On February 25, 2026, OPM issued a proposed rule (91 FR 9170) to amend Appendix C of 5 CFR part 532, subpart B—Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas, to redefine the FWS wage area coverage of the RRMC. The rule also proposed several additional corrections and revisions to Appendix C and corrections and revisions to Appendix A of 5 CFR 532, subpart B—Nationwide Schedule of Appropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys. These additional corrections and revisions concern formatting, spelling, typographical errors, inconsistencies, and omissions made in final rule 90 FR 7428, published on January 21, 2025. The proposed rule had a 60-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed rule at 91 FR 9170 without change.

The revisions to Appendix A and Appendix C of 5 CFR part 532, subpart B, in this final rule are as follows:

This final rule will make the following revision to Appendix A: adds the State of Connecticut, and a listing for the New Haven-Hartford wage area, with “DOD” as lead agency; “April” as the listing of the beginning month of survey; and “Odd” Fiscal Year of full-scale survey. The listing for the New Haven-Hartford wage area was inadvertently omitted in final rule.

This final rule will make the following revisions to Appendix C:

Adds “until” between “effective” and “January” to read “(effective until January 2028)” for Talladega County, Alabama, in the area of application. Talladega County, AL, was moved from the Anniston-Gadsden survey area to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega area of application, effective October 1, 2025, until January 2028. This county will subsequently be moved from the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega area of application to the Birmingham-Cullman-Talladega survey area effective for local wage surveys beginning in January 2028. The final rule inadvertently omitted the word “until.”

Adds Adams (Only includes the Raven Rock Mountain Complex) County, PA, to the area of application of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area.

Revises the name of “Berkley” County, West Virginia, to read “Berkeley.”

Adds St. Lucie County, Florida, to the area of application of the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale wage area. Due to a formatting error, St. Lucie County was listed as a separate wage area, instead of being part of the Miami-Port St. Lucie-Fort Lauderdale wage area.

Deletes “St. Lucie” as a wage area entry.

Replaces “:” with “.” after “Survey area,” to read “Area of Application. Survey area,” for the Augusta wage area, in the State of Maine. The Augusta wage area does not have an area of application. As such, the correct punctuation is a period instead of a colon.

Deletes “IL” from the title of the “Chicago-Naperville, IL” wage area to read “Chicago-Naperville” to be consistent with how we list the titles of other wage areas.

Adds “(Does not include the Raven Rock Mountain Complex)” after “Adams” to read “Adams (Does not include the Raven Rock Mountain Complex)” in the area of application of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon wage area.

Deletes the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro, Virginia, which were incorrectly included and duplicated in the area of application of the Roanoke wage area. These cities were moved to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area and were inadvertently not deleted from the Roanoke wage area.

Deletes Augusta (Does not include the Shenandoah National Park portion) County, VA, which was incorrectly included and duplicated in the area of application of the Roanoke wage area. The entire Augusta County was moved to the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington wage area, and the Shenandoah National Park portion was inadvertently not deleted from the Roanoke wage area.

Section 5343 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides OPM with the authority and responsibility to define the boundaries of FWS wage areas. Any changes in wage area definitions can have the long-term effect of increasing pay for Federal employees in affected locations. OPM expects this rulemaking to impact around 50 FWS employees. Considering the small number of employees affected, OPM does not anticipate that this rule will substantially impact local economies or have a large impact in local labor markets. As this and future wage area changes may impact higher volumes of employees in geographical areas and could rise to the level of impacting local labor markets, OPM will continue to study the implications of such impacts in this or future rules as needed.

OPM has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 which 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). This rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Director of OPM certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or Tribal governments.

This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined this rule does not meet the criteria listed in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). In addition, this is a rule relating to agency management or personnel and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

This rulemaking does not impose any reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2025 (90 FR 46538). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2020-06R1, dated January 7, 2021 (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states there were findings related to cracked barrel nuts at the wing front spar and horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer joint. For those locations, Transport Canada issued Transport Canada AD CF-2011-24R1 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-20-09, Amendment 39-19762 (84 FR 56680, October 23, 2019)) and Transport Canada AD CF-2015-13R1 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-22-03, Amendment 39-19476 (83 FR 53563, October 24, 2018)) to address the unsafe condition. Barrel nuts are also installed in other locations on the airplane. An investigation determined that the cracking is caused by corrosion from inadequate cadmium plating on the barrel nuts. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failed barrel nuts that could compromise the structural integrity of the affected joints ( i.e., of the airplane) and could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of the affected barrel nuts and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is issuing 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-2025-2558.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The commenter requested that the FAA provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures and either convert this action to an NPRM, or stay the effective date to allow comments. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested the FAA ensure that IBR materials or summaries of them are in the public docket and are accessible for free to the public and affected parties for both commenting and compliance purposes. The commenter stated that the FAA's rule must comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for the reasonable availability of material incorporated by reference.

The FAA's practices comply with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act and 1 CFR part 51. The FAA makes IBR materials available in the AD docket when the final rule is published in the Federal Register , following formal approval of the IBR by the Office of the Federal Register. Materials may only be posted before the final rule's publication if they are already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of the IBR material. All relevant materials incorporated by reference will be accessible in the AD docket on Regulations.gov , which the public can access without registration or fees.

The FAA also provides summaries and access details in the preamble and regulatory text, makes materials available for inspection at FAA and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) offices, offers publisher contact information, and obtains formal IBR approval from the Office of the Federal Register. These efforts are intended to ensure that all IBR materials meet the “reasonably available” standard required by 1 CFR part 51. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not needed, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This AD will affect nine domestic entities, of which four are small business entities. The table below displays the industries of the small entities, their average annual revenue, and the AD's estimated cost burden relative to average annual revenue.

While the FAA has determined that this AD affects a number of small entities, the compliance cost of the AD relative to each small entity's annual revenue is minimal. The FAA estimates the total cost per affected airplane to be $1,105 (13 work-hours × $85 per work-hour), which is less than 2% of the average small entity's annual revenue based on the number of affected airplanes in their fleet. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-05-11, dated April 29, 2022. This material specifies procedures for detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the flight compartment windshield side posts, the nose landing gear trunnion plate assemblies, nacelle lower longeron attachments, the front, mid and rear spar horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachments, the bathtub fittings attachments, the wing rib YW23.858 assemblies, and at the wing rib YW42.00 assemblies, and applicable corrective actions ( e.g., repairs or replacement).

The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-27-73, dated May 8, 2019; and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-121, dated July 30, 2019. This material specifies procedures, for a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having part number (P/N) DSC228-4, at the rudder pedal adjustment mechanism, and applicable corrective actions ( i.e., replacement of barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-4, with barrel nuts, having P/N B0203073-4). These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-122, dated July 18, 2019. This material specifies procedures for a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-5, at the control attachment fittings, and applicable corrective actions ( i.e., replacement of barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-5, with barrel nuts, having P/N B0203073-5).

The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-05-02, dated April 29, 2022. This material specifies procedures for detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the flight compartment windshield side posts, the vertical stabilizer pitch feel trim frame, the front and rear spar wing to fuselage attachment joint struts and fittings, and the bathtub fitting attachments, and applicable corrective actions ( e.g., repairs or replacement).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters modified by STC SR00223IB. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2026 (91 FR 9506). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0269, dated December 1, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0269) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states there have been reports of various deficiencies involving parts installed on the jettisonable window system, which include difficulty moving the locking fingers from the locking position that could cause the jettison function to fail; missing retaining rings on the jettison window hinge pins; and intermediate covers found partially detached.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing the jettisonable window and, depending on the removal results, replacing the locking fingers; inspecting and replacing any missing retaining rings; and inspecting the LH side and RH side covers and, depending on the inspection results, replacing the covers or reinstalling airworthy covers. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to require performing repetitive lubrication of the locking fingers installed on the windows jettisonable system and repetitive operational tests of the windows jettisonable system after each lubrication. Additionally, in the NPRM the FAA proposed to require modifying the helicopter by replacing each cover and to prohibit installing certain window aesthetic covers or electrochromic windows unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the jettisoning function of the window, which if not addressed, could result in the inability to evacuate helicopter occupants during an emergency situation.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2283.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0269. This material specifies, for helicopters that have aesthetic cover installation part number (P/N) 6A6H5600A002001XYZ and electrochromic window installation P/N 6A6H5600A001001XYZ installed, procedures for removing the jettisonable windows and, if applicable, replacing the locking fingers and inspecting and installing any missing retaining rings. EASA AD 2025-0269 also specifies procedures for inspecting the LH side and RH side covers and, depending on the inspection results, replacing any covers that have discrepancies with certain part-numbered covers. EASA AD 2025-0269 specifies procedures for repetitively lubricating the locking fingers and performing an operational test after each lubrication for helicopters that have aesthetic cover installation P/N 6A6H5600A002001XYZ and electrochromic window installation P/N 6A6H5600A001001XYZ installed.

Additionally, EASA AD 2025-0269 specifies procedures for modifying the helicopter by replacing the LH side and RH side covers and prohibits the installation of certain part-numbered aesthetic covers or certain part-numbered electrochromic windows on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met.

The FAA also reviewed MAG Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB-A6H-015, dated November 19, 2025, which specifies procedures for inspection, replacement, and lubrication of the locking fingers; inspection for missing retaining rings and installation instructions for any missing retaining rings; inspection and replacement of certain part-numbered covers; and an operational test for the jettisonable windows system.

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

The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters modified with EASA STC 10080809, whereas this AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters modified with FAA STC SR00223IB, dated October 3, 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2026 (91 FR 12314). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an accident involving a Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-61N helicopter due to the loss of tail rotor authority resulting from auxiliary system fluid loss. An investigation revealed that the auxiliary system fluid loss was caused by a yaw pedal damper housing fatigue fracture and attachment bolt fatigue fracture. During the investigation, it was identified that a non-conforming yaw pedal damper housing lug radius, improper maintenance (failure to properly torque and safety wire bolts), and improper operation (failure to heed the caution in the RFM regarding full activation of rudder pedals in less than five seconds) were contributing factors to the unsafe condition.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require performing repetitive visual inspections of the auxiliary servo assembly, an FPI of the yaw pedal damper housing and, if necessary, corrective actions. The FAA also proposed to require determining and recording the remaining life of a certain part and revising the existing RFM to provide the flight crew with procedures to follow under certain conditions. Additionally, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing MM or ICAs and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable by incorporating a new service life limit for a certain part. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address cracking of the yaw pedal damper housing and attachment bolts and a non-conforming lug radius on the yaw pedal damper housing. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in auxiliary system fluid loss, loss of tail rotor authority, and consequent reduced controllability of the helicopter or loss of control of the helicopter.

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

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation S-61 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 61B65-25, Basic Issue, dated October 17, 2022, as corrected by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation S-61 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin Errata, effective February 3, 2026 (ASB 61B65-25, dated October 17, 2022). This material specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the auxiliary servo assembly, an FPI of the yaw pedal damper housing and, if necessary, corrective actions to include removing from service the yaw pedal damper check valve housing and attachment bolts and replacement with airworthy parts. This material also includes procedures for determining and recording the remaining life of a certain part. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 76 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2026 (91 FR 9199). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0210, dated September 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0210) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that during production some fasteners located at the junction between the CWB lower panel and the belly fairing fittings on both LH and RH sides may have been installed without double overcoating sealant; in addition, some fasteners EN6115 code B have been installed, which are susceptible to rotation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of fastener clamping and crack of nut sealant cover, possibly resulting, in the case of a lightning strike, in a risk of a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing each affected part and applying additional head nut cap protection, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0210. The FAA is issuing 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-2026-2280.

The FAA received a comment from the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

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

EASA AD 2025-0210 specifies procedures for replacing fasteners installed at Frame (FR) 46 and FR 49 on the LH and RH sides of the CWB and for applying additional head nut cap protection ( e.g., applying sealant and corrosion inhibiting fastener head protection). This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2025 (90 FR 44347). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0029, dated February 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0029) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that an occurrence of excessive vibrations in flight was reported. The MCAI further states that subsequent investigations revealed that an incorrect installation of the angular ball bearing of the control ring assembly caused wear of the axial bearing seat. This condition, if not addressed, could result in axial play between the swashplate bearing ring assembly and the control ring assembly and consequent reduced control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the affected swashplates and, depending on the results of the inspection, corrective actions. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of an affected swashplate on a helicopter unless certain requirements are met, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0029.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2540.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were an individual who supported the NPRM without change, and the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either convert this action to an NPRM or provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied.

The FAA notes that paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public.

The FAA clarifies that this AD only incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0029, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0029 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0029 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0029 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published.

The FAA also provides summaries and access details in the preamble and regulatory text, makes materials available for inspection at FAA and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) offices, offers publisher contact information, and obtains formal IBR approval from the Office of the Federal Register. These efforts are intended to ensure that all IBR materials meet the “reasonably available” standard required by 1 CFR part 51.

Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that takes into account parts, labor, aircraft downtime, and specific small entity impacts. Additionally, the commenter requested that the FAA adopt less burdensome alternatives for small operators, such as explicit AMOC alternatives, temporary ferry flight allowances, and flexible compliance intervals.

The FAA has considered the AD's impact on small entities and provides the following factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.

The SBA (2023) has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts. Note that the SBA definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

This AD impacts 21 entities, including 6 small entities. The table below displays the industries with affected entities, along with the number of affected entities and the number of small entities impacted in each industry.

The following table displays the high-case cost impact of the AD on all six small entities.

While the FAA has determined that this AD affects a substantial number of small entities, the high-case compliance cost of the AD requirements relative to each small entity's annual revenue is minimal. In the high-case scenario, the AD's cost as a percentage of annual revenue imposes a cost no greater than 1.88 percent. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the regulatory evaluation of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period to allow for public input on the additional cost information.

The FAA's practice is to add the regulatory evaluation of the proposed AD in the NPRM, not as a separate document in the AD docket.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM, the FAA disclosed the estimated number of work hours, the number of helicopters affected on the U.S. registry (which has been updated in this final rule), estimated parts cost, and the aggregate costs for the U.S. fleet. The FAA has revised the Costs of Compliance section to clarify costs of this AD. Since the FAA provided the regulatory evaluation in the NPRM, and the commenter did not provide additional information for the FAA to consider in its analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0029, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of swashplates having part number D623M2050102 and a serial number up to 0487 inclusive and, depending on the inspection results, accomplishing corrective actions and contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved repair instructions. Corrective actions include inspecting the control ring assembly and, depending on the results, repair or replacement of the control ring assembly or repair of the surface protection of the control ring assembly.

The MCAI also allows the accomplishment of corrective actions using the instructions of the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 62-32-00, 6-7. Corrective actions specified in the applicable AMM include the examination of bolts, single row ball bearings, bushings, and washers and, depending on the results, repair or replacement of these parts, as applicable.

Additionally, the MCAI allows the installation of an affected swashplate on a helicopter if it is inspected before it is installed, and if any corrective actions are completed in accordance with the instructions of the service material.

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

The MCAI applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-3m helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate. The MCAI requires reporting inspection results to the manufacturer, whereas this AD does not. The MCAI does not apply to helicopters where it cannot be determined that a swashplate has been inspected, whereas this AD applies to those helicopters.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 55 helicopters of the U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that following costs to comply with this 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 helicopters that might need these on-condition actions. However, the FAA estimates the low- and high-case costs for each helicopter. If a helicopter only incurs required costs (low-case scenario), each helicopter will incur $340 in compliance costs. If a helicopter incurs all required and on-condition costs (high-case scenario), each helicopter could incur up to $9,420 in compliance costs.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2026 (91 FR 8393). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0162, dated July 29, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0162) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states there have been reports of a fully discharged PLB battery that is installed on the ELRS. The MCAI further states an occurrence was reported where the connecting rope between the two ELRS and the PLB was not attached correctly.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require performing a functional test of the PLB and inspecting the rope connection to the ELRS. Depending on the results of the functional test, the FAA proposed to require performing the functional test again or replacing affected parts, and depending on the results of the rope inspection, correctly attaching the wrist strap of the PLB to the ELRS rope. The FAA also proposed to prohibit the installation of a certain part-numbered PLB and the rope connection to the ELRS, unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is issuing 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-2026-1337.

The FAA received one comment on the NPRM from an individual commenter. The commenter supported the NPRM without change.

In the NPRM, the FAA incorrectly referenced EASA AD 2025-0165 in the Exceptions to EASA AD 2025-0162 paragraph (paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD).

Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraph (h)(2) of the Exceptions to EASA AD 2025-0162 paragraph of this AD to reference EASA AD 2025-0162.

Further, the FAA incorrectly designated paragraph (i) of the proposed AD as the Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) paragraph. Accordingly, the FAA has revised the Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) paragraph to designate it as paragraph (j). The FAA has also redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0162, which specifies procedures for inspecting PLB part number (P/N) U256M30T1001, with manufacturer P/N 500-32-2Y-H and the connecting rope between the PLB and the ELRS and, depending on the results of this inspection, performing a functional test up to five times or replacing the PLB battery pack with a new battery pack; and if necessary, correctly connecting the rope attached to the ELRS. EASA AD 2025-0162 also prohibits installing an affected PLB or the rope between an affected PLB and ELRS unless certain requirements are met. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2026 (91 FR 11480). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0092, dated April 23, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0092) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that Dassault Aviation has developed Dassault modification M2138 that introduces changes to the MAIC software to restore crew awareness about the inboard slat configuration in case of slat failures and published improved AFM procedures to cope with slat failures. EASA AD 2025-0092 also stated that the AD is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow to expand the applicability to airplanes that have not embodied Dassault modification M1000.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the MAIC software and revising the existing AFM to provide improved procedures for addressing slat failures, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0092. The NPRM also specified that accomplishing the proposed actions would terminate the requirements of AD 2022-18-18, Amendment 39-22169 (87 FR 54131, September 2, 2022) only for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes that have embodied Dassault modification M1000. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failed extension of inboard slats during landing phase without flightcrew indication. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced lift margin during approach and landing and result in reduced control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2293.

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

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

EASA AD 2025-0092 specifies procedures for the following actions:

• Upgrading the MAIC software, which includes modifying the digital flight control system (DFCS) 4.1.3 standard to ensure the “FCS: SLAT INB EXTEND FAIL” CAS message is properly displayed (Dassault modification M2138).

• Accomplishing Dassault modification M1968 or Dassault modification M1655, as applicable, prior to accomplishing Dassault modification M2138. Dassault modification M1968 includes updating the MAIC software. Dassault modification M1655 includes modifying DFCS standard 4.1.1.

• Amending the AFM to implement improved procedures for addressing slat failures.

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

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If EASA later determines it is necessary to expand the applicability to airplanes that have not embodied Dassault modification M1000, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-26-04, Amendment 39-22647 (89 FR 251, January 3, 2024) (AD 2023-26-04). AD 2023-26-04 applied to all RRD Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. AD 2023-26-04 required initial and repetitive in-shop visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement, if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2023-26-04 to prevent failure of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2026 (91 FR 5378). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0176, dated August 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0176) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2023-0087 was published, the manufacturer has issued service information to include initial and repetitive on-wing visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes, and an increase to the interval for the in-shop visual inspections of front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require initial and repetitive in-shop visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes (with increased inspection interval) for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement, if necessary. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to require initial and repetitive on-wing visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement, if necessary.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0742.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. Commenters included the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and The Boeing Company (Boeing). All commenters supported the NPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0176, which specifies procedures for performing initial and repetitive on-wing and in-shop visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement if necessary.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects four engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 8, 2026, an organization notified the Coast Guard that from 5 a.m. on June 6, 2026, through 8 p.m. on June 7, 2026, they will sponsor a speedboat race. The event will be held between Mile Markers 20.5 and 21.5 on the Allegheny River in Creighton, PA.

The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the speedboat race include vessels transiting at high rates of speed and increased vessel traffic. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 8, 2026, but we must establish this SLR by June 6, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we have do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 5 a.m. until 8 p.m. on both June 6, 2026 and June 7, 2026. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the Alleghany River from mile marker 20.5 and mile marker 21.5. Vessels and persons that are not registered race participants will not be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

On May 5, 2026, the Coast Guard received notification that the Wheeling Water Ski Show will be taking place on the Ohio River near Wheeling, WV. This event will involve vessels and water-skiers performing stunts and formations on the River.

The Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the Water Ski Show are a safety concern for anyone on the Ohio River within a mile of the event. The hazards associated with this event include vessels with restricted maneuverability operating at high speeds, and in close proximity to other vessels, and the presence of performers and other persons in the water. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect performers, the public, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 5, 2026, but we must establish this SLR by June 7, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. on June 7, 2026. The SLR will cover all navigable waters from Mile Marker 90 to 91 on the Ohio River located near Wheeling, WV. The duration of the regulation is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the water ski show. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in 33 CFR 165.939 for Seneca River Days event in Baldwinsville, NY, from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on June 12, 2026. The regulated area for this event is specified in table 1 to 33 CFR 165.939 at Event (F)(4). This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. Vessels must be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the COTP Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the COTP Eastern Great Lakes determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

On January 2, 2026, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to take several actions regarding the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 1

First, under the authority of CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), the EPA proposed to split the identical geographic area of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS into three separate nonattainment areas: the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area, the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area, and the revised Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ nonattainment area. The EPA proposed that the air quality data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, jurisdictional boundaries, and other air quality related considerations, as well as planning and control considerations, support both of the States' requests to reconsider the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area boundary.

Second, pursuant to regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.1118 and 51.1318, the EPA proposed to issue four CDDs for the proposed Cecil County, MD nonattainment area and proposed New Castle County, DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

For additional background information on this action, please refer to the NPRM.

On February 13, 2025, Governor Wes Moore and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a request and accompanying five-factor analysis for the EPA to revise the boundary of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 2 Maryland requested, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), to revise the boundary for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area by splitting it into two distinct nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS: a Southern Philadelphia nonattainment area encompassing all of Cecil County, MD, and a Central Philadelphia nonattainment area encompassing the existing nonattainment area counties in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. As discussed in section V of this preamble, due to Delaware's similar concurrent request, the EPA is revising the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area into three distinct nonattainment areas.

The rationale for the EPA's actions is explained in the NPRM and its associated technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.

On August 15, 2025, Governor Matt Meyer and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a request and accompanying five-factor analysis for the EPA to revise the boundary of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 3

Delaware requested, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), to revise the boundary for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS to create a stand-alone nonattainment area for New Castle County, Delaware. As discussed in section V of this preamble, due to Maryland's similar concurrent request, the EPA is revising the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area into three distinct nonattainment areas.

The rationale for the EPA's actions is explained in the NPRM and its associated technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.

The EPA's January 2, 2026 NPRM (91 FR 98) opened a public comment period, originally scheduled to close February 2, 2026 and extended by one week (91 FR 2894, January 23, 2026), which closed on February 9, 2026. The EPA received two identical sets of comments from one commenter. All comments received have been placed in the docket for this action.

A summary of the relevant comments and the EPA's response thereto are provided below.

Comment 1: The commenter requests that the EPA clearly articulate the process and legal standards by which historic nonattainment areas are proposed to be divided into smaller areas, given the regional nature of the ozone problem.

Response 1: In the NPRM and the accompanying TSD, the EPA clearly articulated the process and legal standards by which it proposed to divide the former Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area into three distinct smaller areas. The EPA is taking this action under Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(D), which states, “The Governor of any State may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to the Administrator a revised designation of any area or portion thereof within the State.” In this case, Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Delaware Governor Matt Meyer submitted requests under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) on February 13, 2025 and August 15, 2025, respectively.

As stated in the NPRM in section IV, 4 restated in section V.A in this preamble, and explained in section II in the TSD, 5 in determining whether to approve or deny a state's request for a revision to the designation of an area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), the EPA considers the same factors as when the EPA initiates a revision to a designation of an area on its own motion under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). These CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) factors include “air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” Using CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) as a framework and referencing relevant ozone designations guidance, the EPA considers five factors when issuing initial area designations and when evaluating requests under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D): air quality data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries. 6 The EPA considered these same factors in its July 15, 2019 approval of Wisconsin's 107(d)(3)(D) request to revise the boundary of an ozone nonattainment area into two distinct nonattainment areas that together covered the identical geographic area of the existing nonattainment area. 7

CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) defines “nonattainment” as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)” the NAAQS. The EPA is concluding in this action that the available information, applying the aforementioned factors as discussed in the NPRM and TSD, demonstrates that the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area does not contribute to a violation of the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ nonattainment area or the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area (there is no violation in this area). Likewise, the EPA finds that the available information, applying the aforementioned factors as discussed in the NPRM and TSD, demonstrates that the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area does not contribute to a violation of the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ nonattainment area or the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area (there is no violation in this area). For both Cecil County, MD and New Castle County, DE, an analysis of the five recommended factors and a weight-of-evidence approach described in detail in the TSD supports this conclusion. Thus, for reasons outlined in the proposed rule and associated TSD, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate that the three areas be considered separate for implementation and planning purposes.

With respect to the comment's statement that ozone problems are of a regional nature, the EPA notes, in the context of the agency deciding on a CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) request to revise the boundaries of a nonattainment area, that the aforementioned factors are meant to assist the EPA in analyzing whether the portion of the nonattainment area in the requesting state contributes to a violation of the ozone NAAQS elsewhere in the larger nonattainment area. Thus, the five-factor analysis accounts for the regional nature of ozone issues at a local level. More broadly speaking, separate from this action, the New Castle County, DE and Cecil County, MD nonattainment areas will continue to be part of the ozone transport region (OTR) and this final action does not alleviate these areas from OTR requirements outlined in 40 CFR 51.1116 and 40 CFR 51.1316 in accordance with CAA sections 176A and 184.

Comment 2: The commenter states that the proposal makes no mention of CAA section 107(e) or how the EPA may have determined what states are, or are not, significantly affected. The commenter asks the EPA to explicitly state how the proposal satisfies CAA section 107(e). The commenter further requests that interested stakeholders have adequate time to review this process to ensure the proposed redesignations adhere to CAA requirements, specifically those established in CAA section 107(e)(2).

Response 2: The EPA disagrees. The EPA is not taking this action under CAA section 107(e), which relates to Redesignation of air quality control regions (AQCRs). AQCRs are codified in 40 CFR part 81 subpart B, Designation of Air Quality Control Regions.

The EPA is taking this action under CAA section 107(d), Designations, and more specifically 107(d)(3)(D), Redesignation, which is codified in 40 CFR part 81 subpart C, Section 107 Attainment Status Designations. In 40 CFR part 81 subpart C, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 81.308 (Delaware), 81.321 (Maryland), 81.331 (New Jersey), and 81.339 (Pennsylvania). In this final action, the EPA is not proposing to redesignate an AQCR or amend any provision in 40 CFR part 81, subpart B  8 where AQCRs are codified. As such, CAA section 107(e) is not applicable to this rule.

The comment period for the proposal ran from January 2, 2026 to February 9, 2026, which included a 7-day comment period extension. The duration of the comment period provided stakeholders with adequate time to review the proposal and supporting documentation. Furthermore, as the request in the comment for adequate time to review is based on CAA section 107(e)(2) which is inapplicable to this action, the basis for the request is inapplicable.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing six actions. In two separate actions, under the authority of CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), the EPA is approving Maryland's and Delaware's separate requested revisions to the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area. To account for both requests, the EPA is revising the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS into three separate nonattainment areas that together cover the identical geographic area of the original nonattainment area. Second, pursuant to regulations at 40 CFR 51.1118 and 51.1318, the EPA is issuing two CDDs for the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS and two CDDs for the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

In determining whether to approve or deny a state's request for a revision to the designation of an area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), the EPA considers the same factors when the EPA initiates a revision to a designation of an area on its own motion under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). These CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) factors include “air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” Using CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) as a framework, the EPA considers five factors when issuing initial area designations and when evaluating requests under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D): air quality data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries. 9 Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines “nonattainment” as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)” the NAAQS. Therefore, consistent with the statute the EPA will not redraw the boundaries of nonattainment areas where one portion of the area contributes to the nonattainment of another portion of the area.

The EPA is finalizing this rule as proposed. The EPA concludes that the available information demonstrates that the requested Cecil County, MD nonattainment area does not contribute to a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the remaining Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ nonattainment area or the requested New Castle County, DE nonattainment area. The EPA also concludes that the available information demonstrates that the requested New Castle County, DE nonattainment area does not contribute to a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the remaining Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ nonattainment area or the requested Cecil County, MD nonattainment area.

Thus, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, is now split into three distinct nonattainment areas that together cover the identical geographic area of the original area. One of the separate areas, called the “Cecil County, MD Nonattainment Area,” consists of Cecil County, MD. The other separate area, called the “New Castle County, DE Nonattainment Area,” consists of New Castle County, DE. The revised Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area consists of the remaining existing nonattainment area counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and is called the “Philadelphia-Atlantic City, PA-NJ” nonattainment area. 10

All areas continue to be designated nonattainment and classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and classified as Serious for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The rationale for the EPA's revisions to the boundary of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area is further explained in the NPRM and its associated TSD. 11

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1118 and 51.1318, the EPA is determining that the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area and New Castle County, DE nonattainment area are attaining the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. Because the 2015 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but is set at a more protective level, the EPA's analysis for the 2015 ozone NAAQS CDD suffices as a CDD analysis for the less stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The Cecil County, MD nonattainment area CDD is based upon two three-year periods of complete, quality-assured and certified data for the 2021-2023 and 2022-2024 monitoring periods from the Fair Hill monitor with site ID 24-015-0003. The most recent three-year ozone design value for the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area is 67 parts per billion (ppb), which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this final rule, the EPA is determining that the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area is attaining the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The New Castle County, DE nonattainment area CDD is based upon two three-year periods of complete, quality-assured and certified data for the 2021-2023 and 2022-2024 monitoring periods. There are four Federal Reference Method/Federal Equivalent Method monitors within the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area. Where several monitors are located in a county (or a designated nonattainment area or maintenance area), the design value for the county or area is determined by the monitor with the highest level. The highest most recent three-year ozone design value for the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area is 68 ppb, which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this rule, the EPA is determining that the New Castle County, DE nonattainment area is attaining the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The requirements for MDE and DNREC to submit attainment demonstrations, and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area and New Castle County, DE nonattainment area, are suspended unless the EPA rescinds the CDDs due to an area no longer attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Similarly, these same requirements related to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Cecil County, MD nonattainment area and New Castle County, DE nonattainment area, are suspended unless the EPA rescinds the CDDs due to an area no longer attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This rule does not constitute redesignation of the areas to attainment of the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, nor does it constitute approval of maintenance plans for the areas as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the areas have met all other requirements for redesignation. The Cecil County, MD nonattainment area and New Castle County, DE nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS until such time as the States request and the EPA determines that an area meets CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes separate action to redesignate an area.

The rationale for the EPA's clean data determinations is further explained in the NPRM and its associated TSD.

This final rule finalizes revisions to the boundary of an existing ozone nonattainment area by splitting it into three separate nonattainment areas that together cover the identical geographic area of the original nonattainment area. It also finalizes CDDs for the two new areas in Cecil County, MD and New Castle County, DE resulting from the revisions, which suspend the requirement to submit certain attainment plan requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This rule action does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not 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 is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:

On January 8, 2026 (91 FR 654), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the District of Columbia. In the NPRM, the EPA proposed the approval of a revision to the DC title V program codified in 20 DCMR Chapter 3 to update title V operating permit fees collected by DOEE in order to ensure that the title V operating program will continue to be adequately funded. The formal title V program revision request was submitted by DOEE on May 30, 2024.

DOEE's updated fee collection schedule is designed to ensure sufficient funding for its title V program, in order to cover all reasonable costs required to implement and administer the DOEE Title V Operating Permit Program as required by 40 CFR 70.9(a) and (b). Under 40 CFR 70.9(a), an approved state or local title V operating permits program must require that the owners or operators of 40 CFR part 70 sources pay annual fees, or the equivalent over some other period, that are sufficient to cover the permit program costs and ensure that any fee required under 40 CFR 70.9 is used solely for permit program costs. The fee schedule must result in the collection and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the permit program implementation and oversight costs. See 40 CFR 70.9(b).

In its May 30, 2024 submittal, DC sought the EPA's approval of its revisions to 20 DCMR Chapter 3 into its title V program. DC's revisions to 20 DCMR Chapter 3 revised fees (section 305) for its title V operating permit program. The revision reorganized three sections in Chapter 3 with no substantive change in content, including section 300 on applicability, section 301 on permit applications, and section 303 on permit issuance, renewal, reopening, and revision. The revision also clarified and resolved errors in the existing regulations, including adding a definition for the term “relevant emission units.”

The EPA reviewed DOEE's submittal for consistency with the presumptive minimum fee rate outlined in the September 17, 2024, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards memorandum, as well as the requirements of 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2), and determined that DOEE met the requirements of CAA section 502. The EPA also determined the submittal is consistent with applicable EPA requirements in the title V operating permit program of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.9 for the collection of sufficient title V fees to cover permit program implementation and oversight costs. This action approves DC's revision of its title V fees in order to ensure the fees collected are sufficient to fund DC's title V program.

Other specific requirements of this revision to the DC title V program and the rationale for the EPA's proposed rulemaking are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

The EPA received two sets of comments on its January 8, 2026 proposed rulemaking to approve revisions to the DC title V program. Both of these comments supported the proposed rulemaking, thus no further response is needed from the EPA. A full set of these comments is provided in the docket for this final action.

The EPA is approving the changes to the DOEE's title V permit program codified in 20 DCMR Chapter 3. The revisions meet the relevant requirements of section 502 of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.9.

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

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

• Is not 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 approves a State program;

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve the revisions to the DC title V program revision may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 70 as follows:

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

On October 25, 2024 (89 FR 85119) (herein, “proposed rule”), the EPA proposed to conditionally approve California's contingency measure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in California. Specifically, we proposed to conditionally approve the “Ozone Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour Ozone Standards (April 25, 2024)” (herein referred to as the “2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan,” “Contingency Measure Plan,” or “Plan”) as it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CARB submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on April 29, 2024, 1 as a revision to the California SIP.

The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan relies on two specific contingency measures that the EPA has previously approved and includes commitments to adopt five additional contingency measures. The previously-approved contingency measures include a contingency for the vehicle inspection and maintenance (“Smog Check”) program, referred to herein as CARB's “Smog Check Contingency Measure,” and amendments to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's (SJVUAPCD's or “District's”) architectural coatings rule (District Rule 4601) to include a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (“Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure”). 2 The commitments for additional contingency measures relate to further amendments to District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) (“Architectural Coatings Rule”) and amendments to District Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products, Plastic Parts and Products, and Pleasure Crafts) (“Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule”), District Rule 4604 (Can and Coil Coating Operations) (“Can and Coil Coatings Rule”), District Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) (“Adhesives and Sealants Rule”) and District Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal) (“Solvent Cleaning Rule”).

On the same day we published our proposed conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, we issued an interim final determination that California had submitted revisions to the California SIP that correct the deficiency that had prompted the partial disapproval of previous SIP submissions addressing contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley. 3 Our interim final determination was based on the proposed conditional approval that we are finalizing in this action. The effect of the interim final determination is to stay the application of the offset sanction and to defer the application of the highway sanction that were triggered by the EPA's previous partial disapproval.

We proposed to conditionally approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan because we preliminarily determined that the two approved contingency measures, the five contingency measures to which the District commits to adopt, and the justifications by the District and CARB for not adopting additional contingency measures collectively satisfy the contingency measure SIP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We proposed a conditional approval, as authorized under CAA section 110(k)(4), based on commitments by the District and CARB to adopt and submit the five additional contingency measures within one year of the conditional approval of the Plan. 4

In section I of the proposed rule, we presented background information on the ozone NAAQS, 5 the nonattainment designations and classifications of the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the resultant contingency measure SIP obligations, and we summarized our prior contingency measure (partial) disapproval for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 6 In section II of the proposed rule, we summarized the contingency measure SIP requirements under the CAA, relevant EPA guidance, and legal precedent, including a brief discussion of relevant decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  7 and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 8

In addition, we described the EPA's long-standing approach to contingency measures and the EPA's revised approach for addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements, as presented in the EPA's draft guidance, entitled “Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter (DRAFT—3/17/23—Public Review Version),” herein referred to as the “Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance.”  9 Two principal differences between the draft revised guidance and the previous guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures should achieve  10 and the timing for when the emission reductions from the contingency measures should occur. The Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance also provides recommended procedures for developing a demonstration, if applicable, that the area lacks sufficient feasible measures to achieve one year's worth (OYW) of emissions reductions, building on existing guidance that the state should provide a reasoned justification for why the smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.

Since publication of the proposed rule, the EPA has issued Final Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. 11 The Final Revised Contingency Measures Guidance carries forward the same basic principles included in the Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. In this document, where the context does not warrant a distinction between the Draft and Final Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, we use the term “Revised Contingency Measures Guidance.”

In section III of the proposed rule, we described in general terms the SIP submission that is the subject of this rulemaking and evaluated how the District and CARB complied with the procedural requirements for adopting SIP revisions. The District and CARB adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan to respond to the EPA's partial disapproval of the previous contingency measure SIP submissions for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and to address the contingency measure SIP requirements for San Joaquin Valley for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We specified that our proposed conditional approval action relates only to the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan as it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

In sections IV and V of the proposed rule, we provided a detailed summary of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan and discussed how the District and CARB had applied the revised approach to fulfilling the contingency measure SIP requirement in the context of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, and we presented our evaluation thereof. Specifically, we discussed our evaluation of the District's and CARB's identification and evaluation of potential control measures, adoption of certain contingency measures, comparison of those contingency measures against OYW of emissions reductions, and reasoned justification for not adopting further contingency measures, which we summarize in the following paragraphs.

In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District described its ongoing stationary source regulatory efforts, identified potential control measures as candidate contingency measures, and analyzed the technological and/or economic feasibility of each candidate measure, including the feasibility of implementing such measures within 60 days and achieving the resulting emission reductions within one to two years of the triggering event. 12 The District also provided more in-depth analysis of potential contingency measures for certain specific source categories, including biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter operations; confined animal facilities; architectural coatings; surface coating of metal parts and products; can and coil coating operations; aerospace assembly and component coating operations; adhesives and sealants; organic solvent cleaning; polyester resin operations; and wine fermentation and storage tanks. 13 Ultimately, the District adopted commitments to adopt contingency measures for five source categories  14 and provided a justification in the form of an infeasibility demonstration for not adopting contingency measures for the other source categories.

Similarly, CARB identified potential mobile source control measures, assessed whether each candidate measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event and achieve emission reductions within one to two years, and then analyzed their technological and/or economic feasibility. 15 Regarding timing of emission reductions from mobile sources, CARB concluded that new engine standards and fleet regulations are not appropriate for contingency measures given the time needed for manufacturers to design, develop, and deploy cleaner engines or equipment at scale, especially for zero-emission equipment.

As noted previously, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan relies on two contingency measures that were previously adopted by the District or CARB and approved by the EPA, including the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure. The District assessed how the emission reductions from these previously-adopted contingency measures would compare against OYW of progress as defined in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. 16 As part of our evaluation and for the proposed rule, we prepared an independent assessment of the emission reductions from the previously adopted and approved contingency measures. In our proposed rule, we found that the two contingency measures, if triggered, would provide approximately two percent of OYW of progress for NO X and approximately 19 percent of OYW for VOC. 17

The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan provides for five additional contingency measures that the District and CARB have committed to adopt and submit within one year of the EPA's conditional approval of the Plan, but the Plan does not include emissions estimates for the five additional contingency measures. These additional contingency measures would increase the overall amount of reductions of VOC from contingency measures under the Plan but would be unlikely to collectively provide for OYW of progress for that ozone precursor.

Because the estimated NO X and VOC emission reductions from the contingency measures fall short of OYW of progress, CARB and the District documented their control measure analyses across the wide range of source categories under each agency's respective jurisdiction ( e.g., on-road sources, off-road sources, stationary point sources, and area sources) to demonstrate that adoption of additional contingency measures would be infeasible. We described the District's and CARB's infeasibility demonstrations, and our evaluation thereof, in detail in the proposed rule and proposed to find that they adequately justify the contingency measures selected by CARB and the District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. In light of the two adopted contingency measures and five committal contingency measures, and reasoned justifications for not adopting additional contingency measures, we proposed to approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan as meeting the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.

Since publication of the proposed rule, the EPA determined that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 18 That determination triggered the Smog Check Contingency Measure, which was submitted as a contingency measure for multiple NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, in San Joaquin Valley.

Under the current California Smog Check program, certain vehicles are exempt from the biennial inspection requirement, including vehicles eight or fewer model years old. Upon the EPA's determination of failure to attain, the Smog Check Contingency Measure reduced this exemption to vehicles seven or fewer model years old in the San Joaquin Valley.

As approved into the SIP, the Smog Check Contingency Measure provides for a second triggering event, and thus, the Smog Check Contingency Measure continues to be available as a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Upon a second triggering event, the Smog Check Contingency Measure would further reduce the exemption from vehicles seven or fewer model years old to vehicles six or fewer model years old in the San Joaquin Valley.

We would expect a similar number of motor vehicles to be affected upon a second triggering event as are affected upon the first triggering event, and thus, we also expect a similar level of emissions impact from a second triggering event as has been estimated for the first triggering event. As such, the emissions reduction estimates from implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure that we relied upon for our evaluation of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan and that were based on a first triggering event continue to be valid for use in our final action on the Plan notwithstanding the occurrence of the first triggering event.

Please see our October 25, 2024 proposed rule (89 FR 85119) for more information on the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan and our evaluation of the Plan for compliance with the applicable CAA requirements.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comment letters from three organizations or groups and two individuals. CARB and the District submitted letters supporting the EPA's proposed action and related interim final determination. 19 The individuals' comments also support the EPA's proposed action and related interim final determination. A group of four environmental, public health, and community organizations in the San Joaquin Valley (collectively, referred to herein as the “Valley Environmental Organizations”) submitted comments objecting to our proposed action. 20 In the following paragraphs, we summarize the comments objecting to our proposed action and provide our responses.

Comment 1: The Valley Environmental Organizations assert that the EPA's proposed approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan departs from the EPA's long-standing interpretation requiring OYW of reasonable further progress (RFP). They further state that the proposed approval based on the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance violates CAA section 172(c)(9) by severing the amount of required emission reductions from the parallel and related RFP requirement when the EPA shifts from its OYW of RFP to its new OYW of progress interpretation. The Valley Environmental Organizations further assert that the plain meaning does not allow, and the EPA cannot provide a reasoned justification for, an interpretation that requires less than that which the Act requires for RFP and that here, the ozone contingency measures plainly provide reductions far less than OYW of RFP.

Response to Comment 1: Regarding emissions reduction metrics ( i.e., the recommended amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve), we disagree with commenters as to what is required under the CAA and with the commenters' broader framing of contingency measures within the overall planning requirements for nonattainment areas. While there is a statutory link between RFP and the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), it does not function as the commenter suggests ( i.e., to establish an amount of emission reductions that contingency measures should achieve).

CAA section 172(c)(9) (“Contingency measures”) requires states to adopt SIP revisions for nonattainment areas that provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date. Section 172(c)(9) also specifies that such measures must be included in the SIP revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the state or the EPA. CAA section 182(c)(9) (“Contingency provisions”) applies to ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher, and it extends the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) to failures to meet any applicable milestone.

Thus, while section 172(c)(9) requires contingency measures where an area fails to make RFP, the language does not specify what amount of emission reductions such measures should achieve ( i.e., does not explicitly tie the amount of reductions to RFP). Similarly, while section 182(c)(9) requires contingency measures where an area fails to meet any applicable milestone (which in turn is a discrete measure of RFP), the language similarly does not specify what amount of emission reductions such measures should achieve. Moreover, the statutory text also has a link to attainment, but it too does not specify what amount of emission reductions contingency measures should achieve.

While Congress did not specify an amount that contingency measures must achieve to comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), Congress must have intended the amount to be material because, without a specified amount, a state would not know how to comply with the requirement. Thus Congress must have at least implicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to determine an amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve and thereby give meaning to the requirement and provide states with a basis to comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for a given nonattainment area.

The EPA has taken a policy approach to this question, and in the past, the EPA has indicated that the recommended amount is OYW of RFP but allowed states to provide a reasoned justification for adopting contingency measures that would provide less than the recommended amount. Under the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, the EPA continues to take a policy approach but recommends OYW of progress (rather than OYW of RFP) and provides a specific analytical framework that states may use to develop a reasoned justification if the state is unable to identify and adopt contingency measures that can achieve the recommended amount of emissions reductions. 21

In support of our revised approach, we first note that, for both RFP and attainment purposes, contingency measures are intended to provide for continued progress in the event that an area fails to meet an RFP milestone or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are not themselves expected to provide for either RFP or attainment. With respect to RFP, the CAA provides certain remedies if the contingency measures do not make up the shortfall for a given RFP milestone. 22 With respect to a failure to attain by the applicable attainment date, the CAA too provides a remedy by requiring a new attainment plan. 23

In reviewing our long-standing approach to contingency measures, the EPA observed that basing the amount of emission reductions on the annual amount of reductions needed to meet the separate RFP requirement—OYW of RFP—may in some cases lead to an amount that is greater than what typically would be needed to make up for a shortfall in RFP or for attainment purposes. 24 The OYW of RFP approach was unnecessarily conservative for estimating the amount of emission reductions needed for contingency measure purposes because a given percentage of the base year inventory tends to represent a much more significant portion of the attainment projected inventory.

In shifting to the OYW of progress approach, the EPA recognizes attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date as the primary objective of the nonattainment plan requirements (including the RFP requirement), and thus, the appropriate metric should be attainment-focused. 25 In the absence of a CAA-specified amount of emission reductions required for contingency measures, the EPA's new approach is a better reading of the contingency measure SIP requirement given our understanding of the statutory purpose of contingency measures following a failure to meet an RFP milestone or to attain, which is to ensure uninterrupted progress toward attainment while the next steps unfold in response to the failure. In addition, for ozone, the recommended percentage of reductions represents appropriate progress toward attainment as opposed to a fixed amount. The annual rate of reductions ( i.e., the percentage) could be more or less than three percent, depending on the amount of reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment, and states should perform this calculation for both ozone precursors, VOC and NO X .

Moreover, unlike the previous approach, the EPA's new approach takes into account the declining emissions inventories between the base year and attainment year for a given nonattainment area and aligns the metric for determining the amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve for ozone and particulate matter (PM). The alignment between ozone and PM is a better reading of the statute considering that the relevant statutory provision, CAA section 172(c)(9), applies to all the NAAQS. 26

As to the specific SIP submission addressed in this document, we acknowledge that CARB and the District used the newly-recommended metric in preparing the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan for which the EPA is now finalizing conditional approval but, in this instance, the SIP submission and the EPA's evaluation thereof would have been the same in substance if the previous metric ( i.e., OYW of RFP) had been used instead. This is because, using either metric, the SIP submission relies on previously approved contingency measures that collectively provide for less than OYW of progress or RFP for both ozone precursors. The only difference is the extent to which the emission reductions from the contingency measures fall short of each metric. Using the OYW of progress metric, the contingency measures are estimated to achieve approximately 19 percent and 2 percent of OYW of progress for VOC and NO X , respectively, as compared to approximately 4 percent of OYW of RFP using the previously-recommended metric. 27 Using either metric, the EPA would have expected the State to provide a reasoned justification for not adopting contingency measures sufficient to achieve greater VOC and NO X emission reductions. Consistent with the EPA's recommendations in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, CARB and the District provided a reasoned justification in their infeasibility demonstrations.

Comment 2: The Valley Environmental Organizations assert that the EPA's proposed approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan circumvents three recent court decisions  28 and unlawfully and arbitrarily a) lowers the amount of emission reductions required for contingency measures (“by severing the statutory link to [RFP],” i.e., by shifting from OYW of RFP under the EPA's prior interpretation to OYW of progress under the EPA's revised interpretation), b) extends implementation of contingency measures from one year to two years, and c) invents a new feasibility exemption that does not appear in CAA section 172(c)(9). 29 The commenters state that the EPA's proposed approval relies on the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance “to replicate the arbitrary and capricious interpretation the [ AIR ] court invalidated.”  30

Response to Comment 2: In relevant part, the Bahr and Sierra Club decisions stand for the proposition that contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) must be conditional and prospective, and thus, already-implemented control measures cannot serve as contingency measures. The AIR decision stands for the proposition that surplus emission reductions from already-implemented measures cannot be relied upon as a justification for adoption of contingency measures that provide for less than the recommended amount of emission reductions for such measures. However, none of the cited court decisions bear on the questions of the amount of emission reductions that contingency measures must achieve to comply with the CAA, the timeline for achieving the emission reductions from contingency measures, or the consideration of infeasibility as justification for not adopting contingency measures sufficient to achieve the recommended amount of such measures.

Moreover, our proposed approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan is consistent with the three cited decisions in that the SIP relies on two contingency measures (Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure) that are designed to be conditional and prospective. In addition, as discussed further in the following paragraph, the State has not relied on emission reductions from already-implemented measures.

The rationale for our approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan is not the same as the rationale for our approval, later withdrawn in response to the AIR decision, of the contingency measure element for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was at issue in the AIR case. In the case of the contingency measure element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA took into account the surplus emission reductions from already-implemented measures in the milestone years and the years following the attainment date, not as constituting contingency measures per se, but rather, as justification for approving a contingency measure element that included a single contingency measure that would provide for far less than the recommended amount.

The Court found that, by doing so, the EPA had “severed the relationship between the requirement of contingency measures and the benchmark of reasonable further progress, without an adequate explanation of why the new—and far more modest—contingency measure is reasonable.”  31 The Court did not indicate that the Agency could not depart from previous guidance but cautioned that the EPA “must give a reasoned explanation for departing from agency practice or policy.”  32 The Court concluded that “[I]f already-implemented measures cannot themselves be contingency measures—and Bahr makes clear that they cannot—then neither can they be a basis for declining to establish contingency measures that would otherwise be appropriate.”  33 The Court rejected the EPA's rationale for allowing consideration of surplus emission reductions from already-implemented measures, reasoning that the EPA could not approve a contingency measure element “lacking robust contingency measures by assuming that they will not be needed. Because the agency did not provide a reasoned explanation for approving the state plan, the rule is arbitrary and capricious.”  34

In the wake of the Sierra Club and AIR decisions, the EPA undertook an internal process to reconsider previous guidance provided by the Agency to states for preparation of SIP submissions to meet the contingency measure requirements—a process that led to the publication of the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. Among other things, in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, the EPA explains why the Agency believes that it is appropriate to update its prior guidance with respect to the recommended amount of emission reductions that contingency measures should achieve and the considerations that states could use to justify adoption of contingency measures that do not provide for the recommended amount of emission reductions. 35 We found that an update to our contingency measures guidance was justified in light of changed factual circumstances  36 and a current understanding of what remaining controls may be available for states to adopt as contingency measures. For a more detailed explanation of our rationale for updating the metric, see Response to Comment 1, and for a more detailed explanation for allowing for consideration of feasibility, see Response to Comment 4.

With respect to this action, CARB and the District have adopted a contingency measure element that relies on two contingency measures that would not collectively achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions for the two precursors at issue (VOC and NO X ), and they have provided a reasoned justification in the form of infeasibility demonstrations for adopting contingency measures that provide for less than the recommended amount. The EPA's approval of a contingency measure element that relies, in part, on CARB and the District's infeasibility demonstrations, rather than relying on surplus emission reductions from already-implemented measures, stands in contrast to the EPA action on the SIP submission at issue in AIR. The EPA does not assume that contingency measures would not be needed for San Joaquin Valley but, rather, that CARB and the District have adequately demonstrated that there are no feasible contingency measures for VOC or NO X that are left to adopt or that could be implemented within one to two years of the triggering event.

Comment 3: For areas with more severe air pollution, such as Extreme ozone nonattainment areas, the commenters state that the EPA has not articulated a reasoned justification for why OYW of progress is consistent with the CAA remedial scheme that imposes more stringent requirements on such areas. They suggest that a voluntary reclassification of an area ( e.g., from Serious to Extreme for ozone) would lower the average annual reductions needed for contingency measures ( e.g., if the same attainment year inventory applied for a Serious or Extreme areas, then the annual average reduction would be lower due to averaging over more years).

In addition, the commenters illustrate a purported fatal flaw in the EPA's interpretation of OYW of progress using a table that shows OYW of progress for NO X in a hypothetical ozone reclassification from Serious to Extreme (in tons per day of NO X ) and state that a lesser amount of emission reductions for contingency measures for such hypothetical Extreme ozone nonattainment area runs contrary to the structure of the Act.

Response to Comment 3: As explained in more detail in our Response to Comment 1, with respect to this specific action, the reliance on the new OYW of progress metric (rather than the previously-recommended metric of OYW of RFP) does not materially impact our approval because the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan falls short of the emissions reductions recommended under either metric. However, we note that, contrary to commenters' assertions, the EPA's interpretation of the contingency measure requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c) is consistent with the CAA's general scheme of subjecting areas with higher classifications to more stringent requirements. More specifically, the increased stringency relates to the types of measures that qualify as contingency measures rather than the amount of emissions reductions that such measures must achieve.

Under the EPA's interpretation of the contingency measure requirement, contingency measures must be designed to provide emissions reductions (if triggered) that are not otherwise required to meet other attainment plan requirements and not relied upon to demonstrate RFP or attainment. Thus, for example, contingency measures in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious, which must require implementation of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for all stationary sources that emit, or have the potential to emit, 50 tons per year or more of VOC or NO X , must be measures that go beyond the RACT requirement whereas contingency measures in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Extreme (for which the threshold for the RACT requirement is 10 tons per year) must be measures that go beyond the more stringent RACT requirement. 37 In other words, reclassification of an area to a higher classification shrinks the pool of candidate contingency measures because some of the candidate contingency measures will be required to be adopted and implemented in the reclassified area to meet the specific control requirements for that classification and, thus, will be unavailable for adoption as contingency measures. The candidate contingency measures that remain eligible to meet the contingency measures SIP requirement under the higher classification are more stringent than those that had been available to meet the requirement under the lower classification. While more stringent measures would achieve further emission reductions, if triggered, they may achieve a smaller scale of emission reductions than the prior iterations of increasingly stringent control measures on a given emission source; stringency (a relative measure) is not the same as tons per day of emission reductions (an absolute measure).

Regarding the commenters' assertion that areas with more severe air pollution should have contingency measures that achieve a larger amount of emissions reductions ( i.e., one year's worth of RFP), we look once more to the broader framing of contingency measures within the overall planning requirements for nonattainment areas. The EPA finds that the statutory and regulatory requirements to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and the absence of a specific statutory metric for how much emissions reductions contingency measures should achieve, give priority to adopting control measures to attain in the first place, even if that leaves fewer options for contingency measures in the event of a failure to attain or to make RFP.

In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, CARB and the District elaborate further on using an attainment-focused metric by highlighting the scarcity of potential control measures that would qualify as contingency measures given the facts and circumstances of the San Joaquin Valley, 38 where the progressively stringent set of control measures adopted to meet prior attainment and RFP planning requirements are already implemented measures and therefore ineligible to serve as contingency measures. 39 This scarcity concept echoes the tension between the CAA requirements for attainment and contingency measures and the prioritization of adopting measures to attain in the first place. Nonetheless, the EPA does not endorse the scarcity concept as a starting point but rather recommends the detailed analytical approach to identifying and evaluating potential control measures that can serve as contingency measures, as described in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance and that CARB and the District employed in developing the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.

Regarding the commenters' suggestion that a State could reduce the amount of emissions reductions needed for contingency measures by requesting a voluntary reclassification that would extend the amount of time to attain while relying on the same level of emissions reductions, we disagree that such an action runs contrary to the general remedial scheme of the CAA that imposes more stringent requirements on reclassified areas. 40 In support of our conclusion in this regard, we have reviewed the commenter's hypothetical scenario purportedly illustrating a fatal flaw in the OYW of progress metric and disagree that it shows that the OYW of progress metric runs contrary to the structure of the CAA. The scenario compares two ozone areas, one is a Serious nonattainment area and the other is an Extreme ozone nonattainment area, and assumes that each area has base year emissions of 200 tons per day (tpd) and requires emissions reductions of 100 tpd to attain. The Serious area has a maximum of 9 years to attain, whereas the Extreme area has a maximum of 20 years to attain. The commenter estimates OYW of progress at 5.7 tpd for the Serious area and 2.5 tpd for the Extreme area and asserts that the structure of the CAA would suggest that the Extreme area should be subject to a greater burden to achieve emissions reductions as compared to the lower classified area, not a lesser burden. 41

While the EPA is generally required to approve voluntary reclassification requests (for ozone areas), and reclassifications do provide for a greater timeline for attainment, there is no guarantee that the EPA will approve an attainment demonstration that provides for attainment by the maximum allowable attainment date. This is because the CAA and the EPA's regulations require states to provide for attainment “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than the maximum allowable attainment date.

Thus, under this scenario, we must assume that the nine years represents “expeditious attainment” for the Serious area, whereas 20 years represents “expeditious attainment” for the Extreme area. As such, the Serious area has identified control measures sufficient to achieve approximately 11.12 tpd reduction on an annual basis over the nine-year period from the base year to the attainment year. In contrast, the Extreme area has identified control measures sufficient to achieve approximately 5 tpd reduction on an annual basis over the 20-year period.

This suggests that the Serious area has a greater number of feasible control measures available to adopt and, in the event of a failure to attain, that a higher burden to continue that rate of progress after the attainment year is appropriate. Conversely, the Extreme area would appear to have fewer feasible options available and, in the event of a failure to attain, that a lower burden (compared to the Serious area) to maintain the lower rate of progress after the attainment year is also appropriate. For these reasons, we do not agree that the scenario provided by the commenter shows that our revised interpretation, as set forth in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, of the amount of emissions reductions that states should achieve to meet the CAA's contingency measure SIP requirement runs contrary to the structure of the CAA.

For these reasons, as well as those described in Response to Comment 1 of this document, we conclude that the EPA's revised metric for contingency measure emission reductions (OYW of progress) does not run contrary to the general remedial scheme of the CAA that imposes more stringent requirements on areas reclassified to a higher classification.

Comment 4: Regarding feasibility assessments, the Valley Environmental Organizations state that the CAA does not subject the contingency measure requirements to a feasibility standard and reject the State's and the EPA's proposed reliance on infeasibility demonstrations. The commenters argue that Congress made no exceptions to the contingency measure requirements, nor did it provide authority to relax those requirements based on technological or economic challenges. They state that the CAA requirements for reasonably available control measures (RACM) or RACT include a “reasonably available” qualifier and that those for most stringent measures (MSM) are expressly limited to “feasible” measures, while such terms do not appear in the CAA requirements for contingency measures. They contend that the EPA conflates the contingency measure requirements with the primary requirements to attain the NAAQS in the first place. They further state that Congress expressly provided limited authority to relax the CAA requirements for RFP but did not do so for contingency measures.

The commenters state that the RACM requirements (under CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)) require that the primary attainment strategy include “all” RACM and other available control measures that would expedite attainment and that the MSM provision (for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas) requires additional control measure implementation. They argue that contingency measures should not comprise the same controls that the CAA already requires for attainment and that failed to attain the NAAQS in the first place and that the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily excuses contingency measures needed when the feasible measures the State has already adopted result in a failure to attain the NAAQS (citing AIR, 10 F.4th at 946).

Given these alleged flaws in the EPA's interpretation, the commenters state that the EPA's proposed approval violates the plain meaning of the CAA contingency measure requirement, fails to reasonably explain the Agency's relaxation of the emission reductions that contingency measures must provide, and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Response to Comment 4: As discussed in Response to Comment 1, Congress must have at least implicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to determine an amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve and thereby give meaning to the requirement and provide states with a basis to comply with CAA section 172(c)(9) for a given nonattainment area. The EPA continues to take a policy approach to this question and recommends OYW of progress (rather than OYW of RFP) and provides a specific analytical framework that states may use to develop a reasoned justification if the state is unable to identify and adopt contingency measures that can achieve the recommended amount of emissions reductions. More specifically, as stated in our proposed rule and the EPA's Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, where a state is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide approximately OYW of emission reductions, the state should provide a reasoned justification (referred to herein as an “infeasibility demonstration”) that explains and documents how it has evaluated all existing and potential control measures relevant to the appropriate source categories and pollutants in the nonattainment area and has reached reasonable conclusions regarding whether such measures are feasible. 42 Thus, while the EPA acknowledges that CAA section 172(c)(9) does not explicitly provide for consideration of whether specific measures are feasible, the EPA does not read the statute to require air agencies to adopt and impose infeasible measures. 43

As stated in the proposed rule, the statutory provisions applicable to other nonattainment area plan control measure requirements, including RACM/RACT, best available control measures/best available control technology (BACM/BACT), and MSM, allow air agencies to exclude certain control measures that are deemed unreasonable or infeasible (depending on the requirement). 44 For example, the MSM provision in CAA section 188(e) requires plans to include “the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.” While the contingency measures provisions do not include such caveats, the EPA does not conclude that the contingency measures provisions should be read to require plans to include infeasible measures. Thus, the EPA anticipates that a demonstrated lack of feasible measures would be a reasoned justification for adopting contingency measures that achieve less than the recommended amount of emission reductions. 45

The EPA does not, as the commenters suggest, simply conflate the contingency measure requirements with other control requirements ( e.g., RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM) that are integral to demonstrating attainment of the ozone and/or PM 2.5 NAAQS. Rather, while the analytical approach to identifying and evaluating existing and potential control measures may be similar to those used for RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM ( e.g., identifying the universe of control devices that can reduce NO X emissions from combustion equipment and whether they are technologically and economically feasible as applied to a specific type of emissions source in the area), the EPA expects that the state “should not simply repeat the control strategy's infeasibility showing.”  46 The contingency measure requirement is in addition to the other control measure requirements.

A conclusion that a measure is not reasonable or feasible, for example, for RACM does not automatically disqualify it as a potential contingency measure. If the state identifies control measures that it determines are not needed to attain nor to collectively advance attainment, those measures would not be required to satisfy the RACM requirement but would remain as candidates for contingency measures. To the extent that the adopted contingency measures achieve a small amount of emission reductions, the state should provide a more robust infeasibility showing that there are no additional feasible contingency measures that could achieve the recommended amount of reductions. 47 Furthermore, to the extent that the state's analyses and development of contingency measures occur after the state's analyses and development of the SIP submissions to meet the attainment control strategy requirements of the CAA (including associated control requirements and RFP), the state should update their analyses to reflect the latest potential control measures.

In the case of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, CARB and the District documented their analyses to identify and evaluate potential control measures that might serve as contingency measures. These analyses are updated relative to their 2023 submission of the SJV PM 2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, the 2021 submission of the Serious area attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, the 2019 submissions of the Serious area attainment plan for the 1997 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (including BACM demonstration), Serious area plan for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (including demonstrations for BACM and MSM), Moderate area plan for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS (including RACM demonstration), and 2016 submission of the attainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (including the RACM demonstration). The EPA has approved these contingency measure plans and attainment plan control strategies in successive actions  48 and they represent an overall stringent set of control requirements. The State did not set aside measures because they are not available to collectively advance attainment (as might be possible in theory, e.g., for RACM for an ozone nonattainment area).

In their updated analyses, CARB and the District considered the wide range of emissions sources under their primary jurisdiction, identified potential control measures, analyzed their technological and economic feasibility, and assessed whether they could achieve emissions reductions within one to two years of a triggering event, consistent with the EPA's discussion of the timing objective inherent to the contingency measure requirement. 49 For the potential control measures identified through this process, the District further analyzed possible contingency measures for biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter operations; confined animal facilities; architectural coatings; surface coating of metal parts and products, plastic parts and products, and pleasure crafts; can and coil coating operations; aerospace assembly and component coating operations; adhesives and sealants; organic solvent cleaning, storage, and disposal; polyester resin operations; and wine fermentation and storage tanks. The District ultimately adopted commitments for contingency provisions related to architectural coatings, surface coating of metal parts and products, can and coil coatings, adhesives and sealants, and solvent cleaning. 50 These additional contingency measures will supplement the two existing approved contingency measures: the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure.

CARB, in turn, made a reasonable case that new engine standards and new fleet requirements require more time to implement than would be appropriate for contingency measures ( i.e., would exceed one to two years after a triggering event) and that the State's technology-forcing nature of its mobile source regulations reduce or eliminate opportunities for yet-further emission reductions that could qualify as contingency measures. 51 In contrast to new engine standards and new fleet requirements, CARB's feasibility evaluation for in-use motor vehicles led to the identification and adoption of the Smog Check Contingency Measure, which the EPA has approved as part of the California SIP.

The two approved contingency measures and commitments for five additional contingency measures stand in contrast to the commenters' argument that the feasibility assessment process put forward in the EPA's Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, in the State's 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, and the EPA's proposed conditional approval thereof would simply re-employ the control measures originally employed to attain the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.

Furthermore, in many instances the reason for which the EPA agreed with the State for not adopting a potential control measure as a contingency measure was not based on any affirmation that a measure was economically infeasible, but rather it was based on other reasons. For example, for the potential control measure of requiring electric water heaters and furnaces at point of sale, the EPA determined that such a measure would not be feasible because we expect that it would result in negligible emission reductions within two years after trigger, consistent with the District's suggestion that the attrition-based nature of implementation of this contingency measure option deems the measure infeasible. 52

For the potential control measure of lower NO X emissions limits on oil and gas production equipment with a total rated heat input of greater than 5.0 million Btu per hour, the EPA determined that it would be technologically infeasible to meet the lower limits within the two-year timeframe for contingency measures due to the likely requirement that affected units would need to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) devices to meet the lower limits ( i.e., the planning, engineering, and installation of SCR would take more than two years). 53 Similarly, for the potential control measure of lower NO X emission limits for boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with a total rated heat input of 5.0 million Btu per hour or less, the EPA expects that units required to meet lower limits than those already adopted in Rules 4307 and 4308 would require installation of SCR, which cannot be feasibly achieved within the two-year timeframe for contingency measures. 54

In sum, the EPA maintains that it does not read the statute to require air agencies to adopt and impose infeasible measures. Furthermore, as applied to the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, we continue to find that the District's and State's two existing contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in conjunction with the District's and State's commitments to adopt and submit five additional contingency measures and the District's and State's infeasibility demonstrations that adequately justify the contingency measures selected by the District and State, meet the contingency measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).

Comment 5: The Valley Environmental Organizations assert that the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily proposes approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan based on the Agency's new interpretation in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance by extending the implementation period from one year to two years.

Response to Comment 5: With respect to the issue of extending the period in which the emissions reductions from contingency measures can be considered in meeting the contingency measure SIP requirement, we note that the commenters raise this particular objection to the EPA's proposed approval in a single sentence and fail to elaborate on how extending the time period for achieving the emission reductions from contingency measures from one to two years conflicts with the CAA.

In this instance, we proposed conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, which relies on two approved contingency measures (the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure) and commitments to adopt and submit five additional contingency measures. The District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure is designed to be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event, but architectural coatings sold, supplied, or offered for sale prior to that time in a container with a volume of one liter or less may be applied after that time so long as the coating complied with the standards in effect at the time the coating was manufactured. 55 Nonetheless, we would generally expect the full emissions reductions estimated for the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure to be achieved within a year of the triggering event.

As explained in the EPA's final rule on CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure, the emission reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure may not be fully achieved until the second year after the triggering event. 56 However, as further explained in that final rule, and consistent with the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, in instances where there are insufficient contingency measures available to achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions within one year of the triggering event, contingency measures that provide reductions within two years of the triggering event could be appropriate to consider toward achieving the recommended amount of emission reductions. 57 Contingency measures that result in additional emissions reductions during the second year following the triggering event, as contemplated by the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, can still serve the important purpose of contingency measures to continue progress toward attainment, as the State develops and submits, and the EPA acts on, a SIP submission to address the underlying condition ( e.g., failure to make RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date) that triggered the contingency measures in the first place. 58

Comment 6: The Valley Environmental Organizations state that the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily proposes to approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan even though it relies on a contingency measure (CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure) that provides for only two triggering events yet serves as a contingency measure for multiple NAAQS without requiring supplementation of the SIP with additional contingency measures. The Valley Environmental Organizations contend that such approval by the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily allows California discretion in adopting further contingency measures and fails to evaluate whether the emission reductions to follow a second triggering event would meet either OYW of RFP or OYW of progress.

Response to Comment 6: Our approval relates to the SIP requirements for contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Under the applicable requirements, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious and above must provide contingency measures that can be triggered in the event of a failure to meet any RFP milestone or to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

Neither the CAA nor the EPA's regulations specify a minimum number of contingency measures or prescribe separate contingency measures for different contingency measure triggers. The CAA and the EPA's regulations also do not preclude the reliance on the same contingency measures for separate NAAQS, and the commenter does not identify any specific statutory or regulatory requirement that does so. Moreover, it is not uncommon for a state or district to rely on a core set of control measures for multiple NAAQS. For example, the State and District rely on a core set of NO X control measures as part of the control strategies for demonstrating RFP and attainment for both ozone and PM 2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. Regardless, we acknowledge that neither the State nor District has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit additional contingency measures in response to the triggering of the contingency measures. The EPA does not believe that such commitment is required.

In this instance, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan relies on two approved contingency measures, only one of which (CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure) provides for a second triggering event and relates to NAAQS in addition to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 59 Unlike the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure, CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure relates to multiple ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS but is structured so as to provide not just for implementation of more stringent requirements upon a first triggering event, but also to provide for implementation of yet more stringent requirements upon a second triggering event ( i.e., further tightening of the requirements beyond that triggered by the first event). As described previously in this document, the Smog Check Contingency Measure has been triggered once but remains viable for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because it is structured to provide for a second triggering event.

If the Smog Check Contingency Measure were to be triggered a second time, then it would no longer be available as a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In that event, we would expect CARB and the District to update their feasibility evaluations and adopt and submit a remedial SIP revision within one year of the triggering event. We would also expect the SIP revision to take into account the emission reductions from the remaining contingency measures (the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and additional contingency measures that the District has committed to adopt) and to include any additional feasible contingency measures as needed to ensure that the San Joaquin Valley continues to meet the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Comment 7: The Valley Environmental Organizations contend that the proposed approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan violates CAA section 110(l). According to the commenters, this is because approval of a contingency measure element that plainly does not provide for OYW of RFP weakens the amount of reductions required by contingency measure elements and, thereby, constitutes unlawful backsliding under CAA section 110(l). In the alternative, the commenters assert that the EPA has unlawfully and arbitrarily failed to consider and make a finding with respect to whether the approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan constitutes illegal backsliding.

Response to Comment 7: CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

The EPA acknowledges that the Agency did not make any specific determination with respect to CAA section 110(l) in evaluating the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. This is because the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan does not relax any control requirements previously approved as part of the California SIP and thus does not represent “backsliding” in that sense. 60 Also, by definition, contingency measures must be measures that go beyond the measures that provide for RFP and attainment, and thus, approval of contingency measures would not interfere with either of those separate requirements.

Furthermore, the EPA evaluated the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan specifically with respect to the SIP requirements for contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, preliminarily determined that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, considered together with the two existing contingency measures and the five additional contingency measures to which the District and CARB have committed, meets those requirements. As such, approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan would not interfere with the applicable contingency measure requirement. The commenters do not identify any other applicable CAA requirements implicated by the EPA's proposed conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.

Comment 8: The Valley Environmental Organizations contend that the EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily proposed to approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan based on a 2012 base year emissions inventory, whereas 2011 is the approved RFP baseline year that was the basis for the EPA's 2019 approval of the contingency measure element. The Valley Environmental Organizations view the EPA's proposed approval as shifting the baseline year for contingency measures from 2011 to 2012 and assert that the EPA fails to explain why this change in the baseline inventory for the purposes of contingency measures is more consistent with the Act or with South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 61

Response to Comment 8: The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan uses the 2012 base year emission inventory and the attainment year emissions inventory to calculate OYW of progress, the amount of emissions reductions that EPA recommends that states achieve to meet the contingency measure SIP requirement. 62 This approach is consistent with the corresponding recommendations in the EPA's Revised Contingency Measures Guidance.

In 2019, when the EPA first approved (conditionally) the contingency measure element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley, the EPA was recommending that states adopt contingency measures that provide the equivalent of OYW of RFP. 63 With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as commenters note, OYW of RFP is three percent of the 2011 VOC RFP baseline emissions inventory. In 2022, the EPA withdrew its 2019 (conditional) approval of the contingency measure element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley, with the exception of the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure. 64

The change in the baseline inventory used to determine the amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS reflects the change in EPA guidance on contingency measures. CARB and the District prepared the original contingency measure element (now withdrawn) in light of EPA guidance available at that time (and that recommended that contingency measures achieve OYW of RFP), and CARB and the District prepared the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan in light of the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance (that recommends that contingency measures achieve OYW of progress). We discuss why we believe the new approach to the recommended amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should achieve is the best reading of the CAA in Response to Comment 1.

Lastly, we note that the South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA decision cited by commenters does not speak to the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), which are the relevant statutory provisions for the EPA's review and evaluation of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, and thus there is no need to discuss the consistency between our action and that particular court decision.

Comment 9: The Valley Environmental Organizations state that the EPA's proposed approval of the State's contingency measures ignores Presidential orders that direct the EPA and other federal agencies to prioritize environmental justice, including Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” (January 27, 2021) and Executive Order 14096, “Revitalizing our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All” (April 21, 2023). 65 They further argue that the EPA exacerbates the “environmental justice crisis” by denying the residents of the San Joaquin Valley meaningful pollution reductions that should happen upon a failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To convey the magnitude of this concern, the commenters cite to American Lung Association rankings of counties for ozone pollution (where many San Joaquin Valley counties rank among the worst in the nation) and the EPA's review of environmental justice indices (where many San Joaquin Valley counties exceed the 90th percentile) and describe the sequence of failures to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates in San Joaquin Valley, as well as recent air quality design values for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS that portend the same. Lastly, they contend that the EPA's statement in the proposed rule that the action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area lacks credulity because the EPA is proposing to approve a weakening of its contingency measures interpretation and lacks factual support.

Response to Comment 9: Executive Orders 14008 and 14096 were rescinded on January 20, 2025. 66 In the proposed rule, we indicated that the action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact because the approved ozone contingency measures, including the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure, and the additional contingency measures to which the District and CARB have committed to adopt and submit would, following a triggering event, reduce emissions from various VOC sources and light-duty vehicles across the San Joaquin Valley. These reductions would contribute to reduced negative environmental and health impacts on all populations in the San Joaquin Valley.

To the extent that the commenters disagree with the EPA's Revised Contingency Measures Guidance or our application of the guidance to the facts and circumstances of the San Joaquin Valley, we maintain that the 2024 SJV Contingency Measure Plan, including the related commitments to adopt additional contingency measures and infeasibility demonstrations for further contingency measures, considered together with the two existing and approved ozone contingency measures, meets the contingency measure SIP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Under the CAA, the EPA is required to approve a SIP submission that meets the requirements of the CAA and applicable federal regulations.

Comment 10: The Valley Environmental Organizations allege that, following the 2021 Ninth Circuit Court decision in AIR v. EPA, the EPA began to work with CARB and California air districts to weaken the contingency measure requirement. The Valley Environmental Organizations further state that, during meetings of a workgroup called the “Padilla Contingency Measures Subgroup,” the EPA committed to revise its long-standing interpretation of the contingency measure requirements, including specific elements that would relax emissions reduction requirements, and contend that the EPA's commitment led to the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance. 67 The commenters also contend that the EPA now proposes, as it allegedly agreed to during the Padilla Contingency Measures subgroup proceedings, to “eviscerate the amount of emissions reductions such measures should provide” and that the “EPA has predetermined the outcome of these proposed rulemakings in an agreement with CARB and the air districts during the Padilla Contingency Measures Subgroup proceedings,” thereby violating the procedural due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, CAA section 307, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Executive Orders 14008 and 14096. 68

The Valley Environmental Organizations include several documents obtained from the EPA via a Freedom of Information Act request to support their allegation of improper consultation and coordination. 69 These include, among other things, documents relating to EPA engagement in 2021-2023 with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), the “Padilla Contingency Measures Subgroup,” a letter from South Coast Air Quality Management District, discussions with California air districts and CARB senior staff, and an email from EPA Region IX to the SJVUAPCD. The commenters state that these documents indicate that the EPA worked closely with California air agencies to fashion an agreement to weaken the contingency measure requirement and that the EPA shared its revised guidance with the California agencies several months before releasing the revised guidance to the general public without regard for the public health consequences from weakening the contingency measure requirement. 70

Response to Comment 10: We disagree that the EPA improperly communicated with California air agencies to reconsider the contingency measure requirement following the 2021 AIR v. EPA decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we disagree that the EPA reconsidered the contingency measure requirement for the purpose of weakening it.

The CAA is referred to as a model of cooperative federalism. Under the CAA, the EPA is responsible for establishing the NAAQS, and the states are responsible for developing SIPs and SIP revisions to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. In turn, the EPA is responsible for promulgating regulations establishing SIP requirements and for providing guidance to the states in developing SIPs and SIP revisions to meet the various requirements under the CAA and our implementing regulations.

In that capacity, it is appropriate for the EPA to reconsider previously-issued guidance in the wake of court decisions that bear on EPA actions on SIPs that relied on that guidance. 71 In this instance, as discussed in the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, we issued the revised guidance document because recent court decisions had invalidated key aspects of EPA's historical approach to implementing the contingency measure requirement, and these court decisions had the effect of prohibiting an approach that many air agencies have historically used to meet the contingency measure requirement. 72

The EPA developed the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance based on the recommendations of an ad hoc internal working group, referred to as the Contingency Measure Task Force, that the EPA assembled soon after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. 73 The Contingency Measure Task Force was composed of EPA program staff and attorneys from both the EPA regions and headquarters. During the process of preparing the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, California air agencies made their views known to the EPA, but those agencies played no part in the drafting or review of the recommendations made by the Contingency Measure Task Force to EPA management or the substance of the Revised Contingency Measures Guidance itself.

Also in the spirit of cooperative federalism, the EPA routinely communicates with state and local air agencies responsible for SIPs and SIP revisions regarding compliance with SIP requirements. Again, the states are responsible for adoption and submission of SIPs and SIP revisions and there are consequences for failure to meet SIP submission deadlines.

In this instance, the EPA engaged with state and local air agencies to hear their concerns about meeting the contingency measure SIP requirements and to provide a description of the types of revisions to the contingency measures guidance that EPA staff were developing for consideration by EPA management. The impetus for heightened interest on the part of state and local air agencies was the need to meet near-term deadlines for submission of SIP revisions addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements for multiple ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Documents cited by the commenter as evidence of improper coordination simply reveal that the EPA was responsive to state and local agency requests for insight as to what the contingency measures guidance revisions might entail if and when approved by EPA management. Thus the air agencies that developed SIP revisions in reliance on the descriptions by EPA staff of not-yet-approved revisions to the contingency measures guidance were taking a risk that the guidance, once made publicly available, would differ in material ways from what EPA staff had described.

With respect to the commitments that the EPA made in connection with the Padilla Contingency Measures Subgroup, 74 the EPA did not commit to making any specific revisions to the contingency measures guidance or to making any revisions to the guidance that are inconsistent with the CAA or case law. Rather, the Agency committed “to explore interpretations and approaches that are consistent with the court decisions” and, among other things, “to revisit” the general bases for calculating the amount of emission reductions that contingency measures should provide, 75 but as noted previously, the EPA did not commit to any particular outcome. The Contingency Measure Task Force followed through on these commitments through meetings and review of draft documents that were internal to the EPA and eventual publication of notice in the Federal Register of the availability of the Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance for public review and comment. We believe the revised draft guidance provides an approach that state and local air agencies may use to meet the contingency measure SIP requirements under the CAA.

The EPA issued the Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance on March 17, 2023, and sought public comment on section 3 (“Showing that the CMs Achieve Sufficient Reductions”), section 4 (“Reasoned Justification for Less Than OYW of Progress”), and section 5 (“Guidance on Timing of Reductions from CMs”) of the draft guidance over a 30-day period ending April 24, 2023. 76 We applied the underlying concepts of the draft guidance in our evaluation of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, described as much in our proposed rule, and provided a 30-day comment period ending November 25, 2024, consistent with the public notice requirements of the CAA and the Administrative Procedure Act. 77

For this action, we considered the sum of the emissions reductions from the two approved ozone contingency measures (the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure) relative to the recommended amount we have indicated contingency measures should achieve. Because the measures, considered together, would not achieve the recommended amount of emissions reductions for VOC or NO X , CARB and the District submitted infeasibility demonstrations documenting the unavailability of additional feasible contingency measures for those ozone precursors.

We reviewed and evaluated the infeasibility demonstrations and, in our proposed rule, provided the rationale for our preliminary conclusion that the approved contingency measures, considered together with the commitments made by the District and CARB for five additional contingency measures, meet the applicable requirements for such measures and that CARB and the District had provided a reasoned justification, through the infeasibility demonstrations, for not adopting contingency measures sufficient to achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions for VOC and NO X .

In this action, we are finalizing our approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan for the reasons given in the proposed rule, as clarified and supplemented in responses to comments. While the Valley Environmental Organizations object to the consideration of feasibility in connection with the contingency measure SIP requirement, the commenters have raised no specific objection to our evaluation of the infeasibility demonstrations from CARB and the District upon which our final approval rests, with the exception of our evaluation of the District's infeasibility demonstration for confined animal facilities. We address the comment related to confined animal facilities in the following response.

In summary, in our proposed rule on the State's contingency measure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as well as our Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, we articulated a reasoned justification for the change in EPA policy as to how states may comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements. We have responded in this document to comments opposing those policy changes, and we explained how we were reviewing the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan in light of the new guidance. The EPA believes that such actions satisfy the applicable requirements for public process under the CAA and Administrative Procedure Act, as well as our responsibilities to engage state and local air agencies on CAA requirements, generally, and the development of SIP revisions in the wake of court decisions that bear on questions of CAA interpretation, specifically.

Comment 11: The Valley Environmental Organizations object to the EPA's approval of the infeasibility demonstration with respect to confined animal facilities. Citing information presented in the proposed rule, the commenters note the extent to which VOC emissions in San Joaquin Valley come from the farming operations source category and are associated with livestock husbandry, particularly silage at dairies and dairy cattle waste. Commenters contend that the District did not perform an economic or technological feasibility analysis of contingency measures from the source category. Rather, the commenters contend, because the District claims Rule 4570 is the most stringent rule in the nation, the District found that the District is currently implementing the most stringent feasible measure. The commenters further contend that the EPA fails to consider or explain whether contingency measures from a category that represents such a large percentage of the VOC emission in the Valley are not technologically or economically feasible. Further, they contend that, while Rule 4570 may be the only such rule in the country or the most stringent, that does not mean that additional emissions reductions are not feasible and that EPA's cursory dismissal of contingency measures for this category as infeasible is thus arbitrary and capricious.

Response to Comment 11: The EPA generally agrees with the commenters as to the extent to which the farming operations such as livestock husbandry, particularly silage and dairy cattle waste, contribute to Valley-wide VOC emissions inventories. We also agree that the District's conclusion that there are no feasible contingency measures for confined animal facilities, with which we proposed to agree in our proposed rule, rests on the contention that the District's rule that applies to this source category, Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), contains, as a practical matter, the most stringent requirements of any analogous air pollution control rules. 78

While we believe that the fact that a rule is the most stringent measure for a given source category is an indicator that additional controls may not be feasible, we agree that, in this instance, additional information and evaluation is warranted. Thus, we requested additional information and analysis from the District, and the District responded in a letter and attachment that we have evaluated and included in the docket for this rulemaking. 79 Herein, we refer to the letter and attachment collectively as the “Confined Animal Facilities Supplement.”

In the Confined Animal Facilities Supplement, the District first discusses Rule 4570's menu-based approach, where CAF operators must select from a limited menu of mitigation measures. The District contends that the menu-based approach is necessary because CAFs in the San Joaquin Valley vary significantly compared to traditional industrial sources. 80 As a result, it is not feasible for all operators to implement identical mitigation measures given the differences in infrastructure, climate, permitting requirements, water availability and water board regulations, production contracts, and other limitations. Furthermore, the District reasons that requiring all measures from the menu would be duplicative and would not result in additional emissions reductions, as the measures control emissions through the same mechanisms. The EPA concurs with the District's menu-based approach for this source category and agrees that requiring implementation of additional mitigation measures from the menu in Rule 4570 as a contingency measure would be duplicative and would not result in increased emissions reductions.

The District then discusses the feasibility of Class Two Mitigation Measures from the pre-2010 version of Rule 4570 as contingency measures. The District explains that Class Two mitigation measures referred to practices that could potentially achieve emissions reductions equal to or greater than those achieved by Class One mitigation measures and were originally included in Rule 4570 to encourage CAF operators to go beyond the basic rule requirements and implement innovative practices to further reduce emissions. 81 However, the District notes that many of the Class Two Mitigation Measures were theoretical measures that had not been demonstrated in practice at CAFs. The District points to its previous evaluation of these Class Two Mitigation Measures in its “2010 Final Staff Report for the Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570,”  82 where the Class Two Mitigation Measures were found to be technologically or economically infeasible and subsequently removed from Rule 4570. The District highlights the specific example of venting silage to a control device as a Class Two Mitigation Measure found to be infeasible and explains that it is infeasible because active venting introduces air into the silage, whereas silage preservation requires anaerobic conditions. 83

The next step in the District's analysis was to evaluate the feasibility of adopting certain specific additional mitigation measures as contingency measures in Rule 4570. The District evaluated mitigation measure categories applicable to the San Joaquin Valley, including litter amendments and additives, biofilters, wet scrubbers, anaerobic digestion, injection of liquid and slurry manure, reducing crude protein for beef cattle, reducing crude protein content for dairy cattle, and increased grazing time for dairy cattle. For each mitigation measure, the District evaluated the technological and economic feasibility to determine whether the measure would be feasible for adoption as a contingency measure. 84

With respect to litter amendments and manure additives, the District separately analyzed acidifying amendments and additives for poultry litter, manure additives, and microbial additives. 85 With respect to acidifying amendments and additives for poultry litter, the District notes that emissions reductions from acidifying amendments and additives for poultry litter have not been quantified in regard to VOC. Furthermore, the District contends that many additives to litter and manure require approval from the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), may not be allowed, or may be toxic to handle. 86 The District then performed an economic analysis of using aluminum sulfate, commonly referred to as “alum,” as an additive to reduce VOC from poultry litter. Based on this analysis, the District concludes that it is not viable to adopt the measure as a contingency requirement to reduce VOC emissions. For manure additives for liquid and slurry manure, the District states that the measure is infeasible due to pH, hydrogen sulfide emissions, and salinity concerns. The District contends that microbial additives are not feasible or practical for operations in the Valley. Citing a study by the National Hog Farmer, 87 the District contends that the effectiveness of microbial manure additives for VOC emissions reduction remains unproven. 88

When a biofilter is used, exhaust air containing pollutants passes through media that contain an established, diverse population of aerobic microorganisms that oxidize organic contaminants, ammonia, and sulfur compounds. Biofilters have been successfully used to control odors and emissions from industrial sources, and the “Agricultural Air Quality Conservation Measures, Reference Guide for Poultry and Livestock Systems” (“USDA Reference Guide”) identifies biofilters as a potential method to control VOC emissions at CAFs. 89 However, the USDA Reference Guide also notes several considerations that must be taken into account when using biofilters to control emissions from CAFs, including the substantial costs involved. The District has evaluated the potential for greater use of biofilters to reduce VOC emissions from CAFs but finds that using biofilters to treat all the exhaust air from CAFs in the San Joaquin Valley is impractical due to the size of the biofilters that would be needed, the energy required to overcome the airflow resistance they create, and the airflow required to cool the enclosed spaces effectively. 90 The District also notes certain other practical difficulties, particularly in connection with biofilter maintenance. In light of all of these considerations, the District concludes that requiring the installation and use of biofilters as a contingency measure to control VOC emissions at CAFs is not feasible.

Wet scrubbers are capable of reducing particulate matter and gas emissions from animal production houses that are mechanically ventilated by physically trapping the particulate matter on wet surfaces and absorbing gases into a liquid. Many of the same technical difficulties posed by installation and maintenance of biofilters at CAFs also apply to installation and maintenance of wet scrubbers at CAFs. Specifically, the District notes that, similar to biofilters, the practicality of scrubbers is limited as a result of their potential to compromise the ventilation airflow rate needed to control temperature in production houses and ensure animal health. 91 Citing the USDA Reference Guide, the District finds that a high air flow rate in the summer, animal housing differences, ongoing maintenance, and water demand make this mitigation measure infeasible. 92 Additionally, the District notes that they previously demonstrated the economic infeasibility of using wet scrubbers to control emissions from CAFs in the District's “Ammonia: Supplemental Information for EPA in Support of 15 µg/m 3 annual PM 2.5 Standard, Appendix B” (“Ammonia Technical Supplement”). 93

Anaerobic digesters are systems that break down manure in oxygen-free tanks to produce biogas. In the process of anaerobic digestion, most of the VOC compounds in the substrate are converted to methane, carbon dioxide, and water. The District reports that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has funded the installation of anaerobic digesters at certain dairy CAFs in the Valley. The District notes that a significant obstacle to wider installation and use of anaerobic digesters at CAFs is the high initial and ongoing maintenance costs. The District cites a CDFA reference for the figure of $7.5 million as the average cost for dairy digester projects in California. 94 As such, the District concludes that installation of additional anaerobic digesters in the San Joaquin Valley as a contingency measure is economically infeasible without a stable funding source. 95

Injection of liquid or slurry manure is generally accepted as a method to reduce emissions relative to traditional surface broadcasting. However, the District notes that nearly all liquid manure in the San Joaquin Valley is already diluted and applied via surface gravity irrigation systems, such as flood and furrow irrigation. The District further notes that this application method reduces emissions because the diluted liquid manure has much lower concentration of VOCs, and liquid manure in furrow and flood irrigation systems emits significantly less VOCs compared to broadcasting. 96 Furthermore, the District contends that no research has quantified VOC emissions reductions from different methods of land application of manure. Finally, the District notes that to avoid damaging growing crops and to protect water quality, farmers must restrict the frequency, timing, and amount of nitrogen that they can apply to cropland in certain portions of the San Joaquin Valley. 97 Such restrictions further reduce the potential of injection of liquid or slurry manure for adoption as a contingency measure in the San Joaquin Valley.

Reducing the crude protein content for beef and dairy cattle feed has been evaluated as potential measures to reduce ammonia emissions during certain phases of beef and dairy production, and for that reason, the District has evaluated them as potential contingency measures for VOC. The District notes that the potential VOC reductions from these measures have not been quantified, and achievable reductions are uncertain. 98 For beef cattle, the District notes that reducing the crude protein content of the feed as a means of reducing ammonia has only been tested for the finishing cycle of beef cattle lives, and that there are limited opportunities to implement this measure as there are very few finishing cycle feeder beef cattle in the San Joaquin Valley. 99 Furthermore, the District notes that there may be no net reduction in VOC emissions over the life of the cattle because any VOC reductions from reducing the crude protein content of beef cattle feed may be offset due to the longer time necessary to reach market weight. 100

For dairy cattle, the District notes significant gaps in knowledge of what would occur if crude protein were reduced in dairy cattle, specifically in the San Joaquin Valley. Higher levels of milk production require higher levels of protein, so reducing the crude protein content of feed will probably reduce milk yields. 101 Citing communications with Dr. Peter Robinson, University of California at Davis Extension Specialist, Dairy Cattle Nutritional Management Department of Animal Science, the District contends that lowering crude protein below required levels results in an immediate negative impact on milk production. 102 The District reasoned, for both of these measures, it is not feasible to adopt the measures as contingency requirements, given the remaining uncertainties about VOC emissions reductions, the impacts on milk production and animal health, and overall costs. 103

Increasing the amount of time dairy cows spend grazing is considered a potential VOC mitigation measure because it could reduce ammonia emissions due to less silage consumption and may thus also reduce VOC emissions. Based on a number of assumptions for such parameters as the number of acres of pasture required to allow a mature dairy cow to graze per unit of time, the District estimates that 3.1 million acres of irrigated pasture would need to be available for dairy cows in the San Joaquin Valley to graze for the entire year. The land needed is significantly beyond that which is available. For this reason, the District concludes that increased grazing time for daily cattle is not viable to adopt as a contingency requirement to reduce VOC emissions. 104

In summary, for all mitigation measures evaluated, the District did not identify any new measures capable of achieving VOC emissions reductions that are technologically and economically feasible. Based on our review of the supplemental analysis, we find that the District has evaluated an appropriate set of potential contingency measures for CAFs and presented a reasonable basis to conclude that the measures are not feasible for adoption as contingency measures at this time. Therefore, we continue to agree with the District's conclusion that there are no feasible contingency measures for this source category.

For reasons provided in our October 25, 2024 proposed rule and in our responses to comments included in this document, we are taking final action under CAA section 110(k)(4) to conditionally approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan as a revision of the California SIP as it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We are doing so based on our determination that, considered together with the existing approved contingency measures and the commitments to submit additional contingency measures, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan meets the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we find that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, including the already adopted contingency measures and commitments, corrects the deficiencies in the previous contingency measure element submissions for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that we partially disapproved in October 2022. 105 Our approval is conditional because it relies on commitments by CARB and the District to supplement the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan through submission of additional contingency measures within one year of final conditional approval.

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely takes action to conditionally approve a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not 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 approves a state program;

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and it shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

This final rule and all comments may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

On July 1, 2025, MARAD published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), titled “How to Best Evidence Corporate Citizenship: Policy and Regulatory Review,” soliciting public comment on actions MARAD could take to simplify and modernize the process for evidencing U.S. citizenship (90 FR 28513). Previously, on May 1, 2019, MARAD published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), titled “How to Best Evidence Corporate Citizenship: Policy and Regulatory Review” (84 FR 18468) soliciting public comment seeking the same information and whether MARAD should revise its regulations.

MARAD received comments to the original ANPRM, but the only comment received to the NPRM was outside the scope of this rulemaking and is therefore not addressed in the discussion below. MARAD developed this final rule by incorporating many of the comments and recommendations received in response to the ANPRM.

In response to the agency's ANPRM seeking ways to simplify annual requirements to evidence corporate citizenship, MARAD received one comment from The Maritime Law Association of the United States (MLA), which included several recommendations developed by the MLA's standing committee on Marine Financing. The agency responds to the MLA's recommendations as follows:

The MLA first recommended MARAD consider regulatory changes to make compliance more efficient and assured by eliminating the inclusion of birth dates and places of birth on the form of affidavit of U.S. citizenship.

MARAD agrees. Inclusion of this information in the affidavit of U.S. citizenship does not significantly improve U.S. citizenship certainty and creates an unnecessary risk of release of personally identifiable information. In any instance of doubt, MARAD will retain the authority to request that information from submitting parties. The final rule's form of affidavit at section 355.2 eliminates that requirement.

MLA next asked MARAD to consider permitting streamlined certifications for follow-on affidavits when there has been no material change to the information contained in the earlier affidavit rather than having each affidavit repeat all the required information under the current regulation, which requires annual submission of affidavits.

MARAD agrees with this recommendation. Permitting an optional streamlined certification will reduce the burden of annual filing for those entities whose ownership information has not changed since the last affidavit was filed without impacting MARAD's ability to make annual U.S. citizenship determinations. Section 355.4(b) of the final rule will include a provision for optional annual certification of citizenship information.

The MLA further recommended that MARAD revise its regulations to take into account the current state of public stock ownership and other factors affecting the ability of any public company to prove its U.S. citizenship. In particular, the MLA provided the following five recommendations concerning public companies:

1. The MLA asked that MARAD consider coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to provide the affected industry guidance that is practical and adequately implements the intent of U.S. maritime citizenship laws. The MLA further suggested that USCG's November 26, 2012, Federal Register Notice, “Mechanisms of Compliance with United States Citizenship Requirements for the Ownership of Vessels Eligible to Engage in Restricted Trades by Publicly Traded Companies” (77 FR 70453), would be a good starting point for developing a regulation that both agencies would promulgate.

MARAD agrees. The guidance contained in USCG's November 2012 Notice is the basis for MARAD's revisions to the form of affidavit of U.S. citizenship to be used by publicly traded corporations and other business formations whose ownership interests are publicly traded. Adoption of this guidance will harmonize the agencies' approaches to evidencing citizenship. Section 355.3(d) will provide publicly traded entities flexibility in applying several reasonably available methods to ensure ongoing compliance with U.S. ownership requirements without sacrificing the accuracy of ownership information upon which such entities must rely upon to affirm their citizenship status.

2. The MLA recommended that further improvements might be considered with respect to the fair inference rule including relaxing the percentages and making it clear that address lists made available by financial intermediaries can be relied upon.

MARAD agrees that the “fair inference rule,” as applied to corporations that are publicly traded, must be updated because it relies upon stock records that are no longer controlled by the issuing corporation since the advent of electronic trading. The final rule reflects a modified fair inference rule under which a publicly traded corporation may rely upon reasonably available shareholder residence information, including geographic surveys, and statistical sampling. However, MARAD will not adjust the current non-citizen ownership percentage limits of the fair inference rule until such time that we have confidence that reducing such limits will not result in an unreasonable risk of submitters breaching the statutory non-citizen ownership levels.

3. The MLA recommended that MARAD review methods adopted by other Federal agencies for establishing U.S.-citizen citizenship.

MARAD agrees. The rule is informed by our review of guidance and rules of other agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission's Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier, and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (Sep. 30, 2016); Federal Aviation Administration regulations; and USCG's November 2012 Notice (discussed above). The final rule will afford submitters flexibility in selecting the methods they use to determine ownership while maintaining compliance with annual filing requirements.

4. The MLA recommended that MARAD work with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Depository Trust Company to improve the SEG-100 system to make it an even more reliable indicator of U.S. citizen stock ownership.

Considering the obsolescence of the current form of affidavit, MARAD has accepted annual filers' participation in the SEG-100 system as a basis for affirming U.S. stock ownership. The final rule will now include participation in the SEG-100 system as an acceptable method for maintaining and evidencing U.S. ownership. The final rule does not make participation in SEG-100 mandatory.

5. The MLA recommended that MARAD, in coordination with USCG, adopt a process by which companies can present their citizenship compliance plans for approval by the two agencies and, if acting on the basis of those plans for approval by the two agencies, have the benefit of a presumption that they satisfy the applicable citizenship standard and the benefit of a grace period to come back into compliance if the maximum permissible non-citizenship threshold is exceeded due to market trading.

MARAD agrees that submitters should be permitted to submit their citizenship compliance plans for MARAD's review and approval. The final rule includes an option for submitting compliance methods for MARAD review and approval. As noted above, MARAD's rule is intended to harmonize its compliance procedures with the guidance from USCG's November 2012 notice. Upon request from submitters, MARAD will share such determinations with USCG.

The final rule adopts the changes described above and updates statutory authorities, which have changed since the current rule was published on July 18, 1970.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provide for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of E.O. 12866.

This rule will streamline the process for establishing United States citizenship of corporations and other business formations participating in MARAD programs by removing the unnecessary disclosure of personally identifiable information. It also amends the form of affidavit with respect to entities that are publicly traded to eliminate the requirement to provide certain information regarding registered owners of stock, which is no longer consistent with how stocks are traded in U.S. equity markets today.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and was therefore not reviewed by OMB. It is also not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Public Law 104-121.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

MARAD analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rulemaking has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, MARAD did not consult with State and local officials and did not prepare a federalism summary impact statement.

MARAD does not believe that this rulemaking will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order do not apply.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.

For the following reasons, the Maritime Administrator certifies that this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule simplifies and modernizes the process for establishing United States citizenship of corporations and other business formations participating in MARAD programs. The rule also eliminates the requirement to provide dates and places of birth of corporate executives, directors, and stock owners as required in the current form of affidavit of citizenship. The final rule also amends the form of affidavit with respect to entities that are publicly traded by eliminating the requirement to provide certain information regarding registered owners of stock, eliminate the notarization requirement, and provide a simple and streamlined process for recertification.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each proposed rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rulemaking, which only eliminates the requirement to provide dates and places of birth of corporate executives, directors and stockholders, eliminates certain information regarding registered owners of stock, and the notarization requirement, does not result in personally identifiable information (PII) being collected or maintained in a Government-run website or IT system. Therefore, MARAD did not conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires Agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $212 million or more (as adjusted for inflation, in 2026) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $212 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, so the analytical requirements of the UMRA do not apply. The rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves MARAD's stated objectives for the rule.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 1.81, the Secretary has delegated the “functions” under NEPA to the Administrators “as they relate to the matters within the primary responsibility of each Operating Administration.” MARAD has determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, subpart C, section (e)(3). A categorical exclusion (CE) is an action identified in an agency's NEPA procedures that does not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore does not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D, section 9. In analyzing the applicability of a CE, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. at section 9(b). MARAD may utilize its own CEs, in addition to CEs listed in DOT Order 5610.1D Appendix A or another Operating Administration's CEs, using the procedures described in DOT Order 5610.1D, section 9, and subpart C, section (e). This rulemaking, Establishing United States Citizenship for MARAD Program Participation; Simplifying the Application Process, is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, subpart C, section (e)(3): “Internal orders and procedures not required to be published in the Federal Register , promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, and amendments thereto which do not require a regulatory impact analysis under section 3 or do not have a potential to cause a significant impact on the environment . . .” MARAD does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This final rule will likely result in a reduction in the burden hours required for information collection 2133-0012, Requirements for Establishing U.S. Citizenship—46 CFR 355, because changes to the regulation will shorten the time and effort to evidence citizenship for many first-time applicants as well as those that must recertify. We expect that the information collection requirement under this rule will reduce the “hours per response” from five hours to four hours resulting in a 20 percent reduction in burden hours annually and having a net cost saving of $24,756 annually across 550 respondents.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number.

For the reasons described in the preamble, MARAD is revising 46 CFR part 355 to read as follows:

This final rule and all comments may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

On July 1, 2025, MARAD published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), titled “Deregulatory-American Fisheries Act Program Update; Simplifying the Application Process,” soliciting public comment on actions MARAD could take to simplify and modernize the process for evidencing U.S. citizenship for owners of U.S.-flag fishing industry vessels of 100 feet or greater in registered length (90 FR 28519). Previously, on May 1, 2019, MARAD published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), titled “How Best to Simplify Filing Statements of American Fisheries Act Citizenship: Policy and Regulatory Review,” (84 FR 18469) soliciting public comment seeking the same information and whether MARAD should revise its regulations.

MARAD developed its Final Rule based on recommendations received in response to our request for comments to both the NPRM and the ANPRM, as well as recommendations we received in response to our ANPRM on reforming our Maritime Programs citizenship requirements titled “How to Best Evidence Corporate Citizenship: Policy and Regulatory Review” (Corporate Citizenship ANPRM) published in the Federal Register (84 FR 18468) on May 1, 2019.

In response to the agency's NPRM and ANPRM seeking public comment on ways to simplify annual requirements to evidence citizenship under the American Fisheries Act, MARAD received comments from K & L Gates, one comment for each of MARAD's notices, which included several recommendations. The agency responds as follows to the commenter's recommendations.

The commenter recommended MARAD consider permitting streamlined certifications for annual citizenship renewals when there has been no material change to the information contained in the prior year's AFA Affidavit.

MARAD agrees with this recommendation. Permitting an optional certification would reduce the burden of annual filing for those entities whose ownership information has not changed since the last AFA Affidavit was filed while not impacting MARAD's ability to make U.S. citizenship determinations. MARAD finds that such a certification would be consistent with the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 12113(e)(1) by incorporating by reference and certifying the citizenship information contained in the last AFA Affidavit submitted by the filer. In section 356.5(g), MARAD includes a provision for optional annual certification of citizenship information. MARAD will provide a copy of our form of annual certification with each annual fishery endorsement eligibility approval letter it issues to filers.

The commenter further suggested MARAD reconsider the regulatory requirements for vessel owners to notify the Citizenship Approval Officer within 30 days of any change in the information set forth in the AFA Affidavit or with respect to documents required to be filed pursuant to 46 CFR 356.13 (46 CFR 356.5(g) and 356.13(b), respectively). The commenter argued that these requirements place a significant burden on the vessel owner to review each of the various regulatory requirements on a monthly basis to ensure timely compliance and avoid risking loss of the fishing vessel's eligibility to operate in the domestic fishing industry.

MARAD disagrees. As the commenter notes, most AFA vessel owners are closely held entities whose ownership does not change on an annual basis. In addition, MARAD has not found that compliance with these requirements has affected owners' ability to maintain fishery endorsement eligibility for their vessels. As such, MARAD does not find the 30-day notification requirements to be burdensome or to represent an undue risk of loss of fishery endorsement eligibility.

The commenter also recommended updating the existing regulations to reflect current statutory citations that have changed since the regulations were implemented in 2000 and including a chart containing the documentary requirements for regulated transactions.

MARAD agrees. MARAD is amending part 356 to update its statutory citations. MARAD is planning to develop a chart of documentary requirements as guidance for publication on our AFA web page.

The commenter also recommended that MARAD make certain relevant rulings publicly available online. Over time, MARAD has weighed this proposition carefully and on multiple occasions. MARAD has found that after protecting the confidential business information typically contained in such rulings that the releasable material affords no appreciable substantive information and instead may risk harming MARAD's ability to obtain candid and frank proposals from industry. That stated, MARAD will consider the issues further to determine if such recommendation can be properly instituted.

In response to the comments received in response to the May 1, 2019, Corporate Citizenship ANPRM (84 FR 18468), MARAD amended the form of AFA Affidavit found at 46 CFR 356.5 with respect to those paragraphs (Nos. 4 and 5) applicable to direct and indirect owners that are publicly traded entities. Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12113(e)(2), the form of AFA Affidavit must conform to the extent practicable to the form of affidavit found at 46 CFR 355.2, which is the form used by participants to satisfy citizenship requirements of MARAD's promotional programs ( e.g., Capital Construction Fund, Maritime Security Program, and vessel finance guarantees). As MARAD has found the form of affidavit at 46 CFR 355.2 to be outdated with respect to its provisions for publicly traded entities, MARAD is updating that form of affidavit in a separate final rule under Docket Number MARAD-2025-0087.

The rule at section 356.7 will provide publicly traded entities flexibility in applying several reasonably available methods to ensure ongoing compliance with AFA ownership requirements, including satisfying the U.S. address requirement of the fair inference rule for determining the requisite percentage of U.S. ownership of outstanding stock. MARAD is not adjusting the current non-citizen ownership percentage limits of the fair inference method.

MARAD is eliminating requirements to provide social security numbers and dates and places of birth of corporate officers and directors in the affidavit of AFA citizenship provided at 46 CFR 356.5. Inclusion of this information in the affidavit of AFA citizenship does not significantly improve U.S. ownership certainty and creates an unnecessary risk of release of personally identifiable information. In any instance of doubt, MARAD still retains the authority to request such information from submitting parties.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Department of Transportation's administrative rulemaking procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 5, subpart B, provide for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of E.O. 12866.

This rule is limited to streamlining annual renewal filing for vessel owners whose citizenship information has not changed since their most recent annual affidavit of U.S. citizenship (AFA Affidavit) filing, updating acceptable methods for evidencing citizenship of publicly traded entities, and eliminating requirements to provide personally identifiable information ( i.e., social security numbers and dates and places of birth for corporate officers and directors) in affidavits of AFA citizenship.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and therefore it was not reviewed by OMB. It is also not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Public Law 104-121. This rule is limited to updating the citations, addresses, and modernizing text.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule will have total costs less than zero and therefore is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

MARAD analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rulemaking has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Because nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation, MARAD did not consult with State and local officials and did not prepare a federalism summary impact statement.

MARAD does not believe that this rulemaking will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this E.O. do not apply.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.

For the following reasons, the MARAD Administrator certifies that this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments will simplify and streamline annual renewal filing for vessel owners whose citizenship information has not changed since their affidavit of U.S. citizenship (AFA Affidavit) filing; update acceptable methods for evidencing citizenship of publicly traded entities; and eliminate requirements to provide personally identifiable information ( i.e., social security numbers and dates and places of birth for corporate officers and directors) in affidavits of AFA citizenship. These changes should be limited to decreasing the administrative burden for program applicants.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each proposed rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rulemaking, simplifies and streamlines annual renewal filing for vessel owners whose citizenship information has not changed since their affidavit of U.S. citizenship (AFA Affidavit) filing; updates acceptable methods for evidencing citizenship of publicly traded entities; and eliminates requirements to provide personally identifiable information (PII) in affidavits of AFA citizenship. This rulemaking purports to decrease any potential impact on participant privacy and does not result in PII being collected or maintained in a Government-run website or IT system. Therefore, MARAD did not conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires Agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $212 million or more (as adjusted for inflation, in 2026) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $212 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 1.81, the Secretary has delegated the “functions” under NEPA to the Administrators “as they relate to the matters within the primary responsibility of each Operating Administration.” MARAD has determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, subpart C, section (e)(3). A categorical exclusion (CE) is an action identified in an agency's NEPA procedures that does not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore does not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D, section 9. In analyzing the applicability of a CE, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. at section 9(b). MARAD may utilize its own CEs, in addition to CEs listed in DOT Order 5610.1D Appendix A or another Operating Administration's CEs, using the procedures described in DOT Order 5610.1D, section 9, and subpart C, section (e). This rulemaking, American Fisheries Act Program Update; Simplifying the Application Process, is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, subpart C, section (e)(3): “Internal orders and procedures not required to be published in the Federal Register , promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, and amendments thereto which do not require a regulatory impact analysis under section 3 or do not have a potential to cause a significant impact on the environment . . .” MARAD does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rule will likely result in a reduction in the burden hours required for information collection 2133-0530, Requirements for Vessels of 100 Feet or Greater in Registered Length to Obtain a Fishery Endorsement to the Vessel's Documentation—46 CFR 356, because changes to the regulation will shorten the time and effort to evidence citizenship for many first-time applicants as well as those that must recertify. We expect that the information collection requirement under this rule would reduce the “hours per response” from 11 hours to 8.5 hours resulting in a 23 percent reduction in burden hours annually and having a net cost saving of $22,086.40 annually across 500 respondents.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number.

For the reasons described in the preamble, MARAD amends 46 CFR part 356 as set forth below:

To reduce the burden for grant recipients, this final rule amends the Emergency Relief regulation at 49 CFR 602.15(b)(2) to establish a longer baseline time period within which grant recipients can qualify for a waiver of certain administrative requirements in order to obtain emergency relief funding. Previously, section 602.15(b)(2) established 45 days as the baseline time period for which FTA can determine whether certain FTA grant requirements, the requirements for E.O. 11988 floodplain analysis, and the labor protection requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5333(b) could be waived. As part of this action, FTA modifies section 602.15(b)(2) to extend the baseline time period to 90 days to align the regulatory text with existing practice and reduce the regulatory burden on grant recipients.

In section 20017 of The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141) (2012), codified at 49 U.S.C. 5324, Congress authorizes FTA to establish and implement the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program. This program allows FTA to make grants for eligible public transportation capital and operating costs in the event of a catastrophic event, such as a natural disaster, that affects a wide area, as a result of the Governor of a State declaring an emergency and the Secretary of Transportation concurring, or the President declaring a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170). On March 29, 2013, FTA published an interim final rule implementing this statutory requirement and request for comments (78 FR 19136). On October 7, 2014, FTA published a final rule establishing procedures governing the implementation of FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (79 FR 60349). As stated in the March 29, 2013, interim final rule (78 FR 19140) and the October 7, 2014, final rule (79 FR 60355-56, 60357), FTA may waive these requirements as necessary and appropriate for emergency repairs, permanent repairs, and emergency operating expenses.

After administering the program for more than 10 years, FTA has determined 45 days is an insufficient period of time to address emergencies in practice, and it has frequently extended the time period to 90 days or longer during prior emergency events. FTA modifies 49 CFR 602.15(b)(2) to align the regulatory text with existing practice and reduce the regulatory burden on grant recipients.

FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 1, 2025 (90 FR 28688) proposing to amend 49 CFR 602.15(b)(2) by extending the baseline time period to 90 days within which grant recipients can qualify for a waiver of certain administration requirements in order to obtain emergency relief funding.

The public comment period for the NPRM closed on September 2, 2025. FTA received two comments in total. One comment was outside the scope of this rulemaking, and FTA does not respond to comments in this final rulemaking that were outside the scope.

FTA received one comment submission in the rulemaking docket from a public transportation trade association. The comment expressed strong support for the change and noted that the change would align with FTA's historical practice, reduce regulatory burden on grant recipients, and provide greater certainty to recipients during a disaster.

Response: FTA appreciates the commenter's support of the change, which FTA proposed for similar reasons.

Based on the foregoing and FTA's determination, FTA is adopting the amendment to section 602.15(b)(2) as proposed.

E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible, and to consider economic, environmental, and distributional effects. This action does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action.” Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this action.

This final rule will increase the waiver period during eligible emergencies to align with current FTA practice as FTA has consistently extended the period to 90 days or longer during prior events. Although the final rule will not change existing practices for recipients, it will allow recipients greater predictability in planning for emergencies by ensuring that the regulation aligns with historical FTA practice and accordingly would have minor, unquantified cost savings.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation Guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 25, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.”

This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero and, therefore, is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small entities unless the agency determines the regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Act, public-sector organizations and local governments qualify as small entities if they serve a population of less than 50,000. This final rule achieves minor unquantified cost savings by extending the baseline time period within which the FTA Administrator can waive certain administrative requirements for grant recipients. For this reason, FTA certifies this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation, by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector.

E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FTA has analyzed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act and believes it does not impose additional information collection requirements for the purposes of the Act above and beyond existing information collection clearances from OMB.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FTA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). This rulemaking, which reduces the regulatory burden on grant recipients by extending the baseline period to establish a waiver of certain administrative requirements, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): “[p]lanning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance.” FTA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FTA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”) and it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

FTA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). FTA has determined this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FTA amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 602, as set forth below:

This final rule amends the Project Management Oversight (PMO) regulation at 49 CFR part 633. The rule modifies the applicability of project management oversight by raising the total cost threshold from $300 million to $400 million and the Federal investment threshold from $100 to $150 million, to align with the statutory thresholds for Small Starts projects under FTA's Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. This amendment reduces the number of projects subject to project management oversight requirements and therefore reduces regulatory burden.

This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5327, which requires the Secretary to conduct oversight of major capital projects and to promulgate a rule for that purpose that includes a definition of major capital project to delineate the types of projects governed by the rule.

Recognizing a compelling need to strengthen the management and oversight of major capital projects, in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) (Pub. L. 100-17) (April 2, 1987), Congress authorized FTA's predecessor agency, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), to conduct oversight of major capital projects and to promulgate a rule for that purpose. The statute, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 5327, authorizes FTA to obtain the services of project management oversight contractors (PMOCs) to assist FTA in overseeing the expenditure of Federal financial assistance for major capital projects. Further, the statute requires FTA to promulgate a regulation that includes a definition of “major capital project” to identify the types of projects governed by the rule.

Accordingly, UMTA promulgated a rule for oversight of major capital projects on September 1, 1989, at 49 CFR part 633 (54 FR 36708). At that time, the average total cost of CIG projects was $266 million (not adjusted for inflation). The UMTA regulation defined “major capital project” as any project for the construction of a new fixed guideway or extension of an existing fixed guideway or a project involving the rehabilitation or modernization of an existing fixed guideway with a total project cost of $100 million or more. The rule limited covered projects to those receiving funds made available under sections 3, 9, or 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended; 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4); or section 14(b) of the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1979.

By 2011, the annual dollar value of the Federal transit capital programs was nearly five times the level authorized under STURAA in 1987, and the number of active PMOC task orders was more than double the number in 1987. Furthermore, FTA funded a larger number of projects with a total cost of more than one billion dollars that presented significant oversight challenges. On September 13, 2011, FTA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (76 FR 56378) that proposed to: (1) enable FTA to identify the necessary management capacity and capability of a sponsor of a major capital project more clearly; (2) spell out the many facets of project management that must be addressed in a project management plan; (3) tailor the level of FTA oversight to the costs, complexities, and risks of a major capital project; (4) set forth the means and objectives of risk assessments for major capital projects and; (5) articulate the roles and responsibilities of FTA's PMOCs.

After the NPRM was published, however, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) (July 6, 2012) expanded the scope of the project management oversight requirements to cover major capital projects for public transportation under any provision of Federal law. Moreover, MAP-21 shifted the initiation of project management oversight to the project development phase and removed the statutory requirement that recipients of financial assistance for projects with a total cost of $1 billion submit an annual financial plan. Given the fundamental changes to the project management oversight requirements and scope, FTA withdrew the NPRM (78 FR 16460) to reexamine its proposed definition of major capital project and its policy and procedures for risk assessment. Subsequently, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) (December 4, 2015) further amended 49 U.S.C. 5327 to limit project management oversight to quarterly reviews, absent a finding that more frequent oversight was necessary, and mandated that the Secretary prescribe regulations outlining a process for at-risk recipients to return to quarterly reviews.

FTA has become much more knowledgeable about the risks common to major capital projects, having conducted its own risk assessments since 2005, witnessed some project sponsors' lack of management capacity and capability and appropriate project controls for some projects, and studied the reasons for cost and schedule changes on many major capital projects. Consequently, on September 23, 2020, following a notice of proposed rulemaking (84 FR 44590) and an opportunity for comment, FTA published a final rule (85 FR 59672) that changed the applicability of the regulation by shifting the definition of a “major capital project” from one based on the type of project or total project cost to one based on both the amount of Federal financial assistance and the total project cost, which FTA views as a more appropriate benchmark than the type of project or total capital cost of a project alone.

The rule applied a project cost threshold to all fixed guideway capital projects. As a default, the rule raised the total project cost threshold to $300 million or more and required that the project receive $100 million or more in Federal investment to be subject to project management oversight. A key consideration for selecting these thresholds was that they reflect the thresholds Congress chose to distinguish Small Starts projects from New Starts projects in the CIG program. New Starts projects have more steps to complete in the CIG process and tend to be more complex, potentially requiring more oversight. Reducing the number of lower-risk Small Starts projects undergoing project management oversight allows FTA to focus on higher-risk New Starts projects while yielding annual cost savings to FTA and its recipients.

Subsequently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58; November 15, 2021) amended 49 U.S.C. 5309 to raise the thresholds for Small Starts projects in the CIG program to $400 million or more in total costs and $150 million or more in Federal investment. Accordingly, through this rulemaking, FTA amends the definition of “major capital project” under 49 CFR 633.5 to align with these statutory thresholds, consistent with the rationale in its 2020 final rule.

FTA amends the definition of “major capital project” in 49 CFR 633.5 by raising the total cost and Federal investment thresholds to match those established for Small Starts projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. The current regulation defines the term as a project to construct, expand, rehabilitate, or modernize a fixed guideway of $300 million or more that receives $100 million or more in Federal financial assistance. This final rule raises the thresholds to $400 million and $150 million, respectively.

FTA issued an NPRM for PMO on July 1, 2025 (90 FR 28690). The public comment period for the NPRM closed on September 2, 2025. FTA received two comment submissions to the rulemaking docket. Commenters included a large public transportation agency and a major transit industry association. FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration when developing the final rule.

Comments: Both commenters expressed support for raising the total cost threshold for project management oversight. The public transportation agency articulated its general support of the proposed modifications to raise the total cost and Federal investment thresholds to match those established for Small Starts projects, noting that the costs of public transportation projects has increased significantly post-COVID 19. The commenter also expressed its support for FTA to further increase the proposed thresholds to account for inflation and other factors impacting project costs.

The industry association asserted its strong support for modernizing the definition of “major capital project” to reduce the number of lower-risk projects undergoing project management oversight and allow FTA to focus its oversight on higher-risk projects. However, the commenter urged FTA to raise the total cost threshold for project management oversight to $500 million and to eliminate the Federal investment threshold to bring FTA's regulation into parity with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) oversight threshold for major capital projects. The commenter also recommended that FTA decrease the frequency of reviews for major capital projects to an annual process, instead of the current quarterly review process.

FTA response: FTA appreciates the support from both commenters to amend the definition of “major capital project” to reduce unnecessary oversight of lower-risk projects. With regard to the request to raise the total project cost threshold to $500 million, FTA declines to adopt the suggestion. FTA selected the $400 million total cost threshold and $150 million Federal assistance threshold to reflect the thresholds Congress chose to distinguish Small Starts projects from New Starts projects in the CIG program. New Starts projects tend to be more complex, potentially requiring more oversight, whereas Small Starts projects tend to be lower-risk and generally require less oversight.

FTA also declines to remove the amount of Federal financial assistance threshold from the definition of “major capital project.” The statutory thresholds that distinguish Small Starts projects from New Starts projects include both Federal financial assistance and total project cost components, which FTA views as a more appropriate benchmark for oversight than total cost alone. FTA notes that it retains its authority under 49 CFR 633.19 to determine on a case-by-case basis that, regardless of total project costs or amount of Federal investment, certain projects should not be subject to project management oversight based on an assessment of risk.

Regarding the suggestion to reduce the amount of oversight from quarterly to annual reviews, FTA declines because this would require legislation to amend 49 U.S.C. 5327(d)(1)(B).

E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations and to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible. OMB has determined the final rule is not significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866 and has not reviewed the rule under that order.

Project management oversight requirements apply to all major capital projects. The current definition of a “major capital project” includes all projects involving the construction, expansion, rehabilitation, or modernization of a fixed guideway with a total project cost of $300 million or more and $100 million or more in Federal investment. The final rule increases the total project cost threshold to $400 million and the Federal investment threshold to $150 million.

Removing project management oversight from projects with total costs between $300 and $400 million and Federal investment between $100 million and $150 million may increase the risk of materially exceeding budget or falling behind schedule for some projects; however, the potential negative impacts are not quantifiable. First, it is not the case that project management oversight eliminates the risk of cost or schedule overruns, nor that the lack of project management oversight necessarily implicates a high risk of such overruns.

Second, falling under the total cost and Federal investment thresholds does not preclude a project from receiving project management oversight. Section 633.5(e)(2) allows the Administrator to determine on a case-by-case basis that certain projects should be subject to project management oversight based on an assessment of risk, which would include an analysis of the likelihood of budget and schedule overruns. Of the 33 CIG projects currently in construction, FTA utilized this provision to designate six as major capital projects based on this risk assessment to receive additional oversight.

The final rule results in cost savings for recipients and for FTA by reducing the number of capital projects subject to project management oversight. Removing the oversight requirements reduces labor hours for oversight procedures, which include attending meetings, preparing quarterly reports and other requested documents, and accompanying contractors at project construction sites.

At the time of NPRM publication, there were 59 CIG and formula-funded major capital projects for public transportation subject to project management oversight. There are currently 65 such projects. Twenty of those projects have total costs between $300 million and $400 million or Federal investments between $100 million and $150 million. Eight of the projects between the existing and new thresholds have received grant agreements and are in construction. Those projects were not impacted by the new thresholds under this final rule. However, the remaining 12 projects still in project development no longer meet the definition of major capital project and are not subject to project management oversight requirements under this final rule.

In 2020, FTA estimated that the oversight required approximately one FTE (full-time equivalent) of recipient time (2,080 hours) and 0.5 FTE of FTA staff time (1,040 hours) per project per year. Removing oversight requirements for 12 projects annually results in annual savings of 24,960 hours for recipients and 12,480 hours for FTA staff.

To estimate cost savings for project sponsors, FTA used May 2024 occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest available as of May 2025, in the “Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation” industry (North American Industry Classification System code 485000). 1 To estimate the wages of agency staff completing the auditing requirements, FTA used the “General and Operations Managers” job category (code 11-1021). FTA used median hourly wages ($42.45) as a basis for the estimates, multiplying the wages by 1.62 ($42.45 × 1.62 = $68.69) to account for employer benefits. 2

To estimate cost savings for FTA, FTA estimated an hourly wage of $64.06 for oversight staff, based on the hourly wage rate for Federal GS (General Schedule) employees at step 5 of the GS-13 grade level in the Washington, DC locality pay area. 3 The hourly rate was then multiplied by 1.62 to account for employer benefits ($64.06 × 1.62 = $103.65).

The final rule results in annual cost savings of $3.0 million (24,960 recipient hours × $68.69 + 12,480 FTA hours × $103.65) in undiscounted 2024 dollars, $2.5 million at a three percent discount rate (discounted to 2024), and $2.0 million at a seven percent discount rate over the ten year period from 2026 to 2036. In addition, there will be cost savings for future FTA projects between $300 million and $400 million in total cost or $100 million and $150 million in Federal investment, that would have otherwise been subject to project management oversight under the current thresholds. However, because projects under the CIG and formula programs comprise a broad range of complexity, total costs, and amounts of Federal investment and vary from year to year, FTA is not attempting to quantify them.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation Guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 25, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small entities unless the agency determines that the regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule does not change any requirements for small entities, as no small entities are pursuing public transportation projects with a total cost between $300 and $400 million based on FTA data. All agencies with projects that meet the relevant total cost threshold are in areas with populations above the 50,000 population threshold for small government entities.

FTA therefore certifies that the final rule does not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, as there is no impact on any small entities.

FTA has determined that this final rule does not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation, by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector.

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), and the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA will not seek a revision to an approved OMB information collection 2132-0584 as there is no change in burden or cost associated with this new regulatory action.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FTA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). This rulemaking, which reduces the regulatory burden on grant recipients by reducing the number of projects subject to project management oversight, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): “[p]lanning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance.” FTA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FTA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and will not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

FTA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477 (April 11, 2000).

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this final rule with the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5327 and 5334, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, the Federal Transit Administration amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 633, as set forth below:

Section 20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012), requires FTA to identify any provisions of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and any regulations or practices thereunder, that impede greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment and to develop and implement on a project basis procedures and approaches that address such impediments. Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21 provides FTA discretion in addressing impediments to public-private partnerships. Since issuing the Private Investment Project Procedures, 49 CFR part 650, in 2018 (83 FR 24672), FTA determined that the reporting requirement in subpart C, which is not required by MAP-21, has never been used and is inconsistent with FTA's purpose for issuing 49 CFR part 650. Accordingly, FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 1, 2025 (90 FR 28693) that proposed removing this requirement from the regulation.

After providing an opportunity for public notice and comment and consideration of comments received, FTA is removing subpart C (Reporting) from 49 CFR part 650. This subpart required recipients with projects for which the Administrator modified or waived any FTA requirement pursuant to 49 CFR 650.11, to submit to FTA a report evaluating the effects of the modification or waiver on the delivery of the project. This subpart required that the report describe the modification or waiver applied to the project; evaluate the success or failure of the modification or waiver; evaluate the extent to which the modification or waiver addressed impediments to use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects; and may include recommended changes with an explanation of how the changes would encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. Under subpart C, an initial report was due one year after completing construction of the project and, for projects that include private entity involvement in operations or maintenance, a second report was due two years after the project begins revenue operations.

Since issuing 49 CFR part 650, FTA has not received any reports under subpart C. FTA determined the requirement was unnecessary and failed to promote public-private partnerships due to the added burden on recipients seeking a modification or waiver.

FTA received only one comment on this NPRM from a public transportation trade association. The commenter expressed general support of FTA removing requirements that impede greater use of public-private partnerships, stating that reducing unnecessary reporting requirements is an important first step. The commenter requested that FTA engage with stakeholders to discuss and identify additional ways to facilitate greater private sector roles. The commenter recommended to FTA a framework to develop financial and operating partnerships between private sector and public transportation agencies.

Response: FTA appreciates the commenter's support of FTA's proposed change and FTA's rationale behind the proposed change. FTA will take into consideration the commenter's recommendation to engage stakeholders to facilitate greater use of public-private partnerships in the future.

Based on the foregoing and FTA's determination, FTA is adopting the change as proposed and is removing 49 CFR part 650 subpart C.

E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations and to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible. This action does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action.” Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this action.

This final rule eliminates a reporting requirement for recipients receiving a modification or waiver pursuant to 49 CFR 650.11. To date, no recipient has submitted a report. Though recipients would not experience direct cost savings from removing the reporting requirement if they do not need to submit reports, removing the requirement reduces the burden needed for recipients to comply with Federal requirements.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation Guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 25, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule will have total costs less than zero and, therefore, is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small entities unless the agency determines the regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

FTA has determined that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. The rule eliminates a reporting requirement for recipients receiving a modification or waiver pursuant to 49 CFR 650.11. To date, no recipient has submitted a report.

FTA has determined that this rule will not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation, by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector.

E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FTA has analyzed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act and determined it does not impose additional information collection requirements for the purposes of the Act above and beyond existing information collection clearances from OMB.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FTA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). This rulemaking, which removes an unnecessary reporting requirement, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): “[p]lanning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance.” FTA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FTA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”) and it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

FTA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). FTA has determined this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FTA amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 650, as set forth below:

This final rule amends the RWP regulation at 49 CFR part 671 to reduce regulatory burden and align with industry practice. The final rule amends § 671.25(a)(2) to allow SSOAs to submit RWP program information to FTA with their annual report. The rule amends § 671.25(c)(1) to align with industry practice by allowing SSOAs to conduct the required annual audit of a rail transit agency's (RTA) RWP program in conjunction with other required reviews or audits. In addition, the final rule incorporates a technical correction in § 671.41(c)(9) to revise an incorrect cross-reference.

Congress directed FTA to establish a Public Transportation Safety Program in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141) (MAP-21), which was reauthorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58). FTA is authorized to regulate public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.). FTA's safety program is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329.

Under 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7) FTA is authorized to issue rules to carry out the Public Transportation Safety Program, and 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2) directs FTA to develop and implement a National Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) that includes minimum safety standards to ensure the safe operation of public transportation systems. While FTA has previously published a National Safety Plan document that includes only voluntary standards, 49 U.S.C. 5329(f) provides FTA with the discretion and authority to issue mandatory minimum standards to ensure the safe operation of public transportation systems. Accordingly, on October 31, 2024, FTA promulgated the RWP final rule, codified at 49 CFR part 671, which established minimum safety standards for rail transit RWP to ensure the safe operation of public transportation systems and to prevent safety events, fatalities, and injuries to transit workers who may access the roadway in the performance of work (89 FR 87166).

To reduce regulatory burden, FTA is modifying 49 CFR 671.25(a)(2) to allow SSOAs to submit RWP program information to FTA with their annual report. Previously, section 671.25(a)(2) required SSOAs to submit each RTA's RWP program to FTA within 30 calendar days of approval. In reply to FTA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published March 25, 2024, FTA received comments from SSOAs recommending FTA add the RWP program submission requirement to the annual reporting process. 1 In the October 2024 RWP final rule, FTA declined to extend the 30-day submission period responsive to the comments. However, since administering this program, FTA has recognized the 30-day submission requirement is burdensome for SSOAs.

FTA also amends 49 CFR 671.25(c)(1) to align with industry practice. In section 671.25(c)(1), FTA previously required SSOAs to conduct an annual audit of the RTA's compliance with its RWP program. FTA explained in the preamble to the October 2024 RWP final rule (89 FR 87192) that SSOAs are allowed to combine audits “[t]o avoid redundancy,” so long as the review meets “the RWP program audit requirements specified at §  671.25(c).” See also 89 FR 87211. Furthermore, in reply to a DOT-wide Request for Information seeking public comments on reducing regulatory burden (90 FR 14593), FTA received a comment from the American Public Transportation Association asking FTA to consider modifying § 671.25(c) based on existing audit practice and address the undue burden of completing non-simultaneous audits (Docket No. DOT-OST-2025-0026). FTA is modifying § 671.25(c)(1) to ensure this authorization is included in the regulatory text.

FTA also amends § 671.41(c)(9) to remove an incorrect cross-reference to § 671.37 (Good faith safety challenge) and replace it with a cross-reference to § 671.39 (Risk-based redundant protections). This correction is consistent with the original intent of the section and with FTA practice.

Based on the foregoing, and to ensure consistency with Administration priorities, including Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”), FTA is implementing this deregulatory action to reduce the regulatory burden on RTAs and SSOAs.

On July 1, 2025, FTA issued an NPRM for Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) to seek comments on proposed changes to §§ 671.25(a)(2) and (c)(1). (90 FR 28695). The public comment period for the NPRM closed on July 31, 2025. FTA received four comment submissions to the rulemaking docket. Commenters included one State, two industry associations, and one individual. Some comments within these submissions were outside the scope of this rulemaking, and FTA does not respond to comments in this final rule that were outside the scope. FTA thanks the industry associations that provided these comments and will take them into consideration for the future. FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration. Below, the NPRM comments and FTA's responses are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the rule and subject matter.

Comments: One industry association, one SSOA, and one individual expressed support for FTA's proposed modification to § 671.25(a)(2), which would allow SSOAs to submit RWP program documentation for each RTA in its jurisdiction to FTA annually with the SSOA's annual report. The industry association also recommended FTA revise the proposed language in § 671.25(a)(2) from “with the annual report required by 49 CFR 674.39” to “as part of the annual report required by 49 CFR 674.39.” It argued this would explicitly connect the RWP program submission requirement with the existing SSOA annual reporting requirement under 49 CFR 674.39.

FTA Response: FTA appreciates the support for its proposal. FTA also appreciates the industry association's recommended revision but declines to adopt the suggestion. The rule language, as proposed, sufficiently and clearly conveys the connection between the RWP program submission and the SSOA annual report.

Comments: Two industry associations, one SSOA, and one individual provided comments expressing support for FTA's proposed modification to § 671.25(c)(1), which would allow agencies to conduct the annual RWP program audit in conjunction with the review and approval of an RTA's Agency Safety Plan or other review or audit.

One of the industry associations further suggested revising FTA's proposed language in § 671.25(c)(1) to state that SSOAs may conduct the RWP program audit in conjunction with the triennial audit required by 49 CFR 674.31. The commenter argued that this approach would ensure there are no duplicative audit reports and would be more effective and efficient.

FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments supporting FTA's proposal. However, FTA disagrees with the industry association commenter's suggested revision. Under the proposed § 671.25(c)(1), the SSOA has the flexibility to incorporate the annual RWP audit into the review and approval of the RTA's Agency Safety Plan “or any other review or audit,” including the triennial audit required under part 674. An explicit reference to the triennial audit is, therefore, unnecessary. Due to the safety risk inherent with roadway work, FTA maintains the requirement for an annual RWP program audit. Annual audits ensure that the SSOA is involved and actively informed regarding the RTA's RWP program performance and provides a consistent and independent mechanism to verify that programs are being properly implemented and are achieving their intended safety outcomes. Thus, while an SSOA may incorporate the audit of the RWP program into an existing triennial audit of the RTA, it must conduct an RWP program audit on an annual basis.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations and to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including regulations with annual economic effects of $100 million or more. OMB has determined the rule is not significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866 and has not reviewed the rule under that order.

The final rule allows SSOAs to conduct their annual audits of RTA RWP programs simultaneously with other reviews. SSOAs could conduct the audits simultaneously with annual or triennial ASP reviews, for example, if the reviews meet RWP program audit requirements. The final rule also allows SSOAs to submit RWP program information with their annual reports rather than within 30 calendar days of approval.

The final rule will result in cost savings for SSOAs and RTAs by streamlining auditing requirements. The rule will affect 31 SSOAs and 64 RTAs in operation as of May 30, 2025. In 2024, FTA estimated that SSOAs would spend 40 hours auditing each RTA RWP program, for a total of 2,560 hours per year. FTA estimates that allowing SSOAs to conduct the audits with other reviews will reduce the time needed from 40 hours to 20 hours, or 1,280 hours total. Allowing SSOAs to submit RWP program information with annual reports could result in additional cost savings as well.

To estimate cost savings, FTA used May 2024 occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest available as of May 2025, in the “Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation” industry (North American Industry Classification System code 485000). 2 To estimate the wages of agency staff completing the auditing requirements, FTA used the “General and Operations Managers” job category (code 11-1021). FTA used median hourly wages ($42.45) as a basis for the estimates, multiplying the wages by 1.62 ($42.45 × 1.62 = $68.69) to account for employer benefits. 3

Over the next ten years, the rule will result in annual cost savings of $87,000 (1,280 hours × $68.69) in undiscounted 2024 dollars, $73,000 at a three percent discount rate, and $58,000 at a seven percent discount rate, discounted to 2024.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation Guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 25, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action with total costs less than zero.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small entities unless the agency determines that the regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The rule will streamline auditing and reporting requirements for SSOAs and RTAs. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, public-sector organizations and local governments qualify as small entities if they serve a population of less than 50,000. RTAs do not qualify as small entities because they all operate in urbanized areas with populations of more than 50,000, and SSOAs do not qualify because they are State agencies. This rule will have a small cost saving impact due to streamlining auditing and reporting requirements for SSOAs and RTAs. FTA has determined the final rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

FTA has determined that this rule will not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation, by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector.

E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and FTA determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) (PRA), and the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA will not seek a revision to an approved OMB information collection 2132-0584 as there is no change in burden or cost associated with this new regulatory action.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FTA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). This rulemaking, which extends the time period for State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOA) to report RWP programs to FTA and allows SSOAs to complete annual audits simultaneously with other required audits, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): “[p]lanning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance.” FTA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FTA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”) and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and will not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

FTA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review U.S. Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FTA amends title 49 CFR part 671, as set forth below:

Table of Contents

This final rule amends the PTSCTP regulation at 49 CFR part 672. The final rule maintains the existing minimum training requirements for SSOA employees and contractors who conduct reviews, inspections, examinations, and other safety oversight activities of public transportation systems, and employees and contractors who are directly responsible for the safety oversight of a rail fixed guideway public transportation system. This final rule reduces the burden of the reporting requirement in 49 CFR 672.21(d) by reducing the reporting frequency from semiannual to annual, and by removing the reference to reporting dates for additional reporting flexibility.

Congress directed FTA to create and implement a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program, one element of which is the requirement for PTSCTP, in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012), codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 5329(c) directed FTA to establish a PTSCTP for Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems and employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight.

To implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), FTA issued a final rule on July 19, 2018, which added part 672, “Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (83 FR 34053). Subsequently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58; November 15, 2021) added new requirements to FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program that FTA addressed in the PTSCTP curriculum through a final rule on August 14, 2024 (89 FR 65999). To ensure compliance with safety training requirements, the 2024 final rule established a semiannual reporting requirement at 49 CFR 672.21(d) for each SSOA and RTA to submit a current list of individuals designated as required PTSCTP participants, and the course or courses that the agency has identified as required for PTSCTP recertification.

On April 3, 2025, as part of its implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementation of the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Agenda,” issued on February 19, 2025, and E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation,” issued on January 31, 2025, DOT issued a request for information (RFI) seeking comments and information to assist DOT in identifying existing regulations, guidance, paperwork requirements, and other regulatory requirements to be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to meet statutory obligations and ensure the safety of the U.S. transportation system (90 FR 14953). In response to the RFI, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a nonprofit group that advocates for the interests of the public transportation industry in the United States, commented that the semiannual reporting requirement in 49 CFR 672.21(d) is an “undue burden” on transit agencies. APTA also noted that some SSOAs are implementing this requirement through the program standards they must establish under 49 CFR 674.27. Responsive to APTA's comment, and to achieve meaningful burden reduction, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 1, 2025, proposing to reduce the frequency of the reporting requirement from semiannual to annual (90 FR 28697). In this final rule, FTA is adopting the change as proposed.

FTA is amending 49 CFR 672.21(d) to require annual, rather than semiannual, reporting of compliance with safety training requirements.

FTA issued an NPRM for the PTSCTP on July 1, 2025. The public comment period for the NPRM closed on September 2, 2025. FTA received five comment submissions to the rulemaking docket. Commenters included States, transit agencies, industry associations, and a labor union. Some comments within these submissions were outside the scope of this rulemaking, and FTA does not respond to comments in this final rule that were outside the scope. FTA thanks the industry association that provided these comments and will take them into consideration for the future.

FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration when developing the final rule.

Comments: FTA received four comments in support of the proposed modification to § 672.21(d). Two industry associations commented that this modification will appreciably reduce the reporting burden. One RTA and one SSOA also expressed full support of FTA's proposed amendment. The RTA stated that this amendment will alleviate unnecessary administrative burden while maintaining accountability for compliance with PTSCTP requirements, improve efficiency, and advance regulatory streamlining consistent with E.O.s 14192 and 14219. It also stated that the change will preserve safety oversight integrity, as annual reporting is sufficient for FTA to track PTSCTP compliance.

One labor union strongly opposed FTA's proposal, arguing that semiannual reporting is an accountability mechanism ensuring agencies are attentive to safety training compliance and certification requirements. The commenter stated that changing this requirement to annual reporting would double the length of time during which noncompliance, errors, or omissions could continue undetected. They further argued the proposal would result in only “trivial” cost savings, and that the estimated burden reduction does not justify the risk of safety oversight gaps. The commenter recommended that FTA retain the current semiannual reporting requirement.

FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments supporting its proposal and agrees that this change will reduce the reporting burden for RTAs and SSOAs and improve efficiency. FTA appreciates the comment expressing concern with the proposed amendment; however, FTA disagrees that the proposal would create gaps in safety or oversight. The reporting requirement at § 672.21(d) is not the only accountability mechanism to ensure recipients comply with the PTSCTP safety training and certification requirements. FTA monitors compliance with PTSCTP requirements through the Certifications and Assurances for FTA Grants and Cooperative Agreements (Category 15), which is a required certification under §§ 672.31 and 674.39. SSOAs conduct oversight pursuant to the State Safety Oversight (SSO) regulation at § 674.27(a)(7), which requires SSOAs to ensure RTA compliance with PTSCTP requirements. FTA monitors each SSOA's compliance with these regulations through SSOA annual reporting to FTA and FTA's triennial audits of SSOAs under 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(10). FTA also may review a recipient's compliance with PTSCTP whenever it deems necessary, including investigating any specific allegations of noncompliance.

Based on FTA's experience administering the PTSCTP reporting requirements and feedback from the industry, including comments in this docket and APTA's comment on the RFI described in Section I.B above, FTA finds that the burden of semiannual reporting fails to outweigh the benefit. Annual reporting, combined with existing oversight mechanisms, is sufficient to oversee recipient compliance with PTSCTP requirements. Accordingly, FTA finds that reducing the frequency of reporting from semiannual to annual is justified and is finalizing the change as proposed.

E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits and costs of regulations and to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits when possible. This action does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action.” Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this action.

The amendment to the rule will reduce reporting requirements for SSOAs and RTAs subject to the PTSCTP. Previously, agencies were required to report information on designated participants and recertification courses semiannually to FTA; the amended rule reduces the frequency from semiannual to annual.

The reduced reporting requirements will result in cost savings for regulated entities. The requirements affect 31 SSOAs and 64 RTAs in operation as of March 1, 2023, for a total of 95 agencies. In the 2024 final rule, FTA estimated that an agency would spend four hours per year to fulfill semiannual reporting requirements, for a total of 380 hours per year across the 95 agencies. Reducing the frequency to annual reporting will result in total savings of 190 hours (380 hours ÷ 2) per year.

To estimate cost savings, FTA used May 2024 occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest available as of May 2025, in the “Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation” industry (North American Industry Classification System code 485000). 1 To estimate the wages of agency staff completing the auditing requirements, FTA used the “General and Operations Managers” job category (code 11-1021). FTA used median hourly wages ($42.45) as a basis for the estimates, multiplying the wages by 1.62 ($42.45 × 1.62 = $68.69) to account for employer benefits. 2

Over the next ten years, the rule will result in annual cost savings of $11,000 discounted at a three percent rate and $9,000 discounted at a seven percent rate in 2024 dollars.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation Guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 25, 2025) defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero and, therefore, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small entities unless the agency determines that the regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Act, public-sector organizations and local governments qualify as small entities if they serve a population of less than 50,000. RTAs do not qualify as small entities because they operate in urbanized areas with populations of more than 50,000, and SSOAs do not qualify because they are State agencies. Therefore, FTA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

FTA has determined that this final rule does not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more adjusted for inflation in any one year, adjusted for inflation, by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private sector.

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA) and the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is seeking approval from OMB for a currently approved information collection associated with a notice of proposed rulemaking. The information collection (IC) was previously approved on 10/31/2025. Since FTA is not changing the content of the information being collected but is reducing the burden hours, FTA will request a non-substantive change to align with this rulemaking. This submission reflects updated requirements that lower the responding burden hours and associated costs to recipients.

OMB Control Number: 2132-0578.

Type of Collection: Operators of public transportation systems.

Type of Review: OMB Clearance. Previously Approved Information Collection Request.

Summary of the Collection: The information collection (IC) provides minimum training requirements for Federal and State personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of transit systems and for transit agency personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight to enhance the technical proficiency.

Need for and Expected Use of the Information to be Collected: Collection of information for this program is necessary to ensure FTA grantees subject to the PTSCTP regulation certify compliance with training and recertification training requirements and allow FTA to monitor ongoing PTSCTP participation and compliance. The program establishes a uniform curriculum for safety training that consists of minimum requirements to enhance the technical proficiency of transit safety personnel.

Respondents: Respondents include State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail transit systems, rail transit agency personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight, and bus transit agency personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight.

Frequency: Annual, Periodic.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FTA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). This rulemaking, which reduces the regulatory burden on grant recipients by extending the baseline period to establish a waiver of certain administrative requirements, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4): “[p]lanning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance.” FTA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

FTA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and will not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

FTA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined this action is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477 (April 11, 2000).

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329 and 5334, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, the Federal Transit Administration amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 672, as set forth below:

NMFS and the Council manage the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, which includes scamp, yellowmouth grouper, and the species in the other SASWG complex, under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

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

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

On March 17, 2025, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 55 and requested public comment (90 FR 12287). On August 25, 2025, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 55 and requested public comment (90 FR 41365). NMFS approved Amendment 55 on June 9, 2025, pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed rule and Amendment 55 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. The management measures described in Amendment 55 and implemented by this final rule are summarized below.

Unless otherwise noted, all weights in this final rule are described in round weight.

The South Atlantic stock of scamp was assessed for the first time through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 68 Research Track (RT) assessment in September 2021 (SEDAR 68 RT (2021)). In 2020, the first stage of the SEDAR 68 data process was a Stock Identification (ID) Workshop (SEDAR 68 Stock ID Workshop (2020)), which concluded that scamp are very difficult to distinguish from yellowmouth grouper and, thus, much of the assessment data likely represents both species in unknown proportions. The SEDAR 68 Stock ID Workshop (2020) recommended that the stock assessment be conducted on both scamp and yellowmouth grouper jointly with the two species treated as a single complex because of the low level of yellowmouth grouper landings, the overlap of vessels that land each species, and the likelihood of misidentification between the species. This recommendation resulted in the SEDAR 68 Operational Assessment (OA), which was completed in 2022 (SEDAR 68 OA (2022)). The stock status for scamp and yellowmouth grouper was unknown prior to completion of the SEDAR 68 OA (2022). The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the SEDAR 68 OA (2022) at their April 2023 meeting. The assessment included data through 2021 and incorporated the revised landings estimates for recreational catch using the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES). The results of the SEDAR 68 OA assessment indicated that the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock is overfished but not undergoing overfishing. The SSC determined that the assessment was conducted using the best scientific information available and was adequate for determining stock status and supporting total fishing level recommendations. NMFS notified the Council of the overfished status of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock via letter dated September 21, 2023.

Following a notification from NMFS to the Council that a stock is overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to develop an action to rebuild the affected stock. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 55 to respond to the results of SEDAR 68 OA (2022).

Amendment 25 to the FMP (Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit Amendment) (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012) established single species and species complex annual catch limits (ACL) and AMs. Single species ACLs were established for assessed and targeted species, species where ACL = 0, and species that could not be placed in a complex based on the criteria below. Scamp was one of the species that met the criteria for a single species ACL. Complex ACLs for groups of species were established for other snapper-grouper species using associations based on one or more of the following: life history, catch statistics from commercial logbook and observer data, recreational headboat logbook and private/charter survey data, and fishery-independent data. Based on the criteria for complex ACLs in Amendment 25, yellowmouth grouper was included in the other SASWG complex along with red hind, rock hind, yellowfin grouper, coney, and graysby. Regulatory Amendment 13 to the FMP updated the commercial and recreational ACLs for select unassessed species including scamp and yellowmouth grouper (78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013). Amendment 29 to the FMP established the current commercial and recreational ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015).

This final rule removes yellowmouth grouper from the other SASWG complex and establishes a new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. For the new complex, this final rule establishes the total ACL, sector ACLs, recreational bag limits, commercial trip limits, and AMs. This final rule also revises the total ACL and sector ACLs for the species remaining within the other SASWG complex. Additionally, Amendment 55 establishes SDC and a rebuilding plan for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex.

Yellowmouth grouper has been part of the other SASWG complex containing rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, yellowmouth grouper, and yellowfin grouper. This final rule removes yellowmouth grouper from the other SASWG complex and establishes a new complex containing both scamp and yellowmouth grouper. Rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, and yellowfin grouper will remain in the reorganized other SASWG complex.

As described in Amendment 55, the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex equals the total ACL for the complex, and an ABC is established of 67,450 pounds (lb) (30,595 kilograms (kg)) for the 2025 fishing year; 72,200 lb (32,749 kg) for the 2026 fishing year; 75,050 lb (34,042 kg) for the 2027 fishing year; 77,900 lb (35,335 kg) for the 2028 fishing year; and 79,800 lb (36,197 kg) for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years. The ABC values reflect the SSC recommendations, which are based on the latest commercial landings data and recreational data from the MRIP-FES and are considered to be consistent with the best scientific information available. The Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 guidelines specify that Councils can choose to account for management uncertainty by setting the ACL less than the ABC but also state that ACLs may be set very close to or equal to the ABC. Amendment 55 sets the total ACL equal to the ABC for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. This level of removals is below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and the overfishing limit and is expected to ensure that overfishing will be prevented, the long-term average biomass will be near or above the biomass that would produce the MSY (B MSY ), and the overfished stock complex of scamp and yellowmouth grouper will be rebuilt within the rebuilding timeframe.

Amendment 55 revises the commercial and recreational sector allocations for scamp and yellowmouth grouper. The sector ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper established through Amendment 25 to the FMP have been based on commercial and recreational allocations of 69.36 percent and 30.64 percent, respectively, for scamp and 1.35 percent and 98.65 percent, respectively, for yellowmouth grouper (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). Those allocations were set using a formula of (0.5 * catch history) + (0.5 * current trend) where catch history is equal to the average landings of 1986 through 2008 and current trend is equal to the average landings of 2006 through 2008.

Amendment 55 set the commercial and recreational sector allocations for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex based on a new allocation formula known as the split reduction method that uses average landings over a more recent, 5-year time series and accounts for revised recreational landings estimates from the MRIP-FES. Beginning in 2025, the split reduction method allocates the total ACL to each sector based upon the distribution of total average landings during more recent time periods that better reflect the way the fishery is currently operating. The allocation is based on the 5-year total average of commercial and recreational (FES) landings from 2018 through 2022 and split the reduction needed from the current total ACL equitably between the sectors to achieve the reduction in harvest needed to constrain the harvest to the total ACL. In each subsequent year throughout the rebuilding plan, as the total ACL increases the ACL poundage increase is allocated equally between both sectors and added to each sector's respective ACL from the previous year. The commercial and recreational allocation percentages and sector ACLs will change each year from 2025 through 2029 and then remain set at the 2029 level. For the commercial sector, allocation percentages will decline from 64.90 to 62.59 percent through 2029, and for the recreational sector the allocation percentages will increase from 35.10 to 37.41 percent through 2029.

The current commercial and recreational ACLs for scamp are 219,375 lb (99,507 kg) and 116,369 lb (52,784 kg), respectively. Yellowmouth grouper is currently part of the other SASWG complex, and the commercial and recreational ACLs for the other SASWG complex are 55,542 lb (25,193 kg), and 48,648 lb (22,066 kg), respectively.

Amendment 55 uses the split reduction allocation method to more fairly deal with the initial reduction in ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper and proportionately reduces each sector's allowable catch based on recent landings so that the effect on each sector is more equitable. Similarly, the new allocations will balance the needs of both sectors and also increase each sector's allowable catch proportionately on a poundage basis throughout the rebuilding plan. The new sector allocation method distributes both fishing restrictions and recovery benefits for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex fairly and equitably between both sectors. In addition, this allocation method is also reasonably calculated to promote conservation, since it establishes sector catch limits within the boundaries of a total ACL that is based upon an ABC recommendation that would end overfishing and rebuild the stock complex, incorporating the best scientific information available.

When applying the new commercial sector allocation percentage, the revised commercial ACLs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex are 43,772 lb (19,855 kg) for the 2025 fishing year; 46,147 lb (20,932 kg) for the 2026 fishing year; 47,572 lb (21,578 kg) for the 2027 fishing year; 48,997 lb (22,225 kg) for the 2028 fishing year; and 49,947 lb (22,656 kg) for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years.

When applying the recreational sector allocation percentage, the revised recreational ACLs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex are 23,678 lb (10,740 kg) for the 2025 fishing year; 26,053 lb (11,817 kg) for the 2026 fishing year; 27,478 lb (12,464 kg) for the 2027 fishing year; 28,903 lb (13,110 kg) for the 2028 fishing year; and 29,853 lb (13,541 kg) for the 2029 and subsequent fishing years.

Currently, the recreational bag limit is three scamp or three yellowmouth grouper per person per day within the overall three-fish grouper and tilefish combined aggregate bag limit. This final rule establishes an aggregate complex bag limit of one fish (either scamp or yellowmouth grouper) per person per day within the overall three-fish grouper and tilefish combined aggregate bag limit.

Given the reduction in harvest needed to rebuild the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock, an aggregate bag limit for these species will continue to allow recreational retention while also helping to constrain recreational harvest to the reduced recreational ACL.

Currently, there is no commercial trip limit for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, either as individual species or as an aggregate of species. This final rule establishes an aggregate commercial trip limit for scamp and yellowmouth grouper of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight.

The new commercial trip limit is intended to keep the scamp and yellowmouth grouper portion of the snapper-grouper fishery open and available to fisherman and consumers for as long as possible while reducing harvest to ensure the rebuilding plan is achieved.

There are not currently any commercial AMs for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. For the new complex, this final rule establishes an in-season commercial closure for the remainder of the fishing year if the combined commercial landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of the complex. This final rule also establishes post-season AMs if the combined commercial landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper exceed the complex commercial ACL; regardless of stock status or whether the total ACL was exceeded, the commercial ACL of the complex for the following fishing year will be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.

To achieve rebuilding, it is important that the commercial AMs be as effective as possible in preventing commercial landings from exceeding the commercial ACL. An in-season closure and a post-season overage adjustment (payback) of the commercial ACL will ensure that commercial landings remain at or below the proposed commercial ACL.

This final rule establishes a post-season recreational AM. If the combined recreational landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper exceed the recreational ACL of the complex, then the length of the following year's recreational fishing season for the complex will be reduced by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded in the following year, regardless of stock status.

Recreational landings estimates are not timely enough for in-season monitoring of the complex. The new post-season AM is consistent with AMs established for similar snapper-grouper species, in which a season reduction is reliant on a single trigger: that recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL. When triggered, this post-season AM will be effective in constraining recreational landings from exceeding the recreational ACL during the following year.

The current ABC for the other SASWG complex that contains rock hind, red hind, coney, graysby, yellowmouth grouper, and yellowfin grouper is 104,190 lb (47,260 kg), and was implemented by Amendment 29 to the FMP (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015). The total ACL was set equal to the ABC and included recreational estimates from MRIP's Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS). The current commercial ACL is 55,542 lb (25,193 kg) and the recreational ACL is 48,648 lb (22,066 kg).

Amendment 55 does not change the ABC for the reorganized other SASWG complex and keeps it as 104,190 lb (47,260 kg). The revised total ACL for the reorganized other SASWG complex is 100,151 lb (45,428 kg) and retains recreational estimates from MRIP-CHTS in the estimation of the total ACL. The commercial ACL is 53,380 lb (24,213 kg), and the recreational ACL is 46,771 lb (21,215 kg). For the complex, while the ABC does not change with the removal of yellowmouth grouper from the complex, the total ACL is reduced by the amount that had been attributed to yellowmouth grouper. As a result of the statutory timeline required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it was decided not to update the ABC after the removal of yellowmouth grouper given the unassessed species remaining in the complex and extended timing that would have been needed to provide that update. The sector allocations for the other SASWG complex do not change in Amendment 55 and remain at 1.35 percent commercial and 98.65 percent recreational.

The species within the other SASWG complex are considered data limited, and none of the species in the complex have stock assessments. Following the SSC's Unassessed Stocks Workgroup meeting in 2020, an ABC was recommended; however, this catch level was determined by the SSC using the third highest landings and only reliable catch methodologies, which are both no longer considered best scientific information available. During the SSC's April 2023 meeting, the SSC recommended that the other SASWG complex ACL be modified while still retaining the MRIP-CHTS recreational estimates included in the estimation of the total ACL. The SSC also recommended that the other SASWG complex ABC and ACL be revised in the upcoming Unassessed Species Amendment using MRIP-FES recreational estimates. As the Unassessed Species Amendment is not expected to be completed until 2026 or later, an action to update the other SASWG complex ABC and ACL using MRIP-FES recreational data was not included in Amendment 55. The MRIP-FES based catch estimates for the other SASWG complex species have not yet been through a sufficient scientific review process, which the SSC determined was necessary prior to developing new ABCs and ACLs based on the FES data. Amendment 55 does not modify the current commercial or recreational AMs for the other SASWG complex (50 CFR 622.193(j)).

In addition to the measures within this final rule, Amendment 55 establishes biological reference points or SDC and a rebuilding plan for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock.

MSY is defined as the largest long-term average catch that can be taken from a stock under current conditions. Amendment 55 establishes the MSY proxy for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex as the yield when fishing at the fishing mortality rate (F) that produces a spawning potential ratio (SPR) of 40 percent. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have MSY proxies of F30%SPR; however, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) recommended an MSY proxy for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex of F40%SPR. As described in Amendment 55, the MSY proxy recommendation is to use F30%SPR for very resilient stocks and use F40%SPR for species with life-history characteristics consistent with scamp and yellowmouth grouper.

Based on information from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) that the best scientific information available recommends that F40%SPR is more likely than F30%SPR to achieve a level of biomass that will produce the MSY for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex, and Amendment 55 establishes the MSY proxy of F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex.

MFMT is defined as the level of fishing mortality above which overfishing is occurring. Amendment 55 establishes an MFMT equal to F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, with an estimated value of 0.28. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have an MFMT equal to the MSY proxy of F30%SPR; however, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) recommended an MFMT equal to the MSY proxy of the yield at F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex. The new MFMT is based on the best scientific information available and is consistent with the new MSY.

MSST is defined as the biomass level below which a stock is declared overfished. Amendment 55 establishes MSST equal to 75 percent of the spawning stock biomass (SSB) at F40%SPR, with a currently estimated value of 801.60 metric tons. Currently, scamp (individually) and yellowmouth grouper (as part of the other SASWG complex) have an MSST equal to the SSB at MSY (SSB MSY ) times either one minus the natural mortality (M) or 0.5, whichever is greater. However, SEDAR 68 OA (2022) defined the MSST as 75 percent of SSB at F40%SPR for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex. This new MSST for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock complex is based on the best scientific information available.

OY is the long-term average yield desired from a stock or fishery as reduced from MSY for the fishery based on relevant economic, social, and ecological factors. Amendment 55 establishes an OY of 95 percent MSY for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, which produces an OY of 353,670 lb (160,422 kg) and an MSY of 372,280 lb (168,863 kg). Uncertainty in landings estimates for scamp and yellowmouth grouper exists, but scientific uncertainty had been appropriately accounted for in the SSC's ABC recommendation, and the 5 percent buffer between OY and the MSY will account for the uncertainty in social, economic, and biological factors.

Amendment 55 establishes a 10-year rebuilding plan for the complex, which is the longest allowable rebuilding scenario (Tmax) allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act except in certain cases (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)(A)) and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 guidelines for stocks that are projected to rebuild in 10 years or less (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)( 1 )). The Council's preferred choice of the 10-year timeframe for rebuilding beginning in 2025 is intended to reduce the severity of the proposed rebuilding measures and thus minimize short-term negative social and economic impacts on fishing communities consistent with National Standard 8.

NMFS received seven comments on Amendment 55 and the proposed rule during their respective comment periods. Comments were received from individuals and the U.S. Seafood Policy Council. Most of the comments were in support of all, or parts of, Amendment 55 and the proposed rule, and NMFS agrees with those comments in support. Some comments received were not related to Amendment 55 or the proposed rule and are, therefore, not responded to in this final rule. Comments that suggested alternatives to the preferred alternatives in Amendment 55 and the proposed rule or questioned the rationale and analysis in the proposed rule are summarized and responded to below. No changes were made to this final rule based on public comment.

Comment 1: The proposed rule does not clearly articulate the scientific basis for separating yellowmouth grouper from the other SASWG complex beyond stock assessment data. Providing explicit population modeling results and genetic or ecological distinctions would strengthen stakeholder understanding of the reorganization of the complexes. SDCs for the complex are referenced without detailing threshold biomass or exploitation rate levels, and defining these SDCs quantitatively would enhance enforcement consistency and clarity to the public.

Response: The latest SEDAR stock assessment, the SEDAR 68 OA (2022), assessed scamp and yellowmouth grouper in the South Atlantic as a single stock due to the low level of yellowmouth grouper landings, the overlap of vessels that land each species, and the likelihood of misidentification between scamp and yellowmouth grouper. The assessment includes information on explicit population modeling results and genetic or ecological distinctions. SEDAR 68 OA (2022) provides the basis for the reorganization of the complex and the SSC found the assessment was conducted using the best scientific information available. Also, including yellowmouth grouper with scamp in a new complex will allow for future changes to catch levels and management measures necessary to efficiently address the overfished status of these two species based on the best scientific information available. Threshold biomass or exploitation rate levels for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex were included in SEDAR 68 OA (2022). SDC benchmarks are quantitatively described in both Amendment 55 and the proposed rule.

Comment 2: The sector ACLs for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex are described broadly in the proposed rule, but the methodology for determining allocations among commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries is not transparent. Providing details about the allocation formula and allocation assumptions would increase credibility and reduce disputes over fairness.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the ACL sector allocation information was not transparent in the proposed rule. The methodology for determining sector allocations is described in both Amendment 55 and the proposed rule. The commercial and recreational sector allocations for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex are based on the new split reduction method that uses average landings over a more recent, 5-year time series and accounts for revised recreational landings estimates from the MRIP-FES. This method proportionately distributes the reductions in total harvest needed for the complex between the commercial and recreational sectors based upon the distribution of landings under more recent time periods that better reflect the way the fishery is currently operating. As described in Amendment 55 and stated in the proposed rule, the sector allocations and sector ACLs are proportional to each sector's share of total average landings from 2018 through 2022 and split the reduction needed from the current total ACL equitably among the sectors to achieve the reduction in harvest needed to constrain the harvest to the total ACL. In subsequent years, as the total ACL increases the total ACL poundage increase will be split equally between both sectors and added to each sector's ACL from the previous year. This approach will in effect gradually shift the allocation between the sectors over time. The 2029 sector ACL values will remain in effect unless changed by future action. This sector allocation method more fairly deals with the initial reduction in ACLs for scamp and yellowmouth grouper that will result from the updated catch levels and reduces the proportion of each sector's allowable catch based on recent landings so that the effect on each sector is more equitable. Similarly, the new allocations will balance the needs of both sectors and increase each sector's allowable catch proportionately on a poundage basis throughout the rebuilding plan. The new sector allocation method distributes both fishing restrictions and recovery benefits for scamp and yellowmouth grouper fairly and equitably among both sectors in the new complex.

The FMP does not currently have any specific management measures for subsistence fishing, and there is no portion of the total ACL for either the new complex or the previously implemented other SASWG complex allocated to subsistence fishing. Amendment 55 did not consider any changes to which entities receive allocation, and although the commenter refers to a subsistence fishery, neither this comment nor any other suggested the creation of a new category for allocation of the ACL.

Comment 3: The success of the rebuilding plan for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex hinges on accurate biomass estimates and fishing mortality rates, but the proposed rule does not specify how these parameters will be updated during the rebuilding plan's implementation.

Response: Information on scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex is collected through both fishery dependent and independent methods such as logbooks, trip tickets, dock-side intercepts, mail-in surveys, headboat surveys, discard logbooks, and dealer reports. This information was used to estimate biomass and fishing mortality rates for the scamp and yellowmouth stocks through the SEDAR 68 OA 2022 assessment process, and it will be used to determine whether the rebuilding goals of the stock are being achieved through future assessments and updates.

Comment 4: The scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex AMs appear to focus on post-season overage adjustments, but proactive in-season monitoring and in-season closures are not discussed. Incorporating dynamic in-season AM triggers would help prevent overfishing before the applicable ACLs are exceeded.

Response: Amendment 55 and the proposed rule discuss in-season monitoring and in-season closures. Specifically, as described in Amendment 55 and the proposed rule, an in-season commercial closure will occur if commercial landings for the scamp and yellowmouth complex reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of the complex.

Additionally, as noted above, this final rule also establishes a post-season recreational AM. If the combined recreational landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper exceed the recreational ACL of the complex, then the length of the following year's recreational fishing season for the complex will be reduced by the amount necessary to prevent the recreational ACL from being exceeded. Recreational landings estimates are not timely enough for effective implementation of an in-season AM for the recreational sector. When triggered, this recreational post-season AM will be effective in constraining recreational landings from exceeding the recreational ACL during the following year. The combination of the commercial in-season and post-season AMs and the recreational post-season AM are expected to be effective in helping manage landings with respect to the sector ACLs and the overall stock health.

Comment 5: The economic impact analysis is limited in its treatment of potential short-term losses to specific fishing communities as the rebuilding plan takes effect. Adding a detailed socio-economic model by sector and geography would help target mitigation strategies.

Response: The combined social and economic analyses presented in Amendment 55 address sector-based effects and impacts and provide information on the geographical distribution of landings and affected fishing communities ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-55-establish-new-scamp-and-yellowmouth-grouper-complex-rebuilding-plan-catch ). The information presented on specific fishing communities is limited because of the need to preserve data confidentiality.

Comment 6: The proposed rule for Amendment 55 does not indicate whether bycatch and habitat interactions will be tracked as part of the management of the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. Integrating ecosystem-based monitoring would improve sustainability beyond single-species rebuilding targets.

Response: Data needed to evaluate bycatch and habitat interactions will continue to be collected for the new scamp and yellowmouth complex (see tracking of landings in response to Comment 3 ). Bycatch and habitat interactions are more fully described in Chapter 3, Appendix G (Bycatch Practicability Analysis), and Appendix E (Essential Fish Habitat and Ecosystem Based Fishery Management of Amendment 55). NMFS agrees that information on these and other ecosystem interactions can help to inform the development of an effective management strategy, such as the one proposed in Amendment 55 that is designed to rebuild scamp and yellowmouth grouper as a complex based on the best scientific information available (SEDAR 68 OA (2022)).

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 55, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

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

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604). The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. A description of this final rule, why it is being implemented, and the purpose of this final rule are contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this final rule.

Public comments relating to social and economic implications and potential impacts on small businesses are addressed in the responses to Comment 5 in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. No changes to this final rule were made in response to this public comment. No comments were received from the Office of Advocacy for the Small Business Administration.

This final rule will: (1) reorganize the other SASWG complex by removing yellowmouth grouper from it and establish a new South Atlantic scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, (2) establish the total ACL for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, (3) establish sector ACLs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex consistent with the sector allocations in Amendment 55, (4) establish an aggregate scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex recreational bag limit, (5) establish an aggregate commercial trip limit for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, (6) establish commercial AMs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, (7) establish recreational AMs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, and (8) revise the total ACL and sector ACLs for the other SASWG complex by removing the portions of the total and sector ACLs that are currently attributed to yellowmouth grouper.

Actions (1) through (3) and (8), above, apply to all commercial fishing businesses, charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) fishing businesses, and recreational fishers (anglers) that fish for scamp or yellowmouth grouper in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. Actions (4) and (7) apply only to for-hire fishing businesses and recreational anglers. Finally, actions (5) and (6) apply only to commercial fishing businesses. None of the changes implemented by this final rule directly apply to federally-permitted dealers. Any change in the supply of scamp or yellowmouth grouper available for purchase by dealers and associated economic effects as a result of this final rule would be indirect effects and would, therefore, fall outside the scope of the RFA.

Although many components of this final rule apply to for-hire vessels, they are not expected to have any direct effects on these entities. For-hire vessels sell fishing services to recreational anglers. The changes to the scamp and yellowmouth grouper catch limits and management measures are not expected to directly alter the services sold by these vessels. Any change in demand for these fishing services, and associated economic effects, as a result of this final rule would be a consequence of a change in anglers' behavior and would, therefore, be indirect. Based on the historically-minimal level of recreational target effort for scamp and yellowmouth grouper in the South Atlantic and the number of substitute species available, NMFS does not expect any change in for-hire trip demand to result from this final rule; however, should it occur, the associated indirect effects would fall outside the scope of the RFA. For-hire captains and crew are currently permitted to retain scamp and yellowmouth grouper under the recreational bag limits; however, they are not permitted to sell these fish. As such, for-hire captains and crew are affected only insofar as they fish themselves as recreational anglers.

For purposes of the RFA, recreational anglers are not considered to be entities, so they are also outside the scope of this FRFA. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (see 5 U.S.C. 601(3) through (6)). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. Therefore, the remainder of this analysis focuses on the impacts on commercial vessels.

As of August 26, 2021, there were 579 valid or renewable South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits and 112 valid or renewable 225-lb (102.1 kg) trip-limited permits. On average from 2018 through 2022, there were 137 federally-permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of scamp or yellowmouth grouper in the South Atlantic. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2018 through 2022 was $82,458 (2022 dollars), and scamp and yellowmouth grouper accounted for approximately 4.1 percent of this revenue. For commercial vessels that harvest scamp or yellowmouth grouper in the South Atlantic, NMFS estimates that economic profits are −$742 (2022 dollars) or −0.9 percent of annual gross revenue, on average. The negative value for economic profits presented here does not necessarily mean the average business is operating at a loss in an accounting sense; rather, the owner is not being fully compensated for their time or asset depreciation when compared to the next best use of their labor and capital resources. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single vessel that harvested scamp and yellowmouth grouper from 2018 through 2022 was $441,332 (2022 dollars).

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this final rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard. No other small entities that will be directly affected by this final rule have been identified.

This final rule will reorganize the other SASWG complex by removing yellowmouth grouper from it and establishing a new South Atlantic scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. These changes will not directly constrain harvest or fishing effort and therefore have no direct effects on small entities.

This final rule will also establish a total ACL for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex based on the most recent recommendations from the SSC in response to the SEDAR 68 OA in 2022 for scamp and yellowmouth grouper. These catch limits reflect a shift in recreational reporting units from the MRIP-CHTS to the MRIP-FES. The total ACL will be set equal to the ABC in each year of the rebuilding plan according to the values provided in table 1. The 2029 values will remain in effect unless changed by a future action. Because the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex has not yet been established and there are no sector allocations for the complex, a hypothetical status quo allocation of 64.90 percent of the total ACL, based on the average landings distribution by sector from 2018 through 2022, is used in Amendment 55 to calculate a de facto commercial ACL. This allows for a rough assessment of how commercial landings for scamp and yellowmouth grouper may change under the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex total ACL and absent the establishment of sector allocations or ACLs. Relative to the 5-year average (2018 through 2022) historical landings of 75,540 lb (34,264 kg) and applying a hypothetical commercial sector allocation of 64.90 percent, the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper total ACL would result in an expected decrease in commercial landings during the rebuilding timeframe, as shown in table 1. As discussed below, Amendment 55 and this final rule will also establish commercial and recreational allocation percentages and sector ACLs, and, therefore, economic effects to small entities are quantified as part of that discussion.

Amendment 55 and this final rule will set scamp and yellowmouth grouper sector allocations and sector ACLs in 2025 proportional to each sector's share of total average landings (commercial and recreational combined) from 2018 through 2022 (table 2). In subsequent years, as the total ACL increases, the total ACL poundage increase will be split equally between both sectors and added to each sector's ACL from the previous year. This approach will in effect gradually shift the allocation percentages over time. The 2029 values will remain in effect unless changed by future action. As shown in table 2, the combined economic effects of the new ACLs in conjunction with the revisions to the commercial allocation are estimated to be negative but modestly improving from 2025 through 2029. In 2029 and subsequent years, ex-vessel revenues are estimated to be static. This analysis utilizes a round weight to gutted weight conversion factor of 1.18 and an average ex-vessel price of $7.44 per lb, gutted weight (2022 dollars). This analysis also assumes the full commercial ACL will be harvested each year and that commercial ACL is compared to average annual commercial landings from 2018 through 2022. The average per-vessel estimates are calculated by dividing the total estimated change in ex-vessel revenue by the average number of vessels with reported landings of scamp and yellowmouth grouper from 2018 through 2022. On average from 2025 through 2029, the per vessel loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated to be $1,300 per year (less than 2 percent of average annual per vessel revenue). It is noted that scamp and yellowmouth grouper make up a relatively small portion of annual gross revenue for vessels that land these species (4.1 percent), and on trips where these species are harvested, they comprise less than 11 percent of trip revenue on average (2018 to 2022). Additionally, anecdotal information suggests these species are not typically targeted but are often caught while fishing for other snapper-grouper species. Therefore, NMFS assumes scamp and yellowmouth grouper are harvested as secondary, if not incidental, species on trips targeting other species and that this final rule will not materially affect fishing behavior, effort, or operating costs. As a result, the estimated reductions in annual ex-vessel revenue shown in table 2 are assumed to be straight losses in per vessel annual economic profits ranging from $1,178 to $1,462 (2022 dollars). These decreases will exacerbate the already negative average economic profits of affected small entities. Individual fishing businesses, however, may experience varying levels of economic effects, depending on their overall fishing practices, operating characteristics, and profit maximization strategies.

In addition to the changes mentioned above, this final rule will establish an aggregate commercial trip limit of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, for scamp and yellowmouth grouper. Under status quo management, where yellowmouth grouper is included in the other SASWG complex and scamp is managed individually, implementation of this commercial trip limit would be expected to reduce commercial scamp and yellowmouth grouper landings by 7.96 percent or 5,096 lb (2,312 kg), gutted weight, per year. This reduction in landings would represent an estimated annual loss of $37,912 (2022 dollars) in ex-vessel revenue and economic profits to the commercial sector. However, the commercial trip limit will be established in conjunction with the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex commercial ACLs (table 2), and NMFS expects the commercial sector to fully harvest its ACL during each year of the rebuilding timeframe, even with the proposed 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in place. Therefore, these economic effects are subsumed under those described for the new complex allocations and commercial ACLs (table 2). In general, reducing the commercial trip limit, even if aggregate landings and ex-vessel revenue remain the same, may reduce the economic efficiency of individual trips, which may have negative consequences on economic profits. These effects cannot be quantified with existing data.

This final rule will also establish commercial AMs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, such that if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, commercial harvest of scamp and yellowmouth grouper will be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. In addition, under the commercial AMs implemented by this final rule, if commercial landings of the complex exceed the commercial ACL of the complex, regardless of stock status or whether the total ACL was exceeded, the commercial ACL for the following fishing year will be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year. These AMs will help ensure that commercial landings are constrained to the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex commercial ACLs. In the event of an overage of the commercial ACL of the complex, commercial fishing businesses would be expected to experience reduced landings, ex-vessel revenue, and economic profits in the following year due to a reduced commercial ACL; however, this reduction would be at least partially offset by the additional landings that occurred over and above the commercial ACL in the year of the overage. These effects cannot be quantified with available data.

Finally, this final rule revises the total ACL and sector ACLs for the other SASWG complex by subtracting the 4,039 lb (1,832 kg) from the total ACL that is currently attributed to yellowmouth grouper. The new total ACL will be 100,151 lb (45,428 kg). Applying the current sector allocations for the other SASWG complex of 53.3 percent commercial and 46.7 percent recreational, the new commercial ACL for that complex is 53,380 lb (24,213 kg) and the new recreational ACL is 46,771 lb (21,215 kg). Because the reductions to the total and sector ACLs for the other SASWG complex are equivalent to only what is currently attributed to yellowmouth grouper, no additional economic effects relative to those already described above for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex are expected.

Three alternatives were considered for the action to establish an ABC and total ACL for the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish an ABC or total ACL and, therefore, would not be expected to constrain harvest or result in direct economic effects when compared to recent 5-year average landings and the existing separate ACLs for the two grouper species. This alternative was not selected because it would be inconsistent with the SSC's latest catch limit recommendations for scamp and yellowmouth grouper, the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the proposed new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex, and the transition to the MRIP-FES.

The second alternative to the action to establish an ABC and total ACL for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex would adopt the revised ABCs recommended by the SSC and set the total ACL equal to 95 percent of the ABC as opposed to 100 percent of the ABC in the preferred alternative. The change in weight (lb/kg) between the total ACLs under this alternative and the total ACLs in this final rule, along with the expected change in ex-vessel revenue, are provided in table 3. Relative to the total ACLs set by this final rule and assuming a hypothetical commercial allocation of 64.90 percent (based on the distribution of historical landings by sector from 2018 through 2022), this alternative would reduce the de facto commercial ACL by a range of 2,188 lb (992 kg) in 2025 to 2,589 lb (1,174 kg) in 2029 and subsequent years (table 3). Assuming the commercial ACL would be harvested in full under either the total ACLs implemented by this final rule or the second alternative to the total ACL action, this difference translates to an additional loss in ex-vessel revenue and economic profits of $13,797 (2022 dollars) to $16,326 or $15,237 on average (2025 through 2029). The second alternative was not selected because (1) it would be less effective at achieving the objectives of the FMP and (2) the current ACL monitoring mechanisms in the South Atlantic, coupled with the existing and new management measures, are sufficient to prevent overages of the total ACL and thus do not require a buffer between the ABC and total ACL.

The third alternative to the action to establish an ABC and total ACL for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex would adopt the revised ABCs recommended by the SSC and set the total ACL equal to 90 percent of the ABC as opposed to 100 percent of the ABC in the preferred alternative. The change in weight (lb/kg) between the total ACLs under this alternative and the total ACLs in this final rule, along with the expected change in ex-vessel revenue, are provided in table 4. Relative to the total ACLs set by this final rule and assuming a hypothetical commercial allocation of 64.90 percent (based on the distribution of historical landings by sector from 2018 through 2022), this third alternative would reduce the de facto commercial ACL by a range of 4,377 lb (1,985 kg) in 2025 to 5,179 lb (2,349 kg) in 2029 and subsequent years (table 4). Assuming the commercial ACL would be harvested in full under either the total ACLs implemented by this final rule or the third alternative to the total ACL action, this difference translates to an additional loss in ex-vessel revenue and economic profits of $27,599 (2022 dollars) to $32,652 or $30,475 on average (2025 through 2029). The third alternative was not selected because (1) it would be less effective at achieving the objectives of the FMP and (2) that the current ACL monitoring mechanisms in the South Atlantic, coupled with the existing and new management measures, will be sufficient to prevent overages of the total ACL; therefore, a buffer between the ABC and the total ACL as provided in alternative 3 is not required.

Two alternatives were considered for the action to establish scamp and yellowmouth grouper sector allocations and sector ACLs. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not set sector allocations, and thus commercial and recreational landings combined would be constrained by the total ACL, as opposed to having individual commercial and recreational ACLs. As a result, it is assumed that the proportion of the total ACL harvested by each sector would remain similar to the recent 5-year average of landings (2018 through 2022), with the commercial sector accounting for 64.90 percent of the total ACL. Relative to the allocation set by this final rule, this alternative, when applied to the new total ACLs in table 1, would result in an increase in ex-vessel revenue and economic profits that ranges from $0 to $11,599 (table 5) or $6,602 on average (2025 through 2029). The first alternative to the sector ACLs set in this final rule was not selected because this alternative would not establish sector allocations and, therefore, would not be as effective at achieving the objectives of the FMP and would not align with the purpose of this final rule and Amendment 55.

The second alternative to the allocation implemented by this final rule would set scamp and yellowmouth grouper sector allocations and sector ACLs in 2025 proportional to each sector's share of total average landings (commercial and recreational combined) from 2013 through 2022 (table 6). In subsequent years, as the total ACL increases, the total ACL poundage increase would be split equally between both sectors and added to each sector's ACL from the previous year. This second alternative would in effect gradually shift the allocation percentages over time. The 2029 values would remain in effect unless changed by future action. Relative to the allocation set by this final rule, this second alternative, when applied to the new total ACLs in table 1, would result in an average annual decrease in ex-vessel revenue and economic profits of approximately $6,379 (table 6). The second alternative to the sector ACLs set in this final rule was not selected because the 10-year average used to calculate the initial allocation in 2025 was less representative of the current fishery and, therefore, would be less effective at achieving the objectives of the FMP.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to establish a commercial trip limit of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish a commercial trip limit. Therefore, it would not be expected to change fishing practices or commercial harvests of scamp and yellowmouth grouper, nor would it be expected to result in direct economic effects. This alternative was not chosen because it would be less effective at constraining harvest to the commercial catch levels set by this final rule and would lead to a shorter commercial fishing season.

The second alternative to the commercial trip limit of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, would set the commercial trip limit at 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight. Under status quo management, under which yellowmouth grouper is included in the other SASWG complex and scamp is managed individually, implementation of a 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit would be expected to reduce commercial scamp and yellowmouth grouper landings by 16.52 percent or 10,576 lb (4,797 kg) per year. Relative to the commercial trip limit implemented by this final rule, this second alternative would result in an estimated annual reduction in ex-vessel revenue and economic profit that is $40,770 (2022 dollars) greater. However, this second alternative would be established in conjunction with the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex commercial ACLs (table 2), and NMFS expects the commercial sector would fully harvest its ACL each year of the rebuilding timeframe, even with a 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in place. Therefore, the economic effects of the lower trip limit would be subsumed under those described for the allocations and commercial ACLs set by this final rule (table 2). In general, a lower commercial trip limit may reduce economic efficiency on commercial trips, which may lead to a reduction in economic profits. These effects cannot be quantified with existing data. This alternative was not chosen because the lower trip limit would make trips to catch scamp and yellowmouth grouper too costly and inefficient.

The third alternative to the commercial trip limit of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, would set the commercial trip limit at 400 lb (181 kg), gutted weight. Under status quo management, implementation of a 400 lb (181 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit would be expected to reduce commercial scamp and yellowmouth grouper landings by 4.35 percent or 2,785 lb (1,263 kg) per year. Relative to the commercial trip limit implemented by this final rule, this alternative would result in an estimated annual reduction in ex-vessel revenue and economic profit that is $17,194 (2022 dollars) smaller. However, the commercial trip limit would be established in conjunction with the new commercial ACLs (table 2), and NMFS expects the commercial sector would fully harvest its ACL each year of the rebuilding timeframe with a 400 lb (181 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in place. Therefore, these economic effects would be the same as those described for the allocations and commercial ACLs set by this final rule (table 2). In general, a less restrictive commercial trip limit may increase economic efficiency on commercial trips, which may lead to an increase in economic profits. These effects cannot be quantified with existing data. This alternative was not chosen because it would be less effective at constraining harvest to the commercial catch levels set by this final rule and would lead to a shorter commercial fishing season.

The fourth alternative to the commercial trip limit of 300 lb (136 kg), gutted weight, would set the commercial trip limit at 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight. Under status quo management, implementation of a 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit would be expected to reduce commercial scamp and yellowmouth grouper landings by 2.46 percent or 1,575 lb (714 kg) per year. Relative to the commercial trip limit implemented by this final rule, this alternative would result in an estimated annual reduction in ex-vessel revenue and economic profit that is $26,196 (2022 dollars) smaller. However, the commercial trip limit would be established in conjunction with the new commercial ACLs (table 2), and NMFS expects the commercial sector would fully harvest its ACL each year of the rebuilding timeframe with a 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in place. Therefore, these economic effects would be the same as those described for the allocations and commercial ACLs set by this final rule (table 2). Again, a less restrictive commercial trip limit may increase economic efficiency on commercial trips, which may lead to an increase in economic profits. These effects cannot be quantified with existing data. This alternative was not chosen because it would be less effective at constraining harvest to the commercial catch levels implemented by this final rule and would lead to a shorter commercial fishing season.

Two alternatives were considered for the action to establish commercial AMs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish commercial AMs and, therefore, would have no direct economic effects on any small entities. This alternative was not chosen because the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires AMs.

The second alternative to the commercial AMs action would establish commercial AMs for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex such that if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, commercial harvest of scamp and yellowmouth grouper would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. Under this alternative, if commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL, the total ACL is exceeded, and the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex is overfished, the commercial ACL for the following fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year. This second alternative would be less likely to result in an overage adjustment (payback) of commercial ACL overages than the commercial AMs implemented by this final rule because, under this second alternative, the overage adjustments wouldn't be triggered unless additional conditions are met. As a result, the second alternative would be less likely to negatively impact commercial fishing businesses through reduced commercial ACLs in years following commercial ACL overages. This alternative was not chosen because it would be less effective at constraining harvest to the commercial catch levels, thereby reducing protection to the scamp and yellowmouth grouper stock.

Finally, one alternative was considered for the action to revise the total ACL and sector ACL for the other SASWG complex. This alternative, the no action alternative, would not adjust the other SASWG complex total and sector ACL to account for the removal of yellowmouth grouper from the complex. The total ACL for this complex would remain at 104,190 lb (47,260 kg) and the commercial ACL would remain at 55,542 lb (25,193 kg). This alternative was not selected because it would retain catch levels that are inclusive of yellowmouth grouper and would, therefore, be inconsistent with the new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex and associated catch levels that are implemented by this final rule. Under this alternative, catch levels for the remaining species in the other SASWG complex would be too high, would not provide adequate protection to those stocks, and would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the FMP.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency will publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and will designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency will explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a fishery bulletin to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. This final rule and the guide ( i.e., bulletin) will be available on the Southeast Regional Office website (see ADDRESSES ). Hard copies of the guide and this final rule will be available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule. This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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