DHS encourages all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. Comments providing the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include the data, information, or authority that supports the recommended change. See the ADDRESSES section above for information on where to submit comments.

To submit your comments online, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert “ICEB-2020-0005” in the “Search” box. Click on the “Comment” box and input your comments in the text box provided. When you are satisfied with your comments, follow the prompts, and then click “Submit Comment.”

DHS will post comments to the federal e-Rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines is offensive. For additional information, please read the “Privacy & Security Notice,” via the link in the footer of https://www.regulations.gov. DHS will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period and may change this rule based on comments received.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert “ICEB-2020-0005” in the “Search” box. Next, click on “Dockets Folder,” then on the name of the rule, and finally on “Browse All Comments.” Individuals without internet access can make alternate arrangements for viewing comments and documents related to this rulemaking by contacting the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You may also sign up for email alerts on the online docket to be notified when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) provides the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) a broad range of immigration authorities. Section 102 of the HSA (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. Section 241 of the INA authorizes the Secretary to grant a stay of deportation or removal (hereafter referred to as “stay”) in the Secretary's unreviewable discretion. See INA sec. 242(g), 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) (stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear any case or claim arising from the decision to execute removal orders). 1 The regulations implementing the Secretary's authority to stay deportation or removal that are applicable to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), include 8 CFR 241.6 and 8 CFR 103.7. Through delegation of powers from the Secretary, 2 ICE is authorized to adjudicate applications for stays submitted to ICE. See INA sec. 241(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1231(c)(2) and 8 CFR 241.6. 3

Section 286(m) of the INA authorizes the Secretary to set and collect fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services. 4 The statute authorizes DHS to set fees at an amount that would collect the full cost of providing the services. 5 The fee level may also include recovery of any additional costs associated with the administration of the fees. 6 All fees collected under these authorities are deposited as offsetting receipts into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account and are available to the Secretary until expended for authorized purposes. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). The current fee for Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and ICE's authority to waive the fee are set forth in 8 CFR 103.7(d)(6).

As a general matter, in developing fees and fee rules, DHS looks to a range of governmental accounting provisions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-25, User Charges (Revised), sets federal policy regarding user fees assessed for Government services and for the sale or use of Government goods or resources. OMB Circular A-25 provides guidance to executive branch agencies regarding the scope and type of activities subject to user fees and how to set such user fees. 7 It applies to all federal activities that convey special benefits to recipients beyond those accruing to the general public. OMB Circular A-25, para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993), defines “full cost” to include all direct and indirect costs to any part of the federal government for providing a good, resource, or service. These costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of the following: direct and indirect personnel cost, physical overhead, consulting and other indirect cost, management and supervisory cost, investigation, information collection and research, and establishment of standards and regulation, including any required environmental review. Section 31.5 of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, July 1, 2016, directs agencies to develop user charge estimates based on the full cost recovery policy set forth in OMB Circular A-25, (budget formulation and execution policy regarding user fees).

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government, July 31, 1995, updated June 2017, provides the standards for managerial cost accounting and full cost. SFFAS No. 4 defines “full cost” to include “direct and indirect costs that contribute to the output, regardless of funding sources.” FASAB identifies various classifications of costs to be included and recommends various methods of cost assignment to identify full cost.

After an alien becomes subject to an administratively final order of deportation or removal from the United States, ICE has discretion to grant a stay to temporarily delay the alien's physical removal. Aliens may apply for a stay with ICE by filing Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, under 8 CFR 241.6. 8 Aliens may apply for a stay from ICE once they are subject to an administratively final order of deportation or removal. An order is final when all available administrative appeals of a removal or deportation order have been exhausted, and the only remaining step is the alien's physical removal. 9 A stay is not considered an immigration benefit or waiver because it only provides temporary delay in the physical removal of the alien.

When adjudicating an alien's application for a stay, in its discretion, ICE considers a number of factors, including the presence of compelling humanitarian reasons to delay the removal and if immediate physical removal is practicable or appropriate. For instance, ICE may take into consideration circumstances such as if the alien has a serious medical condition, is a minor, is required to be present in U.S. court proceedings, or other such circumstances that may result in a determination that physical removal is not in the public interest. Activities related to the adjudication of an application for an administrative stay of removal consist of, but are not limited to, conducting interviews, reviewing documentation, detecting and deterring fraud, and assessing eligibility to remain temporarily in the United States. When a stay is determined to be in the interest of the government or the public, ICE may use its discretion to grant a stay for a set period and under conditions that ICE determines are appropriate. When applying to ICE for a stay, the alien must file Form I-246 and pay the filing fee. This proposed rule seeks to adjust the filing fee that the alien must pay in the absence of an approved fee waiver.

An alien who is unable to pay the fee may request a fee waiver for Form I-246. Under the current procedures, ICE adjudicates fee waiver requests for Form I-246 based on its internal fee waiver policy established in 2008. 10 Aliens can apply for a fee waiver for Form I-246 by submitting an affidavit or declaration to the officer that details their financial circumstances and their inability to pay the prescribed fee. The affidavit or declaration must be made under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. ICE does not require a specific form to be completed by aliens for the fee waiver. These procedures are flexible in that it does not specifically prescribe a set of evidentiary documents but rather allows the applicant to provide any relevant documentation that may assist the ICE officer in assessing the applicant's inability to pay.

Part 741 is divided into two subparts. Subpart A contains substantive requirements that apply to both federal credit unions (FCUs) and federally insured state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) that are not codified elsewhere in the NCUA's regulations. Subpart B, on the other hand, generally does not contain substantive requirements. Its purpose is to list in a centralized way citations to the substantive provisions that apply to FCUs and FISCUs but are set forth elsewhere in the NCUA's regulations. Before 1995, these requirements were dispersed across the NCUA's regulations and within the terms of an Agreement for Insurance of Accounts, which outlined conditions for state-chartered credit unions obtaining and maintaining federal insurance. In 1995, the agency issued a final rule consolidating the requirements for insurance that apply to FISCUs. 1 That rule did not impose any new requirements. Its purpose was merely to aid FISCUs by simplifying the process of determining which regulations they must follow. The Board now believes that the benefit of removing many of these provisions from part 741 and reducing the length of the NCUA's regulations outweighs the benefit of the cross-referencing function served by these provisions.

The Board may create a reference list outside of its regulations to the extent credit unions feel an aid continues to be helpful.

The Board has the legal authority to issue this proposed rule pursuant to its plenary rulemaking authority under the Federal Credit Union Act and its specific rulemaking authority under the various acts the Board administers. 4

Section 741.1 of subpart A sets forth the Board's examination authority. It specifies that the Board is authorized to examine any insured credit union or any credit union applying for insurance. This authority includes access to all records, reports, and other information concerning the credit union's affairs. The section also notes that, to the maximum extent feasible, the NCUA will use examinations conducted by state regulatory agencies. These are statutorily granted functions that do not require additional explanation by regulation. 2

Section 741.201 requires any credit union making application for insurance to possess minimum fidelity bond coverage pursuant to the requirements set forth in §§ 713.3, 713.5, and 713.6. Section 741.201 also requires a federally insured credit union (FICU) whose fidelity bond coverage has been terminated to notify the appropriate NCUA regional director not less than 35 days prior to the effective date of such termination. This notification requirement does not appear in part 713. Thus, the Board proposes to transfer this text to § 713.3 with a new paragraph (c) stating, “A federally insured credit union whose fidelity bond coverage is terminated shall notify the appropriate NCUA regional office in writing not less than 35 days prior to the effective date of such termination.” The Board is also proposing to amend § 713.1 to remove that section's reference to § 741.201. Finally, § 741.201 requires corporate credit unions to comply with § 704.18 because part 704 establishes the rules for federally insured corporate credit unions. The Board proposes to remove § 741.201 as it is unnecessary.

Section 741.205 informs FISCUs that are newly chartered or in troubled condition that they must comply with subsection 701.14(c) concerning prior notice and the NCUA's review of a proposed change in official or senior executive officers. Section 741.205 also contains references to coordinating with state supervisory authorities. The Board believes these references serve the important purpose of assuring state regulators of the NCUA's intent to consult with them on these matters. Therefore, the Board proposes to transfer the following text to subsection 701.14(c): “Federally insured state-chartered credit unions must submit required information to both the appropriate NCUA Regional Director and their state supervisor. NCUA will consult with the state supervisor before making its determination. NCUA will notify the state supervisor of its approval/disapproval no later than the time that it notifies the affected individual.”

Section 741.213 informs FISCUs they must adhere to the rules of practice and procedures for administrative actions and adjudicative hearings in part 747, but it also informs them that subpart E of part 747 only applies to FCUs. The Board is requesting feedback on its proposed removal of § 741.213 and whether it should incorporate into subpart E of part 747 affirmative statements that (1) subpart E does not apply to FISCUs, and (2) the language that says subpart E controls over subpart A in the event of a conflict only applies to FCUs.

Section 741.218 informs FISCUs they must adhere to the “applicable provisions in part 709 . . . .” It further notes that § 709.3 only applies to FCUs. The Board is proposing to remove § 741.218 and requests feedback on this proposal, including whether the Board should consider amending part 709 to clarify which specific sections of part 709 apply to FISCUs. For example, § 709.3, titled “Challenge to revocation of charter and involuntary liquidation,” refers only to FCUs. However, § 709.0 refers to involuntary liquidation but in the context of FICUs, presenting the scope of part 709 as including “the involuntary liquidation and adjudication of creditor claims in all cases involving FICUs.”

The following provisions are straight cross-references to other provisions and do not contain any substantive information that would be helpful to retain. The Board proposes eliminating these outright.

• Section 741.206 informs any federally insured corporate credit union they must comply with part 704.

• Section 741.207 requires those FISCUs that participate in the community development revolving loan program to adhere to the requirements of part 705. 3

• Section 741.209 informs FISCUs they must comply with the requirements of part 711 concerning management official interlocks.

• Section 741.210 informs any FICU that is a member of the Central Liquidity Facility that it must comply with the requirements of part 725.

• Section 741.211 refers to the advertising provisions of part 740 that apply to all FICUs.

• Section 741.212 refers to the share insurance provisions of part 745, subparts A and B, that apply to all FICUs.

• Section 741.214 refers to compliance with part 748, the rule that covers Bank Secrecy Act compliance, security program requirements, and catastrophic act reporting.

• Section 741.215 refers to compliance with the record preservation requirements of part 749.

• Section 741.216 references the flood insurance requirements of part 760.

• Section 741.217 refers to the truth in savings requirements of part 707.

• Section 741.220 informs FICUs they must adhere to Regulation P promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to satisfy the consumer financial protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 4

• Section 741.224 refers to compliance with part 750 on golden parachute and indemnification payments.

• Section 741.226 refers to compliance with subpart D of part 702 on subordinated debt.

The Board requests feedback on all aspects of this rulemaking, including any consequences or impacts of this proposal not already identified above. The Board is providing a 60-day comment period for this proposed rule to account for the volume of proposed rules the Board is issuing. The longer comment period will avoid placing undue burden on commenters who are trying to review all of the rulemakings.

The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly known as regulations.gov ).

In summary, the Board is publishing this proposed rule to amend its regulations governing requirements for share insurance. This proposed rule would eliminate numerous provisions that merely point to substantive provisions codified elsewhere in the NCUA's regulations. The intended effect is to simplify the regulatory text and make it easier to navigate without altering the compliance obligations of federally insured credit unions. The Board believes this action is necessary to streamline the agency's regulations and reduce regulatory complexity.

The proposed rule and the required summary are available at https://www.regulations.gov.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended by Executive Order 14215, a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. OMB has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review”) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This proposed rule will streamline the NCUA's regulations by removing sections that only serve to reference other, substantive regulations. This proposed rule is consistent with Executive Order 13563.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be a deregulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 6 For purposes of this analysis, the NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 7 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions. The proposed rule repeals unnecessary sections of the NCUA's regulations.

Accordingly, the NCUA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The PRA applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information-collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA has determined that the changes addressed in this notice do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 encourages certain agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This proposed rule is intended to remove regulatory sections that only serve to reference other, substantive regulations. While it is intended to aid FISCUs in understanding their regulatory obligations, it is not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between the NCUA and state regulatory authorities.

The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. The proposed rule removes duplicative provisions from the NCUA's regulations, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 701, 713, and 741 as follows:

Under the authorities established in DIMIA, the Board is issuing a proposed rule to increase the major assets prohibition thresholds for management interlocks. 1 This increase the thresholds is proposed to reflect the changes in the United States banking market since Congress established the current thresholds in 1996. Under current part 711, an exemption is required for a management official  2 of a depository organization  3 (or any affiliate of such organization) with assets exceeding $2.5 billion to serve as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization (or any affiliate of such organization) with assets exceeding $1.5 billion. The proposal would increase both thresholds to $10 billion. Section 711.4(c) of the NCUA's regulations exempts a management official of a credit union from the prohibition when the individual serves as a management official of another credit union. Thus, the Interlocks Act prohibitions contained in part 711 apply to only a management official of a credit union when that individual also serves as a management official of another type of depository organization (usually a bank or a thrift). 4

By increasing the major assets prohibition thresholds, the proposal would reduce the number of depository organizations subject to the major assets prohibition. This reduces regulatory burden by raising the threshold at which depository organizations must ask the NCUA for exemptions from the major assets prohibition. The NCUA anticipates that raising the asset thresholds would assist credit unions with less than $10 billion in total assets in finding qualified directors by eliminating the need to file requests for exemptions. Additionally, the removal of the rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not result in a monopoly or substantially lessen competition if the depository institution seeking to add a management official is controlled or managed by persons who are members of a minority group or women will help ensure Equal Protection issues don't arise under § 711.6.

DIMIA—implemented in the NCUA's regulations at 12 CFR part 711—fosters competition by prohibiting a management official from serving at multiple, unaffiliated depository organizations simultaneously when such multiple roles may have an anticompetitive effect. 5 DIMIA achieves this purpose through three statutory prohibitions, which are implemented in § 711.3 of the NCUA's regulations. In their current form, the three prohibitions are as follows.

The community prohibition  6 precludes a management official of a depository organization from serving concurrently as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization if the depository organizations in question (or any depository institution affiliate thereof) have offices in the same community. 7 The second prohibition, the relevant metropolitan statistical area (RMSA) prohibition, 8 precludes a management official of a depository organization from serving concurrently as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization if the depository organizations in question (or any depository institution affiliate thereof) have offices in the same RMSA  9 and each depository organization has total assets of $50 million or more. The third prohibition, the major assets prohibition, 10 precludes a management official of a depository organization with total assets exceeding $2.5 billion (or any affiliate of such an organization) from serving concurrently as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization with total assets exceeding $1.5 billion (or any affiliate of such an organization), regardless of the location of the two depository organizations. While the first two prohibitions capture the risk of anticompetitive effects from management interlocks between depository organizations that operate within overlapping geographical areas, the major assets prohibition addresses management interlocks between depository organizations that are large enough that a management interlock may present anticompetitive concerns even though the involved organizations may not have offices in the same community or RMSA.

The $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion thresholds in the major assets prohibition were enacted through amendments to DIMIA in the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). 11 During hearings on EGRPRA, it was noted that the increase of the asset thresholds to $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion was made because the previous asset threshold numbers did not “realistically reflect the size of large institutions in today's market.”  12 DIMIA, as amended, also provides that the agencies may adjust the thresholds as necessary “to allow for inflation or market changes.”  13 The major assets prohibition thresholds set forth in EGRPRA do not reflect the growth and consolidation among U.S. depository organizations that has occurred since 1996 and do not reflect the size of today's large institutions.

Based on regulatory reporting, total assets at depository organizations have grown by more than 341 percent in the 29 years between the fourth quarter of 1996 and the fourth quarter of 2024. Moreover, in an October 2019 final rule, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), collectively referred to as the Other Banking Agencies, reduced regulatory burden by adjusting the major assets thresholds to $10 billion in their respective DIMIA regulations. 14

In addition, DIMIA allows agencies to prescribe regulations that permit otherwise prohibited interlocks under certain circumstances. 15 Pursuant to § 711.6, the NCUA may exempt a prohibited interlock in response to an application by a depository organization if the NCUA finds that the interlock would not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition and would not present safety and soundness concerns. In reviewing applications for an exemption under § 711.6, the NCUA applies a rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition if the depository organization seeking to add a management official, among other things, is controlled or managed by persons who are members of a minority or group of women. The proposed rule would eliminate this presumption.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4630; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01824-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

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

European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0282, dated December 12, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0282) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain HG Model Cabri G2 helicopters. The MCAI states that a report of a potential malfunction of the helicopter ELT was received. Subsequent investigation revealed that due to improper antenna installation (location), the ELT produced a weaker signal than expected on 121.5 MHz and 406 MHz frequencies. The MCAI further states that both HG cockpit ELT antenna configurations are affected.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the safety risk posed by weak ELT signal transmissions. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could impair the ability to detect a distress signal during a helicopter emergency, which could delay the arrival of rescue services and timely medical assistance to injured occupants.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4630.

The FAA reviewed Guimbal Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 25-006 B, dated December 12, 2025 (Guimbal SB 25-006 B), which specifies procedures for removing the VHF2 antenna and associated parts from service (if installed), modifying the ELT antenna, which includes relocating the ELT antenna from inside the cockpit to an exterior location, relocating and installing a new VHF2 antenna (if installed), torquing nuts, installing cotter pins, trimming the cowlings, routing the ELT antenna cable, repairing the engine cowl honeycomb, and paint touch-ups.

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

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

This proposed AD would require revising the limitations section of the existing RFM for the helicopter to prohibit overwater operations conducted under 14 CFR part 135, pursuant to 14 CFR 135.168. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing RFM and must enter compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves revising the RFM, which could be performed equally well by a pilot or mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.

The MCAI specifies updating the RFM to insert a RFM temporary revision in the limitation section, whereas this proposed AD does not.

The MCAI requires the modification of the ELT to be completed within 6 months, whereas this proposed AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 70 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do the optional modification. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need this repair:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4631; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00930-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Bill Ashforth, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3520; email: Bill.ashforth@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0114, dated May 15, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0114) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and A330-941 airplanes. The MCAI states that there have been reports of corrosion on lavatory floor fittings at various locations on Model A330 airplanes. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to detachment of the lavatory module with consequent injury to cabin crew and passengers and could result in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane in case of an emergency.

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

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4631.

EASA AD 2025-0114 specifies procedures for repetitive general visual inspections of affected lavatory floor fittings for corrosion and other damage ( i.e., contamination, cracks, and incorrect installation), and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include:

• Contacting Airbus for approved repair instructions for floor fitting HP03 and doing the repair;

• Repairing an affected floor fitting, except for floor fitting HP03; and

• Replacing an affected floor fitting.

EASA AD 2025-0114 provides an optional terminating action of replacing each affected floor fitting and reidentifying that lavatory. EASA AD 2025-0114 also limits the installation of affected lavatory floor fittings under certain conditions for certain airplanes and prohibits the installation of an affected lavatory for certain airplanes.

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

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0114 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0114 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0114 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0114 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0114. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0114 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4631 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-3880; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01428-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0191, dated September 4, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0191) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model EC 155 B and EC 155 B1 helicopters. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed. Additionally, the MCAI states that the airworthiness limitations are identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness and that AH [Airbus Helicopters] has issued applicable ALS revisions to specify instructions to determine the compliance time for the replacement of the upper attach beam.

The FAA is issuing this proposed AD to prevent failure of certain parts and primary structural components, which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3880.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0191, which specifies procedures for replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing all applicable maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the ALS as defined in EASA AD 2025-0191.

Additionally, EASA AD 2025-0191 specifies procedures for revising the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the specified ALS, as applicable. Revising the AMP constitutes a terminating action for the requirement to record accomplishment of the actions of replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the applicable ALS as specified in EASA AD 2025-0191 for demonstration of AD compliance on a continued basis.

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 ADDRESSES .

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

This proposed AD would require the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0191, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.

The MCAI requires revising the approved AMP within 12 months, whereas this proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing approved MM or inspection program, as applicable, within 30 days, and clarifies that if an incorporated limitation or threshold therein is reached before 30 days after the effective date of the final rule of this proposed AD, you still have up to 30 days after the effective date of the final rule of this proposed AD to accomplish the corresponding task.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0191 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0191 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0191 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0191. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0191 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3880 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 16 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during regular business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class D and Class E airspace over New Bedford, MA. A review of the current airspace revealed that the New Bedford, MA Class D airspace does not properly contain IFR operations on the northwest side of the airport. Specifically, arrivals on the RNAV Runway 14 approach and departures to the northwest are not properly contained. This action proposes to add an extension to the existing Class D airspace within 1.8 miles each side of the 318° bearing from the New Bedford Regional Airport extending from the 4-mile radius of the airport to 4.7 miles northwest of the airport.

This action also proposes to update the airport name in both the New Bedford Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions from “New Bedford Municipal Airport” to “New Bedford Regional Airport.” This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates of the New Bedford Regional Airport in both the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions, specifically, from (lat. 41°40′35″ N, long. 70°57′28″ W) to (lat. 41°40′36″ N, long. 70°57′28″ W), which is one second of latitude. This action also proposes to update the verbiage in the Class D airspace legal description from “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA guidance.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these proposed amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

Subject to OSM's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).

On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Utah program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Utah program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5913). You can also find later actions concerning the Utah program and program amendments at 30 CFR 944.15.

By letter dated April 6, 2026 (Administrative Record No. UT-051-01), Utah sent an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). We found Utah's proposed amendment to be administratively complete on April 7, 2026. Utah submitted this proposed amendment following the passage of HB 419 during the 2026 Utah state legislative session, which proposed to update the language of its judicial code at 78B-5-828 of the Utah Code Annotated (UCA).

UCA 78B-5-828 applies to an “environmental action,” and an “environmental action” is defined as a cause of action filed on or after May 10, 2011, that seeks judicial review of a final agency action. This provision specifically applies to permits issued by the Department of Transportation, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or the Department of Natural Resources. At section UCA 78B-5-828(1)(a)(ii), permits actions under the Department of Natural Resources'—Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining—Coal Mining and Reclamation program—are exempted from the definition of “environmental actions.”

UCA 78B-5-828 requires a plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction or administrative stay in an “environmental action” to post a bond with the court or relevant agency sufficient to compensate each defendant opposing the action for damages that each defendant may sustain as a result of the preliminary injunction or administrative stay. If the plaintiff does not ultimately prevail on the merits of the “environmental action,” the court or relevant agency must execute the bond and award damages to each defendant who opposed the preliminary injunction or administrative stay and who was harmed because of it.

HB 419 removed section UCA 78B-5-828(1)(a)(ii), the provision which exempts permit actions from the coal program under the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining from the definition of “environmental actions.” By removing this exemption, Utah proposed to make the Utah Program and its permit actions subject to this rule.

Finally, HB 419 added a contingency that affects the amended sections above, but that is not codified into the UCA. HB 419 stated in its “Effective date” clause, that HB 419 is effective as of May 6, 2026.

The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.

If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., M.D.T. on May 22, 2026. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.

When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment.

We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed waiver and extension notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final waiver and extension, we urge you to identify clearly the specific grantee or grantees (listed in the table under the Background section) that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed waiver and extension. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed waiver and extension by accessing: Regulations.gov .

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed waiver and extension. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Section 116 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 115-224)(Perkins V or the Act), authorizes the Secretary to make grants to or enter into contracts with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out career and technical education programs that benefit Native Americans.

In fiscal year (FY) 2021, the Department published in the Federal Register notices inviting application (NIA) announcing a grant competition for the NACTEP program under ALN 84.101A (85 FR 76548) published November 30, 2020, and corrected December 11, 2020, for up to five years. Thirty-nine NACTEP grants were awarded from that competition and thirty-six36 NACTEP grants are currently operating career and technical education programs for Native American students as authorized by section 116 of Perkins V (20. U.S.C. 2326).

The Department proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding 60 months (five years). Additionally, the Department proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261 (a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver and extension would enable the Department to provide additional funds, not to exceed their Year 5 planned award amount for projects currently funded under ALN 84.101A for an additional budget period, not beyond September 20, 2027. This proposed waiver and extension would maximize continuity of services to those served by the NACTEP program and support grantees by providing an efficient process by which they can continue to operate their current, approved projects for another budget period with additional funding.

This action would allow the 36 current NACTEP grantees to submit a request for continuation funding in FY 2026, provided grantees have certified that they have the capacity to continue activities. In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approval application; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurance in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receive Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Waivers and Extensions:

The Department believes that it is in the public interest to extend the NACTEP program in lieu of running a new competition in FY 2026. Extending the project end dates of the 36 NACTEP grants for one year will allow for efficient continuity of Career and Technical Education services for Native Americans. The Department intends to hold a new competition FY 2027.

For these reasons, the Department proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261 (a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. This waiver will allow the Department to consider FY 2026 continuation awards for the 36 NACTEP projects (ALN 84.101A) based on their Year 5 planned amount. It is estimated that each grantee's continuation award would amount to the following, pending review and discussion of carryover:

Any activities to be carried out during the year or years of these continuation awards would have to be consistent with, or be a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of each grantee's application, as approved in the 2021 NACTEP competition. The FY 2021 NACTEP NIA would continue to govern each grantee's project during the extension.

The NACTEP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected by the proposed waiver and extension are the current AL 84.101A grantees, and any potential new applicants who might have applied in the FY 2026 grant competition.

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities, because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

This notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov.

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On April 12, 2023, the EPA sent a letter to SDCAPCD that determined that the submittal for SDCAPCD Rule 69.7, “Landfill Gas Flares,” (“Rule 69.7”) met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 1

There are no previous versions of Rule 69.7 in the SIP.

Emissions of NO X contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. Rule 69.7 is designed to set NO X limitations for enclosed landfill gas flares. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Emission limitations in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)) and must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)). Additionally, 40 CFR part 51, subpart K (Source Surveillance) requires SIPs to contain enforceable procedures for monitoring the status of compliance with the requirements in the control strategy.

Generally, SIPs must require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document, as well as each major source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as “Moderate” or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SDCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as “Severe” for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, this area must implement RACT, and we anticipate SDCAPCD will rely on this rule to implement RACT in an upcoming RACT SIP submittal. This action focuses on the approvability of Rule 69.7 for inclusion into the SIP under CAA section 110. If relied upon to meet RACT, we will evaluate whether Rule 69.7 meets the applicable CAA requirements for RACT when acting on the District's RACT SIP submittal.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (“the Bluebook,” revised January 11, 1990).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (“the Little Bluebook”).

4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (“the NO X Supplement”), 57 FR 55620 (November 25, 1992).

Rule 69.7 establishes emission limitations and work practice standards for landfill flares. We evaluated this rule to ensure it meets applicable CAA requirements and is consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The rule requires landfill flares to not exceed NO X emissions of 0.06 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMbtu) and carbon monoxide emissions of 0.20 lb/MMbtu; sets standards for how the landfill flares should be equipped and kept when in operation; requires monitoring and recording, such as requiring a gas flow rate measuring device to monitor, display, and record the landfill gas flow rate to each flare; requires enclosed flares to have a gas temperature device equipped with a continuous recorder; and requires open flares to have a heat device to continuously monitor for the presence of a flare pilot flame. To confirm that the flare is operating within those emission and operational standards, the rule sets requirements for initial and annual source testing and specifies test methods to use to confirm compliance.

However, as identified below, the rule contains a deficiency that precludes full approval. In a letter dated January 13, 2026, the SDCAPCD identified the rule deficiency and committed to revise the affected provisions in accordance with EPA guidance and submit the revised rule to CARB for submittal to the EPA no later than June 30, 2027, or within one year of the effective date of the EPA's final action, whichever is soonest. 2 On February 10, 2026, CARB provided its own commitment letter to submit the SDCAPCD's revised rule to the EPA no later than June 30, 2027, or within one year of the effective date of EPA's final action, whichever is soonest. 3 Because the commitments by the SDCAPCD and CARB would remedy the identified rule deficiency, we are proposing to conditionally approve Rule 69.7. These commitment letters are included in the docket for the action and are described in the TSD. Our TSD has more information on our evaluation for this proposed conditional approval.

To determine landfill gas composition, Rule 69.7 allows operators to use EPA Method 25C or ASTM methods D3588-98(2017)e1 and D1945-14(2019). 4 However, the rule also provides the operator the option to alternatively use the “most current version” of the listed ASTM methods. 40 CFR 51.212(c) requires SIPs to contain enforceable test methods and requires alternative test methods to be reviewed and approved by the EPA. By providing the option to use a version of a test method other than the specific versions listed in the rule, the rule allows for the use of alternative test methods not reviewed and approved by the EPA. As a result, this undermines the enforceability of the submission as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.212(c) and thus constitutes a SIP deficiency.

The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the local agency revises the rule.

Rule 69.7 largely fulfills the relevant CAA section 110 and part D requirements, but the deficiency, as discussed in section C of this document, precludes full SIP approval pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve SIP revisions based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of the plan approval. 5 Because the SDCAPCD and CARB have committed to provide the EPA with a SIP submission that will include specific rule revisions that would adequately address the identified deficiency, and submit the revisions within one year of conditional approval, we are proposing to conditionally approve Rule 69.7 pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act. If the SDCAPCD and CARB submit the required rule revision by the specified deadline, and the EPA approves the submission, then the identified deficiency will be cured. However, if this proposed conditional approval is finalized and SDCAPCD, through CARB, fails to submit the revision within the required timeframe, the EPA will take action to disapprove the rule. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until June 8, 2026. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference SDCAPCD Rule 69.7, “Landfill Gas Flares,” adopted on March 9, 2023, which regulates NO X emissions from landfill gas flares. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” and “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established. The primary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards, the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined, including an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health. The secondary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards, the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined are requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air.

Under the CAA, the EPA must establish NAAQS for criteria pollutants, including SO 2 . SO 2 is primarily released to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial facilities. Short-term exposure to SO 2 can damage the human respiratory system and increase breathing difficulties. Small children and people with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, are more sensitive to the effects of SO 2 . Sulfur oxides at high concentrations in ambient air can also react with other compounds to form small particulates that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and cause health problems.

On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) at 40 CFR 50.17(a), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb), as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50 (75 FR 35520). Under CAA section 107(d)(1), the EPA is required to designate areas as “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable” within two years of establishing a new or revising an existing standard. As part of this process, states must submit recommendations for initial area designations and boundaries to the EPA within one year of the effective date of the standard. The EPA evaluates the state recommendations and promulgates the area designations based on the relevant information. On March 26, 2021, the EPA published a document in the Federal Register designating 9 areas in 7 states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, including a portion of New Madrid County in the State of Missouri. This set of designations is known as Round 4. See 86 FR 16055, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective April 30, 2021. This Round 4 of designations was based on data from newly installed monitoring sites placed in the area of maximum concentration in the respective source areas. As noted later in this document, there were three new monitoring sites installed in the New Madrid area designed to capture the maximum impact from the relevant sources in the area. Based in part on monitoring data from these monitors, the EPA designated a portion of New Madrid County as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS on April 30, 2021 (86 FR 16055). This designation triggered a requirement for Missouri to submit by October 30, 2022 (within 18 months per CAA section 191(a)), a SIP revision containing an attainment plan for how the New Madrid area would attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than April 30, 2026, per CAA section 192(a) in accordance with CAA sections 110(a), 172(c) and 191-192.

In response to this requirement, Missouri submitted an attainment plan for the New Madrid nonattainment area on May 3, 2023. The remainder of this document describes the requirements that such attainment plans must meet in order for the EPA to approve the plan provisions into the federally enforceable SIP, provides a review of the state's plan with respect to these requirements, and describes the EPA's proposed action on Missouri's plan. For reasons described in the following sections, the EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's attainment plan for the New Madrid area.

SO 2 attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, including specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's regulations governing attainment plans are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIP requirements, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO 2 attainment plan requirements and fundamental principles for SIP emission control strategies. Id., at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued guidance and recommendations for meeting the statutory requirements for SO 2 attainment plans addressing the 2010 primary SO 2 NAAQS, in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (hereafter referred to as “2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance”). 1 In this guidance, the EPA described the statutory requirements for the elements of an attainment plan as provided in CAA section 172(c), which include: an accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO 2 within the nonattainment area; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP); implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)); emission limitations and control measures necessary to provide for attainment; nonattainment new source review (NNSR); and adequate contingency measures.

In general, the EPA's duties in reviewing state attainment plans are described in CAA sections 110(k) and 110(l). The EPA is required to determine whether a SIP submission meets certain minimum criteria for completeness, or it is deemed complete by operation of law six months after the state submits it. Once a SIP submission is complete, the EPA is required to approve or disapprove the submission, in whole or in part, depending upon whether it meets all applicable requirements of the CAA. The EPA may also conditionally approve a state's attainment plan submission, in whole or in part, under certain circumstances. State attainment plans are approved by the EPA as meeting the requirements of the CAA if they fully address the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192, and the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51.

Also, under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Further, under CAA section 193, no control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990), in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) direct states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan and its emission limitations and control measures provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that attainment plans must meet, and provide that all attainment plan control strategies reflect the four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. See General Preamble, at 13567-13568. In addition to the attainment plan elements discussed above, attainment plans for the SO 2 NAAQS must include: (1) enforceable emission limitations and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and demonstrates that necessary emission limitations and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO 2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, these emission limitations and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limitations and control measures. Further, these emissions limitations must be quantifiable ( i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source-specific emission limitations and control measures must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the RFP and modeled attainment demonstrations).

The EPA's 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance recommends that the emission limitations established for the attainment demonstration be expressed as short-term average limits ( e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one hour consistent with the averaging time of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS), but also describes the option to utilize emission limitations with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the limit is demonstrated by the state to assure comparable stringency to a 1-hour average limit that demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The EPA's guidance provides suggested criteria and procedures for making this demonstration. See 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22-39. The guidance recommends that—should states and sources seek to utilize longer averaging times—the longer-term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value (CEV) shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

The 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an extensive discussion of the EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set, comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, the EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22-39, and appendices B, C, and D.

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. Because the standard has this form, a single hourly exceedance of the 75 ppb NAAQS level does not by itself result in a violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set longer-term average could cause multiple hourly exceedances over multiple days in a year, and if so, the resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular, whether the EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer-term average limit will provide that the 3-year average of annual fourth highest daily maximum hourly values will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how the EPA evaluates whether such plans “provide for attainment,” based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the SO 2 NAAQS' form for determining attainment at monitoring sites, follows.

For SO 2 NAAQS attainment plans based on emission limitations that impose 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed 1-hour emission rates. The maximum modeled emission rate that results in attainment is labeled the “critical emissions value” (CEV). The modeling process for identifying this CEV inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO 2 , such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limit for each stationary SO 2 source at this CEV.

The EPA recognizes that some SO 2 sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, which can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the CEV. The EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer-term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the CEV, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO 2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of an hourly NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the CEV. However, for several reasons, the EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance document suitably addresses this concern.

First, from a practical perspective, the EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer-term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. The EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer-term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the CEV) and that takes the source's emissions profile (and inherent level of emissions variability) into account. As a result, the EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

Second, from a more theoretical perspective, the EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer-term limit, to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the CEV, and in the longer-term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the CEV, but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the CEV. In an “average year,”  2 compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days ( i.e., three days with maximum hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a longer-term limit, it is possible that additional hourly exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the CEV at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the longer-term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer-term limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is set below the CEV), so a source complying with an appropriately set longer-term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.

To illustrate this point, the EPA conducted a statistical analysis using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. This analysis is described in appendix B of the EPA's 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance. Based on the analysis described in the 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance, the EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set, comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of hourly exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the CEV. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

The 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer-term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment ( i.e., the CEV), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer-term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation ( i.e., using 1-hour historical emission values from the emissions database to calculate 30-day average emission values). In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these longer-term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied to the candidate 1-hour emission limit (CEV) to determine a longer-term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent. 3

The 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, including the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits or work practice requirements for the operation of SO 2 control equipment, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer-term emission rate limit.

Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in Addendum A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W). In 2005, the EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO 2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluations. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO 2 standard is provided in appendix A to the 2014 SO 2 Nonattainment Guidance. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance would generally ensure that the attainment demonstration offers adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

Attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment ( i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality dispersion modeling ( see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO 2 NAAQS. For a short-term ( i.e., 1-hour) standard, the EPA finds that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient, and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO 2.

The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. AERMET is a meteorological data preprocessor that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour SO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (U.S. EPA, 2010).

The State of Missouri submitted an attainment plan for the New Madrid area to the EPA on May 3, 2023. Missouri established new consent agreements (APCP-2022-047A and APCP-2022-048A respectively) with the following two sources that account for the majority of SO 2 emissions in the nonattainment area: Magnitude 7 Metals (M7M) and Associated Electric Cooperative Incorporated (AECI) New Madrid Power Plant. 4 The State relies on these new consent agreements as the enforceable mechanism for satisfying several requirements of the area's attainment plan, including the control strategy, attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM/RACT, and contingency measures. These consent agreements are available in appendices E and F of the State's submission included in the docket for this action.

M7M is a primary aluminum reduction plant with two principal operations that emit SO 2 : on-site carbon bake furnaces which produce carbon block anodes and electrolysis potlines which consume the anodes to produce metallic aluminum. As the carbon block anodes are baked in the furnaces, some sulfur in the raw coke and pitch is also “baked out” of the carbon block and released as SO 2 through relatively low-level stacks. In the potline electrolytic process, sulfur still present in the carbon blocks oxidizes to form SO 2 . SO 2 emissions from the potlines are routed under negative pressure through fluoride scrubbers and then to a common stack, with a portion of the SO 2 also released as fugitive emissions through roof vents spanning the potline buildings.

The AECI New Madrid Power Plant operates two coal-fired steam boilers to generate electric power. They are the main sources of SO 2 emissions for this facility. The emissions from these boilers are routed through a dual stack that uses continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) to measure actual hourly SO 2 emissions from each of the two boilers.

Although the largest sources of SO 2 emissions in the nonattainment area are the M7M potlines and the New Madrid Power Plant coal-fired boilers, the State determined based on air dispersion modeling analyses that the most significant contributions to elevated ground-level SO 2 concentrations are from SO 2 emissions released from relatively low-level stacks of the M7M's carbon bake furnaces. For this reason, the State developed a control strategy focused on rerouting SO 2 emissions from the existing low-level carbon bake furnace stacks to a new yet-to-be-constructed taller stack to improve dispersion of these emissions. The control strategy also includes new emission limitations and monitoring requirements for AECI New Madrid that were applicable beginning on January 1, 2023, as required by the consent agreement.

The requirement for M7M to cease all SO 2 emissions from the low-level carbon bake stacks was made enforceable by the State through a consent agreement with M7M. The State also established new SO 2 emission limits for M7M's carbon bake and potline emission release points. The M7M Consent Agreement paragraph 1.A.v. prohibits any SO 2 emissions from the existing carbon bake furnaces unless such emissions have been re-routed to the new stack by December 31, 2023. This provision applies to emissions from carbon bake furnaces 1, 2, and 3 (in the event carbon bake 3 is restarted and goes through the New Source Review process), as identified in appendix A of the consent agreement. It further states that this deadline may be extended up to but no later than January 1, 2025. In a letter dated August 10, 2023, MoDNR extended the December 31, 2023, deadline to January 28, 2024. 5

M7M curtailed operations in January 2024  6 and has not yet constructed the new carbon bake stack. M7M retains all of its operating permits so the facility could restart at any time and remains subject to the requirements of the state consent agreement. Therefore, should the company restart operations, it must comply with the hourly emissions limits and the prohibition to emit any SO 2 emissions from the carbon bake stacks unless emissions are routed to the new carbon bake stack, among other requirements.

For the reasons discussed throughout this document, the EPA is proposing to approve the state's attainment plan submittal, including the M7M and AECI New Madrid source-specific consent agreements, as meeting the relevant CAA requirements and thereby proposing to incorporate by reference the underlying requirements to become federally enforceable. During the state's public comment period, the EPA notified the state that the consent agreements contain provisions that could be interpreted to allow the state and the affected source to modify or terminate them without following the statutorily-mandated process for SIP revisions. 7 See sections 110(i) and 110(l). Modification or termination of the consent agreements is also contrary to sections 110(a)(2)(a) and 172(c)(7) of the CAA which require the state to adopt enforceable emission limitations and control measures which provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Further, modification or termination of the consent agreements may complicate future redesignation of the area. The EPA may only redesignate a nonattainment area if it has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to “permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions” resulting from implementation of the SIP, among other requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. While the EPA allows consent agreements or permit requirements to be incorporated by reference into a state's SIP to meet SIP requirements (see 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.1.(b)), the state must ensure that any such approved provisions cannot be altered by subsequent changes to the underlying agreements or permits unless the SIP is revised. Once approved by the EPA into the SIP as meeting the applicable SIP requirements, only changes made through the statutory SIP revision process may modify the approved requirements of the state's SIP.

In the sections that follow, the EPA explains its interpretation of several consent agreement provisions, including those that could result in a modification of the consent agreement. Specifically, the EPA explains its interpretation of those provisions in which a revision to the SIP would be necessary if the consent agreement is modified following the EPA's codification of the consent agreement into the SIP.

The EPA has previously expressed its view that termination provisions that render the consent agreements unenforceable depending on the nature of the action the EPA takes are inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. See 89 FR 55140. The EPA's position is that enforceable mechanisms relied upon for attainment plan requirements, such as the consent agreements provided by Missouri as part of the New Madrid attainment plan, should not include provisions which would automatically, or at the source's or the State's option, terminate the agreement based on the EPA's action. For example, the M7M consent agreement termination provision states that, “This consent agreement shall also terminate if the SIP revision for the New Madrid County SO 2 Nonattainment Area or this Consent Agreement are disapproved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” Further, the termination-related provisions included in the AECI New Madrid agreement provide for automatic termination of the agreement upon the effective date of a full disapproval and for optional termination after the effective date of a partial disapproval by the EPA.

Several provisions in the consent agreements state that, once the EPA approves their inclusion into the SIP, the agreements cannot be terminated or modified unless the SIP is revised. For example, paragraph 5 in “Other Provisions” of the AECI New Madrid agreement states that, “The parties further agree that after EPA has approved the SIP revision that contains this Consent Agreement, any subsequent modifications to this Consent Agreement, subject to the termination provisions in paragraph 13 of this Consent Agreement, will require approval from EPA before such modifications would take effect.” Similarly, paragraph 7 of the M7M agreement includes this same language.

Termination provisions that are triggered upon the EPA's exercise of its statutory partial approval authority found in CAA section 110(k)(3) essentially limits or nullifies the effect of the EPA's action and is particularly problematic where there is more than one source and more than one enforceable mechanism. Because the EPA is proposing to fully approve the New Madrid attainment plan including the consent agreements for both M7M and AECI New Madrid, these termination provisions are not triggered by the EPA's full approval, and the agreements are therefore not terminated outside the EPA SIP approval process.

Paragraph 1.A.xii. of the M7M consent agreement details the process by which the source may request a new 30-day rolling average emission limit to replace the hourly emission limits contained in paragraph 1.A.vii. in the consent agreement, and for the State to approve these replacement limits. The process includes updating the source's operating permit after state approval of the replacement limit. The State outlines the process by which the comparably stringent 30-day rolling average limits would be calculated based on data collected by the yet to be installed CEMS.

As part of the EPA's proposed approval of the state's attainment plan, the EPA approves the process for development and state approval of a new 30-day rolling average emission limit, but not the resulting 30-day rolling average emission limit. Modification of the relevant emissions limit relied on to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6)  8 would materially change the attainment plan and the basis for the EPA's approval of Missouri's attainment plan. A SIP revision would be necessary to incorporate a new (or replace the existing) emissions limit relied upon in the state's attainment plan. Such change also requires a justification to meet the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

Therefore, any 30-day rolling average emission limit established either under the terms of the consent agreement or otherwise must go through public notice and comment and must be approved by the EPA before it could replace the hourly emission limits in the control strategy. Specifically, the new numeric emissions limit, averaging period, and the technical basis for such limit must all be made available for public review and comment before submission to the EPA for review and approval as a SIP revision.

Paragraph 1.B.i. of the M7M consent agreement allows the source to request and the State to approve the relocation of any of the three existing ambient air SO 2 monitors surrounding the M7M property. Paragraph 1.B.ii. clearly limits the ability of the source to discontinue (or the State to approve such discontinuation) any of the three existing ambient air monitors surrounding the M7M property without going through the necessary EPA approval through the State's adherence to the annual monitoring network plan review process. The EPA agrees with this wording describing the process the State and source must follow to discontinue monitors.

The wording of paragraph 1.B.i., however, does not contain such limitations and therefore appears to circumvent the required process for review and approval by the EPA before relocation of required ambient air monitors. Specifically, 40 CFR 58.14(b) and other related provisions require that state agencies submit monitoring network changes to the EPA for review and approval, this is typically handled through annual network plans. The relocation of monitors (or other modifications to the ambient monitoring network) must be reviewed and approved by the EPA, per requirements in 40 CFR 58.14. However, 40 CFR 58.14(c)(6) provides that a monitor not eligible for removal under any of the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) may be moved to a nearby location with the same scale of representation if logistical problems beyond the State's control make it impossible to continue operation at its current site. Because the state's attainment plan relies on the continued operation of these monitors for contingency measure triggering language, they should not be moved in a manner that changes the scale of representation for the nonattainment area. The Data Requirements Rule (DRR) at 40 CFR 51.1203(c) also provides requirements for monitoring sites established pursuant the DRR, specifically that they must be operated similarly to SLAMS (state or local air monitoring stations) and be subject to the same SLAMS requirements of 40 CFR part 58. If the source or state significantly relocate any of the monitors as provided for under Paragraph 1.B.i. of the M7M consent agreement, such that they would no longer be appropriately sited to capture maximum impacts from the primary sources in the nonattainment area and therefore to serve as the mechanism for triggering contingency measures, the EPA finds this would materially change the attainment plan and the basis for EPA's approval of Missouri's attainment plan. Therefore, a SIP revision would be necessary to incorporate a new (or replace the existing) reliance on the monitors in their current locations as a triggering mechanism for contingency measures.

Both the M7M and AECI New Madrid consent agreements include provisions termed as “choice of law” clauses. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the M7M agreement and paragraph 8 of the AECI New Madrid agreement state, “ This Consent Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Missouri, and the terms stated herein shall constitute the entire and exclusive agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the matters addressed herein.” The EPA interprets this provision to bind the “parties” to the consent agreement, namely the State of Missouri and AECI New Madrid and Magnitude 7 Metals, respectively. Furthermore, following approval of the consent agreements into the SIP by the EPA, enforcement of the consent agreement under sections 113 or 304 of the CAA would be governed by federal law.

Both the Magnitude 7 Metals and AECI New Madrid consent agreements include “force majeure” provisions which excuse a source from liability if an event, such as a natural disaster, act of terrorism, labor dispute or stoppage, war, national or regional emergency, pandemic, epidemic, local disease outbreak, public health emergency, or quarantine, occurs which causes performance of an obligation under the consent agreement to be practically impossible, despite the source's best efforts to fulfill the obligation. If a force majeure event occurs that meets the criteria of the consent agreement, the consent agreement requires the source to notify the State within five business days following commencement of the force majeure event, and include actions taken to minimize the impact thereof. According to the terms of each consent agreement, the source and the State agree that the pertinent obligations and deliverables of the consent agreement will be rescheduled rather than cancelled.

The EPA has evaluated the force majeure provisions in the consent agreements in light of CAA requirements for SIP provisions. The EPA interprets them to provide the sources an affirmative defense to any form of liability, whether monetary penalties or injunctive relief, in the event of violations of the emission limitations or other control requirements applicable to the sources, so long as the source meets the requirements to qualify for the force majeure provision. As such, these force majeure provisions constitute a “complete” affirmative defense and are thus consistent with CAA requirements for SIP provisions.

The EPA notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) has issued decisions that are relevant to affirmative defense provisions. In the first, Env't Comm. of the Fla Elec. Power Coordinating Grp, Inc. v. EPA, the court held that affirmative defense type provisions that only preclude monetary penalties as a remedy for violations of emission limitations or other SIP requirements, i.e., a “partial” affirmative defense, are invalid. Env't Comm. of the Fla Elec. Power Coordinating Grp, Inc. v. EPA, 94 F.4th 77, 116 (D.C. Cir. 2024). More recently, in SSM Litigation Group v. EPA, the court further clarified that an affirmative defense type provision that instead precludes any form of liability or remedy for violations of emission limitations or other SIP requirements, i.e., a “complete” affirmative defense, is valid. SSM Litigation Group v. EPA, et al., 150 F.4th 593 (D.C. Circ. 2025). In that decision, the D.C. Circuit held in part that a complete affirmative defense is permissible because it does not function as an exemption from applicable emission standards. 150 F.4th at 600 (“[a]n affirmative defense allows a defendant to avoid liability, but it does not alter the underlying legal requirements”). The court reasoned that a “complete affirmative defense to liability does not render an emission limitation non-continuous under 42 U.S.C. 7602(k).” Id. Although the court's decision in SSM Litigation Group pertained specifically to an affirmative defense provision that a state may elect to include in title V permits for sources in such state, the court's reasoning would apply more broadly to affirmative defenses that a state may elect to include in its SIP provisions applicable to sources outside of the title V permit context.

The force majeure provision in each consent agreement at issue in this attainment plan functions as a complete affirmative defense because it allows a defendant to avoid liability if the failure to perform an obligation under the consent agreement has been caused by a force majeure event, but it does not alter the underlying legal requirements that are applicable to the source pursuant to the consent agreement. Accordingly, any emission limitations or other emission controls requirements in the consent agreements apply continuously, in accordance with section 302(k) of the CAA. Furthermore, in accordance with section 110 of the CAA, following approval of the consent agreement into the SIP, any modification of the consent agreement would require the state to submit, and the EPA to approve, the revised consent agreement as a revision to the SIP. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the force majeure provisions in each consent agreement as complete affirmative defense provisions.

The state's attainment plan also includes a modeled attainment demonstration, based on the emissions limits and operational requirements set through the new source-specific consent agreements, which is further discussed in section IV. of this preamble as well as in the TSD included in the docket with this action. The other requirements addressed through Missouri's attainment plan are discussed further in section V. of this preamble.

The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Missouri used in its attainment demonstration. 9 Missouri's submission contains a modeling demonstration that includes an assessment of the air quality impacts the State expected to result from emissions limitations and operational changes governing M7M and the AECI New Madrid Power Plant. The State's attainment demonstration modeling shows that the control strategy of a to-be-constructed carbon bake stack at M7M and new SO 2 emission limitations for both facilities results in modeled attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS throughout the New Madrid nonattainment area. This section discusses the EPA's review of the state's attainment demonstration. The EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket for this action provides greater detail about our technical review of the state's submission.

As previously stated, AERMOD is the preferred model for this application. Missouri's final attainment demonstration modeling analysis utilized AERMOD version 21112, the most current version available at the time of plan development. The State asserts that all analyses were conducted with the EPA's regulatory default options and considering the EPA's guidance documents, including the 2014 SO 2 SIP guidance and appendix W. The most recently available version of AERMAP (18081) was used to import terrain and source elevations from the National Elevation Dataset (NED). All building downwash analyses were conducted using the most recently available version (04274) of the EPA's Building Profile Input Program with Plume Rise Enhancements (BPIPPRM). The EPA finds the selection and use of these inputs to AERMOD, AERMAP and BPIPPRM to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and the 2014 SO 2 SIP guidance.

The receptor grid for the final attainment demonstration used 100-meter spacing throughout the nonattainment area outside of M7M's property boundary and 50-meter spacing along M7M's property boundary. The State also extended the receptor grid beyond the nonattainment area using 200-meter spacing to evaluate whether modeled violations occur outside the nonattainment area boundary. In addition, the State prepared a second modeling scenario with receptors placed at 100-meter spacing throughout the nonattainment area, but excluding receptors inside the New Madrid power plant's property boundary, to evaluate whether emissions from the power plant contribute to modeled violations within the M7M's property boundary. The EPA's TSD includes further detail on the various receptor grid configurations utilized by Missouri.

Modeling for the New Madrid area attainment plan was conducted using the surface station data from the Cape Girardeau airport and upper air data from the Springfield airport, and used consecutive years from 2017-2021. This represents the most recent, readily available 5-year period at the time of the initial analysis per section 8.3.1.2 of appendix W. The State selected the Cape Girardeau and Springfield airport stations as best representative of meteorological conditions within the area of analysis, consistent with the nonattainment boundary designation. The State utilized meteorological data processed with AERMET version 21112, in combination with 1-minute Automated Surface Observing Stations (ASOS) wind data processed with AERMINUTE version 15272, to generate hourly average winds for input to AERMET. The EPA finds the selection and use of these meteorological inputs to AERMET to be appropriate and in accordance with appendix W and the 2014 SO 2 SIP guidance.

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(C), and (c)(1) of section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) and paragraph (c)(2) of section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283). Paragraph (b)(2)(A) of section 847 requires covered contractors and subcontractors to disclose to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) their beneficial ownership and whether they are under foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) with updates for any changes. Paragraph (b)(2)(A) also requires covered contractors and subcontractors, if determined to be under FOCI, to disclose contact information for each of their foreign owners that is a beneficial owner.

Paragraph (b)(2)(C) of section 847 requires contract clauses providing for and enforcing disclosures related to changes in FOCI or beneficial ownership during performance of the contract or subcontract and the effective mitigation of risks related to FOCI throughout the duration of the contract or subcontract.

Paragraph (c)(1) of section 847 establishes that the disclosure and risk mitigation requirements of the statute may apply to contracts for commercial products or commercial services when a designated senior DoD official makes a determination that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

Paragraph (c)(2) of section 819 adds a statutory deadline for DoD to revise relevant directives, guidance, training, and policies, including amending the DFARS to implement section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020.

In addition, DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement elements of a policy under DoD Instruction 5205.87, Mitigating Risks Related to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence for Covered DoD Contractors and Subcontractors, as required by section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020. DoD Instruction 5205.87 establishes procedures related to the disclosure of beneficial ownership and FOCI information and mitigation of FOCI risk.

The rule proposes to amend the DFARS by creating part 240, Information Security and Supply Chain Security. In part 240, DoD proposes to create section 240.27X, Mitigation of Risks Related to Beneficial Ownership or Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence, to implement paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(C), and (c)(1) of section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020, paragraph (c)(2) of section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021, and elements of DoD Instruction 5205.87.

DoD proposes to add section 240.27X-1 to establish the scope of the section and adds the definition of “covered contractor or subcontractor” at 240.27X-2, to clarify which entities are impacted by the statutory requirements.

Section 240.27X-3, Policy, is proposed to describe the statutory requirements for disclosing information and mitigating FOCI risks throughout the duration of the contract or subcontract. This section also addresses exemption of the disclosure and risk mitigation requirements for commercial products and commercial services, unless the designated senior DoD official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security. The senior DoD official has not yet been designated. The term “designated senior DoD official” is used in this proposed rule as a placeholder.

The requirements at 240.27X-4, Procedures, are proposed to establish the procedures necessary for contracting officers to implement the statutory disclosure and risk mitigation requirements. The section directs the contracting officer to not award, modify a contract, or exercise an option unless the offeror or contractor has a status of eligible in the National Industrial Security System (NISS), available at https://niss.dcsa.mil.

Section 240.27X-5 prescribes use of the provision and clause in solicitations and contracts with a value in excess of $5 million. The language at 240.27X-5 clarifies that the provision and clause are only to be included in solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services if the designated senior DoD official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security or potential compromise because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

Updates are proposed in subpart 212.3 to include the provision and clause in the list of provisions and clauses that are applicable to commercial products and commercial services. In addition, updates in subpart 217.2 are proposed to clarify that, prior to exercising an option, the contracting officer must verify that the contractor has a status of eligible in NISS.

A new solicitation provision was added at 252.240-70XX, Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership or Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence-Representation. The new solicitation provision requires offerors to disclose their Standard Form (SF) 328, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, and supporting documents for DCSA review in NISS. The solicitation provision also requires offerors to represent by submission of the offer that the offeror has submitted the SF 328 and the contact information of each beneficial owner in NISS and that the information is current, accurate, and complete. In addition, the solicitation provision puts offerors on notice that if the requiring activity determines, based on input from DCSA, that FOCI or beneficial ownership poses a risk or potential risk of compromise to national security that may be mitigated, the offeror must agree at the time of award to implement a risk mitigation strategy within 90 days of award.

A new contract clause is proposed at 252.240-70YY, Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership or Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence. The new contract clause requires contractors to—

(1) Disclose to DCSA their beneficial ownership and whether they are under FOCI by submitting an updated SF 328 in NISS;

(2) Update the SF 328 and supporting documents, to include the contact information of each beneficial owner in NISS.

This proposed rule includes a new solicitation provision and contract clause to implement the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(C), and (c)(1) of section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) and paragraph (c)(2) of section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283): (1) The provision at DFARS 252.240-70XX, Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership or Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence—Representation; and (2) the clause at DFARS 252.240-70YY, Disclosure of Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence or Beneficial Ownership.

The provision at DFARS 252.240-70XX is prescribed at DFARS 240.27X-5(a) for use in solicitations that include the clause at 252.240-70YY. The clause at DFARS 252.240-70YY is prescribed at DFARS 240.27X-5(b) for use in solicitations and contracts with a value in excess of $5 million. The clause is also required in solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, if the designated senior DoD official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security or potential compromise because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

DoD does not intend to apply the proposed rule to contracts at or below the SAT, because the requirements of the proposed rule only apply to contracts valued above $5 million. DoD intends to apply the proposed rule to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products including commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items and for the acquisition of commercial services, as prescribed.

The statute at 41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold. It limits the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. The statute at 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation system of regulations. DoD does not intend to make that determination. Therefore, this proposed rule will not apply at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.

The statute at 10 U.S.C. 3452 exempts contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items, and commercial services from provisions of law enacted after October 13, 1994, unless the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (USD(A&S)) makes a written determination that it would not be in the best interest of DoD to exempt contracts for the procurement of commercial products and commercial services from the applicability of the provision or contract requirement, except for a provision of law that—

• Provides for criminal or civil penalties;

• Requires that certain articles be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862, or that strategic materials critical to national security be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4863; or

• Specifically refers to 10 U.S.C. 3452 and states that it shall apply to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products (including COTS items) and commercial services.

The statutes implemented in this proposed rule do not impose criminal or civil penalties, do not require purchase pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862 or 4863, and do not refer to 10 U.S.C. 3452. Therefore, sections 847 and 819 will not apply to the acquisition of commercial services or commercial products including COTS items unless a written determination is made. Due to delegations of authority, the Principal Director, DPCAP is the appropriate authority to make this determination.

DoD intends to make the determination to apply the statutes to the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply to the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services, if a designed official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

Given that section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020 and section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021 were enacted to promote the mitigation of FOCI or beneficial ownership risk in the supply chain, and FOCI or beneficial ownership risk is related to the ownership of the company and not necessarily what is being procured, it is in the best interest of DoD to apply the statute to contracts for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, including COTS items, as defined at Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101. An exception for contracts for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, including COTS items, would exclude the contracts intended to be covered by the law, thereby undermining the overarching public policy purpose of the law.

DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to include the following solicitation and contractual requirements to implement the statutory requirements at paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(C), and (c)(1) of section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) and paragraph (c)(2) of section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283):

• Offeror and contractor requirements to disclose to DCSA their beneficial ownership and whether they are under FOCI.

• Contractor requirement to provide updates to their FOCI and beneficial ownership disclosures to DCSA for the life of the contract.

• Contractor requirement to disclose contact information for each of its foreign owners that is a beneficial owner, if determined to be under FOCI.

• Contractor requirement to mitigate risks related to FOCI within 90 days of contract award, modification, exercise of option, or identification of risks during contract performance.

As described in section VIII of this preamble, the costs associated with the technical requirements related to the FOCI risk mitigation are outside of the scope of this proposed rule. The costs associated with the requirements for offerors to disclose FOCI and beneficial ownership information to DCSA are covered by two information collection approvals completed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security: (1) Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, SF-328, OMB Control Number 0704-0579; and (2) National Industrial Security System (NISS), OMB Control Number 0705-0006. The burden calculated for OMB Control Number 0704-0579 for the SF 328 is $7,352,560, and the burden calculated for OMB Control Number 0705-0006 for the NISS is $712,281 (source: reginfo.gov ).

This proposed DFARS rule, if finalized, will apply to contracts valued above $5 million. The proposed rule may also apply to certain contracts for commercial products and commercial services if a designated senior DoD official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security or potential compromise because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

According to data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), the average number of unique entities for fiscal years 2022 through 2024 with awards above $5 million, excluding awards using exclusively commercial procedures, is 3,774. Of those entities, 2,148 (57%) are unique small businesses. DoD has no way to know how many exclusively commercial awards will have an exception that applies the disclosure and reporting requirements to those offerors and contractors, so it assumes exclusively commercial awards will not include reporting and disclosure requirements.

To calculate the number of potential offerors and subcontractors impacted by this proposed rule, DoD assumes for every unique entity with awards above $5 million, there are two offerors on average per award and that the entities awarded contracts have on average 5 subcontractors, for a total of 37,740 potentially impacted entities. Of those entities, 21,511 (57%) are estimated to be small businesses.

For updates to disclosures, DoD does not know the number of contractors who will need to make updates to their FOCI and beneficial ownership disclosure information, or the number of updates they will need to make. DoD assumes half of all contractors may have to update information during the performance of the contract. To estimate the number of impacted contractors, DoD used the average number of unique awardees with contracts valued above $5 million, which is 3,774. DoD multiplied 3,774 by an assumed 5 subcontractors per unique awardee, which equals 18,870. DoD multiplied this number by 50 percent to arrive at an estimate of 9,435 contractors would need to update their disclosures.

In addition, prior to exercising an option or modifying a contract, contractors will need to disclose FOCI and beneficial ownership information to DCSA. DoD does not have a way to estimate the number of potential modifications or options exercised, so DoD assumes 10% of the assumed total number of impacted contractors (18,870) could be impacted. Therefore, DoD assumes that 1,887 contractors may be subject to modifications or the exercise of options that would result in disclosure update requirements.

The proposed rule includes a requirement for offerors to represent, by submission of an offer, that (1) they have submitted the SF 328 and contact information for each beneficial owner in the NISS and (2) the information is current, accurate, and complete. DoD estimates that, before submitting their offers, 7,548 offerors will verify submission of the required information and that the information provided is current, accurate, and complete. DoD further estimates these offerors may submit 2 offers per year in response to solicitations containing the representation requirement. The verification is expected to require about 10 minutes and to be performed by a journeyman employee equivalent to a General Schedule grade 12, step 5 ($66.23, including overhead rate of 36.25%). The annual cost associated with the verification is $168,534.

An important benefit of this proposed rule is that, if finalized, it will help reduce the risk of foreign adversaries gaining unauthorized access to DoD information. The proposed rule provides for the implementation of statutory FOCI and beneficial ownership requirements, resulting in more secure DoD acquisitions. The proposed rule also reduces the risk of the introduction of contract performance risk and theft of DoD intellectual property by foreign adversaries. As a result, this proposed rule will support the underlying statutory requirement to reduce FOCI and beneficial ownership risk to national security.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended.

This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to be subject to E.O. 14192, because the proposed rule is being issued with respect to a national security function of the United States. The proposed rule implements the contractual requirements of section 847 of the NDAA for FY 2020 related to FOCI and beneficial ownership. The proposed rule is critical to the national security of the United States and directly supports DoD's mission of maintaining a secure and resilient defense industrial base (DIB). The implementation of the contractual requirements in this proposed rule is not merely an administrative action but a vital step in safeguarding the nation's military and technological advantage from FOCI risk.

The primary benefit of the section 847 requirement is the unprecedented level of visibility it provides into the ownership structures of offerors and contractors, particularly for contracts that do not involve access to classified information. Historically, this has been a significant vulnerability. Foreign adversaries have exploited this gap to gain access to sensitive, unclassified information, intellectual property, and critical technologies through various ownership, control, and influence avenues of foreign interest. By mandating the disclosure of FOCI and beneficial ownership, this rule proposes to close that gap, directly reducing the risk of unauthorized access to DoD information and mitigating the potential for theft of intellectual property that underpins our warfighting capabilities. This directly enhances the security of DoD acquisitions and minimizes contract performance risks associated with contractors who may be subject to foreign adversary leverage.

This initiative is fully aligned with and supports a broader, Governmentwide strategy to secure the nation's critical supply chains, as articulated in recent Executive orders. For example, E.O. 14017, America's Supply Chains, directs a whole-of-Government approach to assessing and strengthening supply chain resilience, with a specific focus on the DIB. Section 847 is a direct and necessary implementation of this directive, providing the foundational data required to understand and mitigate foreign-based risks with the defense supply chain.

Furthermore, the proposed rule complements the objectives of E.O. 14028, Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity, which emphasizes the need to secure the software supply chain and improve the detection of cybersecurity vulnerabilities. By identifying potentially compromised or influenced offerors and contractors, section 847 serves as a critical upstream defense, preventing threats from entering the supply chain in the first place. This proactive stance is essential for protecting the integrity of the data and systems on which DoD relies.

In essence, this proposed rule is not an isolated regulatory burden but a cornerstone of DoD's strategy to counter pervasive threats from strategic competitors. It provides the necessary tools to ensure our partners in industry are secure, trustworthy, and free from the influence of those who seek to harm our national interests. Application of the requirements of E.O. 14192 to this proposed rule would unacceptably impede DoD's ability to meet the above objectives and limit the ability to meet congressionally managed, mission-critical security functions. For these reasons, DoD finds the implementation of the contractual requirements in this proposed rule critical to national security.

DoD does not expect this proposed rule, when finalized, to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule simply requires certain offerors and contractors to disclose information about FOCI and beneficial ownership and to conduct risk mitigation efforts, if applicable. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

This proposed rule is necessary to respond to the threat to U.S. national security posed by beneficial ownership and foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) risks under contracts and subcontracts. The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement statutory disclosure and risk mitigation requirements related to information associated with FOCI and beneficial ownership. This proposed rule requires covered contractors and subcontractors to share their FOCI disclosures and beneficial ownership information with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). This proposed rule also requires covered contractors to mitigate risks associated with being under FOCI within 90 days of contract award, modification, option exercise, or identification of risks during contract performance. Covered contractors and subcontractors are existing or prospective contractors or subcontractors, at any tier, of DoD with a contract or subcontract valued above $5 million.

The proposed rule does not apply to commercial products and commercial services, unless the designated senior DoD official determines that the contract involves a risk or potential risk to national security or potential compromise because of sensitive data, systems, or processes.

One objective of this proposed rule is to partially implement section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) and section 819 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283). This proposed rule also implements elements of DoD Instruction 5205.87, Mitigating Risks Related to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence for Covered DoD Contractors and Subcontractors.

This proposed rule will impact small businesses that are existing or prospective contractors or subcontractors of DoD on contracts valued above $5 million. In addition, this proposed rule will impact commercial entities. According to data from the Federal Procurement Data System, the average number of unique entities for FY 2022 through FY 2024 with awards above $5 million, excluding awards using exclusively commercial procedures, is 3,774, of which 2,148 (57%) are unique small entities. DoD has no way to know how many exclusively commercial awards will have an exception that applies the disclosure and reporting requirements to those offerors and awardees. Therefore DoD assumes exclusively commercial awards will not include reporting and disclosure requirements.

To calculate the number of potential offerors and subcontractors impacted by this proposed rule, DoD assumes for every unique entity with awards above $5 million, there are two offerors on average per award and that awardees have on average 5 subcontractors. The estimated total number of potentially impacted awardees is 37,740, of which 21,511 (57%) are estimated to be small entities.

This proposed rule does not impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities beyond those approved in OMB Control Numbers 0704-0579, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, SF-328; and 0705-0006, National Industrial Security System (NISS). The projected reporting and compliance requirements associated with OMB Control Numbers 0704-0579 and 0705-0006 include the following: (1) disclosing to DCSA any FOCI and beneficial ownership information by submitting an updated SF 328, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest, in NISS along with any supporting information; (2) maintaining the information in NISS for the duration of the contract; and (3) if determined to be under FOCI, disclosing to DCSA in NISS the contact information for all foreign owners that are beneficial owners. In addition, if there is a requirement for a contractor to complete a risk mitigation strategy, they will be required to do so within 90 days of contract award.

These reporting requirements would apply to any small entities that are existing or prospective contractors or subcontractors of DoD on contracts valued above $5 million.

This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

There are no known alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statute.

DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2021-D011), in correspondence.

This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). However, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security completed two information collection approvals: (1) Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, SF-328, OMB Control Number 0704-0579; and (2) National Industrial Security System (NISS), DCSA Form 147, OMB Control Number 0705-0006.

Accordingly, DoD has not submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning DFARS Case 2020-D011, Mitigating Risks Related to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence, to the Office of Management and Budget.

Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 2 as follows:

The addition reads as follows:

Federal Atlantic HMS fisheries (tunas, billfish, swordfish, and sharks) are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan, as amended (HMS FMP) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS are defined at section 3(21) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(21)), and the provisions for their management are at section 304(g)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of ICCAT. Regulations implementing the HMS FMP are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. bluefin tuna quota as recommended by ICCAT and implemented by the United States among domestic fishing categories as established under the HMS FMP, provides the annual bluefin tuna quota adjustment process, and implements an incidental catch quota for pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED). Section 635.27(c) implements the ICCAT-recommended U.S. North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas and provides the annual adjustment process. Section 635.27(e) implements the ICCAT-recommended U.S. northern albacore quota and provides the annual northern albacore quota adjustment process. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas established pursuant to relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention.

Through this action, NMFS proposes to implement various management measures, including quotas, consistent with measures adopted by ICCAT for North Atlantic swordfish, South Atlantic swordfish, northern albacore, and Atlantic bluefin tuna. NMFS also seeks public comment on the existing process NMFS uses to adjust the baseline quotas of these species when applying any overharvest or the allowable level of any carryover of previous year's quota underharvest to baseline quotas. A summary of background information and the alternatives considered is provided below. Additionally, NMFS has prepared a comprehensive document that presents the alternatives considered for this proposed rule and analyzes their anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts (“supporting document”). This supporting document consolidates the requirements of a number of Federal statutes and executive orders and includes, among other sections, an Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). A copy of the supporting document prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

Consistent with how the quotas are established at ICCAT, weight information for northern albacore and bluefin tuna is shown in metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww), and weight information for swordfish is shown in both dressed weight (dw) and ww. The conversion factor between dw and ww for swordfish is 1.33 and the conversion follows the following formula: dw*1.33 = ww.

Under section 971d(c)(1)(A) of ATCA, NMFS must promulgate such regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out binding recommendations of ICCAT. Further, regulations promulgated shall, to the extent practicable, be consistent with FMPs prepared and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see section 971d(c)(1)(C)).

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires measures necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery to be consistent with the 10 National Standards set forth in section 301(a)(16 U.S.C. 1851(a)). The National Standards state, among other things, that conservation and management measures must: prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the fishery (National Standard 1); be based on the best scientific information available (National Standard 2); and take into account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources, and catches (National Standard 6). Furthermore, the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes measures to promote the long-term health and stability of the fisheries (303(a)(1) or 16 U.S.C. 1853). Measures such as annual adjustments of quotas for under- or overharvests are important in achieving these goals. Section 102 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides for management actions to be coordinated through appropriate international organizations to promote conservation and achievement of optimum yield of such species throughout their range, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone, and to take into account the traditional participation of U.S. fishermen (16 U.S.C. 1812(a) and (b)). Section 304(g)(1), among other things, provides NMFS the authority to implement fishery management plans and plan amendments that provide fishing vessels fishing for Atlantic HMS with a reasonable opportunity to harvest an allocation or quota authorized under an international fishing agreement, such as ICCAT's recommendations, and to ensure that conservation and management measures promote international conservation of HMS fisheries.

Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(c), (e), and (a) set forth the ICCAT-established U.S. baseline quotas for North and South Atlantic swordfish, northern albacore, and Atlantic bluefin tuna, respectively, as well as the requirements and processes for annual adjustments of the quotas for underharvest or overharvest required by ICCAT. The process for annually adjusting the baseline quotas for each stock is described in detail below. When the current baseline quotas for each stock were originally implemented, NMFS took public comment on this annual process. After considering public comment, NMFS stated that the annual adjustments to those baseline quotas could be made through temporary final rules as long as the adjustments were consistent with the implementing regulations (87 FR 33049, June 1, 2022, for northern albacore and bluefin tuna; 81 FR 48719, July 26, 2016, for North and South Atlantic swordfish).

In this rulemaking, NMFS is once again providing an opportunity for the public to comment on this annual process. Taking into consideration public comment received, in the future NMFS could continue making annual quota adjustments by proceeding straight to temporary final rules as long as the adjustments are consistent with the implementing regulations as applied in the calculations below NMFS would publish a temporary final rule to adjust quotas in 2026, which could be combined with the final rule for this action.

For certain species, ICCAT has adopted an approach to fisheries management decision-making known as a “management procedure.” Under management procedures, ICCAT adopts new TACs based on the application of scientifically derived formulas and models unique to each species. These formulas and models, which use inputs from stock assessments and reflect various management objectives, are used by ICCAT's scientific body to develop a range of possible TACs and advise ICCAT on the adoption of particular TACs for specific time periods. Management objectives could include meeting conservation targets and providing for stability in fisheries so that catch does not increase or decrease in the extreme over a particular time period. Put differently, a management procedure is a transparent, science-based framework that ICCAT uses to consider and set catch limits. It facilitates ICCAT catch negotiations by better aligning current stock conditions with pre-agreed management objectives and actions.

This proposed rule would implement Recommendation 25-10, which describes the management procedure for North Atlantic swordfish, by adding a reference to that procedure in the swordfish quota regulations at § 635.27(c)(1). The supporting document analyzes the range of TACs, described below, that might be derived from the new North Atlantic swordfish management procedure. The following discussion describes the current quota, domestic quota allocations, and annual quota adjustment procedures per current regulatory processes for North Atlantic swordfish. In this rulemaking, NMFS is not proposing any changes to the current U.S. baseline quota, quota adjustment provisions, and domestic quota allocations. These processes are codified at § 635.27(c)(1)(i) and (3) (77 FR 45273, July 31, 2012).

Recommendation 25-10 describes a management procedure (originally established in Recommendation 24-10) that provides for 11 possible North Atlantic-wide total allowable catches (TACs) that range from 4,764 mt ww to 17,628 mt ww. These annual TACs are constant for each 3-year management period but may fluctuate between management periods. Recommendation 24-10 previously set the TAC for 2025-2027 at 14,769 mt. While the management procedure does not prescribe ICCAT Party quota allocations under each TAC level, the supporting document for this proposed rule analyzes future changes to the U.S. baseline quota under the different North Atlantic-wide swordfish TACs. Under Recommendation 25-10, as under the previous Recommendation 24-10 the United States continues to be allocated approximately 26 percent of the TAC, resulting in a 3,907 mt allocation out of a 14,769 mt TAC for 2025-2027. Applying this percentage and assuming the portion provided to the United States under future ICCAT recommendations remains the same, an increase in the TAC to the maximum allowed under the management procedure (17,628 mt ww) would result in a maximum U.S. baseline quota of 3,446.1 mt dw (4,583.3 mt ww) (17,628 mt ww * 0.26 = 4,583.3 mt ww). Recommendation 25-10 also maintains an underharvest carryover limit of 15 percent of the baseline quota from one year to the next. Considering this 15-percent underharvest carryover limit, the maximum adjusted U.S. quota would be 3,963.0 mt dw (5,270.8 mt ww) (3,446.1 mt dw + (0.15 * 3,446.1) mt dw). These maximum quota amounts are calculated here for the purpose of providing a reasonable anticipated range of potential quotas for use in impact analyses under the management procedure and do not presuppose TAC levels resulting from future application of the management procedure or that any changes to the U.S. quota would be adopted under future ICCAT recommendations.

In the future, if ICCAT modifies the North Atlantic-wide swordfish TAC for the next 3-year management period consistent with the management procedure in Recommendation 25-10, NMFS may codify the resulting U.S. baseline quota up to a maximum of 3,446.1 mt dw through a final rulemaking if consistent with the analyses in this action's associated supporting document and if no new circumstances are present or management measures introduced that require additional analysis or opportunity for public comment. If a new TAC is adopted and resulting U.S. quota codified, NMFS could continue to annually adjust the new U.S. baseline quota through a temporary final rule reflecting underharvest carryover (up to a 3,963.0 mt dw maximum adjusted quota) or overharvest per the process discussed below if consistent with analyses in the supporting document and there are no new circumstances. NMFS would evaluate the need for any additional environmental analyses or proposed and final rulemaking when implementing any new management procedure-derived swordfish TACs and associated quotas adopted by ICCAT.

Consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(c)(3), NMFS annually provides notice to the public in the Federal Register of the baseline North Atlantic swordfish quota with any annual adjustments as allowable for over- or underharvest. Consistent with § 635.27(c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(3), the annual adjusted quota is calculated using the following formulas:

• Underharvest in previous year: Baseline quota + underharvest limited to 15 percent of the baseline quota.

• Overharvest in previous year: Baseline quota − overharvest. The overharvest amount may be subtracted from the quota categories or subcategories that are described below.

Annual adjusted quota calculations also take into account applicable international quota transfer(s) equal to any international quota transfer provisions as established by ICCAT. Such transfers are generally adopted at ICCAT to help other countries joining the fishery or creating new fisheries and/or to assist with scientific research.

In accordance with the current regulatory formula established at 50 CFR 635.27(c)(1)(i) in 2012 (77 FR 45273, July 31, 2012), the adjusted quota is then allocated among the domestic quota categories as follows:

• Reserve quota = 50 mt.

• Incidental category quota = 300 mt.

• Annual directed quota = Adjusted quota − Reserve quota − Incidental quota.

• Semi-annual directed quota (January through June; June through December) = Annual directed quota/2.

Any fishing under exempted fishing permits (EFP), scientific research permits (SRP), and display permits per the regulations at 50 CFR 635.32 is accounted for under the reserve category quota. NMFS is not proposing any changes to these allocations or accounting for 2026 or for future years.

Specifically for 2026-2027, consistent with the management procedure, Recommendation 25-10 maintains the U.S. baseline quota of 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww). This is the same baseline quota that the United States has had for a number of years and is codified at § 635.27(c); thus, no changes to the regulations regarding the U.S. baseline quota are necessary in this rule. As described above, if ICCAT modifies the U.S. allocation consistent with the management procedure, NMFS may implement that quota modification in a final rule without additional public comment.

In this rulemaking, NMFS is not proposing any changes to the current South Atlantic swordfish quota or adjustment procedures for 2026 or for future years. Instead, NMFS describes the current quota and annual quota adjustment procedures per current regulatory processes for South Atlantic swordfish and provides updated analyses in the supporting document. These processes are codified at § 635.27(c) (72 FR 56929, October, 5, 2007).

While these processes are similar to those described above for North Atlantic swordfish, there are some differences. Specifically, Recommendation 22-04 provides for an underharvest carryover allowance of 100 percent of the U.S. baseline quota (75.2 mt dw) (100 mt ww) and for three annual international transfers from the United States to other ICCAT Parties totaling 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww). These quota transfers were first established in 2010 and are currently in place through 2026. Each year, the quota could continue to be adjusted via temporary final rule. The supporting document for this rulemaking updates the analyses for the U.S. quota and any potential adjustments. Additionally, per Recommendation 21-03 as amended by Recommendation 22-04, up to 150.4 mt dw (200 mt ww) of swordfish landed between 5° N latitude and 5° S latitude can be counted toward the North Atlantic swordfish quota instead of the South Atlantic swordfish quota.

Consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(c)(3), NMFS annually provides notice to the public of the baseline South Atlantic swordfish quota with any annual adjustments as allowable for over- and underharvest in the Federal Register as appropriate. Consistent with the same regulations, the adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota is calculated as follows:

• Underharvest in previous year: Baseline quota + underharvest, limited to 100 percent of the baseline quota.

• Overharvest in previous year: Baseline quota − overharvest.

Annual adjusted quota calculations also take into account applicable international quota transfer(s) equal to any international quota transfer provisions as established by ICCAT.

In this rulemaking, NMFS describes the current quota, ICCAT management procedure, and annual quota adjustment procedures per current regulations for northern albacore. No changes are being proposed regarding the U.S. baseline quota and quota adjustment provisions codified at 50 CFR 635.27(e) as no regulatory changes are necessary for U.S. implementation of the current ICCAT recommendation on northern albacore. Rather, NMFS explains the range of quota adjustments possible under the existing management procedure and provides updated analyses in the supporting document. Implementation of the management procedure and the current quota adjustment processes for northern albacore are codified at § 635.27(e)(2) (87 FR 33049, June 1, 2022).

As discussed in the 2022 final rule, in the future, if ICCAT modifies the northern albacore TAC for the next 3-year management period consistent with the management procedure in Recommendation 21-04, as amended by Recommendation 23-05, NMFS may codify the resulting U.S. annual baseline quota through a final rulemaking up to a maximum of 950 mt if consistent with the analyses in the supporting document and if no new circumstances are present or management measures introduced that require additional analysis or opportunity for comment. Under Recommendation 23-05, the limit on underharvest carryover is 25 percent of the baseline quota. The accompanying supporting document for this rulemaking further analyzes the range of potential adjusted quotas for northern albacore, with a maximum adjusted quota of 1,187.5 mt based on the maximum baseline quota of 950 mt. These analyses would support future quota changes up to the maximum analyzed adjusted quota if consistent with the current management procedure and if no new circumstances are present or management measures introduced that require additional analysis or opportunity for comment. Inclusion of the northern albacore quota in this document further provides the opportunity for updated impact analyses based on updated data and fishery conditions and the higher maximum adjusted quota. NMFS would evaluate the need for any additional environmental analyses or proposed and final rulemaking when implementing a new management procedure-derived TAC and associated quota adopted by ICCAT.

This action would not change the current U.S. baseline northern albacore quota of 889.4 mt that was adopted for 2024 through 2026 in Recommendation 23-05. NMFS had previously implemented the northern albacore management procedure in 2022 after analyzing the range of potential baseline quotas for the United States based on the range of possible TACs and considering public comment by adding reference to the procedure in the relevant quota regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(e). As discussed above, the maximum baseline quota analyzed was 950 mt. Because the new baseline quota established in Recommendation 23-05 fell within the range of analyzed quotas and there were no changes in circumstances or new management measures introduced that required additional analysis or opportunity for comment, NMFS implemented the new baseline quota of 889.4 mt in 2024 (89 FR 77029, September 20, 2024).

Consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(e)(2), NMFS annually provides notice to the public of the baseline northern albacore quota with any annual adjustments as allowable for over- and underharvest in the Federal Register as appropriate. Consistent with these same regulations, the annual adjusted quota is calculated as follows:

• Underharvest in previous year: Baseline quota + underharvest, limited to 25 percent of the baseline quota.

• Overharvest in previous year: Baseline quota − overharvest.

Annual adjusted quota calculations also take into account applicable international quota transfer(s) equal to any international quota transfer provisions as established by ICCAT.

Any fishing under EFPs, SRPs, and display permits per the regulations at 50 CFR 635.32 is accounted for under the quota. NMFS is not proposing any changes to this northern albacore quota adjustment process or accounting for 2026 or for future years. As described above, if ICCAT modifies the U.S. allocation consistent with the management procedure, NMFS may implement that quota modification in a final rule without additional public comment.

In this rulemaking, NMFS proposes to implement a U.S. bluefin tuna baseline quota of 1,509.98 mt, reflecting adoption of the new quota at ICCAT in Recommendation 25-05. In implementing the new baseline quota, NMFS would modify the codified quotas and subquotas at § 635.27(a), using the currently codified percentages. In this rulemaking, NMFS also proposes to increase the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota from 25 mt to 62.5 mt, as well as modify how it is accounted, consistent with Recommendation 25-05. Further, NMFS describes the annual quota adjustment procedures for Atlantic bluefin tuna per current regulations. The current quota adjustment processes and domestic quota allocations for Atlantic bluefin tuna were codified in Amendment 13 to the HMS FMP (87 FR 59966, October 3, 2022) at § 635.27(a). NMFS is not proposing to make any changes to the current regulatory formula codified at § 635.27(a) that distributes the U.S. baseline quota among domestic quota categories or the quota adjustment process.

In 2025, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 25-05, which increased the bluefin tuna TAC to 3,081.6 mt and increased the U.S. quota to 1,509.98 mt for 2026-2028. The current U.S. percentages of the bluefin tuna TAC were first established in Recommendation 10-03. If the overall TAC is greater than 2,660 mt, as is currently the case, the U.S. receives 49 percent of that TAC. Recommendation 25-05 further increased the U.S. allocation for longline bycatch of bluefin tuna from 25 mt to 62.5 mt. The Recommendation states that the 62.5 mt allocation is for bycatch related to longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary and adjacent areas and that this allocation is derived from the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna TAC. Recommendation 25-05 removed a provision from a prior recommendation that provided for subtracting the longline bycatch allocation from the TAC before calculating the individual country quotas. As such, the overall U.S. quota under Recommendation 25-05 is 1,572.48 mt, of which 62.5 mt can be used only by pelagic longline fishermen. Recommendation 25-05 further describes current provisions for quota underharvest and overharvest. Relevant to the United States, the recommendation states that any underharvest of an ICCAT Party's total quota in a given year may be carried forward to the next year. However, in no event shall the underharvest that is carried forward exceed 10 percent of the ICCAT Party's initial quota allocation as established in Recommendation 10-03. Regarding the overharvest provisions, which were first established in Recommendation 06-06, if, in a given year, any ICCAT Party has an overharvest of its total quota, its initial quota for the next year will be reduced by 100 percent of the overharvest, and ICCAT may authorize other appropriate actions. Further, if an ICCAT Party has an overharvest of its total quota during any two consecutive years, ICCAT will recommend appropriate measures, which may include, but are not limited to, reduction in the ICCAT Party's total quota equal to a minimum of 125 percent of the overharvest amount and, if necessary, trade restrictive measures.

Section 635.27(a) details the current regulatory quota formulas for dividing the baseline bluefin tuna quota among domestic categories. The baseline category quotas and subquotas that result from applying the regulatory formulas under the proposed quota increase are shown in Table 1. The proposed changes to the text of § 635.27(a) are to insert the new quota and resulting category and subquota numbers.

Under the current regulations at § 635.27(a), NMFS may subtract the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. quota and make the remainder available to vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. However, Amendments 7 and 13 to the HMS FMP implemented changes to the bluefin tuna quota category calculations so that the codified category percentages are applied directly to the baseline quota. When making those changes, some parts of the regulatory text were not modified to remove the outdated language. Accordingly, this proposed rule would also modify paragraph § 635.27(a) by removing this outdated language from the regulations.

Under the regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9) governing annual adjustments of category quotas, on an annual basis if NMFS determines based on landing, catch statistics, and other available information that catches from the previous year indicate that a bluefin tuna quota for any category or, as appropriate, subcategory has been exceeded (overharvest), NMFS may subtract all or a portion of the overharvest from that quota category or subcategory for the following fishing year. Similarly, if NMFS determines that catches from the previous year indicate that a bluefin tuna quota for any category or, as appropriate, subcategory has not been reached (underharvest), NMFS may add all or a portion of the underharvest to that quota category or subcategory and/or the Reserve category. The underharvest that is carried forward may not exceed 100 percent of each category's baseline allocation, and the total of the adjusted fishing category quotas and the Reserve category quota must be consistent with ICCAT recommendations. Consistent with these regulations, the annual adjusted quota is thus calculated as follows:

• Underharvest in previous year:

○ Baseline quota + pelagic longline bycatch set-aside + underharvest, limited to 10 percent of the baseline quota.

○ The underharvest carryforward may be added to the corresponding quota categories or subcategories and/or Reserve category as described above.

• Overharvest in previous year:

○ Baseline quota + pelagic longline bycatch set-aside − total amount of overharvest of previous year's adjusted quota.

○ The overharvest amount may be subtracted from the quota categories or subcategories as described above.

Annual adjusted quota calculations also take into account applicable international quota transfer(s) equal to any international quota transfer provisions as established by ICCAT. Any fishing under EFPs, SRPs, and display permits per the regulations at § 635.32 is counted against the school reserve or Reserve quota (§ 635.27(a)(6)) depending on the size of the fish.

In this rulemaking, NMFS would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota to pelagic longline individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) shareholders with IBQ shares designated for the Atlantic region as defined at § 635.15(c)(3). That section defines the Gulf of America region as all waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone west and north of the boundary stipulated at § 600.105(c) and the Atlantic region as all other waters of the Atlantic Ocean including the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), a large area whose coordinates are set forth in § 635.2.

As described above, this rulemaking would increase the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota from 25 mt to 62.5 mt consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 25-05. In recognition of new information regarding increased mixing between the western Atlantic and eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks in the western Atlantic bluefin tuna management area, Recommendation 25-05 modifies the area where the set-aside applies for longline fisheries from “in the vicinity of the management area boundary” as specified in Recommendation 22-10 (and previous iterations of western Atlantic bluefin tuna management measures) to “in the vicinity of the management area boundary and adjacent areas.” Additionally, Recommendation 25-05 now specifies that the set-aside comes from the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna TAC as opposed to the western Atlantic TAC. The management area boundary refers to the boundary between the western Atlantic bluefin tuna management area and the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna management area. As the boundary runs through the NED, existing § 635.27(a)(3) has long provided for a 25 mt incidental catch allocation for pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED to account for the original geographic scope of where the bycatch set-aside applies. Given Recommendation 25-05's expansion of where the bycatch set-aside allocation applies and where it is derived from, NMFS also proposes via this rulemaking to change how NMFS accounts for the pelagic longline set-aside quota and which vessels may utilize it. NMFS would no longer account for bluefin tuna catch in the NED separately from bluefin tuna catch in the rest of the Atlantic region. Instead, NMFS would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota to pelagic longline vessels that have fishing history in the Atlantic region and annually distribute Atlantic allocation to each IBQ shareholder based on their IBQ share percentage. The Atlantic region would constitute the “adjacent areas” that ICCAT added to the scope of where the set-aside applies in Recommendation 25-05. IBQ shareholders with shares designated for the Gulf region would not receive allocation from the set-aside quota, and Atlantic IBQ allocation cannot be used in the Gulf under existing regulations, which would be maintained. The existing gear and bait requirements at § 635.21(c)(2) and (4) specific to pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED would remain in place.

To implement these changes to the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota, the proposed regulations would move existing § 635.15(d) to § 635.15(d)(1) without any modifications to that text. This action would add the language proposed as § 635.15(d)(2).

In addition to the proposed measures described above, in the supporting document for this action, NMFS analyzed three no action alternatives that would maintain the status quo quota regulations and analyses for North and South Atlantic swordfish (Alternative A1), northern albacore (Alternative B1), and bluefin tuna (Alternative C1). NMFS does not prefer the no action alternatives because they do not meet the objectives of the rule, including implementing recent ICCAT recommendations and management procedures. NMFS also analyzed two additional alternatives for the implementation of the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota for bluefin tuna (Alternatives D1 and D2). Alternative D1 would maintain applicability of the pelagic longline set-aside quota exclusively in the NED and is not preferred because it is not consistent with the updated language in ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 describing the areas where the set-aside quota applies. Alternative D2 would increase applicability of the pelagic longline set-aside quota to some but not all other portions of the Atlantic that are frequently fished by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet. Alternative D2 is not preferred because it would provide bluefin tuna quota in heavily fished areas separate from the individual bycatch quotas provided under the IBQ program, potentially undermining goals of program, including limiting derby-style fishing. Further, Alternative D2 would not provide the set-aside quota to the full extent of areas in which eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna are found in western Atlantic waters, as described in the supporting document, and would therefore not meet the intended purpose of the set-aside quota under Recommendation 25-05.

NMFS is requesting comments on this proposed rule which may be submitted via https://www.regulations.gov or at a public webinar. NMFS solicits comments on this action by June 8, 2026 (see DATES and ADDRESSES sections).

During the comment period, NMFS will hold a public hearing via webinar for this proposed action. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carrie Soltanoff at carrie.soltanoff@noaa.gov or 301-427-8503 at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

The webinar will take place on May 28, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT. Information for registering and accessing the webinar can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/comments-requested-proposed-quotas-atlantic-swordfish-northern-albacore-and-bluefin-tuna.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public conference calls and webinars to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each conference call and webinar, the moderator will explain how the conference call and webinar will be conducted and how and when participants can provide comments. NMFS will structure the conference call and webinars so that all members of the public will be able to comment if they so choose. Participants are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be asked to leave the conference call and webinars.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

Section 603(b)(1) requires agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of this action is to implement the ICCAT recommendations adopting management procedures and current TACs, quotas, transfers, and carryforward provisions for North and South Atlantic swordfish, northern albacore, and bluefin tuna (Recommendations 25-10, 22-04, 23-05, and 25-05, respectively) as necessary and appropriate pursuant to ATCA and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to state the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed action. The objective of this proposed rulemaking is to implement binding ICCAT Recommendations 25-10, 22-04, 23-05, and 25-05. NMFS is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to the ATCA section 971d(c)(1)(A) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d).

Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the Federal Register , which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194). In that final rule, effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS completed a review of the small business size standard on November 24, 2025 (90 FR 52917) that resulted in maintaining the existing size standard. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party boat entities. SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14 million.

NMFS considers all HMS permit holders, both commercial and for-hire, to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than their respective sector's standard of $11 million and $14 million. Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the preferred alternatives, the average annual revenue per pelagic longline vessel that received IBQ shares is estimated to be $211,842, based on approximately 76 vessels that produced an estimated $16.1 million in revenue in 2024, well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. No single pelagic longline vessel has exceeded $11 million in revenue in recent years, and all pelagic longline vessel owners have identified themselves as small entities on their permit renewal applications.

Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels and, thus, would also be considered small entities. Based on 2025 permit information, NMFS predicts that the preferred alternatives would apply to the following numbers of non-pelagic longline permit holders that fish commercially or engage in commercial or for-hire activities: 2,420 Atlantic Tunas General category, 4,409 HMS Charter/Headboat, 37 Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, 73 Swordfish Handgear, 616 Swordfish General Commercial, and 109 Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permits. The total number of small entities affected is 7,664.

This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic tunas, Commercial Caribbean Small Boat, or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the swordfish, bluefin tuna, and northern albacore fisheries or provide fishing services for recreational anglers. This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permits and permit holders. Impacts on these small entities is provided in the alternative analysis below.

NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.

Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.

Under section 603(c) of the RFA, agencies must describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as: (1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities, and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS considered performance standards for this proposed rule. Specifically, Alternative D3 would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota to IBQ shareholders in this catch share program, and catch share programs are considered performance-based regulations. As described below, NMFS analyzed several alternatives in this proposed rulemaking; the discussion provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternative to achieve the desired objectives. The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels. Under Alternative A1, the no action alternative for North and South Atlantic swordfish, NMFS would not implement the ICCAT North Atlantic swordfish management procedure and would maintain implementation of relevant South Atlantic swordfish quota measures. NMFS has estimated the average impact maintaining the North Atlantic swordfish and South Atlantic swordfish quotas for all domestic quota categories would have on individual categories and the permit holders within those categories. For North Atlantic swordfish, the United States is unlikely to achieve 100-percent quota utilization in the short term. In the long term, however, the U.S. swordfish fishery could near 100-percent quota utilization and calculating the impacts of the alternatives under 100-percent utilization allows for comparison of the alternatives. The maximum adjusted quota considered under Alternative A1 is 3,378.2 mt dw. Assuming the 2024 average ex-vessel price of $4.48 per pound and 100-percent quota utilization, total possible gross revenues across the domestic North Atlantic swordfish fishery would be estimated to be $33,365,000 under Alternative A1. In 2025, there were 150 swordfish directed permit holders, 56 swordfish incidental permit holders, 73 swordfish handgear permit holders, 616 swordfish general commercial permit holders, and 65 incidental squid trawl permit holders. Due to quota tracking complexities, NMFS does not have a proportional breakdown of the total landings by permit type; however, the average annual ex-vessel revenue across all swordfish permit types is $34,755 per vessel ($33,365,000/960 permit holders). Since retention limits are higher for directed permit holders than incidental permit holders, actual per vessel revenue would likely be higher for directed permit holders and lower for incidental permit holders. There would be no change in economic impacts on vessels in the short term under this no action alternative.

For South Atlantic swordfish, the United States is unlikely to achieve 100-percent quota utilization in the short term. In the long term, however, the U.S. swordfish fishery could near 100-percent quota utilization. The maximum adjusted quota considered under Alternative A1 is 75.2 mt dw. There are no recent landings of South Atlantic swordfish and, thus, no recent ex-vessel prices for the stock, but North Atlantic swordfish prices can be used as a proxy. Assuming the 2024 average ex-vessel price of $4.48 per pound for North Atlantic swordfish and 100-percent quota utilization, total possible gross revenues across the domestic South Atlantic swordfish fishery would be estimated to be $743,000 under Alternative A1. Due to the distance from the U.S. mainland, only pelagic longline vessels operating under a swordfish directed permit are likely to fish for South Atlantic swordfish, and in 2025 there were 150 swordfish directed permits. The long-term estimated potential average annual ex-vessel revenue from South Atlantic swordfish across all swordfish directed permit holders is $4,953 per vessel ($743,000/150 swordfish directed permit holders). Similar to North Atlantic swordfish, there would be no change in economic impacts on vessels in the short term under this no action alternative.

Under preferred Alternative A2, NMFS would implement the ICCAT North Atlantic swordfish management procedure and would not make changes to implementation of relevant South Atlantic swordfish quota measures. NMFS has estimated the average impact of the North Atlantic swordfish and South Atlantic swordfish quotas under the most recent ICCAT recommendations for all domestic quota categories on individual categories and the permit holders within those categories. For North Atlantic swordfish, the United States is unlikely to achieve 100-percent quota utilization in the short term. In the long term, however, the U.S. swordfish fishery could near 100-percent quota utilization. The maximum adjusted quota considered under Alternative A2 is 3,963.0 mt dw. Assuming the 2024 average ex-vessel price of $4.48 per pound and 100-percent quota utilization, total possible gross revenues across the domestic North Atlantic swordfish fishery would be estimated to be $39,141,000 under Alternative A2. In 2025, there were 150 swordfish directed permit holders, 56 swordfish incidental permit holders, 73 swordfish handgear permit holders, 616 swordfish general commercial permit holders, and 65 incidental squid trawl permit holders. Due to quota tracking complexities, NMFS does not have a proportional breakdown of the total landings by permit type, however, the average annual ex-vessel revenue across all swordfish permit types is $40,772 per vessel ($39,141,000/960 permit holders). This would be a gain of an estimated $6,017 per vessel in revenue as compared to the no action alternative, A1. Since retention limits are higher for directed permit holders than incidental permit holders, actual per vessel revenue would likely be higher for directed permit holders and lower for incidental permit holders.

Since there is no change in the South Atlantic quota under Alternative A2, there would be no change in impacts on small entities associated with the South Atlantic swordfish quota under Alternative A2 as compared to the status quo under Alternative A1.

Under Alternative B1, the no action alternative for northern albacore, NMFS would maintain implementation of the ICCAT northern albacore management procedure. NMFS has estimated the average impact of maintaining the northern albacore quota for all permit holders. For northern albacore, the United States is unlikely to achieve 100-percent quota utilization in the short term. In the long term, however, the U.S. northern albacore fishery could near 100-percent quota utilization. The maximum adjusted quota considered under Alternative B1 is 1,111.8 mt. Assuming the 2024 average ex-vessel price of $2.12 per pound and 100-percent quota utilization, total possible gross revenues across the domestic northern albacore fishery would be estimated to be $4,519,000 (1,111.8 mt/1.15 dw conversion factor * $2.12) under Alternative B1. The total number of permit holders that would potentially land northern albacore is 2,662 (2,420 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 37 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 205 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category). If the entire quota is harvested under this no action alternative, average annual revenue across all permit holders would be $1,698 ($4,519,000/2,662 permit holders). Under this no action alternative, there would be no short-term economic impact on these vessel owners.

Under preferred Alternative B2, NMFS would maintain implementation of the ICCAT northern albacore management procedure, including a maximum adjusted quota. NMFS has estimated the average impact of the northern albacore quota under the most recent ICCAT recommendation for all permit holders. For northern albacore, the United States is unlikely to achieve 100-percent quota utilization in the short term. In the long term, however, the U.S. northern albacore fishery could near 100-percent quota utilization. The maximum adjusted quota considered under Alternative B2 is 1,187.5 mt. Assuming the 2024 average ex-vessel price of $2.12 per pound and 100-percent quota utilization, total possible gross revenues across the domestic northern albacore fishery would be estimated to be $4,826,000 (1,187.5 mt/1.15 dw conversion factor * $2.12) under Alternative B2. The total number of permit holders that would potentially land northern albacore is 2,662 (2,420 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 37 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 205 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category). If the entire quota is harvested under this no action alternative, average annual revenue across all permit holders would be $1,813 ($4,826,000/2,662 permit holders). This is an increase of $115 per vessel in average annual revenue as compared to the no action alternative, B1.

Under Alternative C1, the no action alternative for bluefin tuna, NMFS would not implement the increased bluefin tuna quota adopted under Recommendation 25-05. NMFS has estimated the average impact maintaining the bluefin tuna quota for all domestic quota categories would have on individual categories and the permit holders within those categories. For bluefin tuna, to calculate the average ex-vessel bluefin tuna revenues under Alternative C1, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues. The 2024 ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the current subquotas. The current baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $13.9 million annually, if fully utilized, broken out by quota category. Revenues in each category are as follows: General category: $9.3 million (710.7 mt * $5.92/lb); Harpoon category: $753,056 (59.2 mt * $5.77/lb); Longline category: $3.4 million (209.3 mt * $7.46/lb); the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside: $411,158 (25 mt * $7.46/lb); and the Trap category: $17,540 (1.3 mt * $6.12/lb). Note that these revenues are likely an underestimation for the General and Harpoon categories, which typically receive additional quota from the Reserve category ( i.e., from the baseline Reserve subquota, and from the up to 10 percent of the U.S. baseline quota that could be carried forward from the previous year's underharvest). These revenues are likely an overestimation for the Longline and Trap categories, which do not typically land their entire quotas allocated for incidental bluefin tuna catch. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues in each category in recent years, due to recent changes in bluefin tuna availability and other factors.

To estimate the potential average ex-vessel revenues for each permit holder that could result from Alternative C1, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues by the number of permit holders that received IBQ shares in 2026. This is an appropriate approach for bluefin tuna fisheries, because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a permit holder on a successful trip. The available data (particularly from non-Longline permit holders) do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip ( e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc. ), so net revenue for each permit holder cannot be calculated. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all permit holders in each category using gross revenues.

Success rates for catching and landing bluefin tuna vary widely across permit holders in each category (due to extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized bluefin tuna to permit holders where they fish), but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per permit holder, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permits in each category. In 2025, there were 2,420 Atlantic Tunas General category permits, 37 Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, and no Atlantic Tunas Trap category permits. For the longline fishery, category-wide revenue is divided by the number of permit holders who received IBQ shares in 2026 to determine potential revenue per the 76 permit holders, as indicated below. Actual vessel level revenues would depend, in part, on each permit holder's effort. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the bluefin tuna fishery. HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits. Therefore, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category permit holders only.

Estimated potential bluefin tuna revenues on a per permit holder basis under Alternative C1, the no action alternative, considering the number of permit holders and estimated gross revenues listed above, under the current subquotas, could be $3,833 for the General category permit holders; $20,353 for the Harpoon category permit holders; and $50,702 for the Longline category, including the pelagic longline bycatch-set aside quota (using 76 permit holders). Under this no action alternative, there would be no short-term economic impact on these vessel owners.

Under preferred Alternative C2, NMFS would implement the U.S. bluefin tuna quota and distribute it to domestic categories in accordance with ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 and currently codified quota regulations. NMFS has estimated the average impact of the bluefin tuna quota under the most recent ICCAT recommendations for all domestic quota categories on individual categories and the permit holders within those categories. For bluefin tuna, to calculate the average ex-vessel bluefin tuna revenues under Alternative C2, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues under the maximum potential baseline subquotas. The 2024 ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the proposed subquotas. The proposed baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $15.4 million annually, if finalized and fully utilized, broken out by quota category. Revenues in each category are as follows: General category: $10.6 million (815.4 mt * $5.92/lb); Harpoon category: $863,725 (67.9 mt * $5.77/lb); Longline category: $3.9 million (240.1 mt * $7.46/lb); and pelagic longline bycatch set-aside: $1.2 million (62.5 mt * $7.46/lb); and Trap category: $20,238 (1.5 mt * $6.12/lb). Note that these revenues are likely an underestimation for the General and Harpoon categories, which typically receive additional quota from the Reserve category ( i.e., from the baseline Reserve subquota, and from the up to 10 percent of the U.S. baseline quota that could be carried forward from the previous year's underharvest). These revenues are likely an overestimation for the Longline and Trap categories, which do not typically land their entire quotas allocated for incidental bluefin tuna catch. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues in each category in recent years due to recent changes in bluefin tuna availability and other factors.

To estimate the potential average ex-vessel revenues for each permit holder that could result from this action for bluefin tuna, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues by the number of permit holders that received IBQ shares in 2026. This is an appropriate approach for bluefin tuna fisheries, in particular, because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a permit holder on a successful trip but not the costs incurred ( e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice), so net revenue for each permit holder cannot be calculated. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all permit holders in each category using gross revenues.

Success rates for catching and landing bluefin tuna vary widely across permit holders in each category (due to extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized bluefin tuna to permit holders where they fish), but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per permit holder, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permits in each category. In 2025, there were 2,420 Atlantic Tunas General category permits, 37 Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, and no Atlantic Tunas Trap category permits. For the Longline fishery, category-wide revenue is divided by the number of permit holders who received IBQ shares in 2026 to determine potential revenue per the 76 permit holders, as indicated below, and actual revenues would depend, in part, on each permit holder's effort. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the bluefin tuna fishery. HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits. Therefore, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category permit holders only.

Estimated potential 2026 bluefin tuna revenues on a per permit holder basis under Alternative C2, the preferred alternative, considering the number of permit holders and estimated gross revenues listed above, under the maximum potential subquotas, could be $4,398 for the General category permit holders; $23,344 for the Harpoon category permit holders; and $65,482 for the Longline category, including the pelagic longline bycatch-set aside quota (using 76 permit holders). If the entire quota was harvested under Alternative C2, permit holders could expect an increase in gross revenues when compared to the no action alternative. For instance, General category permit holders could experience an increase of $565; $2,991 for the Harpoon category permit holders; and $14,780 for the Longline category, including the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota (using 76 permit holders).

Under Alternative D1, NMFS would maintain the area status quo ( i.e., the NED) and allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota for use by pelagic longline vessels fishing specifically in the NED. This alternative would likely result in neutral economic impacts as few vessels currently fish in the NED and catch bluefin tuna. NMFS does not anticipate a change in fishing effort and thus economic impacts under this alternative.

Under Alternative D2, NMFS would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota for use by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the NED area and the adjacent pelagic longline statistical reporting areas of the Northeast Coastal (NEC), North Central Atlantic, and Sargasso Sea as shown in Figure 1 in Section 2.4. Under Alternative D2, direct economic and social impacts would be neutral to minor beneficial in the short term and long term. As described above, Alternative C2 would increase the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota from 25 mt to 62.5 mt consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 25-05. Within these areas, pelagic longline vessels would not have to use IBQ allocation to account for bluefin tuna catch until the ICCAT-designated pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota has been caught. Alternative D2 allows pelagic longline vessels greater flexibility to catch bluefin tuna incidentally without using IBQ allocation in areas with more frequent effort. For instance, pelagic longline vessels are more likely to catch bluefin tuna incidentally in the NEC as effort for target species is higher in this area compared to the NED. A possible reason for this increased effort is that some vessels would be able to travel shorter distances to reach this area versus the longer distance to reach the NED. Additionally, Alternative D2 may result in derby-style fishing for bluefin tuna since individual accounting of bluefin tuna under the IBQ program would not be enforced until the bycatch set-aside quota of 62.5 mt is reached. As such, pelagic longline fishermen may be more inclined to rush to fish more sets while the set-aside quota is available resulting in increased fuel costs and potentially lower-quality market conditions. Thus, pelagic longline fishermen may not be inclined to avoid interacting with or catching bluefin tuna as they would not have to use their IBQ allocation to offset catches. Thus, the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota could be fully utilized by a small number of vessels before other pelagic longline fishermen could fish in these areas. In this scenario, pelagic longline fishermen that have access to these areas would be able to land target species and bluefin tuna without needing to use or lease IBQ. Furthermore, these vessels would have additional opportunities to generate revenue as they could potentially catch and sell additional bluefin tuna, and catch and sell additional target species, due to the flexibility for more fishing effort. However, pelagic longline fishermen that could not access these areas and utilize the set-aside quota due to the set-aside quota being reached or being located prohibitively far from these areas would likely have neutral impacts as they would have to use their annual IBQ allocations for catches of bluefin tuna. Lastly, Alternative D2 would create an additional cost and administrative burden to NMFS, compared to Alternatives D1 and D3. Catch of bluefin tuna by pelagic longline vessels is reported through the online IBQ system and through VMS. Currently, the areas available for reporting in both programs are Atlantic, Gulf, and NED. With the addition of new areas under this alternative, NMFS and partners would need to update and/or add reporting areas to the online IBQ system and VMS or manually track the locations of bluefin tuna catches in the Atlantic region.

Under Alternative D2, indirect economic and social impacts to supporting businesses such as seafood dealers and bait/tackle suppliers are expected to be neutral to minor beneficial in the short and long term. Supporting businesses and bait/tackle suppliers may see positive impacts as pelagic longline fishermen could have more fishing opportunities for target and incidental species.

Under preferred Alternative D3, NMFS would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota to pelagic longline IBQ shareholders with IBQ shares designated for the Atlantic region as defined at § 635.15(c)(3). Under Alternative D3, direct economic and social impacts would be neutral to minor beneficial in the short term and long term for IBQ shareholders with IBQ shares designated for the Atlantic region but neutral for IBQ shareholders with only IBQ shares designated for the Gulf region. As described above, Alternative C2 would increase the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota from 25 mt to 62.5 mt consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 25-05. Under this alternative, NMFS would no longer account for bluefin tuna catch in the NED separately from bluefin tuna catch in the rest of the Atlantic. Instead, NMFS would allocate the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota to pelagic longline vessels that have fishing history in the Atlantic and annually distribute Atlantic allocation to each IBQ shareholder based on their IBQ share percentage to account for bluefin tuna catches. IBQ shareholders with shares designated for the Gulf region would not receive allocation from the set-aside quota, and Atlantic IBQ allocation cannot be used in the Gulf of America under existing regulations, which would be maintained. Shareholders with IBQ shares designated for the Atlantic region could be based in the Atlantic or in the Gulf of America, as long as they have fishing history in the Atlantic, as described at § 635.15(c). Under Alternative D3, Atlantic and Gulf pelagic longline vessels with Atlantic IBQ shares may be more willing to fish for target species and incidentally catch additional bluefin tuna compared to current levels. Furthermore, these vessels may be more willing to lease IBQ to other vessels through the IBQ system. Thus, direct impacts for those vessels are likely to have minor beneficial economic and social impacts in the short term and long term. Pelagic longline vessels that only fish in the Gulf of America are expected to have neutral impacts as they would not receive an increase to their IBQ shares designated for the Gulf region.

Distributing the pelagic longline bycatch set-aside quota through the IBQ program is anticipated to maintain the objectives and benefits of the IBQ program, compared to Alternative D2. The IBQ program is described in Amendments 7 and 13, and the program objectives include providing incentives for pelagic longline vessel operators to avoid bluefin tuna interactions and thus reduce bluefin tuna dead discards and providing flexibility in the IBQ system to minimize constraints on fishing for target species. In addition, the IBQ program was selected over other quota management alternatives in Amendment 7 to promote safety at sea under National Standard 10, since individual quotas were expected to facilitate vessel operators deciding when and how to fish their quotas independently from one another, and therefore reduce somewhat the potential for derby-style fishing behavior (where there is the incentive for individual vessels to fish sooner rather than later).

Under Alternative D3, indirect economic and social impacts to supporting businesses such as seafood dealers and bait/tackle suppliers are expected to be neutral to minor beneficial in the short and long term. Supporting businesses and bait/tackle suppliers may see positive impacts as pelagic longline fishermen could have more fishing opportunities for target and incidental species.

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 635 as follows: