comment rulemaking. 26 Petitioners also filed motions to stay the 2024 final rule. The EPA did not oppose the motions to stay the final rule. On May 22, 2025, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners' stay pending the outcome of the administrative reconsideration. 27 The practical implication of the judicial stay is that the UB ozone NAA is currently classified as Marginal as of the date of this proposal. Petitions and related documents and correspondence are included in the docket for this rule ( see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0001).

After reconsidering the December 2024 final rule, the EPA now finds that Utah sufficiently met the statutory criteria for a second 1-year attainment date extension and the Agency is no longer exercising its discretion to deny the State's and Tribe's request, which would have imposed additional obstacles that Congress did not specifically require.

The statutory authority for the actions in this proposed rule is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. ). Relevant portions of the CAA include, but are not necessarily limited to, CAA section 181. Additionally, the EPA has authority to reconsider and revise, rescind, and repeal final actions to the extent permitted by law so long as it offers a reasonable basis for doing so and considers applicable reliance interests. 28 CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) provides that, within six months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA must determine whether an ozone NAA attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. If an area fails to attain by its attainment date and does not receive a 1-year attainment date extension, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to determine that an ozone NAA failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of (1) the next higher classification; or (2) the classification corresponding to its DV at the time of the determination. Section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to publish the determination of failure to attain and accompanying reclassification in the Federal Register no later than six months after the attainment date, which was February 3, 2023, for the UB ozone NAA.

Per CAA section 181(a)(5), the EPA has discretion (“the Administrator may”) to extend an area's applicable attainment date by one additional year upon application by any state if the state meets the two criteria under CAA section 181(a)(5). See also 40 CFR 51.1307. This section is intended to provide flexibility where an area is close to achieving attainment and can likely do so with additional time. Rather than require an area to attain the NAAQS by a first extended attainment date, the provision expressly allows for a maximum of two 1-year extensions for a single area.

Under CAA section 181(a)(5), the first criterion is satisfied if a state can demonstrate that it is in compliance with its approved SIP. See Delaware Dept. of Nat. Resources and Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that the CAA requires only that an applying state with jurisdiction over a NAA comply with the requirements in its applicable SIP, not every requirement of the Act). A state may meet this requirement by certifying its compliance, and in the absence of such certification, the EPA may determine whether the criterion has been met. See Delaware, 895 F.3d at 101-102.

The second criterion, as it applies to a second 1-year extension, is that the area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, must be no greater than the level of that NAAQS. With respect to the second criterion, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS the EPA has interpreted the air quality criterion of CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) to mean that an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, must be no greater than 0.070 ppm.

This action addresses the UB ozone NAA, which includes portions of Duchesne and Uintah Counties in Utah. This notice-and-comment rulemaking arises out of the EPA's February 25, 2025 granting of petitions for reconsideration of the December 16, 2024 final rule submitted by the State, Tribe, UPA, and Utah's Congressional delegation. After reconsideration and review of additional technical information available at the time of the 2024 action, the EPA is proposing to repeal the December 16, 2024 final rule. That rule found the UB ozone NAA failed to attain by August 3, 2022, and reclassified the area as Moderate by operation of law. The repeal would retain the area's Marginal nonattainment classification. Technical information made available since the final action, including certified 2024 and preliminary 2025 ozone monitoring data also supports the EPA's proposal to retain the area's Marginal nonattainment classification. 29

Table 3 of this document provides a summary of the data from the UB ozone NAA relevant to the area demonstrating attainment by the Marginal attainment date. While the 2019-2021 DV does not show attainment, the two-year average of 2020-2021 qualifies the UB ozone NAA for a second 1-year attainment date extension. 30 Thus, the EPA is also proposing to grant the second 1-year extension from August 3, 2022, to August 3, 2023. Consequently, based on the 2020-2022 DV, the region did not exceed 0.070 ppm, and the EPA is therefore also proposing to find that the UB ozone NAA attained by the new attainment date of August 3, 2023. The EPA requests comment on these proposed actions. See the DATES section in this document for deadline to submit comments.

This proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date would not constitute formal redesignation to attainment as provided for under CAA section 107(d)(3). Redesignations to attainment require, among other things, that the states responsible for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS have met the applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and part D, and to submit to the EPA for approval a maintenance plan to ensure continued attainment of the standard for 10 years following redesignation, as provided under CAA section 175A.

If the EPA takes final action determining that the UB ozone NAA attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the revised attainment date of August 3, 2023, the UB will remain a Marginal NAA under the 2015 ozone NAAQS and must continue to meet the planning requirements specified in CAA section 182(a).

The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed actions described in this preamble, including with respect to our statutory authority to reconsider and repeal the December 16, 2024 final rule and any changes in interpretation and policy relevant thereto. Because this action would, if finalized, relieve certain obligations for the State of Utah, we do not believe there are reasonable and cognizable reliance interests that would be adversely impacted by finalizing this action as proposed. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether such reliance interests exist and, if so, how the EPA should consider them in taking any final action on this proposal.

In accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered an opportunity for consultation to the Tribe prior to this proposed EPA action (see section V.G. of this document). 32

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

Executive Order 14192 does not apply because a determination of attainment is an air quality designation which is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection activities.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. A CAA determination of attainment by the attainment date, and reclassification of the UB ozone NAA, will not in and of themselves create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. This action would not itself directly regulate any small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA without policy discretion by the EPA.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the Federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.

Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This action has Tribal implications, because it proposes actions that will affect the ozone classification of a large area of Indian country within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.

The EPA provided an opportunity for consultation with Tribal officials early in this rulemaking under our Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. The goal is to ensure meaningful and timely input. The Tribe may request consultation and/or submit comments to the EPA at any point during the rulemaking process, including during the public comment period.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

Section 111 of the CAA, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” directs EPA to establish emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by which EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA regulations require that EPA publish an EG to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. While NSPS are directly applicable to new sources, EGs for existing sources (designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to EPA.

State plan submittals and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. Once approved by EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a state does not submit an approvable state plan to EPA, EPA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a federal plan.

The MSW landfill NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing landfills were first promulgated by EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). On August 29, 2016, EPA finalized revisions to the MSW landfill NSPS and EG in 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59332; 81 FR 59276). The 2016 EG revision updated the control requirements and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW landfills.

The current MSW landfill EG, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, concerns the regulation of landfill gas and its components, including methane, from MSW landfills for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17, 2014. The deadline to submit a state plan to EPA was May 30, 2017. On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfill Federal Plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO (86 FR 27756). The MSW landfill Federal Plan applies to states that do not have an EPA-approved state plan based on 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The MSW landfill Federal Plan is currently in effect in Kentucky.

The Commonwealth previously submitted an MSW Landfill State Plan, adopting 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, that was approved by EPA on April 20, 1999 (64 FR 19290), and took effect on June 21, 1999. To fulfill the obligation under CAA section 111(d) to submit a revised state plan reflecting amendments to the MSW landfill EG, the Commonwealth submitted a revised MSW Landfill State Plan on June 11, 2024. 1 The Commonwealth's State Plan submittal incorporates by reference the applicable provisions under the MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. For the reasons discussed below, EPA finds that the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan meets the relevant requirements of the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The sources subject to the Federal Plan for MSW Landfills will become subject to the Commonwealth's State Plan upon approval by EPA. The submittal is included in the public docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2025-1180).

EPA has reviewed the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan submittal in the context of the plan completeness and approvability requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. EPA's detailed rationale and discussion on the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking.

The Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan submittal package includes all materials necessary to be deemed administratively and technically complete according to the criteria of 40 CFR 60.27. Included within the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan are regulations under the Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR), specifically, 401 KAR 61:036, “Emission guidelines and compliance times for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.” The Commonwealth houses its implementation for the state plan requirements in this regulation. Necessary State legal and enforcement authorities required for plan approval are located elsewhere in the Commonwealth's regulations and have been reviewed and approved of by EPA, as explained in the TSD.

EPA is proposing to approve the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan submitted by the Cabinet pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart S, to reflect this action. This approval is based on the rationale previously discussed herein and in further detail in the TSD associated with this action.

The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for approval of alternative methods to determine the nonmethane organic compound concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k), as stipulated in 40 CFR 60.30f(c).

In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text that incorporates by reference the State Plan. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference KAR 61:036, which became effective in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on June 3, 2021. The regulatory provisions of this section of the Kentucky rule incorporate all the CAA 111(d) state plan elements required by the EG for existing MSW landfill units promulgated at 40 CFR 60, subpart Cf. The emissions standards and compliance times established within the Kentucky State Plan are at least as stringent as those required by the EG for existing MSW landfill units subject to subpart Cf. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R04-OAR-2025-1180, at https://www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d) plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d) plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. 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 proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the Kentucky MSW Landfill State Plan is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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).

The EPA published a Federal Register document on March 26, 2026 (91 FR 14666) FRL-13174-01-R06. Subsequent to publication of the Federal Register document, EPA realized that the docket number was incorrect. The docket number published as “EPA-R06-RCRA-2025-13174”. The docket number is corrected to read as set forth above.

In FR Doc. 2026-05876, appearing at 91 FR 14666, in the Federal Register of Thursday, March 26, 2026, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 14666, column 2, within the heading, replace “Docket number [EPA-R06-RCRA-2025-13174]” with “Docket number [EPA-R06-RCRA-2026-2641]”

2. On page 14666, column 2, within the ADDRESSES section, replace “Docket number [EPA-R06-RCRA-2025-13174]” with “Docket number [EPA-R06-RCRA-2026-2641]”

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 26-52, Tenth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59; Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 02-278; and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 22-2 ( NPRM ); FCC 26-16, adopted on March 26, 2026 and released on March 27, 2026. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-16A1.pdf.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: The NPRM may contain proposed new and revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements described in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding the NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must, when feasible, be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

We seek comment on actions that would encourage and facilitate the onshoring of foreign call centers. Specifically, we propose rules and otherwise explore ways to improve customer service communications and better protect consumers' sensitive personal information by limiting use of foreign call centers and by improving standards applicable to a company's remaining foreign call center operations. We also seek comment on extending these protections to modes of customer service communications other than calls, such as emails, texts, and on-line chats, and on ideas to deter scam and other unlawful calls made to the United States from foreign countries. Finally, we explore steps we can take to financially deter unlawful foreign-originated calls, such as bond requirements, building on our recent Call Branding NPRM, which sought comment on other ways to identify and stop such calls.

We propose to apply these requirements to providers of telecommunications services, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS services, or affiliates of such providers. Where we seek comment on applying the proposed rules to providers of other services, the term “providers” includes providers of those services as well. We also propose to apply these requirements to the use of foreign call centers for consumer communications relating to internet access service offered by any of the foregoing providers or their affiliates. We seek comment on this proposal and whether we should extend some or all of the proposed rules to providers of other types of services.

Consumers often are not satisfied with the customer service they receive from providers that have moved their customer service operations to offshore call centers. We seek comment on measures to address problems with foreign call centers that would apply to inbound calls in addition to outbound calls where we traditionally have focused our consumer protection efforts. Inbound calls easily can become outbound calls, such as when a consumer's call is answered initially by an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that allows the consumer to choose to have the IVR system hold the consumer's place in line and call the consumer back. And problems, such as communication barriers and protection of sensitive consumer information, exist regardless of whether a consumer calls the provider or the provider calls a consumer.

Establishing English Proficiency Standards. We propose to require providers that use offshore call centers to ensure that all calling staff at those call centers are proficient in both written and spoken American Standard English. We believe that clear communication and mutual understanding is critical to the customer service experience. The ability of both the consumer and the customer service agent to understand one another while discussing consumer concerns is vital to providing meaningful customer service. Consumers often have complex problems that require American Standard English proficiency to understand and resolve. And technical understanding of English often is not enough—so much of communication is tone, idioms, and appreciation of the speaker's culture. The Commission receives numerous consumer complaints that cite a lack of clear and productive communication with foreign call center staff as a reason why their concern was not resolved.

A number of federal regulations contain English proficiency requirements. To implement the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) program, the Commission itself has adopted operational standards that require language skills. Communications Assistants (CAs) who handle TRS calls must have specific competencies in communicating with people with and without such disabilities. Specifically, CAs must have competent skills in typing, grammar, spelling, American Sign Language (ASL), and familiarity with hearing and speech disability cultures, languages, and etiquette, and must possess clear and articulate voice communications. In short, Communications Assistants must understand the culture and etiquette of consumers and must be proficient in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and signing the languages necessary to do their jobs effectively. While maintaining these standards for Communications Assistants, the Commission has gone further, promoting the use of direct video connections to enhance communication between ASL-using consumers with speech and hearing disabilities and customer service call centers. The regulations governing the direct video and TRS programs reflect the Commission's recognition that communication is clearest when it occurs directly between people with a shared language and common regional and cultural background, and that, absent such direct communication between individuals with a shared language and culture, standards and required competencies are essential to ensure effective communication.

We seek comment on our proposal. Would American Standard English proficiency requirements, including requirements to understand tone, idioms, and culture, promote better customer satisfaction and problem resolution? What steps do providers currently take to ensure the proficiency of their representatives? How do providers currently monitor for both efficient communication during customer service interactions and customer satisfaction? Beyond language proficiency, are there other barriers that providers can mitigate to ensure higher quality customer service and consumer satisfaction?

If we were to adopt such requirements, what criteria should we use to assess compliance, and should the criteria apply to each individual call center employee, or to, e.g., the average test score for a call center? For example, should we require providers to ensure that call center staff pass a test? If so, what type of test? We note that a range of tests is available. Some appear to be targeted at specific areas. For example, and as mentioned above, the OET is tailored for the medical field, the TOEFL is widely used in higher education, and the TOEIC is business- and workplace-oriented. Many of the available tests appear to evaluate listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Are these good tests for our purposes? Do they go beyond just words to test an understanding of culture, for example? Do they include tests of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, or just of some of these facets of English proficiency? Do any of these tests focus on the cultural and idiomatic nuances of American Standard English? Are there other tests that providers currently are using to assess representatives' proficiency in American Standard English? Do representatives need to write in English in order to document a summary of the call in a consumer's account records or for other purposes?

Do providers already test the English proficiency of foreign call center staff? If so, how? Do providers rely on the foreign call centers with which they contract to test or otherwise evaluate the English proficiency of call center staff rather than performing the evaluation themselves? What recourse is available to a provider if a provider receives consumer complaints or otherwise learns that particular staff in a foreign call center are not communicating well with consumers?

Finally, we seek comment on how to address foreign call centers used for communication with non-English speaking U.S. customers. For example, a business might contract with a foreign call center to communicate with its U.S.-based, Spanish-speaking customer base. What American Standard English or other language proficiency standards, if any, should we require for such call centers? Are staff at these call centers required to be bilingual and do they typically take calls in English as well as non-English languages? Do providers have dedicated call centers where representatives only communicate with non-English-speaking customers? Even where call center staff speak with consumers in a language other than English, we believe that staff will need to be proficient in English. For example, we believe that customer account records generally are maintained in English and that scripts and other materials used by call center staff could be written in English. We seek comment on this belief.

Promoting U.S.-Based Customer Service. We propose to limit the percentage of customer service calls that providers may make from or answer at foreign call centers to a specified percentage (excluding any calls that would be subject to any rule we adopt requiring certain types of calls to be handled only at call centers located within the United States). We seek comment on this proposal. Would such a limit effectively address at least some of the concerns associated with foreign call centers, such as customer satisfaction? We believe that such a cap would encourage movement of call center operations back to the U.S. and thus best address our communication and data privacy concerns. We recognize, though, that those changes could come with costs to communications service providers and thus believe this type of cap would help strike a balance between achieving our goals while not imposing undue costs on these companies. Accordingly, we also seek comment on whether we should phase in such a cap over time in recognition of the costs to providers to relocate call centers to the United States, and the capacity, such as availability of staff and facilities, of the domestic marketplace to immediately support call center functions that are relocated to the United States. Are there other concerns that we should consider or other reasons to adopt such an approach? For example, are there other benefits, including to U.S. jobs and the economy, from limiting the percentage of calls to or from their service providers that are handled by foreign call centers?

We seek comment on the total volume of calls providers currently handle ( i.e., make from and receive at) in their call centers globally, including both in-house call centers, i.e., those they operate themselves, and those with which they contract. What percentage of a provider's total volume of calls is handled at call centers located within the U.S. and what percentage is handled in foreign countries? What percentage of total calls is transferred from a foreign call center to a call center located within the U.S. and vice versa? What percentage of total calls is transferred from a foreign call center to a call center located within the U.S. at the request of the customer? In answering these questions regarding percentages of calls, providers are encouraged also to provide quantities of calls. Which providers have a policy of transferring calls from a foreign call center to a call center in the U.S.? If a provider has such a policy, does it disclose the policy at the beginning of each call so that the consumer can request to have the call transferred before discussing the issue that prompted the call?

What percentage would best advance the goal of improving customer satisfaction? For example, would a 30% limit be appropriate? And how should we apply such a metric? For example, if we were to set the limit at 30%, should we allow only 30% of outbound calls to be made from a foreign call center and allow only 30% of inbound calls to be answered at a foreign call center? Or should we assess the percentage across both inbound and outbound calls, as long as the combined percentage for all calls is no greater than 30%? Over what period of time should compliance be measured? For example, should the percentage limit apply annually, quarterly, monthly, or daily?

How should calls subject to the percentage limitation be defined? Should only calls to or from existing customers who already purchase service from the provider be counted? Should the limitation apply, for example, to all calls made to the provider's customer service number or other contact numbers? If a provider has multiple numbers, such as one for general customer service calls, one for sales, and one for customer billing issues, should the limitation apply to all calls made to any of its consumer-facing numbers, or should it apply separately to each of these types of call? Are there particular types of consumer calls where a representative's level of American Standard English proficiency might have a greater impact on ensuring resolution of the issue or customer satisfaction? If so, which types of calls and how should this be factored into establishing a metric?

Finally, do we need to take steps to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity in call centers in the United States to handle the required volume of calls? What should those steps be? Should we phase in this requirement in order to give providers time to transition their call center operations? If so, over what period of time should we require providers to transition their operations? What obstacles will providers face in transitioning their call center operations to comply with this limitation? What costs will providers incur to transition their call center operations? Are there any considerations that uniquely affect smaller providers or those serving rural areas? If so, how should our rules take those considerations into account?

Scope of Covered Calls. In the preceding paragraphs, we seek comment on how to identify and count calls for our proposal to limit the percentage of calls that may be made from or answered at a foreign call center. We now seek comment on how we should define the calls subject to these proposals in general. Should we include only calls to and from a provider's existing customers, such as those regarding service, billing, or account management? Should we include calls related to debt collection, win-back campaigns, or other retention efforts?

Are there categories of calls that should be excluded from these requirements? Should we include calls to or from prospective customers, such as sales or marketing calls? Should the proposals apply to all calls made to consumer-facing numbers a provider uses, such as those for general customer service, billing, or sales? Commenters should address the implications of including or excluding these types of calls, including how it would affect consumer privacy and data security, and how providers could identify and distinguish covered calls from non-covered calls for purposes of complying with the rules.

Requiring Disclosure of Foreign Call Center Use. We propose to require providers, when making or receiving calls involving a foreign call center, to inform customers at the beginning of each call that it is being handled outside of the United States. We seek comment on this proposal.

We believe it is essential for consumers to know when calls from a provider originate overseas and when calls they make to a provider are answered at a foreign call center. If consumers know they are speaking with a foreign call center, they can take any precautions they believe necessary to address privacy risks— e.g., by refusing to disclose sensitive personal information, demanding satisfactory assurance that such information will be protected effectively, or requesting that the call be transferred to the United States, as discussed below. This also might help consumers identify companies that support American jobs. We seek comment on these beliefs.

If we adopt such a proposal, should we adopt specific text that providers must use in the disclosure? If so, what should that be? Should it differ for calls made from a foreign call center and those answered at or transferred to a foreign call center? Should the disclosure include the name of the country where the call center is located, or additional information? For example, the text of a disclosure might be “This call is being [answered in or made from] [insert name of country]. You have the right to have this call transferred to a representative located in the United States. Do you want to have the call transferred to a U.S.-based representative?” We seek comment on whether providers should be required to make this or an alternative disclosure. Should disclosure be required before an in-progress call is transferred from a domestic call center to a foreign call center? We also seek comment on any First Amendment considerations relevant to our disclosure proposals, consistent with past practice for disclosure requirements.

Establishing a Consumer Right to Transfer to Call Centers in the United States. We propose to require providers, upon consumer request, to transfer calls to a call center located within the United States. This would apply both to calls made from a foreign call center and to calls answered at a foreign call center. We further propose to require providers to ensure that consumers are transferred promptly following a transfer request and to ensure that wait times for transferred calls are no longer than those for calls that in the first instance are routed to a call center located within the United States. We seek comment on this proposal.

We believe our proposal will empower consumers who wish to transact business or otherwise communicate with a provider via representatives located within the United States to do so. Consumers might wish to communicate with provider representatives located within the United States for a variety of reasons, each of which improves customer service and satisfaction. These include reduced language barriers, better legal protections for and security of their sensitive personal information, and support for American jobs, among other things. We seek comment on this belief. Are there other benefits, whether consumer, general societal, or economic, that are likely to result from this proposal?

Should we establish standards for how quickly a foreign call center must complete transfer of a call to a call center in the United States? If so, what standards should we adopt? For example, should we require that providers transfer the consumer to a call center in the United States within a certain number of seconds following the transfer request? How should we determine when a transfer is complete? For example, would transferring the call so that it rings to a call center in the United States be sufficient or only when a representative answers? What if the call drops during transfer?

Finally, we believe providers should inform customers about such a right and thus propose to require it as part of the same disclosure we propose above. We seek comment on that proposal. If we were to adopt it, should we require that the disclosure include information about wait times following transfer, a number to call a U.S.-based call center directly in the event the call gets dropped during transfer, or any other information?

We seek comment on any other factors that we should consider regarding the required disclosures when a call is handled at a foreign call center, the required response to requests that calls be transferred to a call center in the United States, and ensuring that wait times for transferred calls do not unduly burden a consumer's exercise of the right to transfer.

We propose to require providers to track and report to the Commission their compliance with any rules we adopt as a result of our proposals. Providers would report on the American Standard English proficiency of their foreign call center workers; the number or percentage of calls they first route to foreign call centers and U.S. call centers; the number or percentage of calls they transfer to a call center in the United States; associated wait times; and dropped calls, along with any other requirements we adopt in response to this NPRM. We seek comment on this proposal.

If we adopt our proposal, should we require monthly, quarterly, or annual reporting? Why? Should we make such information public? If not, what factors would justify keeping the information from consumers and the public at large? How do those factors compare with the potential benefits of consumers having greater information, including information that enables comparisons, about providers' use of foreign call centers and other customer service metrics? Is there other information associated with these data that we should require providers to report? Should providers separate data by individual foreign call center or foreign country, or aggregate it for all foreign call centers? Is there any reason to separate information by individual call center in the United States? If we require reporting on American Standard English proficiency, what information should providers report? Should we require providers to report other information associated with English proficiency, e.g., complaints or transfer rates for individual foreign call centers or foreign call center staff members, or other metrics?

In what format should reports be made? Should electronic filing be required? If so, is there a particular format, such as an Excel spreadsheet, that should be used for the reports? Are there existing reports or forms that could be modified to include this information and that are sufficiently relevant to the subject matter that it makes sense to use them?

We seek comment on whether cable television providers should file their reports with their local franchising authorities as well as with the Commission and what roles the Commission and local franchising authorities should play in enforcing any rules we adopt as a result of this NPRM. Commenters should address how to achieve consistent enforcement across all providers that would be subject to these rules if the rules are enforced as to cable television providers by local franchising authorities.

We also seek comment on any other reporting, filing, or certification mechanisms for ensuring compliance with any rules we adopt as a result of this NPRM. In particular, we seek comment on whether providers who obtain numbering resources from the North American Plan Numbering Administrator (NANPA) should be required to certify their compliance as a condition of obtaining numbering resources. The Commission's rules already require interconnected VoIP providers, for example, to make certain certifications as a condition of obtaining numbering resources from NANPA.

Heightened Consumer Protection for Sensitive Transactions. We propose to require that providers handle certain consumer transactions, such as those involving passwords, multi-factor authentication information, social security numbers, and bank or credit card information, or any combination of this information, only at call centers located within the United States, regardless of the type of communications channel used to initiate the transaction. We propose that this requirement would apply to such transactions regardless of any rule we adopt that would allow a certain percentage of calls to be handled by foreign call centers, such that calls that must be handled at call centers located within the United States would not be included in the percentage calculation. Criminal actors, as well as foreign adversaries, might find particular consumer information, e.g., passwords, multi-factor authentication information, and bank account or credit card information, uniquely useful for exploitation or attack. We thus believe that we should require providers to handle such sensitive customer data solely in U.S.-based call centers and seek comment on this proposal.

Are there other specific types of transactions that providers should handle only at call centers located within the United States? Do providers use different tools to protect sensitive customer information shared over non-call communications, such as on-line chat, texts, and/or electronic mail messages? Do providers send multi-factor security codes, account access codes, or password resets from foreign call centers? And do providers send them via humans or automated systems? Do providers communicate with consumers about other sensitive personal information via these methods? If so, what kinds? Are there other steps providers take to mitigate security risks when offshore representatives are supporting customer service interactions that require personal, financial, or account information? We seek comment on any other factors that we should consider regarding the required handling of certain types of transactions only at call centers in the United States.

We also seek comment on whether we should prohibit providers from making available for access at foreign call centers consumer information, e.g., passwords, multi-factor authentication information, and bank account or credit card information, that might be uniquely useful to bad actors. It is documented that foreign call center staff have accessed consumer information and sold it to criminals. If we were to adopt such a prohibition, what information should be subject to it?

Other Measures to Protect Privacy and Safeguard National Security. Above we describe privacy and data protection concerns arising from the use of foreign call centers, including examples of Commission regulatees failing to prevent abuse of consumer data by employees of foreign call centers, and DOJ's findings that poor control of that data is a national security concern.

We propose to prohibit providers from using call centers located in “foreign adversary” nations. Foreign adversaries pose a present and persistent threat to national security. We believe that entities under the jurisdiction of foreign adversaries are subject to exploitation, influence, or control by foreign adversary governments and that a foreign adversary's ability to exploit, influence, or control the operation of a customer service call center would pose a threat to the privacy of U.S. customers as well as to the ability of the United States to protect its national security. We seek comment on this proposal. To more fully protect U.S. customers and national security, should we, for example, prohibit providers from using any call center, wherever located, that employs citizens or residents of a “foreign adversary” nation?

In addition to our proposals above to require a cap on the fraction of calls providers may handle via foreign call centers, limit certain transactions to domestic call centers, and prohibit providers from using call centers in “foreign adversary” nations, we seek comment on other steps we can take to address our concerns. For example, should we prescribe data protection standards for any country in which a provider wishes to operate a call center? If so, what type of standards should we adopt? Would a general standard such as “data security laws and practices at least as strong as the United States” suffice, or is that too vague? If too vague, what would be a more specific standard consistent with our goals? What types of data protection do providers currently use and could they provide a model for a required standard? In that vein, could we look to recent enforcement consent decrees as a model? Are there other steps we should take?

Broadband Label. We propose to amend our broadband label rule to require providers subject to our broadband label requirements to display in the labels the percentage of customer service calls handled by a call representative located within the United States. The label is a point-of-sale disclosure and thus a natural vehicle to bring transparency to the foreign call center issues we address above.

Would our proposal help consumers of broadband service make informed choices about their providers? If we adopt this proposal, for what time period should we require that the percentage be computed, and how often should providers update the label based on this proposal? What level of precision should we require ( e.g., to the nearest percentage point)? Should providers disclose the actual percentage, or would a minimum percentage suffice? Should providers state a single percentage that includes both inbound and outbound calls, or should they specify separate percentages for inbound and outbound calls? Should the calls counted for purposes of the label be defined differently, in any respect, from how they are defined for purposes of our other proposed rules? For example, for purposes of the label, would it be preferable to limit the calls covered to those placed to or from existing customers?

We propose that this information be added to the existing Customer Support section of the label and placed below the phone number and website information. Would this placement on the label help consumers to better understand this entry and how it might relate to their experience with the provider's customer support services? Should this information be placed in a different location on the label? If so, why?

Transparency for Other Services. Should we require providers of non-broadband services that would be covered by our proposed rules to make available on their websites the same information regarding the percentage of customer service calls handled in foreign call centers?

Consistent with past practice for disclosure requirements, we seek comment on any First Amendment considerations relevant to our transparency proposals. We also seek comment on whether there are other potential transparency requirements that could inform consumers and empower marketplace forces to improve customer satisfaction with providers' call centers. What are the relative advantages or disadvantages of such approaches in this context, where current business practices might reflect the legacy of decisions originally made during times when competition was less prevalent?

Other Communications Channels. Should we apply all of our proposed rules ( i.e., not just those related to sensitive transactions, as discussed above) to non-voice communications such as on-line chat, texts, and/or electronic mail messages? Consumers regularly use on-line chat, texts, and email to communicate with providers. Do our concerns about American Standard English proficiency and data security apply to these forms of communication as well as calls? How frequently do providers communicate with consumers via text messages, electronic mail messages, or on-line chat using staff in foreign countries? How does that compare to similar communications sent from, read at, or responded to from locations within the United States? Are there other types of communications, such as video conferencing, to which we should consider applying the proposed rules?

Other Communications Providers. We seek comment on whether we should apply our proposals to “stand-alone” providers of non-interconnected VoIP and other internet-only providers, including providers that provide only stand-alone internet access service, to the extent that we have legal authority to do so. Are there any relevant differences between interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP regarding consumer experience with the use of foreign call centers for customer service and other communications, such that we should not apply the same rules to interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP, to the extent that we have legal authority to do so? Are there any such relevant differences between internet access service provided by stand-alone providers versus internet access provided by other entities offering internet access alongside other services, such as telecommunications service providers and cable television service providers? If so, what are they? Are there any other providers or services to which these proposals or other requirements upon which we seek comment should apply?

Establishing Standards and Procedures for Other Calls Originating From Outside of the United States. We seek comment on whether and to what extent we should establish standards and/or procedures regulating certain foreign-originated calls and texts subject to the TCPA. Section 227(c) of the Act requires the Commission to prescribe methods and procedures for protecting residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. Further, Section 227(d) requires the Commission to establish technical and procedural standards for systems that transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone.

Should we extend some or all of our proposals to all calls covered by sections 227(c) and (d) of the Act that originate outside the United States, not just calls on behalf of the types of providers already discussed? We seek comment on whether section 227(c)'s aim to protect residential subscribers supports applying our above proposals to calls from foreign call centers. And does section 227(d)'s authority to establish technical standards for covered calls also give us such authority? For instance, should we require that foreign callers making telephone solicitations disclose that such calls and/or messages originate from outside of the United States? Should we establish American Standard English proficiency standards for telephone solicitations made by foreign callers? Should we require that foreign callers transmitting artificial or prerecorded voice messages disclose that such calls originate from outside of the United States and offer to transfer the call—then do so upon request—to a domestic call center? We seek comment on these questions, as well as any other proposals for protecting consumers from telephone solicitations and/or artificial- and prerecorded- voice messages made from outside of the United States.

Tracking Consumer Complaints. As an aid to enforcement, and to enable the Commission to better assess the types of issues consumers are encountering with respect to customer service and call centers, we further propose to direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and other staff as necessary, to establish mechanisms within our informal complaints system that allow efficient tracking of consumer complaints related to call centers and customer service. We invite comment on this proposal and how it can be most effectively and efficiently implemented.

We seek comment on alternative approaches to our proposals above. Commenters should explain the alternative approach, how it addresses the problems we have described, and how it would be less burdensome, less costly, or more effective than our main proposals. Commenters should explain how the alternative improves customer service and better protects sensitive consumer data, and to whether it does so for all or just some providers or services. Commenters should provide real-world examples demonstrating the alternative's value and discuss how any current or new technologies, including AI, are used in the alternative approach or could affect it. Are there other pro-competitive incentives that can be implemented to improve customer service?

Foreign scammers and their co-conspirators in the United States rob consumers of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, costing some their life savings. There is an obvious need to take the profit out of these calls and we seek comment on how to do so. Specifically, we seek comment on using government-imposed fees on illegal traffic or bond requirements as a way to make illegal calls expensive enough to deter them in the first place. Commenters should address policy considerations, international agreements, legal authority, the logistics of how a fee or bond requirement could be structured, applied, and collected, and any other factors we should consider.

Under a fee-based approach, how would unlawful calls subject to a fee be identified, and how would the fee be collected? How should fees be calculated, and what amount would be effective at reducing the quantity of unlawful calls entering the United States from foreign countries?

If the Commission were to adopt a bond-based approach, how should a requirement to post a bond apply here? For instance, the House version of the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act bill would require providers to post a bond to file in the RMD. Should we adopt the same or similar approach here? Alternatively, should we require providers that are the subject of one or more traceback requests or whose filings were removed from the RMD as part of an enforcement action to post a bond? Should we instead require providers that accept “mass” voice and/or text traffic from international sources to post a bond? If so, how should we define “mass” voice or text traffic? Are there circumstances under which an existing filer should be required to post a bond in order for its certification to remain in the RMD? Providers that are required to post a bond might pass the cost of such a bond onto its foreign customers, thus potentially reducing the number of such calls.

How and under what circumstances would the bond be drawn upon? For example, could the bond be used to satisfy any future Commission enforcement action related to unlawful calls, other types of government enforcement actions, or civil liabilities? Further, for example, if the Commission were to issue a forfeiture order against a provider, should the bond be used to satisfy the forfeiture amount after a successful recovery action under 47 U.S.C. 504(a) such that the provider then would have to pay the balance, if any, through other means?

Alternatively, would it technically be feasible to establish a mechanism whereby some portion of the bond is drawn each time that a consumer reports receiving an unlawful robocall? How can we ensure that the bond draw-down is consistent with constitutional due process and the requirements of the Act? How would it work and who would manage the bond draw-down process? Which reports of unlawful robocalls would trigger a draw: those filed with the Commission, those filed with the Federal Trade Commission, those filed with state Attorney General offices? Should consumers instead be able to report unlawful calls directly from their device during the call and could those reports be used to trigger a bond draw down? Can device-based reporting be shared with the terminating provider? If so, would terminating providers seek the bond draw from the ultimate gateway provider or intermediate providers directly, or would terminating providers file reports with the entity administering the bonds on a periodic cadence?

Which provider's bond would be drawn upon and how could that particular provider be identified, especially if a provider other than the terminating provider were deemed the one to pay? Should the entity administering the bond draws distinguish between unlawful and simply unwanted calls that are reported, and how would it do so? Such a system might be prone to overuse, such as by aggrieved consumers who abuse the system by making numerous fraudulent reports in order to cause financial harm to their provider. Are safeguards from overuse needed? If so, what should the safeguards entail? Should providers be permitted to dispute draws? Who would hear those disputes and what evidence would be required? Who bears the burden of proof in such disputes? Should there be a threshold of reported unlawful robocalls at which a gateway provider would surrender the entire bond automatically? If so, what should the threshold be?

We seek comment on these possible approaches and on alternatives. Could they be effective at stopping harmful calls? Should we apply a bond requirement to all foreign providers, to international gateway providers, or any other providers that transmit calls from foreign countries to the United States? How much should such a bond be? Should it vary by type or size of provider? Should a provider be required to deposit the full amount of the bond or be permitted to purchase a surety bond? If we were to permit surety bonds, should we require them to comply with requirements similar to those in § 25.165(a) and (b) of our rules? What should happen if a bond were drawn upon? For example, how long should the provider have to replenish the bond or should the provider be prohibited from providing service until the bond is replenished? Who would administer a bond program and who would be the beneficiary? We seek comment on whether there are any statutory or other barriers to adopting and implementing a bond requirement. For example, should bonds be viewed as a type of “forfeiture penalty” or “forfeiture” under the Communications Act, and if so, do sections 503 or 504 of the Act mandate certain procedural requirements prior to the Commission collecting on a bond in certain circumstances?

We seek comment on alternative approaches to a bond requirement. Commenters should explain the alternative approach, including how it addresses the problems we have described, and how it would be more effective than the alternatives discussed herein. Are other countries successfully using bonds or shared liability models to reduce robocalls? If so, how are those regimes working?

We seek comment on our authority to adopt these proposals and on our authority regarding other actions on which we seek comment above.

We seek comment on our authority to adopt rules, such as those proposed above, governing the use of foreign customer service operations by providers of telecommunications service, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS, or affiliates of such providers, and internet access services each provides, including pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 217, 222, 227, 251, 301, 303, 316, 332, 335, 631, and 632 of the Act. We also seek comment on our authority to include in the broadband label disclosures regarding the percentage of customer service calls a broadband provider handles abroad.

Telecommunications Carriers. We seek comment on the extent to which section 201(b) of the Act provides authority for application of our proposed rules to telecommunications carriers' communications with current or prospective customers. Section 201(b) provides that all practices of common carriers in connection with interstate or foreign communication service shall be just and reasonable, and provides broad authority to the Commission to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” The Commission and the courts have broadly construed the term “practice” and the phrase “in connection with . . . communication service” to include a wide range of practices that directly implicate a carrier's furnishing of communication services, including payment or non-payment of compensation to payphone owners, failure to follow Commission-ordered settlement practices, deceptive marketing, and the formation of exclusive contracts with commercial building owners.

Do a carrier's practices in communicating with its own customers and prospective customers on the matters commonly handled by consumer call centers—such as billing, service outages, service quality, account management, and marketing, including answering customers' calls in a timely fashion, communicating effectively in American Standard English, ensuring customer service representatives are equipped to resolve service issues, and safeguarding customers' personal information—likewise bear directly on the provision of service to customers and fall within our section 201(b) authority? In addition, does the widespread perception that the customer service practices of foreign call centers are frequently unreasonable in these respects provide a basis under section 201(b) to require disclosure of foreign call handling and the transfer of calls to the United States upon request, as well as the other proposed requirements discussed above? Does our authority under section 201(b) include the authority to protect customer privacy regarding sensitive customer data that may not fall within the specific definition of CPNI under section 222 of the Act— e.g., by handling such phone transactions only at call centers located within the United States?

Section 222 grants the Commission specific authority to adopt regulations to ensure that carriers “protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to . . . customers,” including customer proprietary network information (CPNI), which is defined as:

(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and

(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier; except that such term does not include subscriber list information.

Does section 222 provide authority for our proposals to promote U.S.-based customer service, to require heightened protection of sensitive transactions, to allow customers to request U.S.-based customer-support representatives, to prohibit providers from using call centers in “foreign adversary” nations, and to adopt other regulations discussed above to help protect sensitive customer information, including CPNI of telecommunications carriers' customers?

Does section 251(e) of the Act provide additional authority to adopt the rules proposed herein? Section 251(e) grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States and directs the Commission to create or designate an impartial entity to administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers available on an equitable basis.

CMRS Providers. Pursuant to section 332 of the Act, our Title II authority applies to providers of CMRS as well as to wireline telecommunications carriers providing interstate and foreign communications. Does our Title II authority, as discussed above with regard to telecommunications carriers, extend to applying our proposals to CMRS providers? Furthermore, does our “broad authority” under Title III, particularly the authority of the Commission to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any class,” provide authority for our proposals regulating the customer-service practices of CMRS providers? We seek comment on the applicability of particular provisions of Title III, including but not limited to sections 301 and 316, to authorize the Commission to impose such requirements.

Interconnected VoIP Service Providers. The Commission has previously found that it has authority to apply CPNI protections to interconnected VoIP service providers pursuant to section 222 of the Act and the Commission's Title I ancillary jurisdiction. The Commission found that interconnected VoIP services fall within the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction under the Act. The Commission also found that the application of CPNI rules to interconnected VoIP service is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's Title II responsibilities, because: (1) interconnected VoIP service “is increasingly used to replace analog voice service” (a trend that continues to be the case); (2) it seems reasonable for American consumers to expect that their telephone calls are private irrespective of whether the calls are handled by a carrier or an interconnected VoIP provider; and (3) the CPNI of interconnected VoIP customers includes call detail information concerning all calling and called parties, including customers of telecommunications carriers and CMRS providers, so that by protecting the CPNI of interconnected VoIP customers, the Commission will more effectively protect the privacy of carrier customers.

Do these considerations equally support the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction in this rulemaking to protect the privacy of interconnected VoIP service customers and telecommunications service customers by including interconnected VOIP service providers within the scope of the rules proposed above to increase the use of U.S.-based call centers, to require that sensitive transactions be handled in such call centers, to require disclosure when foreign call centers are used, and to allow customers to request the transfer of calls to U.S.-based call centers? Are such requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 222 and the Commission's implementing rules to protect the CPNI of customers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services, and thus “necessary in the public interest to carry out” section 222 of the Act?

Does section 251(e) give the Commission authority to condition interconnected VoIP service providers' access to telephone numbers on those providers' compliance with the requirements proposed above? The Commission previously exercised its authority under section 251(e) to ensure, for example, that an interconnected VoIP provider receiving direct access to numbers “possesses the financial, managerial, and technical expertise to provide reliable service.” Will ensuring that interconnected VoIP providers, as well as telecommunications carriers, protect sensitive consumer data when conducting customer service calls from foreign call centers help to maintain competitive neutrality and ensure that consumers' expectations are met regarding the privacy of their information when using the telephone network?

PII Protection. Do we have authority, pursuant to the statutory provisions discussed above, to adopt rules to prevent foreign call centers operated by or on behalf of telecommunications carriers, CMRS providers, or VoIP service providers, from misusing customers' personally identifiable information (PII) when handling customer service calls relating to internet access service provided by such carriers, CMRS providers, or VoIP service providers or their affiliates? We also seek comment on the merits and applicability of the Sixth Circuit's recent holding that section 201(b) of the Act, which requires that carrier practices “in connection with” a communication service shall be just and reasonable, independently authorizes the Commission to adopt data protection rules that may go beyond the specific requirements and scope of section 222 of the Act.

Cable Television Operators. Section 632(b) of the Act expressly grants the Commission authority to “establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements,” and provides further that “such standards shall include, at a minimum, requirements governing . . . service calls” and “communications between the cable operator and the subscriber.” In 1993, the Commission adopted customer service requirements for cable operators regarding matters specified by Congress. The Commission declined to adopt broader standards at that time, but reserved the right to revise and supplement the standards to ensure that customer service satisfaction is achieved nationwide. Do the regulations proposed herein to safeguard customers' personal information and to ensure customer service representatives are equipped to resolve service issues fall within the Commission's authority to adopt “requirements governing . . . service calls” or “communications between the cable operator and the subscriber”?

In addition, section 631(c) expressly provides that “a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber” without prior consent and “shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator.” We seek comment on whether this provision also supports rules addressing foreign call center use and related data protection measures in order to enhance the existing customer service protections. Does this legal authority extend to personally identifiable information regarding subscribers to internet access service offered by a cable operator? Section 631(a)(2)(c) defines “cable operator,” for purposes of section 631 (other than subsection (h)), to include “any person who (i) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a cable operator, and (ii) provides any wire or radio communications service.” Accordingly, a “cable operator” for purposes of Section 631 is not limited to an entity that provides “cable service”; rather, it includes “any person” owned by a cable operator that provides “any wire or radio communications service.” We therefore seek comment on the extent to which a cable operator or its affiliate that provides internet access is providing a “wire or radio communications service” and would qualify as a “cable operator” as defined in section 631(a)(2)(C). Section 631(c)(1) states that “a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber . . . .” Does this mean that a cable operator for purposes of section 631(c) is an entity that provides “any wire or radio communications service” (not just cable) and, as such, cannot disclose the personally identifiable information of “any subscriber” (not just cable)? Do other provisions of section 631 further support such an interpretation?

Does the Commission have authority to take direct enforcement action, should it choose to do so, to ensure that cable television operators comply with the proposed rules? Although enforcement of the Act's cable television provisions generally is handled by local franchising authorities, the Commission has broad enforcement authority under the Act. Is there anything in section 632 of the Act or its legislative history that precludes the Commission from enforcing its own standards?

DBS Providers. Section 303(v) of the Act grants the Commission “exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services,” and section 335(a) authorizes the Commission to impose “public interest or other requirements” for providing video programming. Does this authority encompass customer service standards and related privacy practices? Would the regulations proposed herein serve the public interest by requiring DBS providers in “providing video programming” to safeguard customers' personal information and to ensure customer service representatives are equipped to resolve service issues? Do we also have authority under other provisions of Title III to adopt these rules for DBS providers, including sections 301, 303(b), 307, and 316? Further, we seek comment on whether we have—and should exercise—ancillary authority under section 4(i) of the Act to extend our customer service requirements to DBS providers. We also seek comment on whether there are alternative or additional statutes or arguments that provide a legal basis for our authority for the proposed requirements for DBS providers.

Broadband Label. Section 60504 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the Commission to adopt regulations requiring “the display of broadband consumer labels, as described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on April 4, 2016 (DA 16-357), to disclose to consumers information regarding broadband internet access service plans.” The referenced public notice had approved, with modifications, the consumer broadband labels proposed by the Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC), which, according to the public notice, provide “a simple-to-understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know when considering broadband service.” including information or links to information on prices and fees, performance, network management practices, privacy policy, and a customer service phone number and web page.

We seek comment on whether section 60504 authorizes our proposed inclusion of information about a provider's use of foreign customer service call centers in the required label content. Would sections 13 and 257 of the Act, section 254 of the Act (in the case of services provided pursuant to the Commission's universal service programs), and the Commission's Title III licensing authority (in the case of mobile broadband providers) provide additional authority for this proposed rule? If, in addition, we were to require providers of other (non-broadband) services covered by our proposed rules to disclose on their websites the same information regarding their use of foreign customer service call centers, would the various statutory provisions discussed in the previous paragraphs (with respect to telecommunications service, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and DBS) provide authority?

Actions of Agents. Do we have legal authority to hold covered service providers responsible for the actions of companies or organizations that operate foreign call centers on their behalf? We note that for common carriers and users of carrier services, section 217 of the Act expressly states:

In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier or user, acting within the scope of his employment, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person.

The Commission has observed that “Congress's clear intent in enacting section 217 was to ensure that common carriers not flout their statutory duties by delegating them to third parties.” The Commission has stated further that a carrier's liability for the conduct of agents or contractors extends to actions within the scope of their employment that are contrary to the carrier's policies, for “[t]o hold that [s]ection 217 does not extend to independent contractors acting inconsistently with the carrier's policy would create a loophole in the requirements of the Act and frustrate clear legislative intent.” We seek comment on how these precedents inform the scope of our authority under section 217.

Further, the Commission has stated that “under long established principles of common law, statutory duties are nondelegable and that employers are routinely held liable for breach of statutory duties by their independent contractors.” Thus, the Commission has consistently found that “[l]icensees and other Commission regulatees are responsible for the acts and omissions of their employees and independent contractors.” Do these precedents provide authority for our proposals, independently of our authority under section 217?

National Security. Do the national security risks raised by foreign call centers' access to personal data of U.S. citizens provide a basis to adopt the rules proposed above, including, for example, our proposal to prohibit covered service providers from using call centers or customer service representatives located in “foreign adversary” nations? We note that a principal purpose of the Act is to provide for national defense. In exercising its Title II and III authority to authorize the construction and transfer of telecommunications facilities and radio stations, the Commission exercises special vigilance to prevent risks to national security, including risks arising from a company's access to sensitive data. Moreover, with respect to international telecommunications services, we have the right under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to enforce “the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts” and protect our citizens from “deceptive and fraudulent practices.” We also note that, under the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, disclosure of “personally identifiable sensitive data” of a U.S. individual to any entity controlled by a foreign adversary is treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Analogously, would the Commission have authority to prohibit, as an unreasonable practice in connection with communication service, the use by a carrier, CMRS provider, or interconnected VoIP service provider of a call center located in a foreign adversary country?

We seek comment on these potential sources of authority and on any additional sources of authority supporting the application of our proposed rules to the types of service providers described above. We also seek comment on our statutory authority to apply the proposed foreign call center customer service and information protection rules to other communications services offered to consumers, including non-interconnected VoIP, internet access services, and data services offered in conjunction with both CMRS and direct broadcast satellite services. Further, we seek comment on how our rights under other trade agreements, including free trade agreements, might serve as authority for our proposed rules.

Authority Under the TCPA. We also seek comment on our authority under the TCPA to adopt the proposed rules. For example, section 227(c) expressly authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that “implement methods and procedures” to “protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.” The Commission has adopted implementing rules, including the establishment of a database of residential subscribers objecting to telephone solicitations. Would this provision authorize the Commission to adopt a rule that requires foreign callers making telephone solicitations to disclose and provide to the consumer an opportunity to specifically object to receiving such solicitations and messages from outside of the United States? Would it authorize the Commission to adopt American Standard English proficiency standards for telephone solicitations made from foreign call centers to residential telephone subscribers in the United States?

As another example, section 227(d) directs the Commission to “prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone,” including a requirement that artificial or prerecorded messages state certain information about the caller. Would this provision support a requirement that an artificial or prerecorded message specify, at the beginning of the message, that the call center is foreign? Would this provision also support a requirement to offer to transfer a call—then do so upon request—to a domestic call center?

To the extent that the TCPA confers independent authority on the Commission to prohibit or regulate certain practices of foreign call centers, may the Commission impose liability for such practices on the service provider or other entity that authorizes a foreign call center to engage in such practices? The Commission has specifically ruled that a seller may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of sections 227(b) and 227(c) of the Act committed by third-party telemarketers that are authorized to market the seller's goods or services. By the same reasoning, may the Commission hold a seller vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of the Commission's rules implementing sections 227(c) and 227(d) of the Act committed by authorized third-party telemarketers?

Requirements Applicable to Entities Providing NANP Numbers to Businesses. We also seek comment on whether we have authority to make our proposed rules applicable more broadly, e.g., to “stand-alone” providers of non-interconnected VoIP, internet access, and other internet-only services, or even to providers of non-communications products and services, pursuant to our authority to ensure the efficient and appropriate use of telephone numbers, pursuant to section 251(e) of the Act. For example, could we adopt a requirement applicable to telecommunications carriers and VoIP service providers, providing that, prior to providing U.S. telephone numbers to businesses that operate call centers abroad, or prior to allowing the routing abroad of calls placed to such U.S. numbers, a telecommunications carrier or VoIP service providers must obtain a certification in writing that the assignee of such telephone number shall ensure that any foreign call center using such number shall comply with the requirements of the rules proposed herein? We also seek comment generally on any other bases of authority for our proposals regarding the use of foreign customers service operations by providers.

Could we similarly rely on section 251(e) to extend some or all of our proposed requirements regarding the use of foreign customer service operations for calls other than those made on behalf of providers? Are there other sources of authority that we could rely on to extend some or all of our proposed requirements to such calls?

We also seek comment on whether the Commission has authority under the Act to impose a fee or bond on service providers that transmit calls from foreign countries to the United States, which fee or bond would be subject, in whole or in part, to forfeiture if the service provider allows unlawful calls. For example, in 2023, the Commission adopted expanded caller ID authentication and robocall mitigation requirements, relying on sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications Act, the Truth in Caller ID Act, and its ancillary authority. Would these provisions also authorize a requirement for service providers to post a bond as a condition of participation in the Robocall Mitigation Database, which would be subject to forfeiture if the service provider allows unlawful calls? Would these or other statutory provisions provide the Commission with authority to implement bond requirements generally, or to impose specific fees for unlawful traffic, including those specifically discussed above?

This NPRM proposes to require providers to ensure that foreign call center staff are proficient in American Standard English, to ensure that U.S.-based customer service representatives handle all customer calls involving sensitive customer information, to limit the volume of customer calls handled by foreign call centers, to notify customers when they are speaking to a foreign call center, to transfer calls to a U.S.-based call center upon request, and to report on associated customer service metrics. These policies are expected to improve the quality of customer service and reduce financial losses stemming from scams connected to foreign call centers. Providers, however, may incur costs to shift call center operations to the United States.

Costs. To understand the effect of these policies on providers' costs, we need to understand how providers are currently providing call-based customer service. First, do providers operate call centers, either domestically or overseas, in house or under contract with other companies? How does this structure affect the costs of operating call centers, and the decision to host customer service domestically or overseas? How does it affect the share of calls handled domestically and overseas?

With respect to individual providers, how many customer calls are handled in foreign call centers and what share of calls does this represent? How many customer service representatives do providers employ, either directly or through a contractor, in foreign call centers? Where are foreign call centers used by providers located? How many representatives do providers employ, either directly or through a contractor, in the United States? Do U.S.-based representatives work remotely or at call centers? What impact might the proposed requirements have on the cost of services for consumers?

Next, we focus on the difference between the cost of hiring customer service representatives in the United States and in other countries. Indeed is a private company that collects data on workers' salaries around the world. Table 1 below shows Indeed's estimates of the average annual salaries of customer service representatives in India, the Philippines, and Mexico as of February 2026. In addition, based on Indeed and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Table 1 below also shows estimates of average annual salary for customer service representatives in the United States. We seek comment on which other countries host provider call centers and whether any of the countries should be removed from the list.

We seek comment on the salaries in Table 1. Are they reasonably accurate? The data suggest that customer service representatives are paid significantly more in the United States compared to India, the Philippines, and Mexico. To understand how provider costs would change if the proposed policies were adopted, we seek comment on how providers would change their customer service practices to respond to the proposed policies. Would any provider need to set up a call center in the United States or hire a contractor for call center services in the United States? How many U.S.-based representatives would providers need to hire? If a provider needs to set up a call center in the United States, what additional costs, besides hiring representatives, would it face? How much, if at all, would providers reduce the number of foreign representatives? Would call wait times for customers increase? Would providers be able to save some personnel costs by deploying AI or automated systems to work with representatives to handle calls more efficiently while maintaining high quality customer service? How costly would these solutions be? We ask commenters to describe how providers would respond to various thresholds for the share of calls answered by a U.S.-based representative. For example, how would providers respond if the threshold were 30%, 50%, and 75%? How would providers respond if there was no threshold but providers were required to transfer calls to U.S.-based representatives upon customer request?

Benefits. If the proposed policies are adopted, consumers might receive better customer service, potentially saving consumers time and money. Are there ways to measure the benefit to consumers of improved satisfaction with customer service?

In addition, the proposed policies may reduce financial losses stemming from scams connected to foreign call centers by requiring that only U.S.-based representatives handle calls that involve sensitive customer information and reducing the number of calls that are handled by foreign call centers. The FBI reports that consumers lost at least $1.3 billion to call center fraud in 2023. We expect that a very large share of this amount is attributable to scam call centers. Such centers are operated for the sole purpose of conducting scams and are unlikely to be answering or making calls for legitimate American businesses. We seek comment on how much of the above total is connected to foreign call centers employed by legitimate American businesses. However, even if a very large share of call center fraud is attributable to scam call centers, reducing the volume of calls that is handled by legitimate foreign call centers may reduce financial losses stemming from scam call centers. This could happen if American callers become more suspicious and cautious in interactions with foreign call center staff as such interactions become more rare. We seek comment on this.

Based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of the Commission's proposals, are there other approaches to achieving the Commission's goals?

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

America's communication service providers conduct sales and customer service interactions through a variety of channels, including phone calls, online chat, email, and text messages. Increasingly these entry points connect consumers with foreign call centers. Foreign call centers may employ individuals who, even if trained to speak English, might not pick up on other cues that are critical to understanding a consumer, e.g., idioms, intonation, and other speech characteristics that are just as important as words. Foreign call centers might also be located in a country without the same guarantees that consumer information will be safeguarded in ways required by American laws or in a foreign adversary nation. The Commission expects the measures proposed in the NPRM will improve U.S. customer service and better protect U.S. consumers' sensitive personal information by limiting foreign access to that information, regardless of whether a foreign call center makes a call to a consumer or answers a call from a consumer.

The proposed NPRM is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b), 202(a), 217, 222, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332, 631, 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 151-154, 201(b), 202(a), 217, 222, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 332, 631, 632, Section 60504 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 47 U.S.C. 1753, and §§ 1.411-1.413, and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411-1.413, 1.421.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA). A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the above identified industries.

The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

The changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, may impose new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and or other compliance obligations on certain small entities. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes requirements that United States (U.S.) authorized service providers ensure that foreign call center staff are proficient in American Standard English, in order to limit the volume of U.S. customer calls handled by foreign call centers. The Commission also proposes a requirement to notify customers when they are speaking to a foreign call center, allowing a U.S. consumer to transfer calls to a U.S.-based call center upon request. In addition, this NPRM proposes that U.S. call centers should handle certain transactions involving sensitive consumer information only via call centers located in the United States, and proposes to prohibit providers from using call centers in “foreign adversary” nations. The Commission also proposes to require U.S. providers to disclose in consumer disclosure labels or websites the percentage of calls handled in U.S. call centers, and to track and report their compliance with these proposed rules, and seeks comment about the appropriate frequency for making such reports. The Commission further proposes to direct the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and other staff as necessary, to establish mechanisms within the Commission's informal complaints system that allow efficient tracking of consumer complaints related to call centers and customer service. Additionally, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how fees, or a requirement to post a bond, could be used to increase the costs associated with making fraudulent or other unlawful calls to the U.S. from foreign countries.

The Commission seeks comment on how provider operating costs would change, and how providers might adjust their customer service practices, if the proposed policies were adopted. The information we receive in comments will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters, costs, and other possible burdens for small entities that may result from the proposals and inquiries made in the NPRM. The Commission will consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment regarding several alternative proposals and possible approaches it may take to meet its consumer protection and national security objectives. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM and outline any additional alternatives, especially alternatives that are less burdensome, less costly, or more effective.

None.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 8, 25, 64, and 76 as follows:

NMFS, in collaboration with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), manages the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, which includes gag, black grouper, and black sea bass, in Federal waters under the Snapper-Grouper FMP. The Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by NMFS and the Council, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and continually achieve the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires fishery managers to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.

This action is proposed under the statutory authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, section 303(a)(1) as necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery.

Amendment 53 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP and its implementing final rule established vessel limits for gag and black grouper in the private and the charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) components of the recreational sector (88 FR 65135, September 21, 2023). Amendment 53 responded to the most recent stock assessment for South Atlantic gag, Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 71 (2021). Based on the results of SEDAR 71, NMFS determined that the South Atlantic gag stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing. Given the substantial reduction in harvest that was needed to end overfishing of gag immediately and to increase the likelihood of rebuilding the gag stock, the Council recommended recreational vessel limits for gag in Amendment 53. The purpose of establishing recreational vessel limits for gag was to continue to allow some level of recreational retention while helping to constrain harvest to the reduced recreational annual catch limit (ACL). Because of their similar appearance, gag and black grouper are misidentified by recreational fishermen. Because of this misidentification issue and the need to greatly reduce the harvest of gag to end overfishing and rebuild the stock, the Council also recommended recreational vessel limits for black grouper to indirectly benefit gag.

Specifically, Amendment 53 recommended and its implementing final rule established a private recreational vessel limit for gag of two fish per vessel per day and a private recreational vessel limit for black grouper of two fish per vessel per day, not to exceed the daily recreational bag limit of one fish per person per day, whichever is more restrictive. For recreational for-hire vessels, Amendment 53 recommended and the final rule established similar separate vessel limits for gag and black grouper of two fish per vessel per trip, not to exceed the daily bag limit of one fish per person per day, whichever is more restrictive.

After NMFS implemented the final rule for Amendment 53, the Council expressed interest in revising these regulations to establish an aggregate vessel limit of two gag or black grouper in any combination, rather than the separate, species-specific limits of two gag and two black grouper per vessel, which could be up to four fish in total. The Council determined that the aggregate vessel limits recommended in Regulatory Amendment 36 would provide further biological benefits when compared to the species-specific vessel limits for gag and black grouper contained in Amendment 53. NMFS has evaluated the recommendations transmitted by the Council and concluded, pending review of public comment, that this proposed regulatory change could have beneficial biological effects to the gag and black grouper stocks if it results in reduced landings, and it could reduce the rebuilding time for the gag stock. The gag stock is currently in a rebuilding plan established through Amendment 53 and is expected to be rebuilt by 2032.

If implemented, Regulatory Amendment 36 and this proposed rule would also revise the transit provisions in marine protected areas (MPAs) and spawning special management zones (spawning SMZs) for commercial fishermen with snapper-grouper species and on-demand, or ropeless, black sea bass pots on board. Traditional black sea bass pot fishing gear includes rope attached to the pot and vertical end lines that stay in the water column connected to surface buoys while the gear is deployed, presenting an entanglement risk to protected marine species such as North Atlantic right whales. Both traditional roped and on-demand gear currently in use must comply with the same requirements for black sea bass pots (same dimensions, mesh size, escape panels, etc. ), and pots equipped with on-demand gear are fished the same way as roped pots in terms of soak times, bait, etc. On-demand types of sea bass pot gear differ from roped gear by storing buoys and their retrieval devices at depth, being deployed into the water column only when fishermen are present to retrieve the gear. Further adoption of on-demand gear by commercial black sea bass fishermen using sea bass pots would be expected to lower the probability of negative interactions with protected marine species that may be vulnerable to entanglement in black sea bass pots with traditional roped gear.

Commercial fishery participants can obtain Federal permits to catch and sell certain species and endorsements authorizing them to use particular gear. Many participants use the Federal commercial vessel permit for snapper-grouper unlimited to catch a variety of species. Currently, only commercial fishermen with a black sea bass pot endorsement to that permit may fish for black sea bass using sea bass pots in the Federal waters of the South Atlantic. There are MPAs and spawning SMZs in South Atlantic Federal waters where commercial fishermen may not fish for, harvest, or possess species in the snapper-grouper fishery management unit. However, existing regulations allow commercial fishermen to possess snapper-grouper species while in transit through an MPA or spawning SMZ with a black sea bass pot on board and with fishing gear appropriately stowed, requiring that the black sea bass pots are not baited, and all buoys must be disconnected from the gear but may remain on deck. However, commercial fishermen that use on-demand black sea bass pots have stated that the buoys attached to the pots are more difficult to disconnect from on-demand gear than from traditional roped gear, which makes compliance with the transit requirements more burdensome. Therefore, to better accommodate commercial snapper-grouper fishermen with on-demand gear on their vessels while promoting potentially positive benefits to protected marine species through the use of on-demand black sea bass pots, the Council developed Regulatory Amendment 36 to allow buoys to remain connected to on-demand black sea bass pot gear when vessels transit through MPAs and spawning SMZs if on-demand black sea bass pots are not baited. After an initial review, NMFS concurs that this proposed regulatory change could result in the stated benefits pending additional review of public comment.

NMFS seeks public comment on the following management measures in this proposed rule.

If implemented by NMFS, this proposed rule would reduce the current recreational vessel limits for gag and black grouper as described earlier and shown in table 1. This proposed rule would establish aggregate vessel limits of two fish of gag or black grouper in any combination on a per day basis for fishermen on private recreational vessels and on a per trip basis for fishermen on recreational for-hire vessels. These regulatory changes could have beneficial biological effects on the gag and black grouper stocks and could reduce the rebuilding time for the gag stock if they reduce landings of gag and black grouper.

As shown in table 1, the proposed changes to the vessel limits would not affect the current recreational bag limits for gag and black grouper. The recreational bag limit is one gag or black grouper per person per day on private vessels and on for-hire vessels. In the same manner as the current regulations, the more restrictive of either the proposed bag limits or vessel limits would apply to the retention and landing of recreationally harvested gag and black grouper. For example, if three anglers are fishing on a private recreational vessel, the maximum number of gag and black grouper combined that may be on the vessel and landed would be two per day. In another example, if only one angler is fishing on a private recreational vessel, the maximum number of either gag or black grouper that may be on the vessel and landed would continue to be one total per day.

This proposed rule would revise the transit provisions in MPAs and spawning SMZs for commercial fishermen with snapper-grouper species and on-demand black sea bass pots on a vessel. Transit means direct, non-stop progression through an MPA or spawning SMZ. Currently, fishermen may possess snapper-grouper species while in transit through an MPA or spawning SMZ with on-demand (ropeless) or traditional (roped) black sea bass pots on board if such fishing gear is appropriately stowed. Fishing gear appropriately stowed currently means black sea bass pots are not baited and all buoys must be disconnected from the gear but may remain on deck. This proposed rule would modify the definition of fishing gear appropriately stowed to allow a vessel to transit through an MPA or spawning SMZ with buoys connected to on-demand black sea bass pot gear if the on-demand black sea bass pots are not baited. On-demand black sea bass pot fishermen have stated that buoys are more difficult to disconnect from on-demand pots than from traditional pots. Therefore, NMFS expects this proposed action to reduce the burden on fishermen transiting through MPAs and spawning SMZs with on-demand black sea bass pots and snapper-grouper species on the vessel. Current transit and stowage regulations would still apply to traditional roped pots; that is, buoys would still need to be removed from traditional roped pots when transiting through an MPA or spawning SMZ, even if those pots are on the same vessel with on-demand pots. Also, this proposed action would not change regulations for transit through two nearshore areas that are seasonally closed to commercial fishing with black sea bass pots in November and April, and from December through March (50 CFR 622.183(b)(6)(i) and (ii)).

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 36, the Snapper-Grouper FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 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 factual basis for this certification follows. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this proposed rule.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting or record keeping requirements are introduced in this proposed rule. This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This proposed rule, if implemented, would remove the species-specific private recreational and for-hire vessel limits for gag and black grouper and establish separate aggregate private recreational and for-hire vessel limits of two gag or black grouper in any combination per day on a private recreational vessel and per trip on a recreational for-hire vessel. This proposed rule would not change the current bag limit of one gag or black grouper per person per day on a private recreational vessel or on a recreational for-hire vessel, and whichever limit is more restrictive would apply. This proposed rule would also revise transit stowage requirements for on-demand black sea bass pots on commercial vessels. Transit means direct, non-stop progression through an MPA or spawning SMZ. Under this proposed rule, commercial fishermen transiting through an MPA or spawning SMZ would no longer be required to disconnect buoys from on-demand black sea bass pots; rather, buoys could remain connected to on-demand black sea bass pots, though the pots could not be baited.

The proposed changes to the recreational vessel limits would apply to all federally permitted for-hire vessels and recreational anglers that fish for or harvest gag or black grouper in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. The proposed modifications to the transit stowage requirements for black sea bass pots with on-demand gear would only apply to commercial vessels.

Although this proposed rule would apply to for-hire vessels, it would not be expected to have any direct effects on these entities. For-hire vessels sell fishing services to recreational anglers. NMFS does not expect the proposed management changes to gag and black grouper to directly alter the services sold by these vessels. Any change in demand for these fishing services, and associated economic effects, as a result of this proposed rule would be a consequence of a change in anglers' behavior and would therefore be indirect. Based on the historically-minimal level of charter mode target effort for gag and black grouper in the South Atlantic, the low retention limit for these species, and the number of substitute species available, NMFS does not expect any change in for-hire trip demand to result from this proposed rule; however, should it occur, the associated indirect effects would fall outside the scope of the RFA. The RFA requires NMFS to describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (see 5 U.S.C. 601(3) through (6)). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions, so they are also outside the scope of this analysis. In summary, only the impacts on commercial fishing businesses will be discussed.

In 2024, there were 508 valid or renewable South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits and 86 valid or renewable 225-pound (102-kilogram) trip limited permits. In addition to a valid snapper-grouper unlimited permit, vessels that use black sea bass pots in Federal waters must have a valid South Atlantic sea bass pot endorsement. These may be transferred between any two entities that hold or simultaneously obtain a valid snapper-grouper unlimited permit. There were 32 valid or renewable black sea bass pot endorsements in 2024. On average from 2018 through 2022, there were 166 federally permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of black sea bass in the South Atlantic. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2018 through 2022 was $67,250 (2023 dollars) and black sea bass accounted for approximately 3.5 percent of this revenue. Only 14 federally permitted commercial vessels, on average, harvested black sea bass using pot gear during this period and their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species was $69,977 (2023 dollars) with 24 percent of this revenue attributed to black sea bass. For commercial vessels that harvest black sea bass in the South Atlantic, NMFS estimates that economic profits are −1.9 percent of annual gross revenue, on average. The negative value for economic profits presented here does not necessarily mean the average business is operating at a loss in an accounting sense, rather the owner is not being fully compensated for their time or asset depreciation when compared to the next best use of their labor and capital resources. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of the vessels that harvested black sea bass from 2018 through 2022 was $394,668 (2023 dollars).

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System 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 receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard. No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.

This proposed rule would revise stowage requirements for on-demand black sea bass pots on commercial vessels transiting through an MPA or spawning SMZ. Under this proposed rule, when transiting through such areas, commercial fishing businesses would need to ensure that all on-demand black sea bass pots are not baited, but it would be permissible for buoys to be connected to the on-demand black sea bass pots. Current management measures stipulate that during transit through an MPA or spawning SMZ all black sea bass pots must not be baited and all buoys must be disconnected from the gear, including on-demand gear. The proposed relaxation of the requirement to disconnect buoys from on-demand black sea bass pots represents a time savings for commercial fishing businesses and a corresponding reduction in the opportunity cost of labor. It is not possible to quantify this potential benefit using existing data. Based on the small geographical extent of the South Atlantic spawning SMZs and the low likelihood of fishing for black sea bass at the depths of the deep-water MPAs, the effects of this proposed rule on small entities would likely be minimal. Individual fishing businesses may experience varying effects on their economic profits, depending on their fishing practices, operating characteristics, and profit maximization strategies.

In conclusion, the information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have 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.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:

The revisions and additions would read as follows:

The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish FMP by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management areas, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through Southern New England and into the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina.

The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the target total allowable landings (TAL) and the annual catch target (ACT), which is the TAL plus an estimate of expected discards, for each management area.

NMFS is proposing to adjust the NFMA and SFMA quotas for fishing year 2026 and project quotas for fishing year 2027 and 2028, based on the Councils' recommendations.

On August 19, 2025, the New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels in the NFMA and SFMA for fishing years 2026-2028 based on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's 2025 Data Update for Northern and Southern Monkfish and information provided by the New England Council's Plan Development Team.

The Councils' recommended specifications include status quo ABC and ACLs in both management areas relative to 2023-2025 values. Expected discards, calculated using the median of the most recent 10 years of data, slightly increased in the NFMA and marginally decreased in the SFMA. After accounting for discards, the Councils recommended a 3-percent decrease in the TAL for the NFMA and a less than 1-percent increase in the TAL for the SFMA. Table 1 includes the proposed catch limits for 2026-2028 and the change relative to the 2023-2025 specifications.

At the end of each fishing year, NMFS evaluates catch information and determines if the quota has been exceeded. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.96(d) require revision of the monkfish ACT if it is determined that the ACL was exceeded in any given year. NMFS would publish a notice in the Federal Register of any revisions to these proposed specifications if an overage occurs. NMFS expects, based on preliminary 2024 year-end accounting, that no adjustment is necessary for fishing year 2026. NMFS will provide notice of the 2027 and 2028 quotas prior to the start of each respective fishing year.

Under current regulations defining the ACL Overage AMs at § 648.96(d)(2), if it is determined that the ACL for a stock was exceeded in a given year, then the Councils are required to take action to deduct the amount of the ACL overage from the ACT for that stock in the second fishing year following the overage. Only if the Councils fail to take action to implement this revision is the Regional Administrator required to take action to implement the AM in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

In Framework 17, the Councils recommended removing the requirement that the Councils trigger the ACL Overage AMs, making only the Regional Administrator responsible for triggering the AMs. This change would simplify and streamline the procedure for triggering AMs and minimize disruption to Council workplans. Under the current regulations, if an AM was required in a year where the Councils did not already plan to take action on the Monkfish FMP, they would be required to modify their priorities and/or workplans to accommodate new action, which might require de-prioritization of other actions. Shifting responsibility to trigger AMs to the Regional Administrator eliminates this issue; NMFS already provides notice of annual monkfish quotas in the Federal Register and would be able to implement any ACT revisions as part of that process.

This rule proposes no other changes to the ACL Overage AMs.

NMFS is proposing to add regulations to define default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs that would go into place in the event that no specifications for a fishing year are in place at the start of that fishing year.

Default rollover specifications were originally included in the Councils' submission of Framework 13 to the Monkfish FMP. After reviewing Framework 13 for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and applicable law, NMFS approved Framework 13 and published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 11, 2023 (88 FR 54495) (2023 Final Rule). However, during the development of Framework 17 and in discussions related to potential changes that might be considered under the New England Council's Omnibus Management Flexibility Amendment, NMFS discovered that changes to the monkfish regulations to clarify rollover and default specifications in § 648.96 were inadvertently omitted from the 2023 Final Rule. As such, these regulations were never put in place. This action would add regulations to define default specifications in order to correct this omission.

The proposed regulations for the default measures were included in the set of draft regulations that the Councils deemed as necessary and appropriate for the implementation of Framework 17.

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provide specific authority for implementing this action. Section 304(b)(1)(A) authorizes NMFS to initiate an evaluation of proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, and if that determination is affirmative, publish the regulations in the Federal Register for public comment.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it is a routine fishing action.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

The Councils jointly manage the Monkfish FMP, with the New England Council acting as the administrative lead for the Monkfish FMP. Periodic framework adjustments are used to revise the Monkfish FMP in response to new scientific information to support catch limits that prevent overfishing and other adjustments to improve management measures included in the FMP. Framework Adjustment 17 to the Monkfish FMP would set specifications for fishing years 2026-2028 and streamline how a set of reactive AMs are triggered and implemented. Not part of Framework 17, but also proposed under this action, are regulations that would establish default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for the monkfish fishery.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to consider disproportionality and profitability to determine the significance of regulatory impacts. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (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 receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

The affiliates data are assembled by NOAA, as of June 1st each year, for analyses required by the RFA. Fishing vessels' permits are linked together, an industry determination is made (finfish, shellfish, no revenue), and firms are classified as small or large based on Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines. Following SBA guidelines, a 5-year average is used to determine which entities are classified as small business entities under the NOAA guidelines, as well as to measure total revenues for affiliate groups.

There are seven categories of monkfish permits in the Greater Atlantic region (categories A, B, C, D, E, F, and H). Category A and B permits are for vessels that do not have limited access permits for Northeast multispecies or Atlantic sea scallops. Category C and D permits are for vessels that have either a limited access Northeast multispecies or limited access Atlantic sea scallop permit. Category E permits are open access or incidental catch permits and may be obtained by anyone with a valid vessel operator's license. Category F permits are designed for fishing only in an offshore area. Vessels with Category H permits may only use their Monkfish Days-at-Sea (DAS) in the portion of the Southern Fishery Management Area south of 38°40′ N latitude. In fishing year 2024, NMFS issued 487 limited-access (Categories A, B, C, D, F, and H) and 1,390 open-access (Category E) monkfish permits.

Based on 2024 data, the number of small business entities that may be affected by this action is 281 entities, and there are 5 large business entities that each had an average affiliate revenue over $11 million (approximately $18.3 million). Overall, the combined limited access and open access monkfish permits (1,877) in fishing year 2024 were held by a total of 286 entities (small and large), as defined by the RFA. Catch Accounting and Monitoring System records indicate that about 22-24 percent of vessels with Federal monkfish permits landed at least one pound of monkfish in fishing years 2022-2023, while only approximately 7 percent landed at least 10,000 pounds (lb). Furthermore, based on data from 2020-2024, it appears that the large business entities are deriving a relatively small portion of monkfish revenue compared to the small business entities; $34,670 average total affiliate monkfish revenue from large business entities versus $9,304,365 from small business entities. In other words, the large business entities are deriving most of their total revenue from landings other than monkfish, while small business entities appear to have a greater proportion of revenue from monkfish landings.

Of the measures being proposed as part of the Framework 17, only the specifications for fishing years 2026-2028 have bearing with respect to fishery operation, landings, and ex-vessel revenues. The other components of the proposed rulemaking ( i.e., adjustments to the mechanism for triggering AMs and establishment of rollover default specifications) are relatively administrative in nature and unlikely to directly impact fishing operations. At most, these are marginally economically beneficial because they improve regulatory efficiency and could reduce regulatory disruption to the fishery.

During the development of the fishing years 2026-2028 monkfish specifications, NMFS and the Councils considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on and provide flexibility to the regulated community. The measures implemented by the fishing years 2023-2025 monkfish specifications final rule increased both the short- and long-term economic benefits on small entities. The proposed specifications include status quo ABC for the northern monkfish stock for fishing years 2026-2028 (6,224 metric tons (mt)) and status quo ABC for the southern monkfish stock for fishing years 2026-2028 (5,861 mt) in response to the 2025 Northeast Fisheries Science Center's data updates. The proposed action keeps similar total allowable landings for the northern and southern areas for fishing years 2026-2028. Effort controls, namely Monkfish DAS and possession limits, would remain unchanged from fishing years 2023-2025.

Overall, long-term impacts of fishing years 2026-2028 monkfish specifications will ensure that management measures and catch levels are sustainable and contribute to rebuilding stocks and, therefore, maximizing yield, as well as providing additional flexibility for fishing operations in the short term.

The positive economic benefits to small entities from this action are associated with very minor changes to the total allowable landings in the northern and southern areas for fishing year 2026-2028. This is expected to have slightly positive economic benefits for the small entities given the fishery would operate and likely achieve similar monkfish landings akin to recent catch levels. The proposed action would likely result in similar revenue from monkfish landings for fishing years 2026-2028 relative to prior specifications, in fishing years 2023-2025. Under the proposed action, positive benefits are not disproportionate to large entities.

Additionally, proposed in Framework 17 is a change to the mechanism by which the ACL Overage AMs are triggered. This is functionally an administrative change and would not change the impacts that an AM would have on the fishery if triggered. Finally, this action includes a proposed change to add regulations defining default specifications for the Monkfish FMP. These default specifications would maintain catch levels equal to those set for the previous fishing year, and thus landings would be consistent relative to that prior fishing year. As a result, similar revenue from monkfish landings relative to prior specifications is expected in the event that default specifications are put into place.

Based on the analysis provided above, this action is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:

NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage bottomfish fishing in Federal waters around Guam in accordance with the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Guam bottomfish fishery targets 13 species of emperors, snappers, groupers, and jacks that are classified as MUS. The fishery has been subject to a rebuilding plan since 2022 (87 FR 9271, February 18, 2022). Regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(iv) require the Secretary of Commerce to review rebuilding plans at least every two years to determine whether the plan has resulted in adequate progress towards ending overfishing and rebuilding the affected fish stock. An updated stock assessment completed in 2024 by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center found that the Guam bottomfish stock, which had been determined to be overfished but not experiencing overfishing in 2020, was no longer overfished and continued to not experience overfishing. However, while stock biomass had increased above the “minimum stock size threshold” for the overfished condition, it had not increased to the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield. This means the stock is not yet fully rebuilt, so NMFS and the Council continue to manage the fishery under a rebuilding plan, with a target time to rebuild of 2031.

The stock assessment update also found the stock was more productive than previously estimated, and new projections showed the stock could support moderately larger catches and still rebuild by 2031. The Council recommended the proposed action at its 201st meeting in December 2024, based on the 2024 stock assessment update for Guam bottomfish; in consideration of the best scientific, commercial and other information about the fishery; review from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC); and input from the public. Accordingly, NMFS proposes this action under section 303(c) and section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The proposed ACL of 34,500 lb (15,649 kg) is 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) (~11 percent) higher than the ACL set when the rebuilding plan was originally implemented in 2022. As the stock is currently rebuilding, but not yet rebuilt, this increase in ACL would still allow the stock to rebuild by 2031. The proposed action will remove the in-season AM that would close the fishery in Federal waters if NMFS projects catch will reach the ACL, because NMFS and the Council found that available data systems do not allow for accurate in-season tracking and projections. The proposed rule would implement a post-season AM in place of the in-season AM. Under the post-season AM, if the average catch from the most recent 3-year period exceeds the ACL, the ACL will be reduced in the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage to mitigate potential effects to the stock. NMFS would conduct a subsequent rulemaking action to implement the overage adjustment, if necessary. Also, the Council and its SSC would review rebuilding progress to determine if other action is needed. The proposed rule would also remove the higher performance standard that requires NMFS to close the fishery in Federal waters indefinitely in response to any exceedance of the ACL. Fishery management would revert to the performance standard described in the FEP, which requires the Council to re-evaluate AMs if the ACL is exceeded twice in a 4-year period. In reviewing fishery performance, the Council and SSC determined that the higher performance standard was not necessary or effective in ensuring the fishery rebuilds by 2031.

As described in the draft EA, NMFS does not expect this proposed rule to result in a change in fishing operations, or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts.

NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the Federal Register . The comment period will extend for 30 days from the publication date in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A)). NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ).

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.

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.

This rule would affect commercial and non-commercial fishermen who catch Guam bottomfish management unit species (BMUS). NMFS estimates approximately 63 fishermen fish in the Guam bottomfish fishery (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024). For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial finfish fishing (NAICS code 114111) is classified as a small entity if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities—vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for Guam BMUS—are small entities under the NMFS standard, as they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.

In 2024, fishermen caught an estimated 36,130 lb (16,388 kg) of BMUS, and the annual average from 2022-2024 was 31,426 lb (14,255 kg). No commercial catch data are publicly available for those years because fewer than three dealers and/or vendors reported sales, so commercial sales data is summarized over longer and earlier time frames. The most recent year for which price per pound is available is 2021, when the inflation-adjusted price was $6.73/lb ($14.84/kg). Because no available information indicates that commercial sales would change, these figures are used to evaluate outcomes of the proposed management action. Bottomfish sales revenue was publicly reported for only 4 years between 2015 and 2024. Over those 4 years, the average percentage of catch sold was 19.2 percent, ranging from 9.7 percent (2021) to 50.5 percent (2020). Assuming the fishery attains the full proposed ACL of 34,500 lb (15,649 kg) and 19.2 percent of bottomfish are sold at $6.73/lb ($14.84/kg), NMFS expects the potential fleet-wide revenue to be approximately $44,580, averaging $1,115 per vessel each year. With regard to the modified AM, the fishery has exceeded 34,500 lb (15,649 kg) twice in the past 10 years (2021 and 2024). Had this ACL been in place during those years, a post-season AM could have been triggered. With the removal of the requirement to close Federal waters under the AMs, BMUS fishermen should not expect any loss in revenue as a result of this proposed action.

This proposed rule would not apply to a substantial number of vessels and NMFS does not expect this rule to have a significantly adverse economic impact on individuals. The proposed rule would not impose additional reporting or record-keeping requirements on small entities. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules, and it is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. There does not appear to be disproportionate economic impacts from the proposed rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size. The proposed rule will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows: