The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as the historical background related to the establishment of reporting requirements for EPSs.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified). Title III, Part B, 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified). These products include EPSs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)).

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts:

Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy conservation requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy use or efficiency of covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6297(b)-(c)). DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as applicable), or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and the statute further requires that the test procedure not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)). Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their product complies with the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model of the product complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s) adopted according to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The DOE test procedures for EPSs appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR 430.23(bb) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z.

DOE notes that on December 19, 2007, Congress amended EPCA by enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”; Pub. L. 110-140). Section 301 of EISA 2007 established minimum energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs manufactured on or after July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A); see also 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)-(ii)). EISA 2007 exempts Class A EPSs from meeting these statutorily prescribed standards if the devices were manufactured before July 1, 2015, and made available by the manufacturer as service parts or spare parts for end-use consumer products that were manufactured prior to July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(B)). Congress created this limited (and temporary) exemption as part of a broad range of amendments to EPCA under EISA 2007. The provision did not grant DOE with the authority to expand or extend the length of this exemption, and Congress did not grant DOE with the general authority to exempt any already covered product from the requirements set by Congress.

Subsequently, on December 18, 2014, Congress further amended EPCA by enacting the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 (“Service Parts Act”; Pub. L. 113-263). That law amended section 325(u) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) to create a time-limited exemption from the amended energy conservation standards for certain EPSs made available exclusively as service or spare parts. To be exempt under the Service Parts Act, an EPS must meet four separate criteria (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(i)). Specifically, the EPS must:

• Be manufactured during the four-year period beginning on February 10, 2016, and ending on February 10, 2020.

• Be marked in accordance with the External Power Supply International Efficiency Marking Protocol, as in effect on February 10, 2016.

• Meet, where applicable, the standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) ( i.e., the standards for Class A EPSs) and be certified to DOE as meeting at least International Efficiency Level IV or higher of the External Power Supply International Efficiency Marking Protocol, as in effect on February 10, 2016.

• Be made available by the manufacturer as a service part or spare part for an end-use product that constitutes the primary load and was manufactured before February 10, 2016.

Additionally, the Service Parts Act allowed DOE to limit the applicability of the exemption if the Secretary determines that the exemption is resulting in a significant reduction in the energy savings that would result in the absence of the exemption. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(iii)). The statute also authorized DOE to provide a similar exemption for EPSs from future energy conservation standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(B)). Finally and most relevant here, the Service Parts Act granted DOE discretionary authority to require manufacturers of exempted EPSs to report to DOE the total number of such EPS units that are shipped annually as service and spare parts and that do not meet those standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii)). Congress, therefore, authorized—but did not require—DOE to impose a reporting obligation for exempt EPSs.

DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to the authority granted under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii).

The current certification reporting requirements for EPSs are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.37(b). Reporting requirements directly addressing exempted EPSs are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.37(b)(3) and (c). More specifically, 10 CFR 429.37(b)(3) provides that (according to 10 CFR 429.12(b)(13)) a certification report for EPSs that are exempt from the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii) according to 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2) of this chapter must include the total number of units of exempt EPSs sold during the most recent 12-calendar-month period ending on July 31, starting with the annual report due on September 1, 2017, if, in aggregate, the total number of exempt EPSs sold as spare and service parts by the certifier exceeds 1,000 units across all models.

Furthermore, 10 CFR 429.37(c) provides that for external power supplies that are exempt from energy conservation standards according to 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2) of this chapter and are not required to be certified according to 10 CFR 429.12(a) as compliant with an applicable standard, the importer or domestic manufacturer must, no later than September 1, 2017, and annually by each September 1 thereafter, submit a report if, in aggregate, the total number of exempt EPSs sold as spare and service parts by the importer or manufacturer exceeds 1,000 units across all models. This report must include:

The report must be submitted to DOE in accordance with the submission procedures set forth in 10 CFR 429.12(h).

DOE exercised its discretionary authority to require exempted EPS reporting in 2015. On November 18, 2015, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) in the Federal Register proposing to codify the provisions of the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 within the CFR and solicited comment from the public. (80 FR 71984). As part of that NOPR, DOE sought comment on a number of specific issues, including how manufacturers produce spare or service parts as compared with how manufacturers produce EPS units provided with a new product, the specific language that should be codified regarding the exemption of certain EPSs sold as service or spare parts, and the reporting timeframe for importers and domestic manufacturers to report the total number of units sold in the prior year. DOE analyzed and addressed all of the public comments received in response to the 2015 NOPR when preparing the final rule.

On May 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register (“May 2016 Final Rule”), which incorporated the statutory provisions into its regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2)(i), as well as provided some clarification on the circumstances under which EPSs would be considered spare or service parts. More specifically, DOE clarified that although exempt EPSs are not required to meet the amended Level VI standards, they remain subject, as applicable, to the existing Class A EPS standards at International Efficiency Level IV and must be certified in accordance with 10 CFR 430.32(w)(2)(iii). Most relevant here, DOE's final rule also required manufacturers who manufacture 1,000 or more exempt EPSs to annually report to DOE the total number of units of exempt EPSs shipped as service and spare parts that do not meet the 2016 standards. (81 FR 30157, 30163). As noted previously, these annual reporting requirements are currently codified in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.37(b)(3) and (c).

Most recently, on May 16, 2025, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (“May 2025 NOPR”), proposing to rescind, in part, the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs adopted by DOE in the May 2016 Final Rule. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE stated that it was proposing a new policy to reduce regulatory burden wherever possible and that, unless a reporting requirement is required by statute, the Secretary would propose eliminating that requirement. (90 FR 20831, 20832). Therefore, in the May 2025 NOPR, DOE proposed to rescind the reporting requirements for exempted EPS specified in the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 in their entirety and sought comment on all aspects of that proposal, including but not limited to the prior rule's consistency with statutory authority and the Constitution, the prior rule's costs and benefits, and the prior rule's effect on innovation, development, and private enterprise. ( Id ).

DOE received comments in response to the May 2025 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record and page number of that document. 3 To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the May 29, 2025, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral comments provided during the May 29, 2025, public meeting that are not also substantively addressed by written comments. 4

DOE has determined that it has a good reason to consider rescission of the existing reporting requirements for exempted EPSs. The scope of the exemption was inherently limited by the fixed manufacturing window ending February 10, 2020, and by the requirement that exempt EPSs be used only to support end-use products manufactured before February 10, 2016. With time, the number of EPSs eligible for the exemption has naturally declined because no EPSs manufactured after February 10, 2020, can qualify and because the population of end-use products manufactured before February 10, 2016, has continued to decrease as they age and are retired from use. Correspondingly, DOE has observed that the number of exempt EPSs reported under 10 CFR 429.37 has diminished significantly in recent years. As of November 2025, DOE's research revealed that 17 exempt EPSs are certified by five different manufacturers out of approximately 13,000 EPS basic models by 750 different manufacturers in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. Given these conditions, the exemption and more so the reporting requirements established by the EPS Service Parts Act currently have limited practical effect. Moreover, because the Act did not provide any exemption for EPSs manufactured after February 10, 2020, all EPSs manufactured today are required to meet the current Level VI energy conservation standards and must be certified accordingly.

In response to the May 2025 NOPR, CBD and DOEE et al. generally opposed the proposal to rescind the reporting requirements for exempted EPSs, while AHAM et al. generally supported the proposal. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 1; DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 1; AHAM et al., No. 12 at p. 1). Two individuals also expressed opposition, although their concerns focused on rescission of EPS standards, an action not proposed in the subject May 16, 2025, NOPR. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1; Simpson, No. 7 at p. 1). Specific comments are discussed in detail in the following sections.

In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received several comments on the legal impacts of the proposed changes. CBD commented that DOE's proposed rulemaking to rescind EPS reporting requirements ignores congressional mandates. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). In particular, CBD commented that DOE's action violates EPCA's anti-backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) because it weakens existing standards. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2).

In response, DOE believes that CBD miscomprehends the nature and purpose of DOE's proposal, as well as the related provisions of EPCA that gave rise to the existing reporting requirements. As EPCA makes clear at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii), Congress provided the Secretary of Energy with discretion to require manufacturers of exempted EPSs to report annual total units shipped as service and spare parts that fall below International Efficiency Level VI. However, the statute does not require DOE to impose such reporting requirement, so it is incorrect to suggest that DOE's action to rescind such reporting requirements would ignore any congressional mandate. It is likewise incorrect that DOE's action would weaken existing standards in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision because this rulemaking would not affect the energy conservation standards for EPSs. Instead, this rule simply acknowledges changed circumstances regarding a time-limited exemption whose period of relevance has largely waned. The number of EPSs that continue to qualify for exemption has decreased significantly since 2020, and DOE has received declining reports of exempt EPS shipments in recent years. Because the reporting requirement concerns a category of products that are no longer being manufactured and that are diminishing in market relevance, DOE has determined that continued reporting will not result in any additional meaningful insight. Accordingly, DOE is removing this regulatory reporting burden, which no longer provides an appreciable benefit.

CBD also argued that the May 2025 NOPR is procedurally flawed, commenting that while DOE provided justification for these regulations when they were established, it has not provided justification for the proposed change to rescind them. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). Further, CBD stated that DOE's proposal violates the Administrative Procedure Act's (“APA”) requirement that agencies implement statutory objectives in line with the language and purpose of the statute ( see Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369 (2024)). ( Id. ). Additionally, CBD commented that DOE's proposed rule violates the APA because it states that an agency action must not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law ( see 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)). (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). CBD stated that when agencies take action or rescind a standard, they must examine relevant data and articulate a rational connection between facts and the policy choice made ( see Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)), and the commenter asserted that in the present case, DOE did not provide any reasoned explanation or evidence for rescinding the EPS reporting requirements. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2). CBD also stated DOE has not followed the legal requirement that a policy reversal must be based on factual findings and account for reliance interests. ( Id. ). CBD commented that, at a minimum, DOE should issue a new proposed rulemaking and allow public comments before moving forward. ( Id. ).

In response, DOE disagrees with CBD's contention that it has not articulated a rationale to justify its proposal to rescind the subject reporting requirements for exempted EPSs. In the May 16, 2025, NOPR, DOE clearly stated its new policy to reduce regulatory burden wherever possible, including reporting requirements not required by statute. (90 FR 20831, 20832). As noted previously, under the relevant provision of EPCA, Congress permitted but did not require DOE to report annual shipments of EPSs, so removal of those reporting provisions cannot run counter to the language and purpose of the statute, given that DOE was never required to adopt such provisions in the first place. DOE reasoned that the time-limited nature of the exemption and the passage of significant time offer a prima facie case demonstrating why the reporting requirement is no longer needed. What was once a useful source of information now represents an administrative burden that no longer provides an appreciable benefit. Furthermore, given rapidly dwindling shipments of the exempted EPSs, DOE has found no significant reliance interest in continued reporting of shipment of the subject exempted EPSs. For these reasons, DOE has concluded that it is legally permissible and appropriate to promulgate this final rule without the need for further proceedings.

CBD further commented that DOE must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) when carrying out the proposed deregulatory action, and the commenter asserted that contrary to DOE's claims, none of the NEPA's categorical exclusions are applicable in this case. (CBD, No. 9 at p. 2).

Contrary to CBD's view, in the May 2025 NOPR, DOE analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021) in effect at the time of the May 2025 NOPR's publication. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the May 2025 NOPR proposed to relieve manufacturers of an administrative reporting requirement. As an administrative action, it is unlikely to affect the environment. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE anticipated that the proposal would qualify for a categorical exclusion under appendices A or B to subpart D of part 1021 because the NOPR was an interpretation or ruling with respect to an existing regulation and otherwise met the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. (90 FR 20831, 20832 (May 16, 2025)). In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE specifically referenced consideration of categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water), although the agency also was open to considering other potential categorical exclusions ( e.g., A5 (Interpretive rulemakings with no change in environmental effect) or A6 (Procedural rulemakings)).

In July 2025, DOE amended part 1021 to contain only administrative and routine actions excepted from NEPA review in appendix A (formerly categorical exclusions) based on the definition of “major Federal action” in section 111(10) of NEPA ( see 90 FR 29676 (July 3, 2025)), and, concurrently, DOE issued Implementing Procedures. 5 DOE has determined that this final rule to revise the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs is not a rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for consumer products and industrial equipment and categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water) is not applicable, and it is an administrative and routine action. Therefore, it is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and no further environmental review is needed.

In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments regarding the impacts for consumers due to the proposed changes. DOEE et al. commented that rescinding EPS reporting requirements would end a valuable data reporting program that helps provide a better understanding of the market for exempt EPSs. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at pp. 1-2).

DOE acknowledges the interest expressed by DOEE et al. in continued access to market data; however, the statutory exemption underlying the reporting requirement applied only to EPSs manufactured between February 10, 2016, and February 10, 2020. The number of EPSs that continue to qualify for exemption has decreased significantly since 2020, and DOE has received declining reports of exempt EPS shipments in recent years. As noted previously, as of November 2025, DOE's research revealed that there are 17 exempt EPSs certified by five different manufacturers out of a total of approximately 13,000 EPS basic models by 750 different manufacturers in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. Because the reporting requirement concerns a category of products that are no longer being manufactured and that are diminishing in market relevance, DOE has determined that continued reporting will not result in any additional meaningful insight.

CBD commented that the proposed recission would increase energy consumption and costs for consumers. (CBD, No. 9 at pp. 1-2). An individual, stating opposition to the proposed recission, commented that sound regulations that promote conservation help fight inflation and tariffs, keeping products inexpensive. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1).

In response, DOE does not agree with these comments, because they appear to misconstrue the purpose and effect of the May 2016 proposal. This final rule does not alter any energy conservation standard applicable to EPSs, nor does it expand the statutory exemption created by the EPS Service Parts Act. EPSs manufactured after February 10, 2020, must continue to meet the applicable Level VI standards and be certified accordingly. As the rescission solely impacts a reporting obligation without changing any product efficiency requirements, DOE does not expect this final rule to result in increased energy use or consumer costs nor to have any bearing on inflation, tariffs, or product prices.

In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments on the impacts for manufacturers due to the proposed changes. DOEE et al. opposed the proposal to rescind the EPS reporting requirements, arguing that it would negatively impact businesses in their States. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 1). DOEE et al. stated that manufacturers have already invested time and money into complying with these requirements. ( Id. ). An individual stated that the time, cost, and research to develop a standard that benefits consumers, industry, and the national economy have already been invested, and regressing the standard disregards the resources and efforts put into developing it. (Simpson, No. 7 at p. 1). An individual additionally stated that the current regulations ensure the U.S. remains competitive with global markets, and rescinding standards would diminish both U.S. standing in the international market and the potential for addressing the “trade imbalance.” (Simpson, No. 7 at p. 1).

In response, DOE once again notes that this final rule does not modify any existing energy conservation standard for EPSs. Instead, it addresses a reporting requirement that applied only to EPSs manufactured between 2016 and 2020 that qualified for a statutory exemption, one which is no longer available today. Manufacturers of current EPS models are subject to the same requirements before and after this final rule and, therefore, will not experience regulatory changes affecting competitiveness or product development. DOE has concluded that this final rule will benefit manufacturers and their competitiveness by eliminating the regulatory burden associated with a largely outdated reporting requirement.

AHAM et al. supported DOE's proposal to eliminate the reporting requirement for exempted EPSs. (AHAM et al., No. 12 at p. 1). AHAM et al. stated that these data are not necessary to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards and the collection places an undue burden on manufacturers. ( Id. ). AHAM et al. stated that this proposal is a meaningful step towards reducing regulatory burden without affecting clarity regarding which EPSs are exempt. ( Id. ).

DOE acknowledges the support of AHAM et al. As explained, DOE determined that continued reporting of exempt EPS shipments is no longer necessary due to the expiration of the manufacturing window in 2020 and the diminishing population of EPSs that qualify for the exemption. Eliminating the reporting requirement reduces burden while having no effect on any existing efficiency standards for EPSs.

In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received comments on the infrastructure and environmental impacts due to the proposed changes. CBD commented that the proposed recission would increase pollution that is harmful to communities across the country and exacerbate the climate emergency. (CBD, No. 9 at pp. 1-2). An individual commented that fossil fuel consumption has contributed to increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters. (Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1).

As noted previously, the action of this final rule does not modify any energy conservation standards for EPSs. Because this rule affects only reporting requirements and has no impact on product efficiency or performance, it does not alter emissions or energy consumption, so it should not have any environmental or infrastructure impacts.

After carefully considering public comments and for the reasons explained in this document, DOE has decided to finalize its proposal to rescind the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs as originally proposed.

Section 6(a) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (”IRFA”) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (“FRFA”) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website ( www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel ).

DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. This final rule is limited in effect to rescinding an administrative reporting requirement. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing, DOE concludes that the impacts of its burden-reducing proposal would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and, therefore, the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has transmitted this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This final rule would impose no new information or record-keeping requirements. Under existing provisions, manufacturers of covered products/equipment must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for such products/equipment, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures, on the date that compliance is required. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment (see generally 10 CFR part 429). The collection-of-information requirement for certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor must any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Specifically, this final rule would remove a reporting requirement for exempted EPSs, so accordingly, it does not add any collection of information requirement that would trigger the PRA. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021) in effect at the time of the May 2025 NOPR's publication. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the May 2025 NOPR proposed to relieve manufacturers of an administrative reporting requirement; as an administrative action, it is unlikely to have any impact on the environment. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE anticipated that the proposal would qualify for a categorical exclusion under appendices A or B to subpart D of part 1021 because the NOPR was an interpretation or ruling with respect to an existing regulation and otherwise met the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. (90 FR 20831, 20832 (May 16, 2025)). In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE specifically referenced consideration of categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water), although the agency also was open to considering other potential categorical exclusions ( e.g., A5 (Interpretive rulemakings with no change in environmental effect) or A6 (Procedural rulemakings).

In July 2025, DOE amended part 1021, in relevant part, by revising appendix A (formerly categorical exclusions) (see 90 FR 29676 (July 3, 2025)), and, concurrently, DOE issued Implementing Procedures. 6 The actions formally identified in appendix A to part 1021 now represent administrative and routine actions that are excepted from NEPA based on the definition of “major Federal action” in section 111(10) of NEPA. DOE has determined that this final rule to revise the reporting requirements for exempt EPSs is not a rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for consumer products and industrial equipment, and so categorical exclusion B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy or water) is not applicable. This final rule is an administrative and routine action. Therefore, it is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and no further environmental review is needed.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. (65 FR 13735).

DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption based on criteria set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). No further action is required by E.O. 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:

Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or if it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and it requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. (62 FR 12820). DOE's policy statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.

DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and DOE's statement of policy and has determined that the rule, which reduces regulatory burdens, does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any policy or regulation that may affect family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment, agencies must assess whether:

• The action strengthens or erodes the stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital commitment.

• The action strengthens or erodes the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children.

• The action helps the family perform its functions or substitutes governmental activity for the function.

• The action increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and children.

• The proposed benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family.

• The action may be carried out by State or local government or by the family.

• The action establishes an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society.

This final rule, which eliminates an administrative reporting requirement for exempted EPSs, would not have any financial impact on families nor any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it does not need to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency according to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). According to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, “Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act” (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines, which are available at: www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines.

DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule and that:

• Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor E.O., and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

• Is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.

For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the regulation be implemented and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which removes an administrative reporting requirement for exempted EPSs, is not a significant energy action because it is not significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this final rule.

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information must be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the rulemaking analyses for energy conservation standards are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” ( Id. at 70 FR 2667).

In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and prepared a Peer Review report pertaining to the rulemaking analyses for energy conservation standards. 7 Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to judge the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the resulting report. 8

DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,” 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025).

This final rule has been determined to be an “E.O. 14192 deregulatory action” because it intends to reduce the burden to society by streamlining the regulatory framework and improving efficiency for regulated entities. The primary impact from the final rule is to eliminate the regulatory burden associated with a largely outdated administrative reporting requirement for exempted EPSs. This final rule allows manufacturers to focus their resources on matters of importance to them. These benefits are difficult to quantify, although DOE believes them to be positive. Even small positive changes, when aggregated, can result in meaningful burden reduction for industry.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 27, 2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is amending part 429 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-24-02, Amendment 39-22892 (89 FR 92789, November 25, 2024), (AD 2024-24-02). AD 2024-24-02 applied to all Safran Model ARRIUS 2F engines. AD 2024-24-02 required removal of the affected FCU from service and replacement with a serviceable part. The FAA issued AD 2024-24-02 to detect and correct missing lubricating and balancing grooves on the bearings of the FCU fuel pump.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2026 (91 FR 2319). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0202R1, dated September 8, 2025 (EASA AD 2024-0202R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2024-0202R1 superseded EASA Emergency AD 2024-0202-E, dated October 22, 2024 (EASA Emergency AD 2024-0202-E). The MCAI states that since EASA Emergency AD 2024-0202-E was issued, the manufacturing cards were reviewed and it was determined that certain serial numbers were not subject to the non-conforming manufacturing process.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 2024-24-02. The NPRM proposed to require removal of the affected FCU from service and replacement with a serviceable part, and proposed to reduce the number of affected FCUs, as specified in the MCAI.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0016.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0202R1, which specifies procedures for replacement of the affected parts with serviceable parts. The MCAI also specifies prohibiting installation of affected parts on an engine.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects five engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2025-1183, (91 FR 6751; February 13, 2026) to amend Class D and Class E airspace for Miami, FL. After publication, the FAA discovered errors in two airport names. Accordingly, this action corrects those errors.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2025-1183, as published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2026 (91 FR 6751; FR Doc. 2026-02919), is corrected as follows:

On page 6752, in the second and third columns, the legal description for “ASO FL E5 Miami, FL [Amended]” is revised to read as follows:

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (the Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological material. In certain limited circumstances, the CPIA authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). The emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered material (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)). These restrictions may also be continued, in whole or in part, pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the CPIA (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(a), Afghanistan, a State Party to the Convention, requested on April 28, 2021, that import restrictions be imposed on certain archaeological and ethnological material, the pillage of which jeopardizes the cultural heritage of Afghanistan. On November 16, 2021, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations necessary under the Act for the emergency imposition of the import restrictions. The restrictions were subsequently imposed on archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 50,000 B.C. to A.D. 1747, and ethnological material including architectural objects and wooden objects associated with Afghanistan's diverse history, ranging from approximately the 9th century A.D. to A.D. 1920. On February 22, 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a final rule (CBP Dec. 22-04) in the Federal Register (87 FR 9439), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(b) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions and included a list designating the types of archaeological and ethnological material covered by the restrictions.

On March 18, 2026, pursuant to her delegated authority, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, United States Department of State, made the necessary determinations to extend the emergency import restrictions with Afghanistan, finding that emergency conditions continue to exist as defined by 19 U.S.C. 2603(a)(3). In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3), the emergency import restrictions will be unilaterally extended for an additional three-year period.

Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(b) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions, as well as updated language to refer specifically to the material being restricted in a manner consistent with CBP's other listed cultural property restrictions. The restrictions on the importation of categories of archaeological and ethnological material of Afghanistan will continue in effect through April 28, 2029. Importation of such material from Afghanistan continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

The Designated List of archaeological and ethnological material from Afghanistan covered by these import restrictions is set forth in CBP Dec. 22-04. The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address: https://www.state.gov/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions by selecting the material for “Afghanistan.”

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain exceptions. This regulation is being issued in accordance with Department of Homeland Security Delegation 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to cultural property import restrictions.

Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

The United States is a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 520 U.N.T.S. 151 (“Single Convention”), as amended by the 1972 Protocol. The Single Convention entered into force for the United States on June 24, 1967, after the Senate gave its advice and consent to the United States' accession. 1 The enactment and enforcement of the CSA are the primary means by which the United States carries out its obligations under the Single Convention. 2 Various provisions of the CSA directly reference the Single Convention. One such provision is 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), which relates to scheduling of controlled substances.

Under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), if control of a substance is required “by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970”—which includes the Single Convention—the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) or 812(b)] and without regard to the procedures prescribed by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b)].”  3 This provision is consistent with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that all treaties made under the authority of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”  4 In accordance with this constitutional mandate, under section 811(d)(1), Congress directed the Attorney General to ensure that compliance by the United States with our nation's obligations under the Single Convention is given top consideration when it comes to scheduling determinations. 5 Importantly, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded in a 1972 opinion that 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) is not limited to those instances where a substance is newly added to an international schedule. 6

Parties to the Single Convention are required to impose several control measures regarding drugs listed in Schedule I of the Convention. 7 These include the following:

• Limiting exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of such drugs. Article 4.

• Furnishing to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) annual estimates of, among other things, quantities of such drugs to be consumed for medical and scientific purposes, utilized for the manufacture of other drugs, and held in stock. Article 19.

• Furnishing to the INCB statistical returns on the actual production, utilization, consumption, imports and exports, seizures, and stocks of such drugs during the prior year. Article 20.

• Requiring that licensed manufacturers of such drugs obtain quotas specifying the amounts of such drugs they may manufacture to prevent excessive production and accumulation beyond that necessary to satisfy legitimate needs. Articles 21 & 29.

• Requiring manufacturers and distributors of such drugs to be licensed. Articles 29 & 30.

• Requiring medical prescriptions for the dispensing of such drugs to patients. Article 30.

• Requiring importers and exporters of such drugs to be licensed and requiring each individual importation or exportation to be predicated on the issuance of a permit. Article 31.

• Prohibiting the possession of such drugs except under legal authority. Article 33.

• Requiring those in the legitimate distribution chain (manufacturers, distributors, scientists, and those who lawfully dispense such drugs) to keep records that show the quantities of such drugs manufactured, distributed, dispensed, acquired, or otherwise disposed of during the prior two years. Article 34.

Because the CSA was enacted in large part to satisfy United States obligations under the Single Convention, many of the CSA's provisions directly implement the foregoing treaty requirements.

Under the Single Convention, cannabis, cannabis resin, and extracts and tinctures of cannabis are listed in Schedule I. 8 The CSA, in implementing these requirements, generally defines marijuana to mean “the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”  9 In 2018, Congress amended the CSA to remove “(i) hemp, as defined in section [1639 o of title 7 of the U.S. Code]” from the definition of marijuana. 10 Section 1639 o (1) of title 7, in turn, defines hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”  11 Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) is the major psychoactive intoxicating cannabinoid in marijuana. This exclusion of hemp from the definition of marijuana had the effect of removing many products containing predominantly cannabidiol (“CBD”) derived from hemp and containing no more than 0.3 percent Δ9-THC on a dry weight basis from control as marijuana. Effective November 12, 2026, the definition of hemp in 7 U.S.C. 1639 o (1) is being amended, with corresponding impact on the definition of marijuana in 21 U.S.C. 802(16)(A).

In addition to the requirements for drugs in Schedule I discussed above, the Single Convention requires the United States to take the following additional measures specific to the growing of marijuana plants within the United States:

• Register and regulate growers, including by designating the land upon which they may grow marijuana plants;

• Limit growing of the marijuana plant to that required for legitimate domestic scientific, medical, and industrial needs, and for legitimate exports;

• Establish the upper limit of marijuana that each grower may grow in a calendar year, as well as the total amount of marijuana that can be grown in the United States annually for legitimate needs;

• Purchase all harvested crops of marijuana and monopolize the wholesale trade in harvested marijuana. 12

Moreover, the CSA also recognizes that the United States is also a party to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175 (Convention on Psychotropic Substances). 13 As with the Single Convention, parties to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances are obligated to take various control measures related to the drugs that are covered by the treaty. 14 Congress implemented the additional authority necessary to comply with the Convention on Psychotropic Substances through various amendments to the CSA. 15 Δ9-THC is a substance covered by schedule II of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, in addition to being covered by Schedule I of the Single Convention if it is extracted from the cannabis plant. This final rule places in schedule III (i) those FDA-approved drug products that contain Δ9-THC falling within the CSA's definition of marijuana, specifically FDA-approved drug products containing Δ9-THC derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L., other than the mature stalks and seeds; and (ii) marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.

Over the last three decades, forty U.S. states have legalized the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes as a matter of state law and have established systems to regulate that activity. States that have authorized medical marijuana have done so through a licensing regime that restricts cultivation, manufacture, and distribution to entities approved by a designated state agency—typically a department of health, department of agriculture, or a dedicated cannabis regulatory authority. These agencies conduct application review, perform inspections, and maintain ongoing oversight of licensees. State licensees are required to maintain detailed records of plant counts, harvested quantities, inventory levels, and sales or transfers, and to report that information to state regulators on a periodic basis. State medical licensing regimes oversee permissible uses of medical marijuana, confining distribution to registered patients or caregivers through approved dispensaries or other authorized channels. Registered and licensed physicians oversee patient qualification for medical marijuana based on state specific criteria and qualifying conditions.

The Administrator has the authority under Section 811(d)(1) of the CSA to move FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and marijuana subject to state-issued licenses to Schedule III.

Based on a 2024 OLC opinion, if marijuana is listed in schedule III, most of the Single Convention's obligations noted above will continue to be met by CSA statutory authorities and associated regulations. 16 Similarly, the controls available under schedule III are also sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances with respect to Δ9-THC. As discussed in more detail below, this final rule ensures that the United States will continue to meet these obligations without delay or disruption.

As indicated above, Article 31 of the Single Convention obligates parties to require a permit for the importation and exportation of drugs listed in Schedule I of the Convention. This permit requirement applies to drug products containing marijuana because, as further indicated above, such a product is a Schedule I drug under the Single Convention. However, under the CSA  17 and DEA regulations, the import/export permit requirement does not apply to all controlled substances. Rather, a permit is required to import or export any controlled substance in schedule I and II as well as certain controlled substances in schedules III, IV, and V. 18 Thus, in order to control FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and marijuana subject to state-issued licenses in schedule III, DEA must simultaneously amend the regulations to require a permit to import or export such products.

It bears emphasis that where, as here, control of a drug is required by the Single Convention, an order under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) must be issued “ without regard to the findings required by [21 U.S.C. 811 (a) or 812(b)] and without regard to the procedures prescribed by [21 U.S.C. 811 (a) or (b)].” Thus, in such circumstances, the plain and unambiguous statutory language does not require the Administrator to request a medical and scientific evaluation or scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as is normally done pursuant to rulemaking under section 811(b). 19

Nonetheless, in a letter dated August 29, 2023, HHS provided DEA with a medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation that marijuana be controlled in schedule III of the CSA. 20 HHS found, inter alia, that marijuana has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II, and that the abuse of marijuana may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. 21 These findings would correspond to the criteria for placement of a substance in schedule III. 22 While each of these findings are discussed briefly below, HHS's scientific and medical evaluation entitled, “Basis for the Recommendation to Reschedule Marijuana Into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act,” is available in its entirety under the “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this final rule at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-1362.

First, HHS found that marijuana has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. As noted above, marijuana contains Δ9-THC, the substance responsible for the abuse potential of marijuana. Δ9-THC has agonist properties at CB 1 cannabinoid receptors and produces rewarding responses in animals, as evidenced by its ability to produce self-administration and CPP. When marijuana is administered to humans under experimental conditions, it produces a wide range of positive subjective responses in addition to certain negative subjective responses. Common responses to marijuana when it is used by individuals for nonmedical purposes include euphoria and other positive subjective responses, as well as perceptual changes, sedative responses, anxiety responses, psychiatric, social, and cognitive changes, and physiological changes. 23

HHS noted that epidemiological data from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show that marijuana is the most frequently used federally illicit drug in the United States on a past-year and past-month basis among the illicit comparator drugs considered. Although 50 percent of respondents in NSDUH reported using marijuana nonmedically fewer than 5 days per month, another 30 percent reported using it nonmedically for 20 days or more per month. 24

Despite the high prevalence of nonmedical use of marijuana, HHS observed that an overall evaluation of epidemiological indicators suggests that it does not produce serious outcomes compared to drugs in schedules I or II. HHS found this especially notable given the availability of marijuana and marijuana-derived products that contain extremely high levels of Δ9-THC. Due to such availability, the epidemiological data described in HHS's evaluation inherently include the outcomes from individuals who use marijuana and marijuana-derived products that have doses of Δ9-THC that range from low to very high, and yet the data demonstrate that these products overall are producing fewer negative outcomes than drugs in schedules I or II. 25

HHS compared the rank ordering of selected drugs that are abused for various epidemiological measures and observed that marijuana was among the drugs at the very lowest ranking for a number of measures, including poison center (PC) abuse cases, likelihood that any use would lead to a PC call, accidental or unintentional poisoning, utilization-adjusted rates of unintentional exposure, utilization-adjusted and population-adjusted rates for emergency department visits and hospitalizations, likelihood of being diagnosed with a serious substance abuse disorder, deaths reported to PCs, and overdose deaths when used with other drugs or as a single substance (as total numbers and when utilization-adjusted). In contrast, comparators such as heroin (schedule I), oxycodone (schedule II), and cocaine (schedule II) typically were in the highest rank ordering on these measures. 26

For the various epidemiological measures evaluated above, HHS noted that marijuana was also compared to controlled substances in schedule III (ketamine) and schedule IV (benzodiazepines, zolpidem, and tramadol), as well as to other schedule II substances (fentanyl and hydrocodone). The analyses were conducted in this manner to provide a comprehensive assessment of the relative abuse potential of marijuana. However, the rank order of these substances regarding harms does not consistently align with the relative scheduling placement of these drugs in the CSA due to the pharmacological differences between various classes of drugs. 27

There are a number of confounding factors that likely influence the adverse outcomes measured in various epidemiological databases and account for the rank ordering of the drugs evaluated on these measures. For example, a different population abuses each substance, and each substance has a different prevalence of abuse and a different profile of severe adverse outcomes in a setting of nonmedical use and abuse. Thus, it is challenging to reconcile the ranking of relative harms associated with the comparators used in this evaluation when the rankings differ across various epidemiological databases and when these rankings often do not align with the scheduling placement of these comparators under the CSA. 28

To address these challenges, HHS evaluated the totality of the available data and concluded that it supports the placement of marijuana in schedule III. Overall, these data demonstrate that, according to HHS, although marijuana is associated with a high prevalence of abuse, the profile of and propensity for serious outcomes related to that abuse lead to a conclusion that marijuana is most appropriately controlled in schedule III under the CSA. 29

Second, HHS found that abuse of marijuana may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. 30 Regarding physical dependence, as evidenced by its associated withdrawal symptomology upon abrupt discontinuation of use, the most commonly reported marijuana withdrawal symptoms in clinical investigations are sleep difficulties, decreased appetite and weight loss, craving, irritability, anger, anxiety or nervousness, and restlessness. Marijuana withdrawal symptoms typically peak within two to six days and decline over one to two weeks as Δ9-THC is eliminated. Similarly, the drug labels for the FDA-approved drug products Marinol and Syndros state that, following chronic administration of dronabinol, drug discontinuation leads to irritability, insomnia, and restlessness at 12 hours, and by 24 hours the withdrawal symptoms can include hot flashes, sweating, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, and anorexia. 31

HHS observed that marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been reported in individuals with heavy, chronic marijuana use, but its occurrence in occasional users of marijuana has not been established. Marijuana withdrawal syndrome appears to be relatively mild compared to the withdrawal syndrome associated with alcohol, which can include more serious symptoms such as agitation, paranoia, seizures and even death. Multiple studies comparing the withdrawal symptoms associated with marijuana and tobacco demonstrate that the magnitude and time course of the two withdrawal syndromes are similar. 32

Based on the evidence, HHS determined that the abuse of marijuana may lead to moderate or low physical dependence, depending on frequency and degree of marijuana exposure. HHS further concluded that marijuana can produce psychic dependence in some individuals, but that the likelihood of serious outcomes is low, suggesting that high psychological dependence does not occur in most individuals who use marijuana. 33

Although I am not required to consider this HHS recommendation when issuing an order under section 811(d)(1), because I believe there are several legally viable scheduling options that would satisfy the United States' obligations under the Single Convention based on OLC's 2024 opinion discussed above, I exercise my discretion in determining the most appropriate schedule by choosing the option that most closely aligns to HHS's findings and best positions the United States to carry out its obligations under the Single Convention with regard to marijuana crops and other marijuana that has not yet been manufactured into an FDA-approved product or subject to a state medical marijuana license. Namely, I am hereby ordering that FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana, as well marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in schedule III of the CSA. 34

Additionally, maintaining unlicensed bulk marijuana in schedule I allows the United States to continue to meet two of its obligations under the Single Convention without disruption. First, as indicated above, for drugs listed in Schedule I of the Single Convention, parties are obligated to require that licensed manufacturers of such drugs obtain quotas specifying the amounts of such drugs they may manufacture. The purpose of this treaty requirement is to prevent excessive production and accumulation beyond that necessary to satisfy legitimate needs. Under this scheduling order, the United States will continue to meet this obligation without disruption or delay because unlicensed bulk marijuana, marijuana extract, and Δ9-THC material used to make FDA-approved drug products will remain in schedule I of the CSA and thus be subject to all applicable quota provisions under 21 U.S.C. 826; and because state-licensed marijuana will be required to meet the quota requirements of the Single Convention.

Second, as also discussed above, pursuant to a 2018 OLC opinion, DEA must buy marijuana crops from registered manufacturers, be the seller of that marijuana to any eligible registered purchaser, and establish prices for such purchase and sale. 35 Marijuana growers must pay DEA an administrative fee for such transactions. 36 These actions are necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention. 37 By maintaining in schedule I all unlicensed marijuana crops, bulk marijuana, and any marijuana or marijuana extract that has not yet been incorporated into a FDA-approved drug product, and by requiring that state-licensed marijuana satisfy the requirements relating to the purchase and sale of marijuana by DEA, the United States will continue to meet these obligations without disruption or delay.

Placing only FDA-approved products containing marijuana and state-licensed marijuana in schedule III also is consistent with articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention and 21 CFR 1318.04(b), which specify that the requirement to monopolize the wholesale trade in marijuana does not extend to “medicinal cannabis.” Medicinal cannabis is defined in 21 CFR 1318.02(b) to mean “a drug product made from the cannabis plant, or derivatives thereof, that can be legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [(FD&C Act)].” The final rule exempts marijuana subject to state medical marijuana licenses from the requirement to monopolize the wholesale trade in marijuana.

This final rule rescheduling marijuana contained in FDA-approved products or subject to a state medical marijuana license applies to marijuana as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), as well as marijuana extracts as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58) because they meet the statutory definition of marijuana and, prior to 2017, were included in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23). 38 In addition, this final rule applies to Δ9-THC derived from the marijuana plant (other than the mature stalks and seeds) that falls outside the definition of hemp, because it meets the statutory definition of marijuana.

This final rule does not apply to synthetically derived THC, which is outside the CSA's definition of marijuana. Tetrahydrocannabinols that can be derived only through a process of artificial synthesis ( e.g., delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol) are excluded. HHS provided a scientific and medical evaluation only relating to “marijuana” as defined in the CSA. That definition is limited to the plant (other than the mature stalks and seeds) and derivatives of the plant. Therefore, synthetic THC remains in schedule I.

This final rule also does not affect the status of hemp (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1639 o ), because hemp is excluded from the definition of marijuana. This final rule is not rescheduling any drug product containing marijuana or THC that previously has been rescheduled out of schedule I ( e.g., Marinol and Syndros). Nor does it impact the status of any previously scheduled synthetic cannabinoids.

As noted, this order placing FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and state-licensed medical marijuana in schedule III will only comport with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) if all importations and exportations of products containing marijuana remain subject to the permit requirement. Until now, since all marijuana has been a schedule I controlled substance, any importation has been subject to the permit requirement. To ensure this requirement remains in place (and thus to prevent any lapse in compliance with the requirements of the Single Convention), this order amends the DEA regulations (21 CFR 1312.30) to add FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and state-licensed medical marijuana to the list of nonnarcotic schedule III through V controlled substances that are subject to the import and export permit requirement. 39

The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in “trafficking in controlled substances . . . in a schedule I or II,” 26 U.S.C. 280E. Nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability, and qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that any form of marijuana other than in an FDA-approved drug product or marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license remains a schedule I controlled substance, and those who handle such material remain subject to the regulatory controls, and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions, applicable to schedule I controlled substances set forth in the CSA and DEA regulations.

However, for those who handle marijuana exclusively in the form of an FDA-approved drug product, the following is a summary of the schedule III regulatory requirements that will apply upon the effective date of this final rule:

1. Registration. Any person who handles ( e.g., manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, reverse distributes, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with) FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must be registered with DEA to conduct such activities. 40 That is, persons and entities wishing to distribute or dispense (including prescribe) marijuana in an FDA-approved product must first obtain a DEA registration applicable to schedule III controlled substances. Entities that transfer marijuana to patients, including dispensaries, must register with DEA as “practitioners” under 21 U.S.C. 823(g). Registration under that provision does not allow the practitioner to possess or dispense (including prescribe) schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana extracts that are in a form other than an FDA-approved drug product or marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.

2. Disposal of stocks. Schedule III FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws.

3. Fees. Each applicant for registration, other than those employed by state or Federal governments, must pay a registration fee. Current fees are: (1) Manufacturers: $3,699 annually; (2) Distributors: $1,850 annually; and (3) Dispensers, including pharmacies: $888 for a registration valid for 3 years.

4. Prescriptions. Prescriptions for FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana are required prior to dispensing, except when dispensed directly by a DEA-registered practitioner, such as a physician, dentist, veterinarian, or hospital. 41 Prescriptions must be “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.”  42 Prescriptions must include “the drug name, strength, dosage form, quantity prescribed, directions for use,” among other items. 43 Under DEA's regulations, both the prescribing practitioner and the pharmacist who fills the prescription have responsibility for the proper prescribing and/or dispensing of controlled substances. 44

5. Records and Reports. All DEA registrants must maintain records and submit reports with respect to FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana. 45

6. Security. All DEA registrants must comply with regulatory security requirements. 46

7. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must meet all applicable schedule III labeling and packaging requirements. 47

8. Inventory. Any person registered with DEA to handle FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must make an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including these substances) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances. After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana) on hand every two years. 48

9. Manufacturing and Distributing. In addition to the general requirements of the CSA and DEA regulations that are applicable to manufacturers and distributors of schedule III controlled substances, such registrants should be advised that (consistent with the foregoing considerations) any manufacturing or distribution of FDA-approved products containing marijuana may only be for the legitimate purposes authorized by the FD&C Act and the CSA.

10. Liability. Any activity involving FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana not authorized by, or in violation of the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions

State medical marijuana regulatory systems have matured significantly since California first authorized medical use in 1996, and today the vast majority of States maintain comprehensive licensing frameworks governing cultivation, processing, distribution, and dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes. These state regimes have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, maintaining records, and conducting facility inspections—functions that fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. The Attorney General has reviewed the operation of these state systems and finds that, taken as a whole, they demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA's registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.

In light of that record, the Attorney General has determined that incorporating state licensing systems into the federal registration framework represents the most effective and efficient means of achieving the CSA's objectives with respect to medical marijuana while promoting the medical benefits of marijuana and causing the least disruption for patients and existing state systems. The rule accordingly leverages existing regulatory infrastructure while preserving the Administrator's authority to deny or revoke registration where specific public-interest concerns arise and to ensure compliance with the Single Convention. This approach reflects the Attorney General's considered judgment that cooperative federalism best serves the statutory purposes of the CSA in the context of a well-regulated medical marijuana market.

The proposed amendments to part 1301 establish a new registration pathway for state-licensed medical marijuana entities seeking federal DEA registration as manufacturers, distributors, and/or dispensers. The regulation creates an expedited review process under which applicants holding state medical marijuana licenses may submit their existing state credentials as conclusive evidence of state-law authorization. The Administrator must grant registration unless doing so would be inconsistent with the public interest under the 21 U.S.C. 823 factors or with the requirements of the Single Convention. A DEA registration automatically suspends upon suspension, revocation, or expiration of the underlying state-issued license, ensuring that federal authorization tracks state authorization. To facilitate a prompt transition, the Administrator is directed to process applications submitted within 60 days of publication within six months, and early applicants may lawfully operate under their state-issued licenses during the pendency of review.

The rule contains several provisions designed to reduce regulatory burden on compliant state-licensed entities. Reporting, recordkeeping, and order-form requirements are limited to what is strictly necessary to satisfy federal statutory and treaty obligations, with state-required records accepted to the maximum extent permissible. State-authorized medical marijuana certifications or similar documents are sufficient to permit the dispensing of medical marijuana to users, provided they include the user's name and address, are dated and signed on the day of issuance, and identify the issuing practitioner. Similarly, registrants may rely on state-law labeling, packaging, disposal, and physical-security requirements in lieu of the otherwise-applicable federal requirements, subject to inclusion of the statutory warning label required by 21 U.S.C. 825(c).

To address Single Convention compliance under Article 23, the rule establishes a nominal-price purchase-and-resale mechanism through which the Administration acquires and resells registered manufacturers' marijuana crops, thereby satisfying the Convention's requirement that a government agency serve as the exclusive purchaser of cannabis production. Registered manufacturers must store crops in a facility to which DEA maintains access until that transaction is complete, and each manufacturer registration must specify the areas in which cultivation is permitted. The Administrator is also authorized to require record-keeping and reporting necessary to comply with the Single Convention, and the Administrator must take into account the requirements of the Single Convention, including any quota requirements, in evaluating applications.

Out of an abundance of caution, the Administrator clarifies that researchers who obtain marijuana or marijuana-derived products from a state licensee for use in scientific research shall incur no civil or criminal liability under the Controlled Substances Act solely by reason of having obtained such products from a state-licensed source rather than a separately DEA-registered bulk manufacturer, provided that the researcher is registered with the Administration to conduct research with marijuana under 21 CFR. 1301.13 and the state licensee from whom the researcher obtained the marijuana held a valid federal registration at the time of the transfer. The Administrator shall not treat the use of state-licensed marijuana products in federally registered research as a basis for adverse action against a researcher's registration.

The Administrator further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, holders of state medical marijuana licenses will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in “trafficking in controlled substances . . . in a schedule I or II,” 26 U.S.C. 280E. The Administrator encourages the Secretary of the Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license. Nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability, and state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.

The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control is required by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols. 49 If control is required pursuant to such international treaty, convention, or protocol, the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator, must issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, and “without regard to” the findings and rulemaking procedures otherwise required for scheduling actions in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b). 50

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), scheduling actions for drugs that are required to be controlled by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, shall be issued by order, as opposed to scheduling by rule pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a). Therefore, DEA believes that the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.

While this scheduling action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866, DEA recognizes this action may have unique economic impacts. Marijuana is subject to a number of State laws that have allowed a multibillion-dollar industry to develop. DEA acknowledges that there may be large impacts related to Federal taxes and research and development investment for the pharmaceutical industry, among other things.

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

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

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  51 applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under the APA or any other law. As explained above, this final rule is not subject to the notice-and-comment procedures of the APA. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this action.

This action does not impose a new or revised “collection[s] of information” as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 52

DEA has determined pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995  53 that this final rule would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year . . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This order is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA). 54 However, DEA is submitting reports under the CRA to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR parts 1300, 1301, 1308, and 1312 as follows:

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Legal Authority III. Background IV. Explanation of the Revocation of the Open Fires in Marine Terminals Standard V. Final Economic Analysis VI. Additional Requirements VII. Authority and Signature I. Executive Summary

This final rule revokes the Open Fires in Marine Terminals Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21 (“Open Fires Standard”). OSHA has determined that this standard is no longer necessary to protect employees working in marine terminals from occupational safety and health hazards. This is a deregulatory action per Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)).

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) (“the Act” or “the OSH Act”) is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources” (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To achieve this goal Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”) to promulgate standards to protect workers, including the authority “to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce” (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), and 29 U.S.C. 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and health standard is “. . . a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment” (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).

Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act. As required by the OSH Act, OSHA originally determined that the Standards for Marine Terminals would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm when promulgating those standards (see 48 FR 30886, 30887 (July 5, 1983)). Once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole. See Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“ Lead I” ). 1

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) directs agencies to include in each rule adopted “a concise general statement of [the rule's] basis and purpose” (5 U.S.C. 553(c); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring the Secretary to publish a “statement of reasons” for any standard promulgated)). This notice satisfies this concise statement requirement.

The effective date of this final rule is its date of publication. It is exempt from the APA's requirement for delay in effective date because the rule relieves a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

OSHA first adopted the Open Fires Standard in 1983, as part of its Marine Terminals rulemaking, to address serious occupational safety and health hazards in the marine terminals industry (see 48 FR 30886 (July 5, 1983)). The Open Fires Standard prohibits open fires and fires in drums and similar containers (29 CFR 1917.21). The standard is one of several intended to protect employees working in marine terminals from the occupational safety and health hazards to which they are exposed ( see 29 CFR Pt. 1917). For example, in addition to containing the Open Fires Standard, the Marine Terminals Standards contain standards protecting employees from slippery conditions (29 CFR 1917.12) and hazardous cargo (29 CFR 1917.22). The Marine Terminals Standards apply to work such as loading, unloading, movement or other handling of cargo in marine terminals (29 CFR 1917.1). Marine terminals are wharves, bulkheads, quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage or adjacent areas and structures associated with the primary movement of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to vessel including structures which are devoted to receiving, handling, holding, consolidating and loading or delivery of waterborne shipments or passengers, including areas dedicated to the maintenance of the terminal or equipment.

OSHA proposed removing the Open Fires Standard from the CFR because that standard is no longer necessary to protect employees working in marine terminals from occupational safety and health hazards. When OSHA first promulgated the Marine Terminals Standards in 1983, affected employees made open fires in drums or similar containers to stay warm when they were exposed to the elements. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this rule, OSHA stated the agency's understanding that this is no longer a typical practice and the agency belief that the practice is not likely to become prevalent again in the absence of OSHA's prohibition. As OSHA stated, because of containerization and technology improvements in the marine terminals industry, employees today are not exposed to the elements as they once were, and to the extent employees are still exposed to the elements, they can wear heated jackets, which were not available when the Open Fires Standard was issued. OSHA also has no records of any citations for a violation of this standard (OSHA's accessible records extend back to 2012, and OSHA did not receive any public comment or evidence suggesting earlier citations). Therefore, consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and the goal of significantly reducing the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen, OSHA preliminarily found that removing the Open Fires Standard from the CFR would reduce the compliance burden on the regulated community without compromising worker safety.

OSHA received two comments in response to the proposal. Both opposed the revocation of the standard on the grounds that open fires could remain a hazard if employees are exposed, but neither provided evidence to suggest that these fires still occur (other than via vandalism) or that employees would be exposed to any such fires. The Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (“OSHSPA”) (OSHA-2025-0007-0004) stated that while open fires “may not be typical practice, they are still in use,” but did not provide any other explanation. A different commenter (OSHA-2025-0007-0003) agreed with OSHA that employees today are not exposed to the elements as they once were because of containerization and technology improvements. The commenter also agreed that, to the extent employees are still exposed to the elements, they can wear heated jackets, which are now “widely available and affordable” and “provide a safer and more effective way to manage cold stress for workers with outdoor exposure, eliminating the hazards of open flames.” In response to a question posed by OSHA in the NPRM, the commenter posited, without providing any supporting evidence, that employees might still want to make open fires for other reasons, including improper waste disposal, vandalism, cooking food, and if heated jackets malfunction. The commenter also emphasized the risks associated with open fires, including the risk of uncontrolled flames in areas potentially containing flammable materials, smoke inhalation, and toxic fumes. On the other hand, the commenter also acknowledged that “general fire prevention rules” would address fire hazards.

OSHA concludes that there is no persuasive evidence in the record that these fires still occur. If open fires were occurring, they would be in violation of the existing standard. Yet while work in marine terminals has continued for over four decades under this standard, OSHA has no record of any citation for violation of the Open Fires Standard (OSHA's accessible records extend back to 2012, and OSHA did not receive any public comment or evidence suggesting earlier citations). The record lacks any evidence that, for example, employees at modern marine terminals are likely to resort to open flames to cook food or to dispose of trash. Moreover, the commenter corroborates OSHA's conclusion that employees are now far less likely to utilize fires for warmth, the primary concern that prompted OSHA to issue the standard. Finally, OSHA believes that open fires resulting from vandalism, if they were to occur, would occur with or without an applicable OSHA standard.

For these reasons, OSHA finds that the Open Fires Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21, is no longer necessary to protect employees in marine terminals and is finalizing the revocation of the standard.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, or a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ). Neither the benefits nor the costs of this final rule will exceed $100 million in any given year. This final rule will, however, result in a net cost savings for employers in marine terminal and longshoring operations, which are the only industries throughout OSHA's jurisdiction affected by the rescission of 29 CFR 1917.21.

Furthermore, as discussed below in Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the final rule will not impose any costs, OSHA certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

OSHA estimates that there are currently 2,617 establishments in the maritime industry affected by OSHA standards addressing open fires (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These establishments are found in the following industries: Port and Harbor Operations (NAICS 488310), Marine Cargo Handling (NAICS 488320), Navigational Services to Shipping (NAICS 488330), and Other Support Activities for Water Transportation (NAICS 488390). The revocation of the Open Fires Standard will, among other things, eliminate the time necessary for new establishments and newly hired occupational health and safety specialists at existing establishments to familiarize themselves with the requirements found in 29 CFR 1917.21. Based on an average annual establishment entry rate of 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025), an average hire rate of 43.9 percent (BLS, 2025), and 10 minutes less time spent on regulatory familiarization at a loaded hourly wage rate for an occupational health and safety specialist of $65.41, OSHA estimates that this deregulatory action will mean $15,377 in cost savings annually.

OSHA also estimated the impacts under an alternative scenario where only new entrants into the industry would be affected by the revocation of 29 CFR 1917.21. This scenario assumes that for non-entrant ( i.e., existing) establishments within an industry, the familiarization time saved for newly hired occupational health and safety specialists is negligible due to knowledge of the requirements in section 1917.21 retained institutionally within the business entity by team leaders and other senior production staff. For this scenario, cost savings that result from rescinding section 1917.21 would be $2,853 annually.

A third impact scenario, one that is likely closer to the real-world environment for the retention and communication of safety and health information in most workplaces, would be the midpoint of the two extreme cases described above. Under this mid-range scenario, approximately half of the affected establishments would retain staff whose complete knowledge of the rescinded standards would substitute for the familiarization time needed by the newly hired health and safety specialists. Viewed alternatively, under this mid-range scenario, all affected establishments retain veteran staff who can briefly inform the new safety and health specialist of the status of standards such as section 1917.21 in less time (roughly five minutes) than would be necessary in the absence of institutional knowledge (ten minutes). OSHA estimates that this would result in cost savings of $9,115 annually.

OSHA's estimate of cost savings may underestimate total cost savings if the elimination of the labor burden for regulatory familiarization extends to the avoidance of unnecessary safety training of employees.

OSHA presented this analysis in its proposed rule and requested public comment on its analysis of the cost savings for marine terminal and longshoring operations from the revocation of the Open Fires Standard, 29 CFR 1917.21. No comments addressing the analysis were received. Therefore, OSHA's estimates of the costs and benefits of this final rule remain unchanged from the proposal.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

OSHA reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a burdensome regulation. Therefore, OSHA certifies that the rescission will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. OSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ), Congress expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards that are “at least as effective” as the Federal standards in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29 U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered occupational safety and health programs as “State Plans.”  2

When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their standards to be identical to or “at least as effective as” the new Federal standard or amendment or show that an existing State Plan standard covering this issue is “at least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.

In the proposed rule, OSHA preliminarily determined this rule would not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard, and therefore State Plans would not be required to amend their standards in response. OSHA received one comment related to this determination. The comment was from the OSHSPA, which agreed with OSHA's determination that State Plans should not be required to amend their standards to adopt this rule. OSHA received no other comments disputing OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this proposed rule does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing its determination that State Plans are not required to amend their standards. OSHA agrees with OSHSPA that the OSH Act requires State Plans to have standards that are “at least as effective” as OSHA's but allows State Plans to be more stringent than OSHA in protecting the safety and health of workers in their respective jurisdictions. This rulemaking does not change that authority. Consequently, State Plans are not obligated to make any changes to their existing standards in response to this final rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)). The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320. This final rule imposes no new information collection requirements and does not affect the currently approved information collections in Marine Terminals (29 CFR Pt. 1917) and Longshoring (29 CFR Pt. 1918) (OMB Control Number 1218-0196). Accordingly, OMB approval of information collections is not required for this final rule.

E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

OSHA has reviewed this final rule according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321, 137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 11.10, the promulgation, modification, or revocation of any OSHA safety standard is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment under NEPA absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the need for such an assessment. OSHA finds that this final rule presents no such extraordinary circumstances.

OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and the Executive Orders on Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given that this is a final deregulatory action that involves the removal of requirements, that OSHA does not foresee economic impacts of $100 million or more, and that the action does not constitute a policy that has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has determined that this final rule is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” and is an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025); and 29 CFR part 1911.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA amends 29 CFR part 1917 as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and updating requirements to reduce unnecessary burdens without compromising transportation safety.

As part of this effort, on April 3, 2025, DOT issued a request for information in which it asked the public to assist in identifying existing regulations, guidance, paperwork requirements, and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to ensure that DOT administrative actions do not undermine the national interest and that DOT achieves meaningful burden reduction while continuing to meet statutory obligations and ensure the safety of the U.S. transportation system. 1 DOT received 955 comments, including some that were rail-related and specifically received a comment from the Association of American Railroads (AAR). In addition to other proposals, AAR requested that FRA clarify in 49 CFR part 209 that FRA's Office of the Chief Counsel has discretion to dismiss a technical violation where the challenged conduct does not raise a practical safety issue.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to adopt this AAR comment and to clarify that attorneys in the Office of the Chief Counsel have enforcement discretion in all phases of a potential enforcement action. 2 FRA has broad discretion to enforce the Federal railroad safety laws and regulations, including determining the appropriate method of addressing any violation it finds. 3 Accordingly, similar to the discretion that FRA has in determining whether to transmit or decline an enforcement action, FRA also has discretion to dismiss a violation, such as a technical violation, where the challenged conduct does not raise a practical safety issue. Even where FRA has transmitted a violation and decides not to dismiss it, FRA continues to have the discretion to reduce the civil penalty, but not below the respective statutory minimum amount, adjusted annually for inflation. 4 In the NPRM, FRA noted that this clarification would streamline the enforcement process, relieve enforcement burdens on regulated entities, and promote due process and fairness. In addition, FRA noted the proposal was consistent with the Mar. 11, 2025 DOT Memorandum, Procedural Requirements for Enforcement Actions. 5

FRA received three comments. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) submitted a comment in support of this proposal  6 but requests that FRA add a reference to its Small Entity Enforcement Policy, found in FRA's Policy Statement Concerning Small Entities at 49 CFR part 209, appendix C. The Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) submitted comments both in opposition to this proposal. Concerned that increased Office of the Chief Counsel discretion could diminish worker safety as Class I carriers could “argue away infractions as `not a practical safety issue,' ” SMART-TD strongly recommended that FRA provide a clear, narrow definition of a technical violation and publicly report each dismissal, and that rail labor should be permitted to review violation categories considered for dismissal. 7 Recognizing that FRA has discretion in determining and enforcing violations, BLET is concerned that using the term “practical safety issue” as a test of when expanded discretion may be utilized will create unnecessary confusion and uneven enforcement. 8 If FRA chooses to move forward with this rule, BLET stated that the term “practical safety issue” must be defined for consistency.

In response to ASLRRA's feedback, FRA notes that it recently addressed the civil penalty concerns ASLRRA raised through another mechanism. Specifically, on FRA's website, FRA describes its Small Entity Consideration, 9 as follows:

FRA declines to adopt SMART-TD's recommendation to include a public report of each dismissal, due to resource constraints. However, any dismissal will be reported in FRA's Annual Enforcement Report (issued on its website for each fiscal year).

FRA also declines to adopt the recommendations of both SMART-TD and BLET to define a “technical violation” or “practical safety issue,” as what may be considered “technical” is a matter within FRA's discretion and FRA has determined that this flexibility is desirable to maintain, and FRA makes this determination on a case-by-case basis. For example, FRA could cite a railroad with an alleged violation of a railroad safety regulation, but during settlement discussions, the railroad may contend that while a violation occurred in a technical sense, the violation cited did not raise a practical safety issue based on the facts presented in the case, and if FRA agrees, FRA could dismiss the violation as a matter of the Office of the Chief Counsel's prosecutorial discretion. 10

FRA proposed adding language that simply memorializes existing practice in FRA's Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Enforcement of Federal Railroad Safety Laws. However, in an effort to provide guidance and clarity, FRA notes the following example of what it may find to be a “technical violation.” Specifically, FRA may cite a railroad for an alleged violation of 49 CFR 218.101 for an unattended car left fouling an adjacent track. Though a fouling violation often presents a critical safety issue, during settlement discussions, a railroad could argue that the adjacent track being fouled had been out of service for years, with the switch accessing the track lined, locked, and spiked, suggesting that there was little practical safety impact from the observed fouling equipment in this situation. As such, in this example, the Office of the Chief Counsel could determine that this alleged violation, given these particular facts, is “technical” in nature and may not merit further prosecution.

This final rule is also consistent with a DOT NPRM published May 16, 2025, titled Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures. In this NPRM, DOT proposes to affirm that attorneys and policy makers have broad discretion in deciding whether to initiate an enforcement action as long as the decision is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the law about which the public has received fair notice and should be made with due regard for fairness, the facts and evidence adduced through an appropriate investigation or compliance review, the availability of scarce resources, the administrative needs of the responsible DOT agency or DOT component, Administration policy, and the importance of the issues involved to the fulfillment of the DOT's statutory responsibilities. 11

For these reasons, FRA is finalizing the revision to appendix A to part 209 as proposed.

As discussed above, this final rule clarifies that FRA's Office of the Chief Counsel has discretion to decline to enforce a violation, such as a technical violation where the challenged conduct does not raise a practical safety issue. FRA adds this statement to the discussion of FRA's Civil Penalty Process in appendix A to part 209. FRA also makes minor revisions, as proposed, to the Civil Penalty Process discussion, including removing a description of where settlement conferences are held and updating the discussion of how smaller railroads usually prefer to handle negotiations to reference “email” rather than “mail.”

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This rule clarifies that FRA's Office of the Chief Counsel has discretion to decline or dismiss a violation, such as when the challenged conduct does not raise a practical safety issue. By providing this clarification, regulated entities will benefit from a streamlined enforcement process, relief from enforcement burdens, and the promotion of due process and fairness. This clarification will also help to eliminate any confusion on the Office of the Chief Counsel's discretionary authority to decline to enforce or to dismiss a technical violation where the challenged conduct does not raise a practical safety issue. FRA requested comments on any potential costs from this rule during the NPRM comment period and received none.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  12 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 13

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 14 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

In the NPRM, FRA certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on this certification.

This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing practices that comply with part 209. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience benefits. Consequently, FRA holds to its previous certification that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  15 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 209 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and repealing provisions that are outdated and unnecessary without compromising transportation safety.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that identified 13 sections throughout its regulations that unnecessarily recite the approval of information collection requirements by OMB, state the assigned OMB control number associated with the entire CFR part, and list specific sections that contain information collection requirements. FRA proposed the removal of those 13 sections. 90 FR 28622.

FRA received two comments on the NPRM. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) commented, in part, that the rule proposed in the NPRM would “make it harder to access certain information collection forms.” FRA is not making any changes to the rule in response to BLET's comment because, as explained further here, the removal of the sections noted in the Section-by-Section Analysis will not affect any substantive safety requirement nor will it reduce or hinder access to current, verifiable information that railroad employees and the public may need in order to confirm they are using the most recent forms approved for use by FRA and OMB.

BLET notes that FRA forms displaying OMB control numbers “are not meaningless forms with useless bureaucratic information.” FRA agrees that its forms displaying OMB control numbers are important, and those that the railroad industry uses to comply with FRA safety regulations are necessary for compliance with those regulations and ultimately serve an essential safety function. All of FRA's safety-related forms are readily available online at: https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/forms-guides-publications/forms/current-forms.

Each form displays an OMB control number, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (PRA). The best and most accurate way for railroad employees and the public to confirm that a form is approved by OMB is to reference the control number, explanatory statement, and expiration date that are clearly displayed on each form. BLET's comments reflect a concern that verifying the accuracy and legitimacy of FRA forms would be more difficult if the sections of the CFR stating OMB control numbers are deleted. Specifically, BLET believes railroaders would then be required to navigate multiple Government websites that they rarely use, instead of simply referring to the CFR. However, FRA finds this concern misplaced. The forms that railroad employees need to access, including the relevant OMB control numbers, are readily available on a single website maintained by FRA and provided above (and all forms that railroad employees encounter in the field also display current OMB control numbers). Removing the 13 sections identified merely reduces the volume of regulatory text in the CFR and removes outdated cross-references related to the PRA without impacting any substantive safety regulation.

In addition, an individual commenter stated that FRA did not explain what specific safety obligations are “being eliminated” or what risk assessment supports their removal, and that the rule lacks a clear technical or safety rationale. The commenter also stated that “the broad sweep of this deregulatory action undercuts transparency and accountability in rulemaking.” In response, FRA reiterates that this rule does not eliminate any safety obligations, and there is no risk to safety associated with the removal of these unnecessary and outdated sections of the CFR. While this cleanup of FRA's regulations does span 13 CFR parts, it is narrowly focused on extraneous provisions, as FRA explained in the NPRM.

Please refer to the Section-by-Section Analysis in the NPRM, 1 as FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed and for the reasons provided in the NPRM.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. Regulated entities will benefit because removing each of the 13 sections that list OMB control numbers will eliminate potential confusion. The lists of cross-referenced sections that are associated with each OMB control number are outdated and unnecessary, making their removal the most practical solution to eliminate inaccuracies. In addition, removing these sections will reduce the amount of CFR text that regulated entities must read. The Government will also benefit from a reduced cost of publishing the CFR since the removed sections collectively add pages to the CFR.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  2 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 3

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero; therefore, it is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 4 and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule removes outdated and unnecessary regulatory sections without adding any regulatory burden or costs for any entity. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule contains no new information collection requirements, nor does it alter the burden associated with any existing information collection requirements under the PRA.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  5 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends parts 209, 213, 217, 219, 227, 229, 230, 232, 238, 239, 240, 241, and 242 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a final rule making miscellaneous, administrative updates to its State safety participation regulations in 49 CFR part 212. 90 FR 28130. In that rule, FRA made drafting errors in instruction numbers 7 and 19, which necessitates this technical amendment to effectuate FRA's intent.

FRA is promulgating these amendments without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because they fall under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). FRA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary here because these corrections are merely technical.

Instruction No. 7 in the final rule published at 90 FR 28132 revised section 212.201(d). FRA only meant to revise the introductory text of paragraph (d). However, because of an inaccurate amendatory instruction, the paragraph (d) subparagraphs were inadvertently removed from the CFR. Because FRA intended to keep the rest of paragraph (d) intact, this rule and amendment reinstates paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) as they existed before July 1, 2025.

Instruction No. 19 in the final rule published at 90 FR 28134 revised section 212.233(a). However, FRA failed to identify the intended revision to the section heading in the set-out text to “Apprentice grade crossing and trespasser inspector.” Because FRA intended to revise the section heading for consistency, this rule is necessary.

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 212 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to repeal the runoff parameter from 49 CFR 213.63 in FRA's track surface requirements. 90 FR 28626. During the comment period that closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED)  1 and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD). 2

In summary, BMWED supports the repeal of the runoff parameter in section 213.63(a), contingent upon the continued enforcement of overlapping and technically sufficient surface condition standards, as that runoff parameter is redundant. Conversely, SMART-TD urges FRA to withdraw this rulemaking, as SMART-TD contends that the runoff parameter is unique, necessary, and irreplaceable. FRA disagrees with SMART-TD and discusses the comments it received further in the Section-by-Section Analysis of this final rule. FRA finalizes the NPRM as proposed.

Paragraph (a) of this section requires each track owner to maintain the surface of its track within certain parameters set forth in the table. A working group of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) previously considered removing the surface runoff parameter from FRA's regulations between 2019 and 2022. 3 In the NPRM, FRA proposed to repeal the runoff parameter from the existing table in paragraph (a) ( i.e., the first row of the table). 4 The other parameters in FRA's regulations, including the thresholds outlined in existing paragraph (a), already capture the same track surface safety concerns.

In its comments, BMWED supports the repeal of the runoff parameter in section 213.63(a), contingent upon the continued enforcement of overlapping and technically sufficient surface condition standards. BMWED comments that runoff has become functionally redundant and is a legacy parameter no longer necessary for ensuring compliance or safety. BMWED also requests that FRA take the following actions: (1) clarify that inspectors retain the authority to cite hazardous surface conditions outside specific numeric thresholds, including updating FRA's Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual to make that statement; (2) reaffirm its commitment to the RSAC process for future technical rulemakings; and (3) conduct post-repeal monitoring to verify continued safety performance.

FRA appreciates BMWED's support of this rule and agrees that the runoff parameter under existing section 213.63(a) is redundant and unnecessary. In response to BMWED's three requests, first, FRA clarifies that this final rule does not limit an FRA inspector's ability to take enforcement action for unsafe conditions, consistent with 49 CFR part 213. FRA will continue enforcing its track safety requirements. Also, FRA expects railroad inspectors to protect a geometry condition before it reaches the limit, if they are concerned the track may degrade further prior to the next inspection.

Second, FRA appreciates BMWED's support for RSAC and agrees that RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders to exchange information relating to the safety of rail operations. Third, FRA will continue to oversee railroads' track safety, including by conducting field inspections and automated track inspections.

In its comments, SMART-TD urges FRA to withdraw this rulemaking, as SMART-TD expects that repealing the runoff parameter will embolden railroads to accept track conditions that place crews and the public at greater risk of injury and derailment. SMART-TD argues that the runoff parameter is unique, necessary, and irreplaceable in the rulebook. SMART-TD asserts that the runoff parameter exists for a reason—that is, to control lateral motion in track transitions: “Lateral instability increases the risk of derailment, introduces unsafe forces into locomotives and cars, and magnifies wear and tear on track components. Over time, unchecked lateral motion compounds into more rapid track degradation, creating a cycle of instability that ends in catastrophe.”  5

FRA does not agree with SMART-TD that the runoff provision is “irreplaceable,” or that repealing it will reduce safety. The runoff parameter under section 213.63(a) was meant to confront situations where track is elevated because of surfacing or bridge work, not degradation or deterioration. When trains encounter this ramp, they experience a vertical pitch or bounce if the elevation occurs in too short a distance. However, FRA's experience is that railroad maintenance practices make the limit unnecessary. FRA is confident that the existing limits for surface profile detect the same unsafe conditions. Like runoff, the profile parameter covers vertical changes in the surface uniformity of the rail, the only difference being it is measured over a 62-foot distance as opposed to runoff, which is measured at a 31-foot distance.

With that said, FRA generally agrees with SMART-TD's comments about the safety risks of track surface conditions causing undesirable in-train forces and the value of locomotive engineers and conductors reporting rough track. The existing geometry limits under profile, crosslevel, and warp cover this concern, and are not modified by this rulemaking.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule repeals the runoff parameter in FRA's track surface requirements, and therefore, this final rule will reduce the regulatory burden on track owners by eliminating the costs to measure and meet the runoff parameters currently set forth in 49 CFR 213.63(a). This rule will provide cost savings to regulated entities. In addition, this rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. government by eliminating an unnecessary requirement from part 213.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  6 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 7

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996, 8 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and government jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not impose any new information collection requirements or modify any existing information collection requirements. Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in part 213 became effective when they were approved by OMB on February 7, 2024. The OMB control number is OMB No. 2130-0010, and OMB approval expires on February 28, 2027.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  9 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 213 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) providing FRA's reasons for exempting freight cars used for tourist, historic, excursion, educational, recreational, or private purposes (THEERP) from the general stenciling requirement applicable to restricted cars, provided such THEERP cars are not interchanged among railroads. 90 FR 28639. FRA received two comments on the NPRM. The first comment supported the proposed rule, stating that it “allow[s] for relief of paperwork burdens and would not diminish safety expectations.” The second comment opposed the proposed rule, stating that deregulation always benefits businesses and harms the American taxpayer. The comment in opposition was not specific to any aspect of the proposed rule and states an opinion only about deregulation generally. Accordingly, FRA is finalizing the rule without change for the reasons stated in the NPRM.

Prior to this rule, section 215.303 required any car described in “§ 215.205(a)” of part 215 to be stenciled or marked to display certain information relevant to restricted freight cars, such as the car's age and those components needed to indicate completely the basis for the restricted operation of the car. FRA is exempting THEERP cars from this requirement. In addition, FRA is correcting the reference to section 215.205(a), which is a typographical error, with the correct reference to section 215.203(a). For more information, please see the Section-by-Section Analysis in the NPRM, as FRA is adopting the regulatory text as originally proposed.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule excludes THEERP cars from being stenciled with specific information, and therefore, this final rule will impose no additional burdens on regulated entities. This final rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities, by clarifying the language of part 215. In addition, railroads (or other owners of THEERP cars) will realize cost savings as they will not incur the costs of stenciling and marking cars that are used for tourist, historic, excursion, educational, recreational, or private purposes and not interchanged. Moreover, the amendments will result in cost savings for the owners of these cars as they will no longer be required to file individual petitions for waivers from the stenciling requirements. This final rule will also promote more efficient use of Government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA on reviewing and approving these types of waivers.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero. Therefore, it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance. FRA affirms that each amendment in this final rule has a cost that is negligible or “less than zero” consistent with E.O. 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 3 and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will not experience any additional burdens. In fact, many of the small entities that would submit waiver petitions in the absence of this rule will now no longer have to submit such requests. While there is time saved by no longer being required to submit waiver requests, it is not expected to have a significant economic impact on small entities. Therefore, even if a significant number of small entities may be impacted by this rule, the impact will not be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not impose any new information collection requirements or modify any existing collection requirements. Stenciling requirements under section 215.303 have not previously been included in part 215 PRA burden estimates. Therefore, this rule has no effect on any OMB-approved collection of information, and a submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  4 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 215 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and updating requirements to reduce unnecessary burdens without compromising transportation safety.

As part of this effort, on July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to revise the definition of a non-traversable curb to allow for speeds up to 45 mph. 1 The current definition of a non-traversable curb is established in 49 CFR part 222, Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The definition describes a highway curb designed to discourage a motor vehicle from leaving the roadway and notes that this curb type is used at locations where highway speeds do not exceed 40 mph, in connection with quiet zones established and maintained in accordance with the regulation. At the time that 49 CFR part 222 was issued, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provided guidance that vertical curbs should not be used with speeds greater than 40 mph. Subsequently, AASHTO modified its guidance stating that vertical curbs should not be used with speeds greater than 45 mph. FRA proposed to revise the definition in 49 CFR 222.9 to conform with AASHTO's updated guidance. In addition, revising this definition conforms with the waivers that FRA has previously granted to petitioners seeking relief from the requirement that medians with non-traversable curbing may not be used where highway speeds exceed 40 mph. See Docket Nos. FRA-2009-0066, 2010-0137, 2012-0030, 2012-0031, and 2012-0074.

FRA received three comments in response to the NPRM—comments from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED), the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), and an anonymous individual. All three commenters were in support of this proposal, but BMWED and TTD recommended that FRA elaborate on appropriate engineering controls, consistent with those recommended by AASHTO. Specifically, BMWED and TTD expressed concern that the proposal raised the speed threshold and set a curb height requirement without referencing the additional design elements that AASHTO cites for vertical curb safety at 45 mph, such as adequate sight distance, superelevation and alignment compatibility, and drainage design. Both organizations, therefore, recommended that FRA explicitly reference AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (7th Edition, 2018) (“Green Book”), and clarify that the use of non-traversable curbs at speeds up to 45 mph should incorporate appropriate engineering controls consistent with AASHTO's guidance. As an alternative to that recommendation, BMWED proposed that FRA issue an accompanying guidance or regulatory commentary reminding State and local agencies that speed alone does not govern safe curb design.

While FRA declines to incorporate by reference AASHTO's Green Book, in response to this feedback, FRA is adding a recommendation in appendix A to part 222 that states the use of non-traversable curbs at speeds up to 45 mph should incorporate appropriate engineering controls such as those recommended by organizations such as AASHTO.

This final rule revises the definition of a non-traversable curb as proposed in the NPRM. The definition currently provides for use of such curbs at locations where highway speeds do not exceed 40 mph. The final rule allows use at locations where highway speeds do not exceed 45 mph. This final rule thereby codifies five longstanding waivers in connection with quiet zones established and maintained in accordance with FRA's train horn regulation.

This final rule adds a recommendation, in connection with the requirements and effective rates for the supplementary safety measure of gates with medians or channelization devices, that notes the use of non-traversable curbs at speeds up to 45 mph should incorporate appropriate engineering controls such as those recommended by organizations such as AASHTO.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this rule. This final rule revises the definition of a non-traversable curb and will codify five longstanding waivers in FRA's train horn regulation, and therefore, this final rule will impart no additional burdens on regulated entities. Moreover, this final rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. Government, by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of part 222. This final rule will result in cost savings because impacted parties will no longer be required to submit periodic, repetitive waiver requests related to the regulatory definition of a non-traversable curb. This final rule will also conform FRA regulations with guidance provided by industry.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  2 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 3

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule. FRA affirms that each amendment proposed in this final rule has a cost that is negligible or “less than zero” consistent with E.O. 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing existing practices that comply with part 222; it merely offers clarification that could result in cost savings, if a small entity or other regulated entity chooses to utilize these flexibilities. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements currently in part 222 were approved by OMB on January 19, 2026. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0560, and OMB approval expires on January 31, 2029.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  4 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 222 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and updating requirements that are outdated.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed allowing railroads to satisfy the requirement to post a listing of all injuries and occupational illnesses at an establishment through electronic means. The NPRM also proposed removing some requirements of what must be included in these listings. 1

FRA received four comments. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (collectively, “the associations”) submitted a joint comment in support of the NPRM. AAR and ASLRRA contended that allowing railroads to post their injuries and occupational illnesses electronically uses technological innovation to advance safety and efficiency while reducing costs for railroads. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD), and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) (collectively, “the labor organizations”) each submitted a comment opposing the NPRM. The labor organizations asserted that allowing electronic posting in lieu of paper posting will have an adverse safety impact as it will reduce the number of important conversations that occur due to the physical posting of workplace injuries and illnesses. The labor organizations also questioned whether it is a burden for railroads to post this information physically.

After considering comments, FRA is proceeding to revise part 225 to allow railroads to post the information required under 49 CFR 225.25(h) electronically in lieu of paper posting and to remove the requirement that these postings be signed by the preparer. However, in consideration of BLET's comment, explained in more detail below, FRA has decided to retain the requirement that these postings include the annual average number of railroad employees reporting to an establishment.

For more information, please review the Discussion of Comments and FRA's Responses and the Section-by-Section Analysis, below.

In their joint comment, AAR and ASLRRA stated that allowing the electronic posting of injuries and occupational illnesses is preferable for various reasons. 2 First, electronic posting allows railroads to provide the same information that is currently provided through paper posting except in a portable format that is searchable and can be accessed at any time by employees. This use of technology gives railroads greater flexibility while also promoting safety and efficiency through technology, as some railroads have developed a single portal that employees can use to access injury and occupational illness data, along with other types of safety-related information, such as rule books, manuals, and guides.

The associations also support the reduction of costs that would result from electronic posting. Specifically, the associations noted that the rule would lower costs associated with purchasing and maintaining printers and supplying the printers with paper and ink. In addition, the associations mentioned that several railroads have submitted waivers requesting permission to use electronic posting in lieu of paper posting. This amendment to part 225 would eliminate the need for railroads to submit such waiver petitions approximately every five years, which would eliminate costs for both the railroads and for FRA in processing waiver petitions.

Lastly, the associations pointed to the success of the current waivers that have been in place for several years. For example, BNSF Railway Company noted its employees ran at least 655 reports in 2024, and the railroad has not received any negative feedback or complaints about its paperless injury log process. This suggests that employees are actively engaged in accessing this information electronically.

The joint comment from the associations largely corroborates FRA's rationale for proposing this change. By allowing railroads to post injury and illness data electronically, FRA is permitting technological advances that allow railroads to operate more efficiently without having an adverse impact on safety. As the associations noted, electronic posting of injury and illness data is beneficial to railroad safety as it provides railroad employees with greater access to this data. This rule also eliminates the unnecessary costs associated with the antiquated requirement that this data be physically posted at work establishments.

BLET, SMART-TD, and TTD all submitted comments opposing this NPRM. TTD also endorsed the comments submitted by BLET and SMART-TD. These comments contained various arguments in opposition to the NPRM.

One of the labor organizations' primary concerns is that allowing railroads to post injury and illness data electronically may make this information less accessible to railroad employees. BLET stated it can be time-consuming for employees to navigate railroads' complex computer systems. 3 Further, BLET asserted that this problem is exacerbated by Precision Scheduled Railroading, as employees are often under pressure from their managers to start their assigned duties immediately, and thus, they may not have time to view this information electronically. BLET also suggested that this proposed change would not improve safety and could lead to railroads concealing important information from their employees.

SMART-TD's comment similarly asserted that the proposed rule would have a negative safety impact that degraded safety culture because it could lead to railroad employees not having reliable access to information about the hazards where they work. 4 This may inhibit the ability of employees to learn from past accidents and prevent future accidents. SMART-TD also alleged that supervisors and employees have unequal access to the data, contending that supervisors have higher system access and greater familiarity with company technology than employees. SMART-TD encouraged FRA to consult with employee representatives on ways to make this safety information more readily available and to ensure it is being discussed in job briefings.

TTD argued that requiring physical posting of injury and illness data provides necessary transparency to workers of their railroad's safety culture. 5 Because employees may work in different places within a yard or facility, the physical posting allows them to be informed of safety issues affecting various crafts, locations, or shifts. TTD also noted that employees may work multiple shifts without having the time or ability to access this injury data electronically, which means they could be unaware of existing safety concerns.

Though FRA agrees that employee access to injury and illness data is important to railroad safety, FRA disagrees with the contention that allowing electronic posting to fulfill the requirement in 49 CFR 225.25(h) would limit employees' access to this information. TTD noted that railroad employees may work in different places within a yard or facility that inhibit their ability to view the posting electronically for multiple shifts. However, employees could also work multiple shifts without passing the physical posting. Thus, FRA fails to see how electronic posting would be harmful to safety. To the contrary, electronic posting provides employees with greater access to this information, as they can access injury and illness data at any time. Therefore, even if an employee does not have time to view the railroad portal during their workday, they will still have access to this information. Further, since the electronic dissemination of information is faster than physically posting such information, railroads will be better equipped to ensure the injury and illness data they are posting is accurate and up to date. This should enhance railroad safety, as it will allow employees to obtain reliable information more efficiently.

FRA is also unpersuaded by the labor organizations' contention that railroad computer systems are too complex and time-consuming for employees to navigate. Computers have been omnipresent in society for decades, and most railroad employees should have the requisite computer skills to access this injury and illness data upon receiving the instructions or training that the railroad is required to provide under section 225.25(h)(4)(i) of this final rule. For those employees who lack the requisite skills to find this information on their own, section 225.25(h)(4)(iii) requires supervisors to show an employee these postings upon request, thus ensuring employee access to this information. Therefore, even if supervisors have “higher system access” and “greater familiarity with company technology,” as SMART-TD alleges, this final rule requires railroads to ensure that all employees have access to this data.

BLET expressed concerns that adopting this final rule could lead to railroads concealing important information from their employees, but it did not provide a rationale for this concern. This final rule simply allows railroads to disseminate information in a manner that is more consistent with 21st century technological advances. Any efforts by a railroad to conceal information that it is required to post would be in violation of part 225.

Finally, in response to SMART-TD's comment that FRA should work with employee representatives on ways to make this safety information more available to railroad employees, FRA welcomes these interactions and is always interested in learning how to make the U.S. rail system safer. FRA believes that this final rule promotes rail safety by making injury and illness data more easily accessible to employees, who can review this data anywhere, at any time, as opposed to being able to view this information only at a single location within a work establishment.

All three labor organization comments referenced how physical postings encourage conversations among employees that promote a safer work environment. SMART-TD described these physical postings as a “critical learning tool” that leads to the sharing of best practices and safety hazards. Both BLET and SMART-TD argued that checking for injury and illness data electronically would not facilitate these spontaneous conversations that promote a strong safety culture and peer-to-peer accountability.

FRA supports in-person conversations regarding accidents at a work establishment and agrees that such conversations are beneficial to worker safety. However, the suggestion that physical postings promote more conversations than electronic postings is not supported. None of the comments provided any data or evidence in support of this argument.

FRA notes that these conversations cannot occur without employee knowledge and awareness of these accidents. Therefore, accessibility to this information is vital to ensuring these conversations take place. FRA contends that permitting railroads to post this data electronically will increase access to this information by allowing employees to access it from various locations at any time. Electronic posting also allows employees to review employee injury data at other establishments, which provides greater awareness of on-the-job safety hazards, and can prompt additional conversations.

The labor organizations questioned whether the proposed rule would reduce costs for railroads. BLET asserted that posting injury data in a physical location is not a burden for railroads. SMART-TD referred to the physical posting requirement as a “simple act of placing a sheet of paper on a crew room wall” and that any “miniscule cost savings” would be outweighed by losses to worker safety. TTD noted that other Federal agencies require employers to post physical notices regarding employee rights and employer responsibilities. For example, as TTD explained, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requires private employers engaged in commerce to post a physical copy of a job safety poster in their establishments. OSHA also requires many employers to post its Form 300A in a visible location, so employees are aware of injuries and illnesses that have occurred in the workplace. TTD suggested the posting of this information is important, especially for dangerous occupations such as railroading.

As AAR and ASLRRA noted in their joint comment, this rule will reduce costs with respect to printing while also eliminating the need for railroads to request a waiver. These waiver petitions require time and effort on the part of the railroad submitting the petition, as well as FRA in its review of these petitions. Thus, FRA finds that this final rule will result in some cost savings.

With respect to TTD's contention that other Federal agencies still require some employers to post certain information regarding employee rights and employer responsibilities physically, FRA is not bound by other agencies' requirements. Also, the examples of physical posting TTD cited have material differences from the posting requirements in 49 CFR 225.25(h). Most notably, unlike the posting requirement in section 225.25(h), these examples do not require monthly updates on the part of the employer. The OSHA Form 300A is an annual form, so any burden associated with posting this form in a physical location only occurs once a year, 6 and posting the OSHA job safety poster is a one-time burden. 7 Therefore, maintaining the physical posting requirement in section 225.25(h) would be considerably more burdensome than the examples TTD provided.

SMART-TD raised concerns with FRA's statement in the NPRM that the agency was unaware of any issues caused from granting waivers allowing certain Class I railroads to use electronic posting in lieu of paper posting. SMART-TD asserted that railroads are not going to volunteer information to their regulator about how waivers led to workplace injuries or fatalities. The comment also cited specific examples in support, such as CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) not complying with its waiver conditions; requirements that SMART-TD described as “very basic” to meet. SMART-TD also mentioned that since the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) received a waiver allowing it to post injury and illness data electronically, it was found to have tampered with FRA's safety culture assessment and contends that UP unjustly punished an employee who reported an injury. In addition, UP is currently seeking a “high-stakes merger” which will allegedly further disincentivize the railroad from reporting to FRA any safety issues that have arisen from this waiver voluntarily.

Regardless of whether railroads are likely to report safety issues that result from these waivers voluntarily, railroad employees, or the labor organizations that represent them, are not prevented from reporting any such issues. However, SMART-TD's comment provides no examples of situations where a waiver allowing electronic posting has resulted in a workplace injury or has been otherwise harmful to safety. Regarding SMART-TD's comment about the CSX waiver, the non-compliance was identified at only certain CSX establishments and CSX corrected the issue upon notification of the non-compliance.

FRA acknowledges that railroads may not report problems with electronic posting or their own non-compliance with the regulation (just as railroads may not report problems with physical postings or their own non-compliance with the existing regulation). The agency will continue to perform inspections of railroads' electronic posting systems, and if they do not meet the requirements of this final rule, FRA will take appropriate action. Based on the available evidence, FRA finds that there have been no reported instances where waivers allowing railroads to post injury and illness data electronically, in lieu of paper posting, reduced railroad safety. If new information comes to light which suggests that allowing railroads to meet the requirements in section 225.25(h) through electronic posting reduces railroad safety, FRA may reconsider this issue.

BLET disagreed with FRA's proposal in the NPRM to remove the requirement that railroads include the annual average number of railroad employees reporting to the establishment in the posting requirement under section 225.25(h). Specifically, BLET noted that this data is helpful in allowing employees to determine the frequency of accidents at their establishment and to compare this data with accident data at other establishments. For example, if 100 employees work at a particular location where there had been multiple injuries in the past 30 days, whereas another location with a similar number of employees had only had one injury during the same time period, that would give workers a better understanding of the safety conditions at their work establishment.

FRA found BLET's argument compelling for why it should keep the requirement that the annual average number of railroad employees at an establishment be included in these postings. As BLET asserted in its comment, this information provides railroad employees with important context for the safety conditions where they work, including the ability to compare injury statistics at locations with similar numbers of employees. FRA did not receive any comments in support of removing this requirement. Therefore, FRA has determined to keep this requirement in the final rule.

Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions. FRA will revise the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports in accordance with the changes to part 225 finalized in this rulemaking.

In the NPRM, FRA proposed eliminating the requirement that the postings required by paragraph (h) of this section include the annual average number of railroad employees reporting to the establishment. However, because FRA has decided to keep this requirement, FRA inserted the language as paragraph (h)(3)(ii). Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) through (xiii) in the NPRM have been renumbered in this final rule as paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) through (xiv), respectively.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. Railroads will avoid costs associated with physically printing, posting, and signing documents, including the time and expense required to do so. Employees will benefit from more convenient access to safety information. Those railroads currently submitting waiver petitions to post information electronically will avoid the costs of submitting waiver petitions, including the time and expense required to do so. The government will avoid the costs of processing and reviewing waiver requests, including the time and expense required to do so.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  8 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 9

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 10 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small businesses and other small entities, and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency, or an appropriate designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities. However, the impact to small entities is not expected to be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not impose any new information collection requirements or modify any existing information collection requirements. Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 225 were approved by OMB on December 5, 2023, and the information collection requirements thereby became effective when they were approved by OMB. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0500, and OMB approval expires on December 31, 2026.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  11 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 225 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed the elimination of the Federal requirement in 49 CFR part 237, Bridge Safety Standards, that defines the process a track owner must follow when scheduling the evaluation of bridges with no load capacity determination. 1 This requirement was intended as a transitional measure to phase in compliance after the bridge safety regulations became effective. The restrictions on the track owner's discretion to determine the process for evaluation of bridge load capacity are no longer necessary because the regulations have been in effect for almost 15 years and the transitional period for compliance has ended.

FRA received three comments in response to the NPRM. A private citizen expressed concern about the degradation of American infrastructure, including failing bridges, and opposes this rule because the citizen asserted it may lead to bridge failure. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED) and Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) both submitted comments in support of this proposal. Though they recognized differences in operational and structural characteristics of railroad bridges and public highway bridges, BMWED and TTD encouraged the increased alignment of part 237 with bridge inspection and evaluation practices employed by the Federal Highway Administration, citing the incorporation of standardized inspection intervals, load rating protocols, and common protocols as potential areas for alignment. In addition, BMWED and TTD recommended a structured review of part 237 involving industry, labor, and government representatives through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC).

The commenters and FRA have the same goal, which is to support rail bridge infrastructure and to make sure that it can safely handle the weight of trains operating over bridges. This rule does not impact FRA's regulatory oversight over bridge load capacity requirements, but rather it removes an obsolete provision from the CFR. Specifically, the requirement to be repealed in 49 CFR 237.71 requires an initial determination of load capacity that must be completed within five years of the required date for adoption of the track owner's bridge management program (BMP). See section 237.71(e).

In this final rule, FRA is revising section 237.71 as proposed. As acknowledged by BMWED and TTD, this requirement was intended as a transitional measure to phase in compliance after the bridge safety regulations became effective and more than five years had elapsed from the required BMP adoption dates in section 237.31. All other bridge load capacity requirements in this section remain unchanged, including the requirement that each track owner must determine the load capacity of each of its railroad bridges as documented in the track owner's BMP using appropriate engineering methods and standards. In addition, FRA welcomes BMWED's and TTD's ideas about bridge load capacity regulation for other transportation modes and also agrees that RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders to exchange information relating to the safety of rail operations.

This final rule removes the requirement in paragraph (e) that defines the process a track owner must follow when scheduling the evaluation of bridges with no load capacity determination. The existing requirement imposes a restriction on a track owner's ability to establish a BMP and evaluate bridge load capacity as the track owner sees fit. The existing regulation requires an initial determination of load capacity to be completed within five years of the required date for adoption of a BMP under section 237.31. Under the existing regulation, a period of more than five years has elapsed from the required adoption dates in section 237.31. This requirement was intended as a transitional measure to phase in compliance after the bridge safety regulations became effective. Removing this regulatory text removes an obsolete provision from the CFR, improving readability of this CFR part.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule removes obsolete requirements, and therefore it imposes no additional burdens on regulated entities. Moreover, implementing this rule will provide benefits, improving readability of this CFR part.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  2 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 3

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” FRA determined that issuing this final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore this final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 4 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities encompasses small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would not preclude small entities from continuing practices that comply with part 237 as amended; it merely removes obsolete provisions from the CFR and improves readability. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. OMB approved the existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in part 237 on April 1, 2026. The OMB control number is 2130-0586, and OMB approval expires on April 30, 2029.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  5 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 237 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and revising requirements to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens without compromising transportation safety.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed various changes to 49 CFR part 240 (part 240). 1 Specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) reducing the information required on an engineer's certificate and allowing certificates to be electronic; (2) requiring railroads to include findings of fact in support of their certification revocation decisions; (3) changing the administrative hearing process so railroads always carry the burden of proof; and (4) making miscellaneous administrative updates to part 240. FRA also requested comments on whether to remove the requirement that FRA is a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process.

FRA received three comments. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD), and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) (collectively, “the labor organizations”) each submitted a comment supporting some of the changes proposed in the NPRM and opposing other changes. The labor organizations generally supported FRA's proposal to require railroads to provide findings of fact when issuing their revocation decisions and placing the burden of proof on railroads during administrative hearings. However, they opposed allowing railroads to use electronic certificates exclusively and removing FRA as a mandatory party to administrative hearings.

In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it proposed in the NPRM. In addition, FRA has decided to amend 49 CFR 240.409(p) and (r) to remove FRA as a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process described in section 240.409, and instead, provides FRA the option of participating.

Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.

FRA proposed revising the definition of “Serve or service” in this section to have the meaning given in 49 CFR 209.5. BLET opposed this change, asserting that it would require service of documents to be done by registered or certified mail which would increase the burden of this rule. 2 However, on July 1, 2025, FRA issued an NPRM  3 proposing to revise section 209.5 to allow for electronic service, an action FRA finalized on April 24, 2026. This should alleviate BLET's concern, as parties will not have to use registered or certified mail to serve documents under this part.

FRA's proposed revisions to this section included replacing references to specific penalty amounts with a reference to 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. BLET commented that this revision is not problematic if the actual penalty amounts are readily available and easy to locate. As this information is clearly stated in 49 CFR part 209, appendix A, FRA concludes that BLET does not oppose this proposed revision, and FRA is amending section 240.11, as proposed, with some minor formatting edits.

FRA proposed a technical correction to this section, as it contained inaccurate cross-references. BLET noted its support for making this correction. FRA amends § 240.103, as proposed.

FRA proposed amending paragraph (a)(3) of this section to correct a previous drafting error. BLET agreed with this proposed change, noting that it clarifies ambiguity in the regulation. SMART-TD also wrote in support of this change, stating that this clarification prevents unnecessary and duplicative testing that wastes railroad and worker resources. 4 Therefore, FRA amends section 240.217, as proposed.

This section details what information must be included on a locomotive engineer's certificate. FRA proposed removing the requirement found in paragraph (a)(3) of this section that these certificates include the engineer's year of birth. FRA received support from the labor organizations on this proposed change. BLET agreed that the year of birth has little value in confirming an individual's identity and removing this requirement could protect the release of an engineer's identity following a grade-crossing accident. SMART-TD described this change as “a positive step for privacy and data protection,” as putting the year of birth on a certificate needlessly exposes engineers to identity theft. Based on these positive comments, FRA is proceeding with removing the year of birth requirement from engineer certificates.

FRA also proposed amending paragraph (a)(8) of this section to allow certificates to be electronic. In response, BLET stated paper licenses should not be eliminated, as paper licenses allow engineers to provide their identification quickly upon request from railroad officers, inspectors, and police officers. Instead, BLET suggested that engineers should have a paper certificate with an electronic version as a backup, as this would align with other forms of electronic recordkeeping and would provide engineers with multiple ways to comply with the requirement that they possess their certificate while on duty.

SMART-TD and TTD  5 similarly advocated for engineers to have both electronic and paper certificates. Both organizations acknowledged that electronic certificates could reduce administrative delays by preventing lost or damaged certificates. However, they expressed concern that not all engineers have equal access to digital devices or reliable connectivity. If the railroad only provides electronic certificates, certain engineers could be at a disadvantage or face discipline for circumstances beyond their control. SMART-TD added that if a system outage, cyberattack, or tracking capability linked an engineer's credentials to a specific train or assignment, that could create operational vulnerabilities and personal security risks.

In response to the labor organizations' concerns, FRA first clarifies that its proposed revision to paragraph (a)(8) does not prohibit the use of paper certificates. It simply gives railroads the option of issuing paper certificates, electronic certificates, or both. Despite the arguments from the labor organizations, FRA does not find a need to mandate that railroads issue both paper and electronic certificates. If an engineer does not have a railroad-issued electronic device, the railroad will need to ensure that he or she has a physical copy of their certificate to comply with 49 CFR 240.305(b), which requires engineers to have their certificate in their possession while on duty. For engineers that have a railroad-issued electronic device, they can still print a paper copy of their certificate if they desire. They can also save a copy of their certificate to their device, which would protect against any connectivity concerns.

With respect to SMART-TD's concerns that electronic certificates could create operational vulnerabilities or personal security risks, the purpose of the certificate, whether paper or electronic, is to document certification status under part 240. It does not contain or link to operational data such as train numbers or assignments. Any such information resides within a railroad's internal crew management system, which is separate from certification records. FRA's change to allow electronic certificates is intended only to provide administrative flexibility and does not create any new vulnerabilities or tracking mechanisms.

In summary, FRA has determined to allow, but not require, railroads to issue certificates electronically. This will provide railroads with greater flexibility while decreasing the likelihood of certificates getting lost or damaged and having to be replaced.

FRA proposed clarifying in this section that railroad revocation decisions must contain findings of fact, and the basis for those findings, regardless of what is required under the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA). All three labor organizations wrote in support of this change, stating that it would provide transparency, ensure due process, and allow engineers to understand the reasoning behind the railroad's decision. SMART-TD and TTD requested that FRA establish timelines for railroads to produce these findings of fact, as delays in the revocation process can cause significant harm to engineers. They also requested that FRA adopt enforceable penalties to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Findings of fact must be included in a railroad's revocation decision. Railroads with applicable CBAs must comply with any timelines in those agreements for issuing such decisions. FRA declines to override the timelines established in those agreements, especially since the applicable labor organization has already agreed to those terms. When there is no applicable CBA, paragraph (c)(10) of this section requires that a railroad's revocation decision, containing findings of fact, be prepared and signed no later than 10 days after the close of the record. Therefore, the requested timelines have already been established, and FRA does not need to make further changes to this section beyond what was proposed in the NPRM.

For railroads that fail to comply with this revised section by not providing engineers with adequate findings of fact, FRA may exercise its enforcement authority pursuant to 49 CFR part 209. In addition, any alleged occurrence of a railroad's non-compliance with this section may be reported to FRA for further investigation.

All three labor organizations that commented on this NPRM supported FRA's proposed change to paragraph (q) of this section making the railroad the “hearing petitioner” in the administrative hearing regardless of who the prevailing party was at the Operating Crew Review Board (OCRB). SMART-TD noted it was fundamentally unfair to require an engineer to prove their innocence against a corporation with substantial resources. Though SMART-TD and TTD support this change, they expressed concern that it could lead railroads to retaliate against engineers by using the certification process as a disciplinary weapon. Both organizations asked FRA to guard against, and to penalize, railroads that act in bad faith and attempt to revoke certifications illegitimately for retaliatory purposes.

FRA finds that SMART-TD and TTD may be overstating the likelihood that the revision to paragraph (q) will lead to railroads taking retaliatory action. Over the last several years, an administrative hearing has been requested in fewer than one percent of all engineer certification revocations. Thus, this change will have no effect on most cases where an engineer's certification is revoked. Therefore, FRA is unclear why this change would motivate railroads to retaliate against engineers. However, if such retaliation occurs, FRA encourages that it be reported for further investigation.

Existing paragraph (r) of this section states that FRA is a mandatory party to the administrative hearing and will be a respondent at the start of the hearing. FRA requested comments on whether this paragraph should be removed in its entirety, to no longer require the agency to be a mandatory party. The labor organizations strongly opposed removing the requirement that FRA be a mandatory party. BLET commented that FRA “is uniquely qualified to offer important insight and information to the AHO.”  6 SMART-TD and TTD argued that FRA serves as an independent check on railroad overreach, and if FRA were to step back from this role, administrative hearings would become railroad-dominated proceedings and engineers would be significantly disadvantaged. They implored FRA to remain fully engaged in these certification disputes to preserve fairness and legitimacy.

The labor organizations' comments appear to be imputing the responsibilities of the AHO onto FRA. It is the AHO (or presiding officer), not FRA, who ensures a fair hearing. 7 Also, their comments presume that FRA would always be aligned with the engineer or engineer candidate in these disputes. However, in some cases, FRA would be aligned with the railroad, which presumably would work to the railroad's benefit and the engineer or engineer candidate's disadvantage.

FRA acknowledges that in some cases, it may be able to provide important insights, which is why, after consideration of these comments, FRA has decided that instead of requiring FRA to be a party in these proceedings, it will revise this section to state that FRA may be a party to the administrative hearing. This preserves the agency's ability to participate in disputes where it believes it has important insights to provide. FRA may also decide to participate in cases where it thinks its participation will prevent an injustice from occurring. However, this also gives FRA flexibility not to participate in matters where FRA's participation would be unnecessary, waste agency resources, or not serve the agency's best interests. This change will allow FRA to maximize its allocation of resources, while also participating in matters of significant importance to the agency. Therefore, FRA is revising paragraph (p) to state that FRA may be a party at the hearing. As there is no need to repeat this statement in paragraph (r), FRA is also removing existing paragraph (r) and redesignating paragraphs (s) through (u) as paragraphs (r) through (t).

BLET also requested that FRA add language to existing paragraph (r) stating that FRA would be the petitioner or respondent depending on which party lost before the OCRB. BLET's rationale is that without this added language, FRA could choose to align with a railroad even though the railroad lost before the OCRB, which BLET claims would be unjust. FRA finds that adding this language is unnecessary, especially because FRA is no longer a mandatory party to the administrative hearing. If FRA decides to participate in an administrative hearing, it will most likely align with the prevailing party before the OCRB. However, if facts or circumstances have changed FRA's stance on a case, the agency should have the flexibility to align with either party. Therefore, FRA is not adopting BLET's proposed change.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. FRA makes several clarifications in this final rule, such as the definition of “serve or service,” references to penalty amounts, and technical corrections to eliminate confusion in the regulations. The clarifications to section 240.217 help prevent unnecessary duplicative knowledge examinations, saving railroads and workers the time and expense required to perform such exams. The revisions to section 240.223 on locomotive engineer's certificates will provide railroads with greater flexibility and will reduce the time and resources spent replacing lost or damaged certificates. These revisions will also have the qualitative benefit of enhancing privacy and data protection for workers. The revisions to section 240.307 on revocation decisions will impose a small cost by requiring some railroads to provide information that they do not currently provide. However, these revisions will also provide qualitative benefits to workers, including enhanced transparency, fairness, and understanding. Finally, the revisions to § 240.409 on hearings will offer the Government greater flexibility and will save government resources by no longer requiring mandatory FRA participation in hearings. These revisions will also have the qualitative benefit of increased fairness for workers by making the railroad the petitioner in all hearings. Overall, FRA finds that this rule will result in net costs less than zero.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  8 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 9

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have net costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 10 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small businesses and other small entities, and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency, or an appropriate designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities. However, the impact to small entities is not expected to be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and there is no new information collection requirement, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 240 became effective when they were approved by OMB on July 12, 2024. The OMB approval number is 2130-0533, which expires on July 31, 2027.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  11 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 240 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and updating requirements to reduce unnecessary burdens without compromising transportation safety.

The requirements for FRA-regulated entities to establish programs for certifying the qualifications of locomotive engineers and conductors are established in 49 CFR part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers, and part 242, Qualification and Certification of Conductors, respectively. On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to amend parts 240 and 242 to codify longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-sponsored C 3 RS program. See 90 FR 28676-28684. Interested persons can read more about the history of C 3 RS and the waiver process in the NPRM preamble. Id. at 28676-28677.

FRA received five comments on the NPRM. Four of the comments were received from the following non-profit employee labor organizations: (1) the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET);  1 (2) the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED-IBT);  2 (3) the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD);  3 and (4) the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). 4 One comment was received from the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). 5

All comments expressed general support for C 3 RS and FRA's goal of implementing the program nationwide but also raised some concerns. After thoroughly considering the comments, FRA has decided to finalize the rule as proposed, except for minor clarifying revisions to the definitions of “C 3 RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C 3 RS IMOU),” “Close call,” and “Peer Review Team (PRT).”

All labor organization commenters expressed concerns that the NPRM contemplated implementing C 3 RS programs through an Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU) that had only been signed by FRA and the participating railroad, in certain circumstances. These comments focused primarily on FRA's proposed definition for “C 3 RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C 3 RS IMOU),” which stated, in part, that if participating employees are not represented by a non-profit employee labor organization, or if a non-profit employee labor organization representing employees covered by a C 3 RS IMOU is not a stakeholder to the program, a C 3 RS IMOU may be signed only by FRA and the participating railroad. The labor organizations generally asserted that excluding labor organizations as a stakeholder to a C 3 RS IMOU would undermine employees' trust in the program and result in fewer close calls being reported. TTD also specifically asserted that employees would not feel comfortable reporting if a Peer Review Team (PRT) did not have labor representatives. Overall, these comments asked FRA to issue a final rule that requires labor organizations to be signatory stakeholders to a C 3 RS IMOU.

FRA agrees that having labor organization stakeholders strengthens C 3 RS and promotes employee trust in the program. FRA has expended significant time and resources in promoting labor organization participation in C 3 RS and will continue to do so. However, for the following reasons, FRA is declining to require that a C 3 RS IMOU be signed by a labor organization stakeholder. To reflect the important stakeholder role that labor organizations play in C 3 RS overall, and as discussed in the Section-by-Section Analysis below, FRA is replacing language in the proposed definition about a labor organization not being a stakeholder to a particular C 3 RS IMOU with language about a labor organization not being a signatory party. FRA is otherwise finalizing the definition of “C 3 RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C 3 RS IMOU)” as proposed.

First, requiring each C 3 RS IMOU to be signed by a labor organization representative could exclude non-represented employees from the program, including non-represented employees who are currently covered through C 3 RS programs that have been implemented on railroads where some or all employees are not represented by a labor organization. 6 In these cases, some C 3 RS IMOUs have been signed by an employee of the covered craft, 7 while others have been signed by only FRA and the railroad. 8 Except for railroads that have joined C 3 RS through the Short Line Safety Institute (SLSI), 9 these C 3 RS IMOUs also provide that the railroad will appoint employees to participate in the PRT, which ensures that an employee's perspective is heard when the PRT reviews and analyzes reports. 10 The success of these C 3 RS programs shows that the program can be implemented without a signatory labor organization representative, and railroads should not be excluded from the railroad safety benefits of C 3 RS simply because they have non-represented employees. Further, except for railroads that join C 3 RS through the SLSI, FRA does not intend to sign a C 3 RS IMOU that does not provide for employee participation in the PRT, regardless of whether the participating employees are represented by a labor organization that has signed the C 3 RS IMOU. To reflect the importance of employee participation in a PRT, and as discussed further in the Section-by-Section Analysis below, FRA is adding language to the definition of “Peer Review Team (PRT)” noting that a PRT can include employees who are not represented by a labor organization that has signed the C 3 RS IMOU (as well as other types of representatives).

In addition, there is currently no requirement for C 3 RS to be implemented through an IMOU signed by a labor organization representative, and establishing one when none has existed is unnecessary and could hinder the further expansion of C 3 RS. While FRA always strives to get consensus from all potential parties to a C 3 RS IMOU, even a C 3 RS IMOU without a labor organization as a signatory party still provides employees an opportunity to report close calls confidentially to an independent third party and to receive protection from discipline and revocation of certification for accepted reports that did not exist before.

Related to concerns about labor organization exclusion, BLET commented that it believes a C 3 RS IMOU that has been agreed upon by all stakeholders could be reached through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) process, requesting that FRA hold the NPRM as a proposal until all involved stakeholders could agree upon such an IMOU. FRA understands BLET's comment to be referencing RSAC Task No. 2022-03: Confidential Close Call Reporting System, which had involved a series of C 3 RS Working Group meetings. As explained in the NPRM, FRA withdrew Task No. 2022-03 from the RSAC in March 2025, in part to begin a rulemaking that would propose amending parts 240 and 242 to remove the need for C 3 RS waivers. BLET also commented that the ongoing reconstitution of the RSAC would set back progress made by the C 3 RS Working Group.

FRA is declining BLET's suggestion to wait to finalize this rulemaking until there is a standard C 3 RS IMOU agreed upon by all stakeholders. FRA appreciates BLET's support for RSAC and agrees that RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders to exchange information relating to the safety of rail operations. However, FRA does not believe it should delay finalizing this rulemaking until a standard C 3 RS IMOU is agreed upon, whether through the RSAC process or otherwise. As explained in the NPRM, after a series of RSAC C 3 RS Working Group meetings, it became apparent that stakeholders generally agreed that FRA should engage in a rulemaking that would streamline C 3 RS participation by relieving railroads of the burden associated with submitting waivers and recurrent waiver extension requests. See 90 FR 28677. Even if no additional railroads join C 3 RS, whether in accordance with a standard C 3 RS IMOU template or not, FRA believes streamlining the process to participate in C 3 RS is a meaningful burden reduction, both for FRA and the current participants. While BLET also questions whether granting C 3 RS waivers should be a pro forma exercise, FRA notes that no railroad request for a C 3 RS waiver has ever been denied. Further, FRA notes that though it publishes a Federal Register notice providing an opportunity for public comment on all C 3 RS waiver petitions, few comments expressing blanket opposition to a C 3 RS waiver have been received on any of the dozens of waiver and waiver extension requests FRA has granted (though some comments have expressed concerns about various specific aspects of the program or advocated for greater communication between railroad and labor organization parties to the program). 11 FRA also notes that BLET, SMART-TD, and TTD all commented in support of FRA granting a C 3 RS waiver submitted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) on behalf of Class I freight railroads (though SMART-TD and TTD also urged FRA to ensure that the Class I railroads joined C 3 RS in accordance with standards contained in C 3 RS IMOUs for current participants). 12

Further, while BLET is concerned that the reconstitution of the RSAC will hinder the C 3 RS Working Group's progress, FRA notes that it had disbanded the Working Group in March 2025, after concluding that further meetings were not likely to produce meaningful results. This was several months before the RSAC reconstitution process began in August 2025, meaning that the reconstitution will have no additional effect on the C 3 RS Working Group.

MTA commented that while it generally supports incorporating waivers to streamline the ongoing operation of C 3 RS, it thought the final rule should clarify that the PRT plays no role in determining whether a C 3 RS report is accepted, as that decision is made by the independent third party alone. Specifically, MTA suggested revising the proposed definition of “Close call” to remove the reference to PRT acceptance and to make conforming changes throughout the proposed rule to remove references to the PRT accepting a report.

FRA understands MTA's concern, as there are different understandings of what it means for a close call to be accepted among current C 3 RS stakeholders. The purpose of the proposed definition was to reflect that a PRT's review and analysis of a reported close call may uncover information that was not reported to the independent third party that makes the close call ineligible for the C 3 RS IMOU's protections against suspension or revocation of certification. For example, a PRT may discover that even though the current independent third party, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), accepted a close call, the underlying event was not eligible for the C 3 RS IMOU's protections because it was visually observed by a railroad manager in real-time. 13 FRA emphasizes that it is unusual for a PRT to determine that an event reported to and accepted by NASA is not eligible for a C 3 RS IMOU's protections, but it does happen occasionally. Further, because PRTs have an FRA representative, any such determination is made with FRA's advice and assistance, in addition to being a consensus decision made by all PRT stakeholders (including labor organization representatives).

The proposed definition of “Close call” also prevents an employee from receiving C 3 RS protections in the (highly unlikely) situation that the employee deliberately withheld information from the report that would indicate the underlying event was not a reportable close call (such as information indicating the event involved prohibited use of alcohol or a controlled substance or a willful violation of Federal railroad safety laws of railroad operating rules). To prevent such bad faith misuse of C 3 RS, FRA believes it is important to allow a PRT, when it has access to additional information that was not available to the independent third party, to determine that a close call reported to and accepted by the independent third party may still be ineligible for a C 3 RS IMOU's protections. If the PRT did not have this authority, the primary alternative remedy for bad faith misuse of C 3 RS would be for a railroad participant or FRA to terminate its participation in that C 3 RS program, which would unfairly deprive railroad employees adhering to the C 3 RS IMOU's reporting criteria of the opportunity to improve railroad safety by reporting close calls.

FRA has been working to clarify what it means for a close call to be accepted by both NASA and the PRT in recent C 3 RS IMOUs. For example, in the C 3 RS IMOU signed by Norfolk Southern Railway, FRA, BLET, and SMART-TD in February 2024, 14 Section 6.2 (“Conditions Under Which a Reporting Employee Is Not Protected from Railroad Discipline, Railroad Revocation of Certification, or FRA Civil Enforcement”) specifies seven conditions under which employees do not receive the C 3 RS IMOU's protections and affirmatively states that the PRT shall determine whether any of the conditions exist. 15 FRA acknowledges, however, that there remains some uncertainty among C 3 RS participants regarding the PRT's role in determining whether a reported close call is eligible for the protections of a C 3 RS IMOU.

To address this uncertainty, and in response to MTA's request for additional clarity, FRA is adding language to the proposed definition of “Close call” stating that “For purposes of this definition, a close call is accepted by a PRT when the PRT determines that the close call is eligible for the protections against suspension or revocation of certification established by the applicable C 3 RS IMOU.” FRA believes this additional language clarifies what it means for a PRT to “accept” a close call report, both in the definition of “Close call” and elsewhere in the rule. FRA is otherwise finalizing the definition as proposed.

FRA is amending parts 240 and 242 to codify longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-sponsored C 3 RS program. 16 FRA is codifying these longstanding C 3 RS waivers by revising parts 240 and 242 to provide that a railroad may not revoke an engineer's or conductor's certification for a close call event that has been reported in accordance with all applicable provisions of a C 3 RS IMOU. Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.

For the reasons discussed above in Section II.C, FRA is finalizing the definition of “C 3 RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (C 3 RS IMOU)” in both sections 240.7 and 242.7 as proposed, except that FRA is replacing language in the proposed definition about a labor organization not being a stakeholder to a particular C 3 RS IMOU with language about a labor organization not being a signatory party to a C 3 RS IMOU. The new language reflects that labor organizations can be important stakeholders to the overall C 3 RS program, even if they are not signatory parties to a particular C 3 RS IMOU.

For the reasons discussed above in Section II.C, FRA is finalizing the definition of “Close call” in both sections 240.7 and 242.7 as proposed, except that FRA is including additional language clarifying that a close call is accepted by a PRT when the PRT determines that the close call is eligible for the protections against suspension or revocation of certification established by the applicable C 3 RS IMOU.

FRA is adopting the definition of “Peer Review Team (PRT)” as proposed, except for two clarifications. First, FRA is replacing the term “primary stakeholders” with “signatory parties” to reflect that not all C 3 RS stakeholders may be a signatory party to a particular C 3 RS IMOU. Second, FRA is adding language noting that a PRT may also include the following persons: a representative from the independent third party; employees covered by the C 3 RS IMOU who are not represented by a non-profit employee labor organization that has signed the C 3 RS IMOU; and other subject matter experts on an ad hoc basis when their expertise would assist the PRT in developing recommendations. This additional language reflects that most C 3 RS IMOUs provide for NASA and other subject matter experts to participate in a PRT when requested, and that C 3 RS IMOUs that cover non-represented employees generally provide that a railroad will appoint employees to participate in the PRT. FRA also notes that the intent of this definition is to describe PRT composition, not to regulate it, as PRT composition is subject to the provisions of a signed C 3 RS IMOU. This definition does not, for example, override IMOUs for railroads that participate in C 3 RS through the SLSI, which provide that the PRT is comprised of FRA and SLSI representatives.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This rule amends FRA's regulations governing the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors and codifies longstanding waivers that have granted relief from certain certification requirements for railroads that participate in the FRA-sponsored C 3 RS program. This final rule will reduce the burden on C 3 RS-participating railroads. Nothing in this final rule changes the voluntary and cooperative nature of C 3 RS, as participants retain the ability to terminate their participation in the program in accordance with the provisions of the applicable C 3 RS IMOU. Moreover, this rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. Government, by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of parts 240 and 242. This final rule will also promote more efficient use of Government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA on reviewing and approving these types of waivers.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  17 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 18

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rulemaking will have total costs less than zero, and therefore will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

In the NPRM, FRA certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on this certification.

This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing practices that comply with parts 240 and 242. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings in terms of reduced burden on C 3 RS-participating railroads. This final rule will also promote more efficient use of Government resources by reducing the time spent by FRA on reviewing and approving these types of waivers. The impact to small entities is not expected to be significant. Consequently, FRA holds to its previous certification that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520); therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in parts 240 and 242 became effective when they were approved by OMB in 2024. The OMB approval numbers are OMB No. 2130-0533, which expires on July 31, 2027, and OMB No. 2130-0596, which expires on October 31, 2027.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  19 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends parts 240 and 242 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and revising requirements to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens without compromising transportation safety.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed various changes to 49 CFR part 242 (part 242). 1 Specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) reducing the information required on a conductor's certificate and allowing certificates to be electronic; (2) requiring railroads to include findings of fact in support of their certification revocation decisions; (3) changing the administrative hearing process so railroads always carry the burden of proof; and (4) making miscellaneous administrative updates to part 242. FRA also requested comments on whether to remove the requirement that FRA is a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process.

FRA received two comments. The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD) and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) (collectively, “the labor organizations”) each submitted a comment supporting some of the changes proposed in the NPRM and opposing other changes. The labor organizations generally supported FRA's proposal to require railroads to provide findings of fact when issuing their revocation decisions and placing the burden of proof on railroads during administrative hearings. However, they opposed allowing railroads to use electronic certificates exclusively and removing FRA as a mandatory party to administrative hearings.

In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it proposed in the NPRM. In addition, FRA has decided to amend 49 CFR 242.509(p) and (r) to remove FRA as a mandatory party in the administrative hearing process described in section 242.509, and instead, provides FRA the option of participating.

Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.

FRA's proposed revisions to this section included replacing references to specific penalty amounts with a reference to 49 CFR part 209, appendix A. FRA is amending section 242.11, as proposed, with some minor formatting edits.

This section details what information must be included on a conductor's certificate. FRA proposed removing the requirement found in paragraph (a)(3) of this section that these certificates include the conductor's year of birth. SMART-TD described this change as “a positive step for privacy and data protection,” as putting the year of birth on a certificate needlessly exposes conductors to identity theft. 2 Based on this positive comment, FRA is proceeding with removing the year of birth requirement from conductor certificates.

FRA also proposed amending paragraph (a)(7) of this section to allow certificates to be electronic. SMART-TD and TTD  3 advocated for conductors to have both electronic and paper certificates. Both organizations acknowledged that electronic certificates could reduce administrative delays by preventing lost or damaged certificates. However, they expressed concern that not all conductors have equal access to digital devices or reliable connectivity. If the railroad only provides electronic certificates, certain conductors could be at a disadvantage or face discipline for circumstances beyond their control. SMART-TD added that if a railroad is hacked or a conductor's information is linked to a particular train, that could constitute a security threat to conductors assigned to high value or strategically sensitive freight.

In response to the labor organizations' concerns, FRA first clarifies that its proposed revision to paragraph (a)(7) does not prohibit the use of paper certificates. It simply gives railroads the option of issuing paper certificates, electronic certificates, or both. Despite the arguments from SMART-TD and TTD, FRA does not find a need to mandate that railroads issue both paper and electronic certificates. If a conductor does not have a railroad-issued electronic device, the railroad will need to ensure that he or she has a physical copy of their certificate to comply with 49 CFR 242.209(a), which requires conductors to have their certificate in their possession while on duty. For conductors that have a railroad-issued electronic device, they can still print a paper copy of their certificate if they desire. They can also save a copy of their certificate to their device, which would protect against any connectivity concerns.

With respect to SMART-TD's concerns that electronic certificates could create security threats to conductors in the event of a hack, the purpose of the certificate, whether paper or electronic, is to document certification status under part 242. It does not contain or link to operational data such as train numbers or assignments. Any such information resides within a railroad's internal crew management system, which is separate from certification records. FRA's change to allow electronic certificates is intended only to provide administrative flexibility and does not create any new vulnerabilities or tracking mechanisms.

In summary, FRA has determined to allow, but not require, railroads to issue certificates electronically. This will provide railroads with greater flexibility while decreasing the likelihood of certificates getting lost or damaged and having to be replaced.

FRA proposed clarifying in this section that railroad revocation decisions must contain findings of fact, and the basis for those findings, regardless of what is required under the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Both labor organizations wrote in support of this change, stating that it would provide transparency, ensure due process, and allow conductors to understand the reasoning behind the railroad's decision. They requested that FRA establish timelines for railroads to produce these findings of fact, as delays in the revocation process can cause significant harm to conductors. They also requested that FRA adopt enforceable penalties to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Findings of fact must be included in a railroad's revocation decision. Railroads with applicable CBAs must comply with any timelines in those agreements for issuing such decisions. FRA declines to override the timelines established in those agreements, especially since the applicable labor organization has already agreed to those terms. When there is no applicable CBA, paragraph (c)(10) of this section requires that a railroad's revocation decision, containing findings of fact, be prepared and signed no later than 10 days after the close of the record. Therefore, the requested timelines have already been established, and FRA does not need to make further changes to this section beyond what was proposed in the NPRM.

For railroads that fail to comply with this revised section by not providing conductors with adequate findings of fact, FRA may exercise its enforcement authority pursuant to 49 CFR part 209. In addition, any alleged occurrence of a railroad's non-compliance with this section may be reported to FRA for further investigation.

Both SMART-TD and TTD supported FRA's proposed change to paragraph (q) of this section making the railroad the “hearing petitioner” in the administrative hearing regardless of who the prevailing party was at the Operating Crew Review Board. SMART-TD noted it was fundamentally unfair to require a conductor to prove their innocence against a corporation with substantial resources. While SMART-TD and TTD support this change, they expressed concern that it could lead railroads to retaliate against conductors by using the certification process as a disciplinary weapon. SMART-TD referenced a recent inquiry by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration into “the culture of abusive labor practices in railroading regarding the treatment of whistleblowers” and claimed that this change to paragraph (q) will trigger “a strong and predictably vindictive response.” Both organizations asked FRA to guard against, and to penalize, railroads that act in bad faith and attempt to revoke certifications illegitimately for retaliatory purposes.

FRA finds that SMART-TD and TTD may be overstating the likelihood that the revision to paragraph (q) will lead to railroads taking retaliatory action. Over the last several years, an administrative hearing has been requested in fewer than one percent of all conductor certification revocations. Thus, this change will have no effect on most cases where a conductor's certification is revoked. Therefore, FRA is unclear why this change would motivate railroads to retaliate against conductors. However, if such retaliation occurs, FRA encourages that it be reported for further investigation.

Existing paragraph (r) of this section states that FRA is a mandatory party to the administrative hearing and will be a respondent at the start of the hearing. FRA requested comment on whether this paragraph should be removed in its entirety, to no longer require the agency to be a mandatory party. The labor organizations strongly opposed removing the requirement that FRA be a mandatory party. SMART-TD and TTD argued that FRA serves as an independent check on railroad overreach, and if FRA were to step back from this role, administrative hearings would become railroad-dominated proceedings and conductors would be significantly disadvantaged. They implored FRA to remain fully engaged in these certification disputes to preserve fairness and legitimacy.

The labor organizations' comments appear to be imputing the responsibilities of the AHO onto FRA. It is the AHO (or presiding officer), not FRA, who ensures a fair hearing. 4 Also, their comments presume that FRA would always be aligned with the conductor or conductor candidate in these disputes. However, in some cases, FRA would be aligned with the railroad, which presumably would work to the railroad's benefit and the conductor or conductor candidate's disadvantage.

FRA acknowledges that in some cases, it may be able to provide important insights, which is why, after consideration of these comments, instead of requiring FRA to be a party in these proceedings, it will revise this section to state that FRA may be a party to the administrative hearing. This preserves the agency's ability to participate in disputes where it believes it has important insights to provide. FRA may also decide to participate in cases where it thinks its participation will prevent an injustice from occurring. However, this also gives FRA flexibility not to participate in matters where FRA's participation would be unnecessary, waste agency resources, or not serve the agency's best interests. This change will allow FRA to maximize its allocation of resources, while also participating in matters of significant importance to the agency. Therefore, FRA is revising paragraph (p) to state that FRA may be a party at the hearing. As there is no need to repeat this statement in paragraph (r), FRA is also removing existing paragraph (r) and redesignating paragraphs (s) through (u) as paragraphs (r) through (t).

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. In this final rule, FRA makes several revisions and clarifications to improve clarity, efficiency, and the allocation of agency resources. These include revisions to specify the appropriate information to be included in required documents, clarification of alternatives for issuance of such documents, and the clarification of provisions that were not clear. In addition, these revisions reduce administrative burden. The revisions to section 242.207 on conductor's certificates will provide railroads with greater flexibility and will reduce the time and resources spent replacing lost or damaged certificates. These revisions will also have the qualitative benefit of enhancing privacy and data protection for workers. The revisions to section 242.407 on revocation decisions will impose a small cost by requiring some railroads to provide information that they do not currently provide. However, these revisions will also provide qualitative benefits to workers, including enhanced transparency, fairness, and understanding. Finally, revisions to section 242.509 grant FRA the discretion to determine its level of participation in administrative hearings. This modification provides qualitative benefits by enhancing fairness for workers, as the railroad will assume the role of “hearing petitioner.” In addition, the Government will realize cost savings from no longer being required to participate as a mandatory party in each administrative hearing. Overall, FRA finds that this will result in net costs less than zero.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  5 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 6

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have net costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 7 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities. The impact to small entities is not expected to be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and there is no new information collection requirement, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 242 became effective when they were approved by OMB on October 24, 2024. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0596, and OMB approval expires on October 31, 2027.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  8 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 242 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively develop management measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries in state and Federal waters. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act, NMFS reviews Council recommendations and, after taking public comment, implements approved fishery management actions for Federal waters.

In this final rule, NMFS is implementing Framework Adjustment 18 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP ( i.e., the Summer Flounder Commercial Mesh Exemption Framework Action). The Summer Flounder Commercial Mesh Exemption Framework Action implements changes to the two existing exemptions from the minimum mesh size requirements in the commercial summer flounder fishery. The goal of this framework is to modernize the exemptions to be consistent with current gear use and fishing practices, providing the industry with better access to the exemptions and greater operational flexibility. These changes are consistent with the original intent of the minimum mesh size exemptions, which is to reduce summer flounder discards in other fisheries without increasing the catch of smaller summer flounder.

The implementing regulations for the FMP are found at 50 CFR part 648 subpart G. Pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b)(4), in order to protect smaller summer flounder, the summer flounder regulations at § 648.108(a) specify the minimum allowable mesh size when using an otter trawl in the commercial summer flounder fishery. The regulations at § 648.108(b) provide two exemptions from the minimum mesh size requirements: (1) the Small-Mesh Exemption Program (SMEP), which provides exemptions within a defined geographical area from November through April for vessels holding an appropriate Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Office for this purpose; and (2) the flynet exemption, which allows exemptions for vessels using a specific net configuration. Additional information on the history and details of these programs is provided in the proposed rule (90 FR 44618, September 16, 2025) and is not repeated here.

Under the rulemaking authority of Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 303(c) and 304(b), this action implements three modifications to the existing summer flounder minimum mesh size exemptions, as requested by the fishing industry and recommended by the Council: (1) expansion of the geographical area of the SMEP; (2) revision of the annual evaluation process for the SMEP; and (3) revision of the definition of a flynet within the summer flounder regulations. Under the Secretarial rulemaking authority of Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d), which authorizes NMFS to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out an FMP, this action also implements three administrative changes related to the minimum mesh size exemptions: (1) allowance for a minimum LOA period of less than 7 days to provide added operational flexibility to the industry; (2) implementation of the use of a flynet vessel trip reporting (VTR) code for ease of tracking fishing activity under the flynet exemption; and (3) revision of the criterion used to evaluate whether to terminate the flynet exemption in order to more accurately align with the original FMP amendment and the original objective of the action. These administrative changes support the implementation of the framework, alleviate an administrative constraint that is no longer necessary, and correct an error in the regulations.

This action moves the western boundary of the SMEP area approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers (km)) west for the portion of the area south of Long Island Sound. The coordinates of the revised area are found in § 648.108, as implemented by this rule. The use of bottom-tending gear is prohibited in the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area, and this action would not modify the portion of the SMEP south of that area nor allow SMEP trips in the Coral Protection Area. The revision adds approximately 4,943 km 2 (1,441 nautical miles 2 ) of accessible waters to the SMEP area after excluding the deep-sea coral zone.

Members of the fishing industry requested this change to provide greater flexibility to those fishing in multiple fisheries, noting that the SMEP has reduced summer flounder regulatory discards and is critical for the economic stability of their businesses. The expansion of the SMEP area is intended to allow for greater retention of summer flounder in areas where summer flounder permit holders are currently participating in other fisheries using mesh below the summer flounder minimum mesh size. The change is not expected to pose a risk to the health of the summer flounder stock because: (1) overall summer flounder landings are constrained by annual catch limits; (2) the summer flounder regulations prohibit the retention of undersized summer flounder; and (3) the regulations allow for the SMEP to be temporarily terminated if data indicate that SMEP participants are discarding summer flounder above a specified threshold. This action additionally corrects a citation referring to net stowage requirements in section 648.14(n)(2)(iii)(B).

This action updates the annual review criteria for the SMEP. The current regulations authorize the Regional Administrator to terminate the SMEP for the remainder of the season when a threshold of an average of 10 percent of summer flounder catch is discarded per SMEP trip (by weight). This action increases the discard threshold to an average of 25 percent of the summer flounder catch per SMEP trip (by weight). This change is based on improved data quality and availability. The increase to the evaluation threshold is not expected to result in significant increases in summer flounder discards and would ensure that termination of the SMEP is considered when SMEP discards increase beyond what is considered normal relative to the summer flounder fishery as a whole.

When the discard threshold is reached, the Monitoring Committee will lead the preparation of an analysis of SMEP discards before the Regional Administrator decides whether to temporarily revoke the SMEP. Alternatively, if NMFS leads the preparation of the analysis, then the Monitoring Committee will review that analysis ahead of the Regional Administrator's decision. Implementing a Monitoring Committee-led review of SMEP discards will allow the Regional Administrator to consider other relevant information before deciding whether to temporarily revoke the SMEP. These changes are intended to prevent premature SMEP closures and unnecessary economic harm to permit holders who rely on the SMEP.

Finally, this action also changes the timing of the SMEP revocation, authorizing the Regional Administrator to terminate the exemption for the remainder of the current SMEP season or the following SMEP season. The current regulations allow the Regional Administrator to terminate the SMEP for only the remainder of the current season. This action would add an option to terminate the SMEP for the following SMEP season based on the lag in data availability and the timeline required to undertake an in-depth review of SMEP discards.

This action updates the SMEP participation period, allowing the Regional Administrator to specify a shorter minimum participation period of between 1 and 7 days. These changes would occur as needed alongside development and further advancement of paperless LOAs. The 7-day minimum was originally implemented due to the administrative burden of processing paper-based LOA applications and withdrawal requests. However, the 7-day minimum participation period limits the industry's ability to adjust its behavior based on real-time fishing conditions. This administrative change also allows for the minimum participation period to be reduced when technology that enables faster LOA processing becomes available. On April 1, 2026, regional NMFS staff implemented paperless LOAs and integrated them into the region's electronic permitting system. This updated system automatically validates qualification criteria and issues LOAs, which should obviate the need for the 7-day minimum. This rule will accommodate the paperless LOA process by allowing for a minimum LOA period from 7 days to as short as 1 day.

This action changes the regulatory definition of a “flynet” by removing the requirements for a specified number of seams and the maximum mesh size within the summer flounder regulations at § 648.108(b)(2). Industry feedback indicated that the current definition does not reflect modern net configurations and that similar nets that align with the original objective of the flynet exemption are used throughout the region. Based on consultations with members of the fishing industry that use the gear, the updated definition will be “an otter trawl with: (1) large mesh in the wings that measures 8 inches (20 cm) or greater; (2) a first body (belly) section that has at least 280 inches (711 cm) of mesh behind the sweep where the mesh size is at least 8 inches (20 cm); and (3) mesh that decreases in size throughout the body of the net toward the codend.” As with the proposed SMEP alterations, this change is not expected to pose a risk to the health of the summer flounder stock given the summer flounder annual catch limits, summer flounder minimum size requirements, and the Regional Administrator's authority to rescind the flynet exemption for the remainder of the year when a specific threshold is reached.

This action revises the evaluation criterion in § 648.108(b)(2)(iv) used to determine whether the termination of the flynet exemption may be warranted, replacing “discards” with “catch.” In amendment 2 to the FMP, the Council recommended that the Regional Administrator consider terminating the flynet exemption when the annual average summer flounder catch exceeds 1 percent of the total catch in the flynet fishery. However, the regulations provide a criterion of summer flounder discards greater than 1 percent of summer flounder catch in the flynet fishery. The record for that amendment does not indicate that NMFS rejected the Council's recommendation nor does it provide a rationale for such a change. Rather, the difference between the FMP and regulations likely resulted from an administrative error which this rule will correct.

This action implements a flynet gear code to identify trips taken under the flynet exemption more accurately through VTRs. Currently, evaluation of the flynet exemption relies on the vessel operator self-reporting the net type during observed trips. Given the limited number of observed trips and the variation in net terminology throughout the region, accurate identification of flynet trips has been challenging. This change will support improved monitoring of the flynet exemption, which will result in improved decision making regarding termination of, or any future modifications to, the exemption.

NMFS received three comments on the proposed rule (90 FR 44618, September 16, 2025) from four individuals. Two comments expressed support for the proposed action. One comment written by two individuals expressed partial support while offering concerns about bycatch reduction and stakeholder input.

Comment 1: One comment requested that the action include a gradual transition to requiring the use of semi-pelagic otterboards to reduce bycatch and mitigate the environmental impacts of bottom-tending gear on seabed habitats.

Response: This action was initiated after the Council's fall 2023 review of summer flounder commercial mesh regulations, which identified necessary changes to the SMEP based on feedback from the commercial fishing industry. The scope of this action was set after multiple rounds of public input, Committee discussion, and Council review. In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, an EA was prepared at the proposed rule stage that found no significant impacts of all alternative proposed actions on the quality of the human environment. The goals described in this comment fall outside of the purpose and need for this action that was evaluated in the EA. In addition, NMFS determined that the rule is not expected to notably change fishing locations, amount of gear in the water, or timing of fishing in a manner that would modify existing impacts to habitat. Finally, NMFS determined that this rule is in compliance with section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because no incentive is provided for vessels to increase effort, substantially change the area fished, or change the gear types used to catch summer flounder, so no new or elevated interaction risks with ESA-listed species are expected to occur. While the commenter can seek the Council to pursue this approach in a future action, NMFS has determined that implementing further changes to gear regulations is outside the scope of this rule.

Comment 2: The same commenters also requested that the rule conduct a more thorough cost-benefit analysis by considering a wider range of stakeholders, including researchers or conservationists.

Response: Members of the Council, Advisory Panel, and Monitoring Committee represent a wide range of fishery stakeholders, including researchers, environmental conservation professionals, and representatives of the recreational and commercial fishing industries. Actions such as this rule are developed through meetings that are open to public comment and documented on the Council's website. The Council prepared thorough analyses of the action's impacts on habitat, protected resources, and human communities as part of its EA, RIR, and Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance. NMFS has determined that these analyses are sufficient to support this final rule.

There are no changes from the proposed rule.

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 304(b) provides specific authority for implementing this action. Sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize NMFS to review and, if warranted, approve and implement rules and regulations deemed necessary by the Council. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this action is necessary to carry out the FMP because the administrative changes proposed under this authority support implementation of the Council's proposed changes, alleviate an administrative constraint that is no longer necessary, and correct an error in the regulations. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), the 30-day delay in effective date requirement does not apply to this rule because: (1) the rule will relieve a restriction on fishery participants; and (2) there is good cause to implement it immediately. This rule relieves a restriction by expanding the area within which the SMEP exception applies and eliminating the restriction for a 7-day minimum LOA period. SMEP exemptions allow summer flounder permit holders using smaller mesh in other fisheries to retain more summer flounder, thus converting discards to landings. This rule expands the SMEP area by 4,943 km 2 , allowing greater retention of summer flounder in areas where summer flounder permit holders are participating in other fisheries using mesh below the summer flounder minimum mesh size. The 7-day minimum participation period for SMEP LOAs previously limited industry's ability to respond to real-time fishing conditions. Relief of this restriction therefore provides greater flexibility for fishery participants. There is good cause to implement this rule immediately because modernizing the regulatory definition of exempted flynet gear aligns the exempted flynet gear with current fishing operations. This new definition reflects modern net configurations that serve the original objective of the flynet exemption and are already in use throughout the region. The updated flynet gear definition is expected to reduce potential confusion and/or inadvertent violations.

For the reasons above, the 30-day delay in effective date does not apply to this rule.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

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

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

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is implementing the Recreational Measures Setting (RMS) Process Framework via this interim final rule (IFR) and request for comments. Together with NMFS, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively manage the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish fisheries. Updates to the FMPs are made with framework adjustments, and this action outlines and modifies the process for setting recreational management measures for all four stocks. The Council, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), provides its recommendations to NMFS. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's Regional Administrator reviews proposed measures for consistency with the FMP, plan amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. The Council submitted this action, the RMS Process Framework, to NMFS for consideration of approval. NMFS reviewed the submitted frameworks for consistency with the goals and objectives of the FMPs and is approving and implementing Framework 19 and Framework 7.

The current Harvest Control Rule (88 FR 14499), which pioneered the Percent Change Approach, sunsetted on December 31, 2025. As explained in greater detail below, this action implements a revised replacement process for setting recreational measures ( i.e., bag, size, and season limits) called the RMS Process and revisions to the recreational accountability measures. This IFR outlines two phases of modification to the RMS Process Framework: Phase 1 would use a modified Percent Change Approach using the recreational harvest limit (RHL) and harvest; Phase 2 would use the same approach but will use the recreational annual catch target (ACT) and dead catch. In other words, RMS Process Phase 1 develops the Recreational Harvest Target (RHT) (which recreational measures are set to accomplish) using predicted harvest ( i.e., landed fish), and Phase 2 would shift to developing a recreational catch target (RCT), catch-based approach based on both harvest and dead discards. The use of the RMS Process for bluefish is delayed until the 2028-2029 specifications cycle. Bluefish is still under a rebuilding plan, and a supporting analytical model needs to be developed; further discussion of bluefish is provided below. Revisions to accountability measures for all four species are included to align with the RMS Process and give greater consideration to whether overfishing resulted from a recreational ACL overage.

This action revises and improves upon the process for setting recreational measures that continues to prevent overfishing, reflect stock status, account for uncertainty in recreational data, take into consideration angler preferences, consider discard information, and provide sufficient stability and predictability. While it is impossible to put an exact number on the total economic impact of the specific affected recreational fisheries, they comprise a large component of the $3.6 billion recreational fishing industry in the Mid-Atlantic region. This action allows for these recreational fisheries to maintain flexibility and continue to be a major economic driver in the region.

• Annual Catch Target (ACT): An amount of annual catch that is a management target for a fishery that accounts for management uncertainty and is set at or below the annual catch limit (ACL). The ACT includes both landings and dead discards ( i.e., total dead catch or catch), and the RHL is derived from the recreational ACT by subtracting dead discards.

• Biomass (B): The size of a stock of fish measured in weight. For summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish, the biomass levels and biomass targets used in management are based on spawning stock biomass (SSB).

• Biomass target (B MSY ): The stock size (B) associated with maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as defined by a stock assessment. MSY is the largest average catch that can be taken from a stock at B MSY over time under existing environmental conditions without negatively impacting the reproductive capacity of the stock.

• Catch: The total amount of fish caught by the fishery, including landed fish and dead discards.

• Confidence Interval (CI): The upper and lower bound around a point estimate to indicate the range of possible values given the uncertainties around the estimate.

• Harvest: The total amount of fish landed by the fishery.

• Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL): The total allowable annual recreational fishery harvest limit set based on information from the stock assessment, considerations about scientific and management uncertainty, allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors, and assumptions about dead discards from the recreational fishery.

• Recreational Catch Target (RCT): The amount of catch that recreational management measures aim to achieve but not exceed.

• Recreational Harvest Target (RHT): The amount of harvest that the recreational management measures aim to achieve but not exceed.

Prior to 2023, recreational management measures were set annually to allow harvest to achieve but not exceed the RHL. Analysis to determine the measures relied heavily on data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), NMFS's state-regional-Federal partnership that uses a national network of recreational fishing surveys to estimate total recreational catch and effort. While the program has been peer-reviewed multiple times and the agency continues to explore improvements, there are inherent uncertainties within the MRIP data because they rely on angler feedback and estimation calculations to provide managers and scientists with recreational information. The estimates have been shown to be highly variable and uncertain in some years, creating a situation in which correct and consistent estimates of recreational harvest can be difficult to obtain. In 2018, MRIP transitioned to the Fishing Effort Survey (FES) from the Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) due to a decline in landline telephones. This transition required historical catch estimates to be recalibrated to align with the new FES, resulting in significant increases in estimates of past catch for several species; for example, estimates of black sea bass average historical catch increased 73 percent. These increases broadly impacted the management process through stock assessments, reference points, catch limits, and management measures.

The underlying uncertainty and high variability of MRIP data, reactively setting measures annually, and lack of consideration for stock status led to frequent changes in bag, size, and season limits. For abundant stocks of black sea bass and scup, stock assessments repeatedly underestimated stock size and overestimated fishing mortality, resulting in the stock size subsequently being revealed as higher, and fishing mortality lower, in subsequent assessments. The outcome of this pattern was catch limits that were set lower than what was actually available to the fishery and years where even restrictive management measures resulted in higher-than-anticipated harvest, often with increasing levels of discards, even without overfishing occurring. For example, in 2022, black sea bass recreational measures were set to achieve but not exceed the 2022 RHL of 6.74 million lb (3,055 metric tons (mt)); this was equal to a 20.7-percent reduction in harvest from the prior year. At that time, however, the stock was not experiencing overfishing, and the biomass was estimated to be at 210 percent of the target (87 FR 35112; June 9, 2022). This dynamic was frustrating for participants in the recreational fisheries and related businesses and led to enforcement issues along the mid-Atlantic coast. It was also apparent that the process was not adequately balancing the need to prevent overfishing while trying to achieve optimal yield (OY).

Scup and black sea bass also tended to meet or exceed their RHLs frequently and, at times, exceeded even the recreational ACL, acceptable biological catch (ABC), and/or the overfishing limit (OFL). Often, these high catch levels would require restrictions on fishing in an attempt to bring harvest down—regardless of high stock status. Alternatively, for a stock such as summer flounder with a much lower biomass than scup and black sea bass, liberalization in management measures that were implemented to try and achieve the RHL may not have been appropriate due to a low biomass. Termed “chasing the RHL,” the required changes in measures appeared to be more in response to variability and uncertainty in recreational harvest data than a conservation need.

The Percent Change Approach, implemented in 2023, aimed to address these issues by considering recreational harvest data, accounting for the uncertainty in the recreational harvest data through the use of confidence intervals around predicted recreational harvest, and taking into account stock biomass when determining if and how management measures should be changed. As described below, the approach considered these factors to establish a recreational target that measures are set to achieve. The overall goal of the Percent Change Approach was to iteratively adjust management measures to eventually achieve the RHL while avoiding unnecessarily severe restrictions or inappropriate liberalizations on fishing that could result from annual variability in harvest estimates rather than conservation need. Given the significant shift in the process for setting recreational management measures, the Percent Change Approach included a sunset provision of 3 years. After accepting public comment on Framework 17 and Framework 6, which initiated the Percent Change Approach, (87 FR 76600; December 15, 2022), NMFS finalized the framework in 2023 (88 FR 14499; March 9, 2023). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Framework 17 complied with the MSA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Raimondo, No. 23-982 (BAH), 2024 WL 4056653 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2024). In 2024, both scup and black sea bass harvest were under the respective RHLs and recreational ACLs, suggesting that the Percent Change Approach is likely more appropriately setting recreational management measures than the earlier approach. The Percent Change Approach sunsetted in December 2025.

In light of the positive results obtained using the Percent Change Approach, the Council and Commission recommended to NMFS that it be extended with relatively minor changes as effectuated in this interim final rule. NMFS agrees, as the approach has proven to be successful in achieving management goals, and the minor changes represent improvements to the process gained through application and feedback.

This action modifies the process for setting recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish, including how to determine if and when management measures need to be changed, the amount of change that would be allowed/required, and the timing of the overall process. As provided in this interim final rule, the RMS Process will continue to utilize the Percent Change Approach methodology with some revisions. The revised process will have two phases. Operationally, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the process function the same way; the difference between the two is that Phase 1 uses recreational harvest compared to the RHL to set measures, whereas Phase 2 uses total dead catch compared to the recreational ACT. An overview of the methodology used for both is provided below.

Step one of the RMS Process involves estimating the recreational harvest (in Phase 1) or total dead catch (in Phase 2) that would result if current management measures continued in force in the next fishing year. The amount of expected recreational harvest and total dead catch are difficult to predict, as they are influenced by many factors beyond just the management measures, including fishing effort, availability of various target species, economic factors, and weather. Harvest and discard estimates can vary notably from year to year even under the same set of management measures. The Recreational Demand Model, which has been used for setting recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass measures since 2023, produces estimates of discarded fish as well as harvest. While bluefish currently does not have a similar model, work is ongoing to develop one in time for management use in 2028.

In addition to estimating harvest or dead catch, the confidence interval (CI) around the recreational harvest or dead catch estimate will also be generated. When developing a CI, the Commission's Plan Development Team and Council's Fishery Management Action Team (the technical teams involved in the development of the action) recommended the use of a joint distribution, 80-percent confidence interval that takes into consideration the percent standard error (PSE) of each individual year's MRIP estimate and the variability of the estimates between years. While 80-percent confidence intervals were recommended during development of both the original Percent Change Approach and the new RMS Process, the Council's Technical Committee and Commission's Monitoring Committee will periodically review the confidence intervals to ensure they are appropriate for the current model as improvements are made and data updated. Once the estimated harvest or dead catch and confidence intervals are developed and produce a range of anticipated harvest or dead catch, that estimate is compared to the future RHL or recreational ACT to determine whether the estimate will likely be below, at, or above the RHL or recreational ACT. Step 1 corresponds to the first column in the two tables presented below.

The second step in the process is the evaluation of the stock biomass; for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, this step remains the same. The most recent stock assessment will be used to determine the biomass relative to the biomass target (B MSY or the relevant proxy). If the biomass is at least 150 percent of the target, the stock will be considered very high; if the stock is between 150 and 110 percent of the target, it will be considered high; stocks that have a biomass between 110 percent and 90 percent will be considered around the target; and stocks with a biomass below 90 percent of the target size will be categorized as low. Step 2 corresponds to the second columns of the two tables below.

Considered together, the harvest (during Phase 1) or dead catch (during Phase 2) and current biomass compared to the target biomass determine the appropriate degree of change in the following measures setting cycle. Specifically, comparing the anticipated harvest (in Phase 1) or dead catch (in Phase 2) and the estimated biomass determines a percentage change in the harvest or total dead catch target, which may be a liberalization, a reduction, or no change. The percentage change is then applied to the expected recreational harvest established in Step 1 to calculate the RHT during Phase 1 or applied to the recreational catch to calculate the RCT during Phase 2. Recreational management measures are then set to target the RHT or RCT rather than the RHL or recreational ACT. The maximum potential liberalization or reduction are capped for each biomass status as represented in the third column of the two tables below.

The first phase of this action modifies the existing Percent Change Approach process for setting recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. The revision adds the following:

• an additional biomass category of around the target and revising the biomass percentages for each category;

• treating overfished stocks separately with a new classification category (last two rows); and

• three opportunities for status quo recreational management measures compared to just one in the previous process.

The process will continue to use two factors to determine whether management measures could remain status quo, could be liberalized, or must be restricted. These two factors are:

• Comparison of a confidence interval around an estimate of expected harvest under status quo measures to the average RHL for the upcoming 2 years; and

• Biomass compared to the target level as defined by the most recent stock assessment.

These two factors will also determine the appropriate degree of change to recreational management measures, defined as a percentage change in expected harvest. Table 1 shows the revised process.

The second phase of this action, effective for the 2030 specifications cycle and beyond, will continue the modified Percent Change Approach using the recreational ACT and total dead catch instead of the RHL and harvest to determine if recreational management measures should change. Using the recreational ACT means that adjustments to management measures would consider all predicted recreational dead catch rather than harvest alone.

The revised process would use two factors to determine if management measures could remain status quo, could be liberalized, or must be restricted. These two factors are:

• Comparison of a confidence interval around an estimate of expected catch under status quo measures to the average recreational ACT for the upcoming 2 years; and

• Biomass compared to the target level as defined by the most recent stock assessment.

These two factors also determine the appropriate degree of change to recreational management measures, defined as a percentage change in expected catch. Table 2 shows the management response table with recreational ACT and catch replacing RHL and harvest.

As with Framework 17 and Framework 6, the RMS Process will adjust measures in conjunction with the setting of catch and landings limits in response to updated stock assessment information, which is currently a 2-year cycle. Updated stock assessments are anticipated to be available biennially for all four species. In the interim year (or years, if stock assessment frequency changes), measures will be reviewed and may be modified if new data suggest a major change in the expected impacts of those measures on the stock or the fishery.

Phase 1 of the RMS Process functions similar to the previous version of the Percent Change Approach. The Council and Commission will rely on the modified Percent Change Approach using the RHL and harvest estimates while additional years of data are collected to understand how using total dead catch will impact management measures. For the 2030 specifications, the RMS Process will shift to Phase 2 and begin using the recreational ACT and dead catch estimates to set the RCT, which management measures are designed to achieve but not exceed. The transition to Phase 2 is not contingent on the outcome of additional analysis nor will it require another rulemaking process; if the Council and Commission want to use a different process, they would need to complete a new recommendation for management action.

Bluefish has been under a rebuilding plan since 2022, and because the rebuilding plan overlaps with the timeline for the Percent Change Approach and RMS Process development, bluefish will continue to have measures set based on the rebuilding plan until the stock is rebuilt, which is estimated to be in 2028. The Council and Commission recommended, and NMFS agreed, to delay implementation of Phase 1 of the RMS Process and corresponding accountability measure changes for bluefish until 2028. This delay is to allow time for the stock to complete rebuilding and for the development of an appropriate methodology for evaluating the impacts of measures on bluefish harvest and discards in the RMS Process. Bluefish will transition to Phase 2 in 2030 with the other three species.

This interim final rule makes minimal to no changes to how recreational accountability measures are triggered compared to current requirements. Recreational accountability measures are still triggered if the most recent three-year average recreational catch exceeds the most recent three-year average recreational ACL for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. If triggered, accountability measures apply under all outcomes illustrated in tables 1 and 2.

The changes to the recreational accountability measures give greater consideration to whether overfishing occurred as a result of a recreational ACL overage when determining the appropriate response. A pound-for-pound payback is still required when any stock is overfished or under a rebuilding plan or the biomass is below 50 percent of B MSY . When the stock is above 50 percent of B MSY , not overfished, and/or not under a rebuilding plan, either a scaled payback is required or measures may be modified, depending on the biomass level. The accountability measures also include wording to better explain how they would work under different combinations of fishing mortality and stock status. These changes incorporate stock status when applying accountability measures and also provide a consideration of stability in measures and to achieve optimum yield.

While revisions to the bluefish accountability measures will not be effective until 2028, they are included in this rule. Until January 1, 2028, the current bluefish accountability measure regulations at 50 CFR 648.163(d) continue to be in effect, and after that the new measures will take effect. The revised bluefish accountability measures compare total catch (landings and dead discards) with the most recent 3-year average recreational ACL, unless there has been a transfer between the recreational and commercial sectors; if there has been a transfer, then the most recent single-year recreational catch to recreational ACL comparison is used.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

This interim final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action because the time necessary to provide such prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest.

Framework 17 and Framework 6 sunsetted in December 2025. As set forth above, the Percent Change Approach established by these frameworks and used in the development of recreational management measures from 2023 to 2025 has provided better management results than the prior approach; for example, in 2024 black sea bass recreational harvest and dead catch were under the RHL and recreational ACL, respectively, for the first time in 5 years. Framework 17 was challenged in litigation, and the court held that the Percent Change Approach and the implementing regulations satisfied applicable MSA and APA requirements. ( Natural Resources Defense Council v. Raimondo, No. 23-982 (BAH), 2024 WL 4056653 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2024)).

Framework 19 and Framework 7 make relatively minor changes to Framework 17 and Framework 6, both of which were themselves subject to notice and comment. NMFS is making changes to Frameworks 17 and 6 based on public and industry feedback after a few years of using those frameworks with the goal of improving efficiency while providing additional stability for fishery participants. As discussed above, the changes include an additional biomass category, an increase in “no change” opportunities, and consideration of overfished stocks separately. The public is now familiar with how the system operates because the process outlined in Framework 17 was used to manage the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries during the 2023 to 2025 fishing years. Managers, commercial industry representatives, and recreational fishing participants have expressed broad support for the timely continuation of this process with the changes included in this action. The continuation of the RMS Process with slight revisions via this interim final rule is highly anticipated.

If Framework 19 for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass is not effective immediately, measures for 2026 will remain the 2025 Federal coastwide measures. Making Framework 19 effective immediately will allow for NMFS to instead set 2026-2027 recreational management measures (established via a separate interim final rule to be published as soon as possible) that are consistent with Framework 19 by the beginning of the applicable 2026 recreational fishing seasons. Because the 2026-2027 recreational management measures must be implemented under the process and methodology established by Framework 19, this interim final rule must be effective before those recreational management measures can be promulgated.

Delaying the implementation of this rule while accepting public comment would result in significant negative economic impacts on fishing communities and for-hire business owners, as well limitations on the fishing experience of anglers, without providing concomitant conservation benefits. By default, Federal for-hire permit holders must comply with more restrictive coastwide measures (50 CFR 648.4(b)). Routinely, the recreational management measures rulemaking applicable to a given year or years waives Federal coastwide measures for summer flounder and black sea bass in favor of state regulations through conservation equivalency, which allows states to set measures tailored to their fishing communities' needs while resulting in the same conservation benefit as would accrue from the coastwide measures. The recreational fishing seasons for black sea bass in the southern states within the Greater Atlantic Region, such as Maryland and Delaware, open on May 1, 2026. The current coastwide measures, which cannot be waived in favor of state measures until the 2026-2027 recreational management measures rulemaking is effective, do not open the season until May 15, 2026.

Additionally, the minimum size for black sea bass in Federal waters would be 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) longer with a bag limit of 10 fewer fish than what would be in place for some states' waters. Undertaking notice and comment on this rulemaking would prevent Federal for-hire permit holders from undertaking fishing trips they have already booked for the first 15 days in May and impose more restrictive size and bag limits on all anglers for no conservation purpose.

Moreover, because of differences in how and when black sea bass become available to anglers along the coast, the application of the default coastwide measures that would be required to allow for notice and comment would impact the various states differently, resulting in inequity largely between northern and southern anglers. For example, the opening date for black sea bass in Massachusetts is anticipated to be May 17, 2026, compared to May 1, 2026, for Maryland, where black sea bass are available earlier than in waters farther north. Leaving in place the coastwide measures, which open the fishing season on May 15, 2026, would have less of an impact on states that open their fisheries later. Thus, delaying implementation of this interim final rule would have inequitable impacts along the eastern seaboard.

Immediate implementation of this rule would enable NMFS (via the related 2026-2027 recreational management measures rulemaking that will follow this one) to approve conservation equivalency after review of the Commission-certified conservationally equivalent state measures, as described above, for the mid-Atlantic states of Massachusetts through North Carolina. Conservation equivalency allows for consistent recreational measures in state and Federal waters, clarifying requirements for anglers, increasing compliance, and avoiding enforcement issues while allowing measures tailored to the needs of each state.

We are inviting public comment on this interim final rule, and we will consider responding to any comments received in a subsequent final rule addressing both this interim final rule and the interim final rule establishing the 2026 and 2027 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational management measures (RIN 0648-BO39) if warranted. In the meantime, it is contrary to the public interest to provide the opportunity for public comment prior to making Framework 19 and Framework 7 effective. For the same reasons, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). In addition, the regulated community is anticipating the implementation of 2026-2027 recreational management measures consistent with the frameworks approved via this interim final rule and thus does not require 30 days to come into compliance with this rule.

NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

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

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