The FDIC is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed rule) to implement appropriate BSA and sanctions compliance standards applicable to FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs) pursuant to the GENIUS Act (or the Act). 1 The proposed rule aims to establish appropriate principles-based BSA and sanctions compliance requirements and standards that are tailored to the business model and risk profile of PPSIs and consistent with applicable law, which includes requirements promulgated by the United States Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The FDIC believes the proposed rule would establish supervisory expectations for PPSIs, help combat illicit finance risk, and continue to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets and related technologies in the banking sector. 2

The GENIUS Act requires the FDIC, along with the other primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators  3 and the Department of Treasury, to implement regulations to carry out the Act's requirements in establishing a Federal payment stablecoin regulatory framework for supervised entities. 4 The FDIC is the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator of PPSIs that are subsidiaries of insured State nonmember banks and State savings associations that have been approved by the FDIC to issue payment stablecoins.

On April 10, 2026, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would, among other things, establish a prudential framework pursuant to the GENIUS Act for FDIC-supervised PPSIs, including requirements related to reserve assets, redemption, capital, and risk management standards. 5 This proposed rule would implement additional GENIUS Act requirements for PPSIs, specifically BSA and sanctions compliance standards, as well as supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs.

To implement the BSA and sanctions compliance standards required by the GENIUS Act, the proposed rule would amend part 350 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations. 6 First, the proposed rule would amend subpart A of part 350 to add a provision to address PPSI BSA and sanctions compliance standards. Second, the proposed rule would establish subpart C of part 350 to add supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs.

Section 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(4)(A)(iv)) provides that the FDIC must issue regulations implementing appropriate operational, compliance, and information technology risk management principles-based requirements and standards, including BSA and sanctions compliance standards, that are tailored to the business model and risk profile of PPSIs and consistent with applicable law.

Proposed § 350.6(d) would address compliance with BSA and sanctions standards, such that each PPSI would be required to comply with applicable regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V and 31 CFR Chapter X, including any AML/CFT program, economic sanctions program, and reporting requirements. On April 10, 2026, FinCEN and OFAC issued a separate proposed rule that would implement the GENIUS Act's directive to treat PPSIs as financial institutions under the BSA, as well as impose several obligations specifically required by the GENIUS Act. 7 The FinCEN and OFAC proposed rule would also implement the GENIUS Act's directive to require PPSIs to maintain effective economic sanctions compliance programs. FinCEN and the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators are also issuing a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would require PPSIs to maintain an effective customer identification program (CIP) as required by the GENIUS Act. Proposed § 350.6(d) would require a PPSI to comply with such CIP requirements.

The FDIC requests comment on the requirements contained in proposed § 350.6(d).

The FDIC proposes to establish subpart C of part 350 to add supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs. The provisions complement the FDIC's enforcement authorities under the GENIUS Act, section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) (12 U.S.C. 1818), and other applicable law. The proposed rule defines key terms, describes the FDIC's enforcement and supervision approach with respect to AML/CFT program deficiencies, and establishes a consultation process between FinCEN and the FDIC relating to AML/CFT enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT supervisory actions.

Proposed § 350.200 would define several terms used throughout the section. The term “AML/CFT requirement” would mean a requirement of the Bank Secrecy Act (as that term is defined below) or of the regulations in title 31, chapter X applicable to PPSIs.

The term “AML/CFT enforcement action” would mean any formal or informal action taken by the FDIC under authority of 12 U.S.C. 5905, 12 U.S.C. 1818, or other applicable law that seeks to penalize, remedy, prevent, or respond to noncompliance with past or ongoing violations of, or past or ongoing deficiencies relating to, an AML/CFT requirement. The term includes a cease-and-desist order, written agreement, consent order, or memorandum of understanding, or the assessment of a civil money penalty. It does not include criminal enforcement.

The term “AML/CFT requirement” would mean a requirement provided under (i) the BSA or applicable regulations at 31 CFR chapter X; (ii) 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(5)(A)(i)-(v), 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(6)(B), or 12 U.S.C. 5903(f)(1); or (iii) 12 U.S.C. 1818(s) or this section.

The term “Bank Secrecy Act” would mean (i) section 21 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b); (ii) Chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq. ); and (iii) Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code and notes thereto (31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq. ). This definition is consistent with the definition provided in section 2(2) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(2)).

The term “FinCEN” would mean the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury.

The term “significant AML/CFT supervisory action” would mean any written communication or other formal supervisory determination issued by the FDIC that identifies one or more alleged deficiencies, weaknesses, violations of law, or unsafe or unsound practices or conditions relating to an AML/CFT requirement; communicates supervisory expectations to a PPSI regarding actions or remedial measures required to correct the deficiency, weakness, violation, or practice or condition; and contemplates significant or programmatic actions or remedial measures to be taken by the PPSI. The term does not include examiner observations, suggestions, or other informal comments.

The proposed rule would articulate the FDIC's enforcement and supervision policy as it relates to AML/CFT programs. Except with respect to a significant or systemic failure to implement an effective AML/CFT program in accordance with applicable regulations at 31 CFR Chapter X issued by FinCEN, a PPSI that has established an effective AML/CFT program would not be subject to an AML/CFT enforcement action or to a significant AML/CFT supervisory action based on the program requirements issued by FinCEN. At the same time, the proposed rule would clarify that nothing would restrict an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT supervisory action with respect to a failure to establish an effective AML/CFT program. The FDIC's proposed enforcement and supervisory approach is not intended to affect criminal enforcement liability under the BSA.

The proposed rule would establish a notice and consultation framework applicable when the FDIC intends to initiate an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT supervisory action, as those terms are defined in the proposed rule. Under such a consultation framework, before initiating such actions, the FDIC would provide the Director of FinCEN with an opportunity to review the proposed action and would consider any input offered by the Director of FinCEN, which may include any view as to the effectiveness of the PPSI's AML/CFT program. To facilitate that review, the FDIC would be required to provide written notice to the FinCEN Director of the FDIC's intent to take the action at least 30 days in advance of the proposed action, unless a shorter period is necessary, at the sole discretion of the FDIC, to remedy, prevent, or respond to an unsafe or unsound practice or condition.

Such a notice would be accompanied by the relevant AML/CFT information underlying the proposed action. Relevant AML/CFT information may include, but is not limited to, relevant portions of a draft report of examination; relevant portions of a draft enforcement action; examination workpapers supporting the proposed action; and the relevant AML/CFT information submitted by the PPSI to the FDIC. The FDIC would not be obligated to provide information over which the PPSI may claim privilege under Federal or State law. The FDIC would also respond, to the extent reasonably practicable, to requests for additional AML/CFT information from the FinCEN Director regarding the proposed action. The FDIC seeks comments on such a proposed consultation framework.

The FDIC has issued regulations that generally prohibit the disclosure of the FDIC's non-public information, except as provided under such regulations. 8 This prohibition generally applies to disclosure of any portion of a report of examination, supervisory correspondence, and any representations concerning such reports or supervisory correspondence, or their findings, including conclusions regarding compliance with AML/CFT compliance program requirements.

Consistent with the proposed rule's objective of enhancing FinCEN's role in the AML/CFT enforcement and supervisory process, the proposed rule would clarify that PPSIs may share any information with the FinCEN Director that relates to an existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/CFT supervisory action. This proposed rule specifically provides that this authorization to share information includes information that would ordinarily be considered non-public information under the FDIC's rules. To qualify for this information sharing, the information at issue must have an appropriate nexus to an existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/CFT supervisory action. The FDIC is proposing this clarification to ensure that PPSIs can share appropriate information with the FinCEN Director, including in the context of actions subject to the proposed consultation requirement. Otherwise, PPSIs may be unable to provide thorough information to the FinCEN Director, whether proactively or in response to the Director's requests. Given that under the proposed rule the FDIC would provide the relevant AML/CFT information directly to FinCEN, the FDIC proposes to continue to apply its current regulations and information-sharing agreements with FinCEN that govern the disclosure of non-public information as it has done in the past.

While the proposed rule intends to permit such sharing, the FDIC is proposing two alternative methods for permitting such information sharing with the FinCEN Director. Under the first approach, referred to as Option 1 in the proposed § 350.203, the FDIC would authorize the disclosure of covered information on the FDIC's behalf to the FinCEN Director and separately permit the FinCEN Director to use such information. This phrasing is intended to mirror the permissible scope of information sharing by the FDIC under 12 U.S.C. 1821(t), which provides that a “covered agency, in any capacity, shall not be deemed to have waived any privilege applicable to any information by transferring that information to or permitting that information to be used by” another Federal agency.

Under the alternative approach, referred to as Option 2 in proposed § 350.203, the FDIC would similarly authorize the disclosure of covered information on the FDIC's behalf, as well as similarly authorize the use of such information by the FinCEN Director. The FDIC, however, would expressly require that any such information shared on the FDIC's behalf be contemporaneously disclosed by the PPSI to the FDIC. While the FDIC will necessarily already have access to its own non-public information, this additional requirement is potentially more consistent with the retention of privilege contemplated under 12 U.S.C. 1821(t) and, therefore, potentially provides a greater safeguard against the unintended destruction of privilege. The FDIC also recognizes that PPSIs' willingness to share timely, thorough information with the FinCEN Director is essential to the success of the consultation framework; and requiring PPSIs to contemporaneously disclose to the FDIC the same non-public information they provide to FinCEN may discourage proactive reporting and thereby undermine the proposed rule's objective of enhancing FinCEN's role.

Importantly, both options outlined above permit only the FinCEN Director to use the FDIC's non-public information. This authorization to use the information does not include an authorization by the FDIC to further disclose the received non-public information. Any dissemination by a PPSI to a party other than the FinCEN Director or by the FinCEN Director to any party would be subject to the FDIC's rules governing disclosure of non-public information.

Regardless, the proposed rule would include additional clarifying text intended to preserve all applicable privileges. The destruction of privilege over non-public supervisory information could prove harmful both to the FDIC and the PPSI, so the additional language is intended to prevent such consequences.

The FDIC invites comment on these options for permitting greater information sharing with the FinCEN Director regarding existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT supervisory actions, including possible alternative methods of accomplishing the proposed rule's objectives without unintentionally impeding applicable privileges.

The FDIC is proposing to include a severability clause in proposed § 350.204, which would provide that the provisions of proposed part 350, subpart C are separate and severable from one another. In the event a court stays a particular provision of this rule or determines any provision is invalid, the FDIC intends that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.

The FDIC requests comment on the requirements contained in proposed part 350, subpart C, including the following:

Question 1: Should the FDIC further refine or clarify any of the concepts or definitions outlined in the proposed supervision and enforcement provisions?

Question 2: Do any aspects of the GENIUS Act framework with regards to supervision, examination, and enforcement need to be better accounted for with the inclusion of a consultation process when the FDIC intends to take an AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/CFT supervisory action? For example, should the definition of AML/CFT enforcement action and this framework account for suspension or revocation under section 6(b) of the GENIUS Act, (12 U.S.C. 5905(b)), based in whole or in part on AML/CFT deficiencies?

Question 3: Should the proposed consultation process include an asset threshold— e.g., consultation is required for any significant AML/CFT supervisory actions involving PPSIs with $10 billion or more in outstanding issuance value? In addition, or as an alternative, should the proposed rule not require but instead provide the option for PPSIs to request that the FDIC consult with FinCEN prior to initiating a significant AML/CFT supervisory action, if the PPSI is aware of a potential enforcement action?

Question 4: Notwithstanding the benefits of the proposed consultation described above, the proposal may result in additional review during an examination. How can the consultation process be streamlined and prevent logistical burdens for PPSIs or delays in exam report issuance?

Question 5: The FDIC invites comment on the two options for permitting greater information sharing with the FinCEN Director regarding AML/CFT enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT supervisory actions. In particular, would the disclosure of confidential supervisory information to FinCEN compromise attorney-client privilege, other applicable privileges, or otherwise undermine the preservation of privilege in 12 U.S.C. 1821(t)?

The proposed rule would implement BSA and sanctions compliance standards as required by the GENIUS Act, as well as establish supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs. In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, 9 the FDIC estimates the economic impact of the proposed rule by comparing expected outcomes under the proposed rule to expected outcomes under a baseline absent the proposed rule. Under the baseline, it is assumed that all other rulemakings implementing the GENIUS Act with respect to FDIC-supervised PPSIs are enacted, 10 allowing the analysis to focus on the effects that would be specific to the proposed rule. For its analysis, the FDIC utilizes all other relevant laws and regulations in effect, as well as the financial and economic conditions of FDIC-supervised entities, 11 as of September 30, 2025.

Overall, the proposed rule is expected to enhance the effectiveness, consistency, and supervisory clarity of BSA and sanctions compliance for PPSIs supervised by the FDIC, relative to the baseline. Given that all FDIC-supervised PPSIs would be subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised institutions, the proposed rule would not impose significant incremental regulatory burden beyond what parent institutions already incur.

The entities that fall under the direct scope of the proposed rule are all FDIC-supervised PPSIs. As of the quarter ending September 30, 2025, the FDIC insures 4,388 insured depository institutions (IDIs), supervises 2,778 of these IDIs, 12 and supervises zero PPSIs.

The FDIC recognizes the significant uncertainty regarding estimates of the number of FDIC-supervised PPSIs under the proposed rule. Because the regulations governing the application and approval of FDIC-supervised PPSIs are currently under development and have not yet been finalized, 13 the FDIC lacks data on the number of entities that would ultimately fall under the scope of the proposed rule. Recognizing this uncertainty, without predicting the exact population of FDIC-supervised PPSIs, the FDIC estimates for the purposes of this analysis that between 5 and 30 FDIC-supervised IDIs would apply for and receive approval to issue payment stablecoins through FDIC-supervised PPSIs in the first few years after the effective date of the Act. The population of FDIC-supervised PPSIs under the proposed rule could be higher or lower depending on market demand, strategic operational choices of FDIC-supervised entities, and future developments in the digital asset landscape, among many other factors. By utilizing this range, the FDIC aims to establish an estimate that serves as the basis for analyzing the economic impact of the proposed rule, while acknowledging the inherent uncertainty resulting from a lack of historical precedent.

If finalized, the proposed rule is expected to provide several benefits to FDIC-supervised PPSIs, their customers, and the public. In particular, compliance with the GENIUS Act's illicit finance provisions, including those related to the BSA and sanctions compliance programs, would promote maintaining AML/CFT and sanctions compliance principles as the financial system integrates new payment technologies and reduces the frequency and severity of harm caused by sanctioned entities and criminal activity facilitated through a fragmented digital asset regulatory framework. Any reduction in money laundering or terrorist financing is a benefit to society given the nature of the illegal activities that AML/CFT programs are designed to prevent. While it is inherently difficult to estimate the annual reduction in crime generally—or financial crime specifically—that could result from more effective AML/CFT programs, even a very small percentage decrease could result in a meaningful benefit to society.

The proposed rule would generate additional qualitative benefits to FDIC-supervised PPSIs, the industry, and the general public from increased clarity and supervisory coherence, relative to the baseline. Importantly, the proposed rule would reduce regulatory fragmentation by harmonizing the BSA and sanctions requirements for FDIC-supervised PPSIs with the requirements for other FDIC-supervised institutions and other Federally regulated PPSIs. This harmony would facilitate group-wide compliance systems and improve examination efficiency. Additionally, the proposed rule would provide clarity regarding the FDIC's supervisory expectations and enforcement approaches with respect to AML/CFT program implementation deficiencies.

Overall, the proposed rule would reinforce the GENIUS Act's expectation that payment stablecoin issuance occur only under robust Federal oversight, and supports Treasury's parallel regulations establishing BSA, economic sanctions compliance, and CIP obligations for PPSIs.

The FDIC recognizes the likelihood of significant variation in compliance costs across the estimated population of FDIC-supervised PPSIs under the proposed rule, given potential differences in size, structure, and internal processes. This variation also exists across FDIC-supervised IDIs. The FDIC expects that most, if not all, FDIC-supervised PPSIs would leverage their parent institutions' AML/CFT and sanctions compliance programs, including risk assessment methodologies, monitoring architectures, and governance structures. 14 As such, the expected incremental cost imposed by the proposed rule is expected to be relatively small for FDIC-supervised PPSIs.

Expected operational costs can be incurred during the development and maintenance of PPSI-specific risk assessments, policies, procedures, controls, and technological infrastructures, including capabilities to block, freeze, or reject transactions in accordance with lawful orders and applicable sanctions law. Some PPSIs may incur additional costs to integrate monitoring of distributed-ledger-based activities into existing enterprise systems and to train staff responsible for payment stablecoin-related operations.

For purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (as that term is defined below), the FDIC has estimated the average costs associated with the recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements in the proposed rule. 15 While these costs only represent a portion of the total compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule, these expenses can help estimate a minimum level of the expected costs incurred by the affected populations. As discussed in more detail in section VI.B, the FDIC estimates that ten FDIC-supervised PPSIs  16 would incur an average of 40 hours of burden in their first year to implement the recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure systems required to comply with the proposed rule. At an estimated hourly labor compensation rate of $112.31, 17 the total estimated cost for FDIC-supervised PPSIs to implement these systems would be approximately $45 thousand. As a conservative estimate, if 30 FDIC-supervised PPSIs were approved in a single year, this one-time cost would rise to approximately $135 thousand. For ongoing costs, each FDIC-supervised PPSI is expected to incur, on average, approximately 10 hours of annual burden to comply with the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements. At an estimated hourly labor compensation rate of $112.31, as described above, the estimated total annual ongoing cost to FDIC-supervised PPSIs would be approximately $34 thousand per year under the upper-bound assumption that 30 FDIC-supervised PPSIs would be approved under the proposed rule.

The FDIC recognizes that seeking PPSI status and issuing payment stablecoins would be, nonetheless, a voluntary, market driven activity resulting from the strategic decisions to engage in the payment stablecoin market. Therefore, an FDIC-supervised IDI would generally only engage in these activities if the projected revenue generated through, for example, transaction-based fees and/or enhanced customer retention, were expected to outweigh the aggregate operating and compliance costs associated with those activities.

Overall, the FDIC expects that the proposed rule will promote financial integrity, enhance the ability of law enforcement to detect and deter illicit activity involving payment stablecoins, and advance the GENIUS Act's policy objectives, while imposing compliance costs that are modest and consistent with the risk profile and operational characteristics of PPSIs. As such, the expected benefits of the proposed rule justify its expected costs.

The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in the Impact Analysis section. The FDIC is particularly interested in comments on any material economic effects that the agency has not identified.

The FDIC is proposing to amend its regulations to implement certain provisions of the GENIUS Act. Because the amendments are statutorily mandated, the FDIC has not considered a “no action” alternative. Although the FDIC has not developed any alternative proposals, beyond the options outlined in proposed § 350.203, the FDIC will consider any alternative regulatory approaches raised by commenters, especially any that are directly responsive to the questions for commenters set forth above.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 18 However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $850 million. 19 As detailed in the following statement of factual basis, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Generally, the FDIC considers a significant economic impact to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses. To estimate the economic impact of the proposed rule on each small entity, the FDIC compares expected outcomes under the proposed rule to expected outcomes under a baseline absent the proposed rule. As noted in section IV, the FDIC assumes, under the baseline, that all other rulemakings implementing the GENIUS Act with respect to FDIC-supervised PPSIs are enacted. This assumption allows the analysis to focus on the effects specific to the proposed rule.

As previously discussed, the proposed rule would apply to all FDIC-supervised PPSIs. As of the quarter ending September 30, 2025, the FDIC insures 4,388 depository institutions, of which 3,062 are small, and supervises 2,778 IDIs, of which 2,064 are considered small for the purposes of RFA. 20

As discussed in section IV.A, the FDIC estimates that the number of FDIC-supervised PPSIs would likely range between 5 and 30 in the first few years after the enactment of the proposed rule. Because an FDIC-supervised PPSI must be a subsidiary of an IDI, the FDIC expects that the initial adopters of this technology will likely be larger institutions with the compliance infrastructure and capital necessary to support payment stablecoin issuance. As such, the FDIC anticipates that most, if not all, FDIC-supervised PPSIs would not be small entities as defined by the SBA.

As discussed in section IV.C, the FDIC expects most, if not all, FDIC-supervised PPSIs would leverage their parent institutions' AML/CFT and sanctions compliance programs. As such, if there were a small FDIC-supervised PPSI, the direct impact of the proposed rule on this PPSI would unlikely be significant.

Based on the preceding statement of factual basis, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. 21

The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. The FDIC is particularly interested in comments on any significant effects on small entities that the FDIC has not identified.

This notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). In accordance with the PRA, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC has reviewed the notice of proposed rulemaking and determined that it would introduce new information collection requirements pursuant to the PRA. The FDIC is seeking a new control number for these information collection requirements and will submit them to OMB for review and approval.

Title: AML/CFT and Sanctions Requirements for FDIC-Supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers.

OMB Control No.: 3064-NEW.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Description: Section 350.6(d) would require PPSIs to establish and maintain AML/CFT and sanctions programs.

Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this document that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection also should be sent within 60 days of publication of this document to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 60-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA), 22 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, each Federal banking agency must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on affected depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of the RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. The FDIC invites comments that further will inform its consideration of the RCDRIA. 23

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  24 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rulemakings published in the Federal Register after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:

• Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Does the proposed rule contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed rule easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed rule easier to understand?

• What else could the FDIC do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?

Executive Order 12866, as amended, directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Within OMB, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the draft rule was submitted to OIRA for review. As noted in other sections of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document, the FDIC has assessed the costs and benefits of this rulemaking and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this rulemaking justify its costs.

Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(a) of Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this standard, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to be a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR part 350 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4652; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01418-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Frank Huynh, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (404) 474-5526; email: Frank.Huynh@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1, dated September 1, 2025 (CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 200 and Galaxy airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4652.

The FAA reviewed CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1, which specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

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

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

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations, which are specified in CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with § 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by CAAI AD ISR I-05-2025-09-1 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2026-4652 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOC paragraph under “Additional AD Provisions.” This new format includes a “Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 163 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Jefferson, Texas due to the establishment of new instrument procedures.

The proposal would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Cypress River Airport, Jefferson, TX.

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

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

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

The subject of the hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-117270-25) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2026 (91 FR 11194).

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by June 15, 2026. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each testimony.

An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available via www.regulations.gov under the title of Supporting & Related Material. If no outline of the topics to be discussed is received by June 15, 2026, the hearing will be cancelled and a notice of cancellation of the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register .

Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing must send an email to publichearings@irs.gov to receive the telephone number and access code for the hearing. The subject line of the email must contain the regulation number REG-117270-25) and the language “TESTIFY Telephonically.” For example, the subject line may say: Request to TESTIFY Telephonically at Hearing for REG-117270-25.

Individuals who wish to attend the public hearing without testifying must also send an email to publichearings@irs.gov to receive the telephone number and access code for the hearing. The subject line of the email must contain the regulation number (REG-117270-25) and the language “ATTEND Hearing Telephonically.” For example, the subject line may say: Request to ATTEND Hearing Telephonically for REG-117270-25. Requests to attend the hearing must be received by July 16, 2026.

Hearings will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during a hearing please contact the Publications and Regulations Section by sending an email to publichearings@irs.gov (preferred) or by telephone at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number) by July 13, 2026.

Any additional questions regarding speaking at or attending the hearing may also be emailed to publichearings@irs.gov.

The Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Alabama, and northwest Florida has the potential to be affected by hurricanes, tropical storms or other severe weather events on a yearly basis, especially between the months of June and November. These storms and other events create hazardous conditions in the port, including but not limited to damaging winds, storm surge and heavy waves, inaccurate or off-station aids-to-navigation, and the potential for navigational obstructions. The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a permanent safety zone regulation to allow for quick activation of limited access areas when needed to protect mariners, port infrastructure, and the environment before, during, and after extreme weather events. The COTP is proposing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone to be activated and enforced as needed to respond to hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events on navigable waters of the Coast Guard Sector Mobile COTP zone. This proposed rule would establish actions to be completed by local industry and vessels in the Mobile COTP zone prior to landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events threatening the Mobile COTP zone. The proposed safety zone would consist of all navigable waters of the Mobile COTP zone, as prescribed in 33 CFR 3.40-10. However, for each particular hurricane or tropical storm, the specific restricted areas may be smaller and comprise only a portion of the Sector Mobile COTP zone. The area being enforced, along with the enforcement dates and times, would be announced to the public in advance by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other public advisories. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), if this proposed 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).

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. 4321-4370f), 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone that would prohibit entry in certain waters of the Mobile COTP, and require certain other actions from vessel and facility operators, during period prior to, during, and following hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2026-0465 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view available documents, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. We will post public comments in our online docket. Additional information is on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

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

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice of proposed waiver and extension by accessing regulations.gov.

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

Native Hawaiian Education (NHE), authorized under sections 6201-6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), authorizes the Secretary to make grants to or enter into contracts with Native Hawaiian organizations and other organizations to support the development of innovative educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians. Under section 6205(a)(2), the Secretary must prioritize awarding grants to entities that propose projects designed to address beginning reading and literacy among students in kindergarten through third grade, the needs of at-risk children and youth, needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are underemployed, and the use of Hawaiian language in instruction. These projects may include one or more of the activities authorized under section 6205(a)(3).

On March 14, 2023, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register a notice inviting applications (NIA) for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the Native Hawaiian Education Program (88 FR 15689). A table listing the current 21 grantees from the FY 2023 cohort follows.

The current project period for these FY 2023 cohort grantees ends on August 31, 2026.

The Department proposes to extend the project period for the 21 current NHE program grantees for up to one additional 12-month period. This proposed waiver would maximize continuity of services to those that the Native Hawaiian Education Program serves and support grantees through an efficient process that enables them to continue operating their current, approved projects for up to an additional one budget period with additional funding.

We have concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in the work of current NHE program grantees while the Department considers changes to the NHE program. As such, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirement in 34 CFR 75.261(b)(2), which limits the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver would allow the Department to issue continuation awards to current NHE grantees in FY 2026.

This action would allow the current NHE grantees to submit a request for continuation funding in FY 2026, provided grantees have certified that they have the capacity to continue activities. Any activities carried out under these continuation awards must be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the FY 2023 competition. The requirements for continuation determinations are set forth in 34 CFR 75.253, the 2023 Notice, and this Notice. Specifically, in making a continuation award determination under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application; or whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

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

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

The Secretary certifies that this proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The entities that would be affected by this proposed waiver and extension are:

(a) The 21 awarded FY 2023 grantees currently receiving Federal funds, which consist of Native Hawaiian educational organizations, Native Hawaiian community-based organizations, public and private nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, charter schools, and consortia of the organizations, agencies, and institutions to carry out programs that meet the purposes of the NHE program; and

(b) Native Hawaiian educational organizations, Native Hawaiian community-based organizations, public and private nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, charter schools, and consortia of the organizations, agencies, and institutions to carry out programs that meet the purposes of the NHE program that otherwise would have been eligible to apply for an award in FY 2026 under the NHE program if the Department had held a competition.

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

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

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

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.govinfo.gov. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov.

The ACHP is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation of America's historic places and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy (see 54 U.S.C. Chapter 3041). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of undertakings that they propose to carry out, license, approve, or assist on historic properties and provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 304108(a), the ACHP “may promulgate regulations as it considers necessary to govern the implementation of section 306108 of this title in its entirety.” The ACHP has promulgated regulations for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA at 36 CFR part 800.

The Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 5320(c), requires the ACHP to “prescribe regulations providing for expeditious action by the Council in making its comments under section 306108 of Title 54, in the case of properties which are included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places and which are affected by a project for which an application is made under [42 U.S.C. 5318] . . .”. The ACHP's regulations at 36 CFR part 801 provide the Section 106 review process for undertakings proposed to be funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) Program. The purpose of the UDAG Program is to make urban development action grants to cities and urban counties that are experiencing severe economic distress to help stimulate economic development activity needed to aid in economic recovery. Under the UDAG Program, applicants assume the status of the federal agency for purposes of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

The expedited process in Part 801 includes some of the same steps as the standard Section 106 review process (as that process was set forth in Part 800 in 1981; see 44 FR 6072, Jan. 30, 1979), albeit with an applicant-led process, different timelines, and certain activities presumed to have no adverse effect to historic properties. The Part 801 process essentially functions similarly to a program alternative developed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14.

The UDAG Program is no longer current. The last appropriation HUD received for the UDAG Program was for fiscal year 1988. HUD administratively closed out any remaining UDAG Program grants in 2021. Further, according to HUD, due to the passage of time and because the UDAG Program grants were administratively closed out, any remaining UDAG Program funds would be converted from program income to miscellaneous revenues upon either completion of the UDAG-funded activities or upon closeout. While these revenues would need to be spent on either UDAG Program activities or on Community Development Block Grant Program eligible activities, they would not be subject to any other requirements in 24 CFR part 570, including cross-cutting requirements such as environmental review. Therefore, HUD does not anticipate any projects funded by the UDAG Program to be proposed as subject to the ACHP's Part 801 regulations.

In accordance with the President's direction and the general policy set forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, January 31, 2025), the ACHP reviewed Part 801 with the goal of reducing potential regulatory burdens and eliminating regulations that are no longer necessary or lack current or future applicability. ACHP staff coordinated with staff from HUD to review the status of the UDAG Program, as described above. ACHP subsequently determined it was appropriate to rescind Part 801 as it is obsolete and no longer needed.

The Section 106 Part 800 regulations that formed the basis for Part 801 are the version that went into effect in 1979 (see 44 FR 6072). Since then, the ACHP has revised the Part 800 regulations multiple times; the most recent rulemaking for Part 800 was final in 2004 (see 69 FR 40544, July 6, 2004). Corresponding revisions to the process and citations in Part 801 have not occurred. Accordingly, the Part 801 regulations refer to outdated and non-existing portions of Part 800 ( e.g., role of the ACHP Executive Director in objecting to a finding of no adverse effect and drafting a Memorandum of Agreement). The Part 801 regulations also include no role for or consultation with Indian Tribes.

The ACHP met the statutory requirement in 42 U.S.C. 5320(c) in promulgating Part 801 and continues to comply with the statutory directive to “prescribe regulations providing for expeditious action by the Council in making its comments” via Part 800. Rescinding Part 801 would mean that, in the unlikely event any monies would be appropriated to the UDAG Program in the future, the applicant would follow HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 58 and 36 CFR part 800 for purposes of Section 106 compliance. The current version of Part 800, including the possibility of pursuing program alternatives to tailor the review process, would stand in place of Part 801 in meeting the terms of the statute. Part 800 provides for the timely involvement of the ACHP as appropriate, the participation of the State Historic Preservation Officer, opportunities for public participation, and steps to identify historic properties, assess effects, and resolve adverse effects. Therefore, to eliminate obsolete and outdated regulations, the ACHP proposes to rescind 36 CFR part 801.

E.O. 12866 directs 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; distribution of impacts; and equity). The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking is not significant.

OMB OIRA has determined that this rulemaking, if finalized, does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act).

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The ACHP has determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if finalized, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require the ACHP to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

The ACHP has determined that this action does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively. This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. This action contains no Federal mandates for State and local Governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on State and local Governments.

E.O. 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it proposes rulemaking that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or effects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian Tribal Governments.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3324, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hybrid public hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register . To register to speak at the hearing, please use the online registration form available on EPA's CCR website ( https://www.epa.gov/coal-combustion-residuals/us-state-louisiana-coal-combustion-residuals-permit-program ) or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register to speak at the hearing. Both in-person and virtual hearing attendees are requested to pre-register at the link provided above. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be July 17, 2026.

EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk. EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled.

Each commenter will have five (5) minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. If EPA is anticipating a high attendance, the time allotment per testimony may be shortened to no shorter than three (3) minutes per person to accommodate all those wishing to provide testimony and who have pre-registered. While EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who do not pre-register, opportunities to speak may be limited based upon the number of pre-registered speakers. Therefore, EPA strongly encourages anyone wishing to speak to pre-register. Participation in the public hearing does not preclude any entity or individual from submitting a written comment.

EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are posted online at EPA's CCR website at https://www.epa.gov/coal-combustion-residuals/us-state-louisiana-coal-combustion-residuals-permit-program. While EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine if there are any updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

If you require the services of an interpreter or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and describe your needs by July 7, 2026. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule, creating 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, 1 which establishes a comprehensive set of minimum Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments (80 FR 21302) (“Federal CCR regulations”). Section 2301 of the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act amended RCRA section 4005 to create a new subsection (d) that requires EPA to establish a Federal CCR permitting program. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d).

As amended, RCRA section 4005(d) also allows States to seek approval for a State CCR permit program that will operate in lieu of a Federal CCR permit program in the State. The statute provides that within 180 days after a State submits a complete application to the Administrator for approval, EPA shall approve the State permit program if the Administrator determines that the State program requires each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either the Federal requirements or other State requirements that EPA determines, after consultation with the State, are at least as protective as those included in the Federal CCR regulations. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).

On March 19, 2026, LDEQ submitted its final State CCR permit program application to EPA Region 6 requesting approval of the State's partial CCR permit program. 2 EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana partial CCR permit program pursuant to RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). The fact that Louisiana is seeking approval of a partial program does not mean it must subsequently apply for full program approval. However, Louisiana could apply for revised partial program approval or full program approval at some point in the future if it chooses to do so. If approved, the Louisiana CCR permit program will operate in lieu of the Federal CCR program (codified at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D), with the exception of the provisions specifically identified below for which the State is not seeking approval and for which the corresponding provisions of the Federal CCR program would remain in effect. However, even for the approved provisions, EPA would retain its inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA sections 3007 and 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6927 and 6928, consistent with EPA's ongoing oversight authority under RCRA. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4)(B).

EPA has also engaged Federally recognized Tribes within the State of Louisiana in consultation and coordination regarding the program approval for the determination. EPA has established opportunities for an informational session and consultation, beginning with an initial conference call on February 12, 2026, with the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe. Tribal consultation has been and will continue to be conducted in accordance with the EPA policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes ( https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/cons-and-coord-with-indian-tribes-policy.pdf ). After the informational session, no Tribes sought further Tribal consultation; however, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians did formally request for notification of any major incidents and/or plant failure since Tribe boundaries are in close proximity to the Cleco Brame Power Plant.

CCR are generated from the combustion of coal, including solid fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, and lignite, for the purpose of generating steam to power a generator to produce electricity or electricity and other thermal energy by electric utilities and independent power producers. CCR, commonly known as coal ash, include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. CCR can be sent offsite for disposal or beneficial use, or disposed of in on-site landfills or surface impoundments.

On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule creating 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, which established a comprehensive set of minimum Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments (80 FR 21302). The rule created a self-implementing program that regulates the location, design, operating criteria, and groundwater monitoring and corrective action for CCR units, as well as the closure and post-closure care of CCR units. It also requires recordkeeping and notifications for CCR units. EPA has since amended 40 CFR part 257, subpart D on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802), July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36435), August 28, 2020 (85 FR 53516), November 12, 2020 (85 FR 72506), May 8, 2024 (89 FR 38950), November 8, 2024 (89 FR 88650), and February 10, 2026 (91 FR 5806). More information on these rules is provided in the Technical Support Document in the docket for this document.

EPA is issuing this proposed action pursuant to RCRA sections 4005(d) and 7004(b)(1). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d) and 6974(b)(1). As amended by section 2301 of the 2016 WIIN Act, RCRA section 4005(d) instructs EPA to establish a Federal permit program similar to those under RCRA subtitle C and other environmental statutes and authorizes States to develop their own CCR permitting programs that go into effect in lieu of the Federal permit program upon approval by EPA. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d).

Under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), States seeking approval of a State CCR program must submit to the Administrator “in such form as the Administrator may establish, evidence of a permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions under state law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that are located in the state.” The statute provides that EPA shall approve a State CCR permit program if the Administrator determines that the State program will require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either: (1) The Federal CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D; or (2) Other State criteria that the Administrator, after consultation with the State, determines to be “at least as protective as” the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). The Administrator must make a final determination, after providing for public notice and an opportunity for public comment, within 180 days of receiving a State's complete submittal of the information specified in RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). EPA may approve a State CCR permit program in whole or in part. Id. Once approved, the State permit program operates in lieu of the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A). In a State with a partial program, only the State requirements that have been approved by EPA operate in lieu of the Federal requirements, and facilities remain responsible for compliance with all remaining Federal requirements in 40 CFR part 257.

As noted above, the Federal CCR regulations are self-implementing, meaning that CCR landfills and surface impoundments must comply with the terms of the regulations prior to obtaining a Federal permit or a permit issued by an approved State. Noncompliance with the Federal CCR regulations can be the subject of an enforcement action brought directly against the facility. Once a final CCR permit is issued by an approved State or pursuant to a Federal CCR permit program, however, the terms of the permit apply in lieu of the terms of the Federal CCR regulations and/or requirements in an approved State program, and RCRA section 4005(d)(3) provides a permit shield against direct enforcement of the applicable Federal or State CCR regulations (meaning the permit's terms become the enforceable requirements for the permittee). 3

RCRA section 7004(b), which applies to all RCRA programs, directs that “public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any . . . program under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 42 U.S.C. 6974(b)(1). Accordingly, EPA considers permitting requirements, requirements for compliance monitoring authority, requirements for enforcement authority, and requirements for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings in evaluating State CCR permit program applications.

Once a State CCR permit program is approved, the Administrator must review the approved program no less frequently than every 12 years, no later than three years after a revision to an applicable section of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, and no later than one year after any unauthorized significant release from a CCR unit located in the State. EPA also must review an approved State CCR permit program at the request of another State alleging that the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the requesting State is or is likely to be adversely affected by a release from a CCR unit in the approved State. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(I) through (IV).

In a State with an approved State CCR permit program, EPA may commence administrative or judicial enforcement actions under RCRA section 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6928, if the State requests assistance or if EPA determines that an EPA enforcement action is likely to be necessary to ensure that a CCR unit is operating in accordance with the criteria of the State's permit program. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4). EPA can enforce any Federal requirements that remain in effect ( i.e., those for which there is no corresponding approved State provision). EPA may also exercise its inspection and information gathering authorities under RCRA section 3007 in a State with an approved program. 42 U.S.C. 6927.

EPA began working with LDEQ in June 2017 as the State developed its application for the State's partial CCR permit program. As it has with other States, EPA discussed with LDEQ the process for EPA to review and approve the State's CCR permit program, LDEQ's anticipated timeline for submitting a CCR permit program application to EPA, and LDEQ's regulations for issuing permits. In addition, LDEQ and EPA discussed site-specific issues and potential differences between the State and Federal programs as LDEQ developed its CCR regulations at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:VII.Chapter 10. Specifically, EPA and LDEQ discussed the differences between the “uppermost aquifer” requirements of the Federal CCR regulations and the “uppermost permeable zone” requirements of the State solid waste regulations to determine if the State provisions could be at least as protective as the Federal regulations. EPA and LDEQ also discussed groundwater protection standards, public participation requirements, and permitting procedures.

On May 20, 2025, LDEQ submitted its CCR permit program application to EPA Region 6 requesting approval of the State's partial CCR permit program. On September 12, 2025, EPA sent questions to LDEQ to supplement the application. On December 16, 2025, LDEQ sent a draft application to EPA for review that incorporated responses to EPA's questions. On February 2, 2026, EPA sent additional comments to LDEQ. LDEQ responded with proposed revisions on February 13, 2026. On February 20, 2026, EPA sent limited comments to LDEQ on remaining recommendations. LDEQ responded with a proposed revision on February 23, 2026. On March 2, 2026, and March 19, 2026, LDEQ submitted a revised application to EPA Region 6. 4

RCRA section 4005(d) requires EPA to evaluate two components of a State CCR permitting program to determine whether it meets the standard for approval: the program itself, and the technical criteria that will be included in each permit issued under the State program. This section discusses EPA's review of both requirements under RCRA section 4005(d) and the criteria EPA uses to conduct this review.

First, EPA must evaluate the permit program itself (or other system of prior approval and conditions). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A) through (B). RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) directs the State to provide evidence of a State permit program's compliance with RCRA requirements in such form as determined by the Administrator. In turn, RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B) directs EPA to approve the State program based upon a determination that the program “requires each coal combustion residuals unit located in the state to achieve compliance with the applicable [Federal or State] criteria.” In other words, the statute directs EPA to determine that the State has sufficient authority to require compliance at all CCR units located within the State. See also 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(ii)(I). To make this determination, EPA evaluates the State's authority to issue permits and impose conditions in those permits, as well as the State's authority to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement.

During this review of the State permit program, EPA also determines whether the program contains procedures consistent with the public participation directive in RCRA section 7004(b). RCRA section 7004(b), which applies to all RCRA programs, directs that “public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any . . . program under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 42 U.S.C. 6974(b)(1). To make this determination, EPA evaluates the State's public participation procedures for issuing permits and for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings.

Although 40 CFR part 239 applies to the approval of State Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) programs under RCRA section 4005(c)(1) rather than EPA's evaluation of CCR permit programs under RCRA section 4005(d), the specific criteria outlined in that regulation provide a helpful framework to examine the relevant aspects of a State's CCR permit program. States are familiar with these criteria because all States have MSWLF programs that have been approved pursuant to these regulations, and the regulations are generally regarded as protective and appropriate.

Consequently, EPA relied on the four categories of criteria outlined in 40 CFR part 239 as guidelines to evaluate the Louisiana CCR permit program: permitting requirements, requirements for compliance monitoring authority, requirements for enforcement authority, and requirements for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings.

Second, EPA must evaluate the technical criteria that will be included in each permit issued under the State CCR permit program to determine whether they are the same as the Federal criteria, or to the extent they differ, whether the modified criteria are “at least as protective as” the Federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). Only if both components meet the statutory requirements may EPA approve the program. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1). EPA makes this determination by comparing the State's technical criteria to the corresponding Federal criteria and, where necessary, evaluating whether a different State criteria are at least as protective as the Federal criteria.

Upon careful review, and as discussed in more detail below, EPA has preliminarily determined that the Louisiana partial CCR permit program includes all the elements of an adequate State CCR permit program. It also contains all the technical criteria in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, except for the provisions specifically discussed below that Louisiana has not included in its partial permit program. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve the entirety of Louisiana's partial CCR permit program application. The State's CCR permit program does not encompass the full scope of Federal CCR requirements as presently constituted, and the provisions of the Federal CCR regulations that are not part of State's approved CCR permit program will remain directly applicable to affected CCR units. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).

EPA's full analysis of the Louisiana CCR permit program, and how the Louisiana regulations differ from the Federal requirements, can be found in the Technical Support Document. EPA determined that the Louisiana CCR permit program application was complete and notified Louisiana of its determination by letter. 5

Section 4005(d)(1)(A) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), requires a State seeking State CCR permit program approval to submit to EPA, “in such form as the Administrator may establish, evidence of a permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions under State law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that are located in the State.” Although the statute directs EPA to establish the form of such evidence, the statute does not require EPA to promulgate regulations governing the process or standard for determining the adequacy of such State programs. EPA, therefore, developed the Coal Combustion Residuals State Permit Program Guidance Document; Interim Final (82 FR 38685, August 15, 2017) (the “Guidance Document”). The Guidance Document provides recommendations on a process and standards that States may choose to use to apply for EPA approval of its CCR permit programs, based on the standards in RCRA section 4005(d), existing regulations at 40 CFR part 239, and the Agency's experience in reviewing and approving State programs.

EPA evaluated the Louisiana CCR permit program using the process and statutory and regulatory standards discussed in sections II.C. and IV.A. of this preamble. EPA's findings are summarized below and provided in more detail in the Technical Support Document located in the docket supporting this proposed determination.

In EPA's judgment, an adequate State CCR permit program must ensure that: (1) Existing and new facilities are permitted or otherwise approved and in compliance with either 40 CFR part 257 or other State criteria; (2) The State has the authority to collect all information necessary to issue permits that are adequate to ensure compliance with relevant 40 CFR part 257, subpart D requirements; and (3) The State has the authority to impose requirements for CCR units adequate to ensure compliance with either 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or such other State criteria that have been determined and approved by the Administrator to be at least as protective as 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.

A State permit is required for CCR units under LAC 33:VII.1003.B, which requires CCR facilities with an existing CCR landfill, or an existing or inactive CCR surface impoundment, to obtain a solid waste permit in accordance with LAC 33:VII.Chapter 5. The requirements and procedures for solid waste facilities to obtain permits can be found in LAC 33:VII.509.A.1. CCR facilities will be required to submit an application to the LDEQ Office of Environmental Services for a new solid waste permit or a modification to an existing solid waste permit, as applicable, within 365 days of the date of the approval of the State's CCR permitting program. Under LAC 33:VII.1003.C, the disposal or management of CCR in a new or lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or surface impoundment is prohibited unless such activity is authorized by a permit issued in accordance with LAC 33:VII.509, 513, and 517.

LAC 33:VII.1003.A-D and 1004.A-L have provisions imposing requirements for CCR permits, permit terms and conditions, permit issuance and duration, permit renewals, permit modifications and changes in ownership.

LDEQ has the authority to collect all information necessary to issue permits that are adequate to ensure compliance with relevant 40 CFR part 257, subpart D requirements. The provisions at LAC 33:VII.1004.A through J address requirements for CCR permit application contents and information requirements to ensure that a permit application includes sufficient information and reports to characterize the geology at the facility; demonstrate compliance with: land use and location restrictions, design criteria, groundwater monitoring zone and unit siting, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, groundwater monitoring parameters, operating criteria; other requirements involving certification of all technical reports by an engineer licensed in the State of Louisiana; closure and post-closure cost estimates; recordkeeping; and submission of records to LDEQ for review.

LAC 33:VII.1004.B.1 requires CCR permit and permit modification applications to contain information required by prescribed application forms from the State, and information required by 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, which the State incorporates by reference at LAC 33:VII.1003.A. Under LAC 33:VII.1004.B.2, a new permit application or permit renewal application must include all information included in LAC 33:VII.519 (Permit application forms) and LAC 33:VII.709.A-D (Standards Governing Type I and II Solid Waste Disposal Facilities). Under LAC 33:VII.519.D, incomplete applications not containing the information required by LAC 33:VII:519.B and LAC 33:VII:1004:A and B, are not accepted for review and LDEQ must notify the applicant when a permit application is determined to be incomplete. If the applicant elects to continue with the permit application process, the applicant must follow the requirements provided in the notice. The requirements may include submitting additional information by the applicant in the form of an application addendum or submitting a new application. LAC 33:VII.519.G and LAC 33:VII:1004.A2, require the applicant to submit any additional information determined necessary by LDEQ for a proper determination or decision regarding the application, including information determined necessary to prepare a draft or final permit decision.

Before submitting its permit application, a prospective applicant must coordinate with local, State, and Federal agencies. More details are found in the Technical Support Document.

After the public notice period has ended and after LDEQ has reviewed and considered public comments received during the comment period, LDEQ must issue a final decision on the permit. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.e, LAC 33:VII.1006.B.1. No more than 20 days after LDEQ has issued a final permit decision it must publish a notice of final permit decision on the LDEQ website. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.5.b. The regulations also require the notice of final decision to be sent to people who commented on the draft permit and to people who asked to be given written notice. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.5.b-c.

LAC 33:VII.1004.A.3.a requires that once a permit has been issued for a facility, a renewal application must be submitted no later than 365 days prior to expiration of the permit. Each facility processing and/or disposing of CCR subject to the permitting requirements must operate under a permit for the active life of the facility and duration of post-closure care, until such time LDEQ deems closure and post-closure complete and terminates permit coverage. LAC 33:VII.1004.A.4.

LDEQ may review a permit at any time. LAC 33:VII:1004:A and LAC 33:VII.509.G. After review of a permit, LDEQ may, for cause, suspend, revoke, or modify a permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes (La. R.S.) 49:950 et seq. LAC 33:VII.1004.A.5 requires the owner or operator of a facility to obtain a permit modification, in accordance with LAC 33:VII:517, prior to making a change in a CCR unit or initiating any change that is a deviation from the specifications in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or the existing permit. Pursuant to LAC 33:VII.1004.A.7, proposed changes in ownership must comply with LAC 33:I.Chapter 19.

Louisiana requires CCR permit holders to comply with the permit modification requirements in LAC 33:VII:1004.A.5 and LAC:33.VII.517. Owners and operators must submit an application to incorporate any changes to ensure compliance with the CCR requirements.

Facilities may also submit an application for a minor or major modification of the permit. LAC 33:VII:1004.A.5 requires that “The owner or operator shall obtain a permit modification in accordance with LAC 33:VII.517 prior to making a change in a CCR unit, or initiating any change that is a deviation from the specifications in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D and/or the existing permit.” At LAC 33:VII.1002.A, Louisiana defines a minor modification as “any modification that does not meet the criteria for a major modification.” Louisiana defines major modifications as “any change in a site, facility, process or disposal method, or operation that substantially deviates from the permit or tends to substantially increase the impact of the site, facility, process or disposal method, or operation on the environment.”

The major modification definition in LAC 33:VII:1002.A is governed by the list of items that constitute major modifications that are listed in LAC 33:VII.517.B.1.a through i. See the Technical Support Document for details.

The regulations provide that permits for CCR units are to be issued for a maximum of 10 years and may be issued for a period of less than 10 years, under LAC 33:VII.1003.D and 1004.A.3, in compliance with the requirements of LAC 33:VII.509.D.2.

EPA has preliminarily determined that the Louisiana approach to CCR permit applications and approvals is adequate. The program meets the criteria listed at the beginning of this section. The Louisiana requirements described above require existing and new facilities to be permitted or otherwise approved and in compliance with either 40 CFR part 257 or other State criteria. The requirements described above show that Louisiana has the authority to collect all information necessary to issue permits that are adequate to ensure compliance with relevant 40 CFR part 257, subpart D requirements, or other State criteria. Finally, Louisiana has the authority to impose requirements for CCR units adequate to ensure compliance with either 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or such other State criteria that have been determined and approved by the Administrator to be at least as protective as 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.

Based on RCRA section 7004, 42 U.S.C. 6974, it is EPA's judgment that an adequate State CCR permit program will ensure that: (1) Documents for permit determinations are made available for public review and comment; (2) Final determinations on permit applications are made known to the public; and (3) Public comments on permit determinations are considered and significant comments are responded to in the permit record. EPA's review of Louisiana's CCR permit program indicates that the State has adopted public participation procedures that allow interested parties to talk openly and frankly about permit issues and search for mutually agreeable solutions to differences in views. An overview of Louisiana's public participation provisions is provided below.

Louisiana provides public participation opportunities throughout the State's CCR permitting process, including pre-application and post-application public notices, public participation procedures for draft and final permits, the opportunity for the public to comment, and opportunities for the public to request public hearings. LDEQ also maintains an electronic document management system (EDMS) where all documents submitted by a facility and all responses from LDEQ are available for public review. These accessible documents include permitting documents, correspondence, approvals and groundwater reports. Under LAC 33:VII.513.C.2.f, permit applications are available for public review as soon as practicable subject to confidentiality of the provisions of LAC 33:I.Chapter 5.

The Louisiana public notice requirements apply to applications for initial permits, permit renewals, and major modifications of CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Louisiana requires public notice during the pre-application and post-application periods, as well as for draft permits and final permit decisions. See LAC 33:VII.1006.A.1.

The applicant for a CCR permit must publish a public notice of intent to submit a permit application within 45 days before submitting the application. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.2. Prospective applicants for solid waste permits, including initial permits, permit, and major modifications, must publish a notice of their intent to submit a permit application and provide the opportunity for public comments. LAC 33:VII.513.B.7. The notice must be published within 45 days prior to submission of the application to the Office of Environmental Services. Under LAC 33:VII.1006.A.3, Louisiana requires all CCR applicants to publish a notice of application submittal within 45 days after submitting the application to the Office of Environmental Services. LAC 33:VII.513.B.8. Once an application is deemed technically complete and a draft permit has been prepared, the draft permit must be submitted for public notice. LAC 33:VII.513.G, LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4. The Office of Environmental Services must publish a notice of the draft permit decision and solicit comments from interested individuals and groups. LAC 33:VII.513.G.3.

Under LAC 33:VII.513.B.7, LAC 33:VII.513.B.8, and LAC VII.513.G.3, public notices for pre-permit application, post-permit application and draft permit decisions must be published one time as a single classified advertisement in (1) The legal or public notices section of the official journal of the State; and (2) A major local newspaper of general circulation in the area where the facility is located. However, if the facility is in the same parish or area as the official journal of the State, then a single classified advertisement in the legal or public notices section of the official journal of the State is the only public notice required.

An example of a public notice to be placed in the local newspaper for intention to submit a permit application to the Office of Environmental Services for existing/proposed solid waste facilities is provided in LAC 33:VII.3001. An example of a public notice to be placed in the local newspaper after submittal of a permit application is provided in LAC 33:VII.3003. Both notices must include the physical location of the proposed facility and the address where comments concerning the facility may be filed.

LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.b requires Louisiana to send a copy of the draft permit to the local public library in the parish where the facility is located, LDEQ regional offices, and/or governing authority for public review. The draft permit must also be made available for public review in the EDMS. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.c. Under LAC 33:VII.513.G.4 and G.5, the Office of Environmental Services must send a copy of the draft permit decision to the parish library where the facility is located and to the appropriate regional office for public review. The State must also send a copy of the draft permit decision to the parish governing authority where the facility is located. LAC 33:VII.513.G.6. Under LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.e, the Office of Environmental Services must review all comments received within the timeframe specified in the public notice prior to the preparation of a final permit decision.

LAC 33:VII.1006.A.5 requires public notices for final permit decisions to comply with the requirements at LAC 33:VII.513.H and 513.I. Pursuant to LAC 33:VII.513.H, the administrative authority must issue a standard permit or a standard permit denial, including reasons for the denial, after the public notice period has ended. The administrative authority may also issue a closure permit to allow closure activities to be accomplished at a facility that has been issued a standard permit denial but has previously accepted waste under a prior permit or an order. Under LAC 33:VII.513.I, the administrative authority is required to publish a notice of the final permit decision on LDEQ's website no later than 20 days following the issuance of a final permit decision. The State sends the notice only to persons who commented on the draft permit decision and to those persons who have requested to be provided written notice.

Pursuant to LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.d, Louisiana requires a public comment period of a minimum of 30 days for permit applications and major modifications. The public comment period may be extended to 45 or 60 days at the discretion of LDEQ Secretary. Under LAC 33:VII.513.G.3, LDEQ must publish a notice of the draft permit decision that solicits comments from interested individuals and groups. LDEQ must review and consider all public comments received during the public comment period prior to making a final decision on a permit. LAC 33:VII.1006.A.4.e and LAC 33:VII.513.G.3. LDEQ must draft a document addressing public comments received during the public comment period. The Response to Comments document must be included with LDEQ's final decision on the permit application and must be made available to the public on the State's EDMS.

LAC 33.VII.1006.B.1 requires opportunities for public hearing to be conducted. LAC 33:VII.509.E. Under LAC 33:VII.509.E.1 through 4, LDEQ, at its discretion, may hold public hearings concerning CCR permits and major modifications of CCR permits.

LAC 33:VII.1006.B.1 and LAC 33:VII.509.E.4 require LDEQ to hold a public hearing for any CCR facility permit if LDEQ determines, on the basis of comments received and other information, that a hearing is necessary or appropriate. LAC 33:VII.1006.B.3 also provides LDEQ with the authority to hold a public hearing on any permit application that does not require a public hearing. Pursuant to LAC 33:VII.509.E.4, public hearings must be conducted in accordance with the State's Environmental Quality Act (La. R.S.30:2001 et seq. ) for fact finding hearings or other hearing procedures by the Administrative Procedure Act (La. R.S. 49:950 et seq. ). Under LAC 33:VII.1006.B.2, the proceedings of all public hearings must be recorded and a copy of the recording or a verbatim transcript recording must be filed in the record of the hearing.

LAC 33:VII.509.E.5 provides the public with the opportunity to request a hearing. Within 30 days after the date of publication of the draft permit decision in a newspaper notice pursuant to LAC 33:VII.513.G.3, any person may request that LDEQ consider whether a public hearing is necessary. If LDEQ determines that the requests warrant it, a public hearing will be scheduled. If LDEQ determines that the requests do not raise genuine and pertinent issues, the Office of Environmental Services is required to send the requestor of the hearing written notification of the determination. All requests for a hearing must be in writing and must contain the name and affiliation of requestor and the comments in support of or in objection to the issuance of a permit.

Public notice of a public hearing is required under LAC 33:VII.1006.B.4 and LAC 33:VII.509.E.6 if LDEQ determines that a hearing is necessary. The notice must be published at least 20 days before a fact-finding hearing. The publication of the public notice for a hearing follows the same procedure as described for pre-permit application, post-permit application and draft permit decisions. Those persons on the Office of Environmental Services mailing list for hearings must be mailed notice of the hearing at least 20 days before a public hearing. Louisiana also requires that a notice be published at least 20 days before a public hearing in the departmental bulletin, if available, or on LDEQ's website in the public notices section.

The Office of Environmental Services reviews comments received within 30 days after the date of a public hearing. LAC 33:VII.509.E.7.

Permit decisions can be challenged. Permit applicants can request that LDEQ hold an adjudicatory hearing and can appeal the final determination to the 19th Judicial District Court. La. R.S. 30:2024. Citizens can appeal final permit actions to the 19th Judicial District Court. La. R.S. 30:2050.21. Following the issuance or denial of a permit, under La. R.S. 49:978.1, a person who is aggrieved by a final decision or order in an adjudication proceeding is entitled to judicial review whether or not he has applied to the agency for rehearing. La. R.S. 30:2050.21.A, La. R.S. 30:2050.31. Louisiana also allows an aggrieved person to appeal a final permit action, a final enforcement action, or a declaratory ruling only to the 19th Judicial District Court. A petition for review must be filed in the district court within 30 days after notice of the action or ruling being appealed has been given. Under La. R.S. 49:979, an aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the district court by appeal to the appropriate circuit court of appeal.

EPA has preliminarily determined that the Louisiana approach to public participation requirements provides adequate opportunities for public participation in the permitting process sufficient to meet the standard for program approval. The provisions described above meet the three criteria listed at the beginning of this section by providing several means by which documents for draft and final permit determinations are made available for public review and comment, as well as, ensuring that public comments on permit determinations are considered and significant comments are responded to in the permit record.

An adequate permit program must provide the State with the authority to gather information about compliance, perform inspections, and ensure that the information it gathers is suitable for enforcement.

La. R.S. 30:2011.D(2) provides the Secretary of LDEQ the general power to require such conditions as necessary to assure compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. LAC 33.VII.903.A provides the State with the authority to undertake investigations to determine whether a violation has occurred or is about to occur, the scope and nature of the violation, and the persons or parties involved, and to provide the results of an investigation to any complainant who provided the information prompting the investigation, upon written request. LAC 33:VII.529.A.8 also provides LDEQ with the authority to enter a permit holder's premises, have access to and copy any records kept under the conditions of its permit, inspect any facilities, equipment practices, or operations regulated or required under its permit, and sample or monitor any substances or parameters at any location, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance.

The State has authorities and guidelines for inspections, analysis and monitoring, which allow the State to: (1) Verify the accuracy of information submitted by owners or operators of the CCR unit; (2) Verify the adequacy of methods (including sampling) used by owners or operators in developing that information; (3) Produce evidence admissible in an enforcement proceeding; and (4) Receive and ensure proper consideration of information submitted by the public.

Per LAC 33:VII:407.C, every permitted facility in Louisiana is inspected prior to waste acceptance as a start-up inspection. In addition, LAC 33:VII:407.B requires LDEQ to perform periodic inspections and LDEQ performs yearly groundwater monitoring system inspections and yearly compliance inspections. In addition to the inspections by LDEQ, CCR facilities are also required to submit a detailed annual certification of compliance in accordance with LAC 33:VII.525 to certify whether the facility is in compliance with the terms of the permit and to identify any deviations.

All CCR facilities are required to have a groundwater monitoring program and submit the results semiannually to LDEQ for evaluation. LAC 33:VII.1004.G.3 and LAC 33:VII.1005. CCR facilities are also required to submit an annual certification of compliance to certify whether the facility is in compliance with the terms of the permit and to identify any deviations. LAC 33:VII.525. All certifications and verifications executed by a licensed professional engineer in an application must be accompanied by all material technical reports relied upon by the professional engineer licensed in the State of Louisiana for certification. LAC 33: VII.1004.B.4.

The Secretary of LDEQ has the authority to conduct inquiries and develop facts in investigations by staff investigatory procedures or formal investigations and may conduct inspections and examinations of facilities and records. La. R.S. 30:2011.D(5), La. R.S. 30:2016, and LAC 33.VII.905.A. The Secretary may also hold public hearings and/or issue subpoenas pursuant to La. R.S. 30:2025(I). La. R.S. 30:2011.D(5) also requires Secretary to hold no less than three public fact-finding hearings to investigate issues concerning environmental equity in the administration of department programs with respect to resident populations who do not have the economic resources to participate in the environmental decision making affecting their area.

A hearing which is an investigation or an inquiry must be held in the parish in which the activity gave rise to the hearing. La. R.S. 30:2016. Otherwise, a hearing may be held in any locality. At the conclusion of the investigation, all facts and information concerning the alleged violation are compiled by LDEQ staff and a report of the investigation is presented to the administrative authority for use in possible enforcement proceedings. Any complainant who provided the information prompting the investigation is notified of its results. LAC 33:VII.905.A.

Complaints can be submitted by any member of the public in various ways, via telephone at 225- 219-3640, via email at SPOC@la.gov, in writing, or online through the online citizen complaint form at https://internet.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/ONLINESERVICES/FORMS/FILE-A- CITIZEN-COMPLAINT. Once a complaint is received by LDEQ, it is forwarded to the Surveillance Division, assigned a team leader to investigate, and the assigned team leader investigates the complaint. Citizens may submit a complaint anonymously via email or telephone. Once a complaint is investigated, the citizen is notified of the results of the investigation.

Accordingly, EPA has preliminarily determined that these compliance monitoring authorities are adequate, and that this aspect of the Louisiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.

An adequate State CCR permit program must provide the State with adequate enforcement authority to administer its State CCR permit program, including the authority to: (1) Restrain any person from engaging in activity which may damage human health or the environment, (2) Sue to enjoin prohibited activity, and (3) Sue to recover civil penalties for prohibited activity.

LDEQ has adequate enforcement authority for its existing programs. LAC 33:VII.907, La. R.S. 30:2025, and La. R.S. 30:2050. LDEQ is authorized to initiate action under La. R.S. 30:2025 if a determination is made that a violation of the terms and conditions of a permit has occurred or is about to occur. La. R.S. 30:2025 authorizes LDEQ to take civil action to enforce the provisions of the subtitle, including civil actions to recover damages and penalties. La. R.S. 30:2050 further delineates the enforcement procedures and process for judicial review that would apply to a permitted facility.

Under LAC 33:VII.1008.A, the failure of any person to comply with the State's CCR regulations or the terms and conditions of any permit granted or order issued thereunder is a violation of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (La. R.S. 30:2001 et seq. ). LAC 33:VII.907 provides LDEQ with the authority to initiate enforcement action against any facility that fails to comply with the regulations, terms and conditions of any permit granted, or any order issued. When a violation occurs, LDEQ may initiate one or more actions. La. R.S. 30:2025. Specifically, La. R.S. 30:2025.C(1) and (2) and La. R.S. 30:2050.8.A give LDEQ the authority to bring a civil suit, issue a compliance order, an emergency cease and desist order, or enter into a cooperative agreement. The Secretary may issue an emergency cease and desist order if a violation occurs or is about to occur that endangers or is causing damage to the public health or the environment. As a result of enforcement findings, LDEQ may also require modifications for permits. LDEQ may review a permit at any time. LAC 33:VII.509.G. After review of a permit, LDEQ may, for cause, suspend, revoke, or modify a permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act, La. R.S. 49:950 et seq.

La. R.S. 30:2050.8.E specifically provides the Secretary the authority to file an action in a district court for injunctive relief at the expiration of the cease and desist order. The Secretary is required to establish that a violation is occurring or is about to occur and that the violation is endangering or causing significant damage to public health or the environment.

La. R.S. 30:2025.B provides LDEQ the authority to bring civil suits to recover any damages or penalties resulting from violation of any requirement of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (La. R.S. 30:2001 et seq. ) or permitting requirement. La. R.S. 30:2025.B(1)(a) and La. R.S. 30:2025.B(1)(d) specifically address the authority of the attorney general and the procedures for bringing civil suits in a district court. If the court determines a violation has occurred, then the penalty must take into consideration the cost of restoring the affected area to its previous condition and its present market value and include any reasonable costs made by the State in connection with the violation. The court may also award actual damages to the prevailing plaintiff.

The State's authority to recover civil penalties is provided by La. R.S. 30:2025.E and La. R.S. 30:2026.A. Under La. R.S. 30:2025.E(1)(a), any person found to be in violation of any requirement of the Act may be liable for a civil penalty of not more than the cost to the State of any response action made necessary by such violation and a penalty of not more than $32,500 for each day of violation. Under La. R.S. 30:2025.E(2), any person to whom a compliance order or a cease and desist order is issued, who fails to take corrective action within the time specified in the order, is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each day of continued violation or noncompliance.

Based on the foregoing, EPA has preliminarily determined that this aspect of the Louisiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.

Based on RCRA section 7004, an adequate CCR State permit program must provide an opportunity for citizen intervention in civil enforcement proceedings. Specifically, the State must either: (1) Provide for citizen intervention as a matter of right; or (2) Have in place a process to: (a) Provide notice and opportunity for public involvement in civil enforcement actions, (b) Investigate and provide responses to citizen complaints about violations, and (c) Not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule, or regulation.

The Louisiana statutes and Code of Civil Procedure provide the opportunity for the public to intervene and participate in the State's civil enforcement process. La. R.S. 30:2050.10.A provides the Secretary of LDEQ with the authority to adopt procedures for the issuance of declaratory rulings on significant matters, including providing aggrieved persons the right of intervention by aggrieved persons at La. R.S.30:2050.10.A(7). Article 1091 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure allows a third person having an interest to intervene in a pending action to enforce a right related to or connected with the object of the pending action against one or more of the parties.

La. R.S. 30:2050.1.B.(1) requires the Secretary to maintain a list of all notices of violations, compliance orders, and penalty assessments issued in the preceding three months. The list must be updated monthly. La. R.S. 30:2050.1.B.(2)(a). On a periodic basis, the Secretary must mail a copy of the list, either separately or as part of a LDEQ publication, to persons who request that they be placed on the mailing list.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 30:2050.6.B.(4), the Secretary has the authority to provide opportunity for members of the public to file written comments regarding a contested order or assessment and to attend the informal hearing if one is held. La. R.S. 30:2050.7.B requires that before signing a settlement or compromise, the Secretary must invite and receive written public comment on the proposed settlement agreement or compromise during the 45 days following notice to the attorney general.

Under La. R.S. 30:2050.7.C, the Secretary must give notice of a proposed settlement or compromise to a person who has requested notice and must require the respondent to publish a notice in the official journal of the parish governing authority for the parish in which the violation that gives rise to the order or assessment occurred. The Secretary may also require the respondent to publish the notice in any other newspaper of general circulation.

The Secretary may hold a public hearing regarding a proposed settlement or compromise under La. R.S. 30:2050.7.D when either of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) A written request for a public hearing has been filed by 25 persons, by a governmental subdivision or agency, or by an association having not less than 25 members who reside in the parish in which the facility is located; or (2) The Secretary finds a significant degree of public interest in the settlement or compromise.

La. R.S. 30:2026.A(1) allows any person having an interest, which is or may be adversely affected, to commence a civil action on his own behalf against any person whom he alleges to be in violation of the Act or of the regulations. The action must be brought either in the district court in the parish in which the violation or alleged violation occurs or in the district court of the domicile of the alleged violator, and must be afforded preferential hearing by the court. La. R.S. 30:2026.C specifies that nothing in La. R.S. 30:2026 shall be construed to limit or deny any person's right to injunctive or other extraordinary and ordinary relief provided the requirements of La. R.S. 30:2026 are followed. La. R.S. 30:2026.A(3) allows the court to award costs of court including reasonable attorneys and expert witness fees to the prevailing party.

EPA has preliminarily determined that these authorities provide for an adequate level of citizen involvement in the enforcement process, and that this aspect of the Louisiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.

EPA conducted an analysis of the Louisiana CCR Permit Program Application, including a thorough analysis of Louisiana statutory authorities at La. R.S. 30:2001 et seq. for the CCR program, as well as its regulations at LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10. As noted, Louisiana has requested partial program approval of its CCR permit program.

LDEQ has identified 9 disposal units that are currently or have been used for disposal of CCR wastes (3 landfills and 6 surface impoundments) at 4 facilities in Louisiana. 6 LDEQ demonstrated that it has the personnel to administer a permit program that is at least as protective as the Federal requirements. 7 LDEQ indicates that the State program is funded by fees and fines collected as part of the solid waste, hazardous waste, water, air, and remediation programs. La. R.S. 30:2014. As the CCR facilities are solid waste facilities, fees from these facilities would directly contribute to LDEQ funding including solid waste permit application review fees, permit modification review fees, annual fees, closure plan review fees, annual groundwater monitoring and maintenance fees, and enforcement fines. In addition, LDEQ applied for EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) funding for Fiscal Years 2023 through 2026. In total, LDEQ has received $517,396 in funding to develop its CCR permit program. If EPA receives future appropriations, if approved, LDEQ can continue to apply and receive funds for implementation of its CCR permit program. EPA has preliminarily determined that LDEQ staffing and funding are adequate for LDEQ to administer the CCR permit program.

EPA has preliminarily determined that the portions of the Louisiana CCR permit program that were submitted for approval meet the standard for approval under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(i). To make this preliminary determination, EPA compared the technical requirements in the Louisiana CCR regulations at LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10 to the Federal CCR regulations at 40 CFR part 257 to determine whether they differed from the Federal requirements, and if so, whether those differences met the standard in RCRA sections 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C).

The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (La. R.S. 30:2001 et seq. ) establishes authority and procedures for LDEQ to carry out the purposes of the Act. LDEQ has jurisdiction over all aspects of management of industrial solid waste, including the regulation of CCR material.

Act 449 of 1979 established State Authority to develop and implement a regulatory control and management program for solid wastes consistent with the requirements of RCRA. This act and Act 507 of 1980 have resulted in the incorporation of the objectives and elements of the RCRA subtitle D State Solid Waste Plan into State law. LDEQ has enforced these regulations since 1989 and has ensured that all facilities that process, manage, store, and/or dispose of solid waste in Louisiana operate in a manner protective of human health and the environment. The solid waste rules and regulations were developed under the authority of the Secretary of LDEQ, as mandated by the Louisiana Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Law (La. R.S. 30:2151 et seq. ).

In 1983, Act 449 was renamed the Environmental Quality Act, and Act 97 provided for the creation of LDEQ. These changes affected only the structure and organization of the agency; the purposes and policies of environmental protection in the State remained unchanged, and the charge to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations and to develop standards was directed to the Secretary of LDEQ. In 1991, Act 735 mandated that LDEQ publish the Environmental Regulatory Code and update the code quarterly. LAC 33:VII. Solid Waste Regulations were prepared and published according to La. R.S. 49:950. The second edition of the Environmental Regulatory Code was published pursuant to La. R.S. 49:963.1 and included all policies and procedures adopted by LDEQ on February 20, 1993. LDEQ regulations give LDEQ the authority to implement permitting regulations, groundwater regulations, enforcement regulations, and financial assurance requirements.

Louisiana's authority to incorporate the Federal CCR regulations by reference is based on La. R.S. 30:2180(A)(3) which provides LDEQ the authority to exercise all incidental powers necessary to assure that the State program is consistent with any Federal laws or regulations. On October 20, 2024, LDEQ adopted rules in the Louisiana Register Volume 50, Number 10, to adopt the requirements of the 40 CFR part 257, subpart D Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments. At LAC 33:VII.1003.A, Louisiana largely adopted by reference 40 CFR part 257, subpart D as amended through July 1, 2022, except for 40 CFR 257.50(e), 257.51, and all amendments made to the Federal CCR regulations by the July 30, 2018 Final Rule (83 FR 36435), the May 8, 2024 Final Rule (89 FR 38950), the Legacy Technical Corrections Final Rule (89 FR 88650, November 8, 2024), or the February 10, 2026 final rule (91 FR 5806). With these exceptions, the technical requirements are identical to, or equivalent to, the Federal CCR regulations.

In addition, LDEQ adopted certain additional State-specific provisions. With these exceptions, LDEQ states that the technical requirements are identical to the Federal CCR regulations.

LDEQ is seeking approval of its partial CCR permit program pursuant to RCRA section 4005(d). Louisiana's CCR regulations reflect 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, as amended through December 14, 2020, except for the certain provisions of the July 2018 Final Rule (83 FR 36435, July 30, 2018); however, the Federal CCR regulations have changed since then as a result of litigation and the Legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCR management units final rule (89 FR 38985, May 8, 2024) (the 2024 Legacy Rule), and the CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule (91 FR 5806, February 10, 2026). LDEQ has not adopted regulations reflecting certain 2018, 2024, or February 2026 changes. Therefore, LDEQ has not sought approval of any State regulations that would operate in lieu of these amendments. EPA is approving only those aspects of Louisiana's CCR program that were submitted for approval.

In the 2024 Legacy Rule, EPA amended certain terms and provisions that apply to all CCR units. It is EPA's understanding that LDEQ interprets the provisions in LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10 the same as EPA interprets these in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D. Therefore, EPA is approving the State's version of these requirements:

1. Throughout 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, the regulations were amended by removing the phrase “Web site” and adding in its place the word “website” wherever it appears.

2. 40 CFR 257.50(c); this amendment revises the scope of applicability to specify that it includes inactive CCR surface impoundments at utilities or power producers regardless of how electricity is currently being produced at the facility.

3. 40 CFR 257.51; this section was reserved, as the effective date of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, October 19, 2015, has passed.

4. 40 CFR 257.52; this amendment clarifies that all CCR units are subject to the requirement to comply with all other Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws or other requirements. In addition, all CCR units continue to be subject to 40 CFR 257.3-1, 257.3-2, and 257.3-3.

5. “Active facility or active electric utilities or independent power producers”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that the relevant operational date for any active facility or active electric utilities or independent power producers is on or after October 19, 2015.

6. “CCR landfill or landfill”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that a CCR landfill means an area of land or an excavation that “contains”, rather than “receives”, CCR, and meets the other criteria of the definition.

7. “CCR surface impoundment or impoundment”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 deleted the words “which is”.

8. “CCR unit”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that this term includes legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMU.

9. “Contains both CCR and liquids”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is consistent with the term's plain meaning and dictionary definitions as this term used in the closure performance standard in 40 CFR 257.102(d)(2)(i) for CCR surface impoundments.

10. “Inactive CCR surface impoundment”, this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that this term is applicable to such CCR surface impoundments “located at an active facility.”

11. “Infiltration”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is consistent with the term's plain meaning and dictionary definitions to assist in the application of closure performance standards for CCR units.

12. “Liquids”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is consistent with the term's plain meaning and dictionary definitions to assist in the applicability for CCR surface impoundments and the application of closure performance standards for CCR units.

13. “State Director”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that the State director is the chief administrative officer of the lead State agency responsible for implementing the State program regulating disposal in all CCR units.

14. “Technically feasible or feasible”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that certain requirements of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D refer only to feasible rather than technically feasible. The amendment ensures that these terms are interpreted in the same way.

15. “Technically infeasible or infeasible”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 clarifies that certain requirements of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D refer only to infeasible rather than technically infeasible. The amendment ensures that these terms are interpreted in the same way.

16. 40 CFR 257.61(a); this amendment updates a reference to 40 CFR 230.41(a), as the previously referenced provision has since been amended.

17. 40 CFR 257.80(a); this amendment clarifies that all CCR units are subject to the fugitive dust requirements.

18. 40 CFR 257.90(a); this amendment clarifies that all CCR units are subject to the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements. In addition, it corrects a typographical error.

19. 40 CFR 257.100(a)(1); this amendment clarifies that inactive CCR surface impoundments, regardless of how the facility produces electricity, are subject to the same compliance deadlines applicable to existing CCR surface impoundments, subject to certain requirements.

20. 40 CFR 257.104(a); this amendment clarifies that all owners or operators of CCR units that are subject to 40 CFR 257.102 are subject to the post-closure care requirements, except for those owners and operators of a CCR unit that elect to close the CCR unit by removing CCR.

First, LDEQ is not seeking approval of the following provisions of the State regulations:

1. A portion of LAC 33:VII.1003.A: The State adopted requirements from 40 CFR 257.73(a)(4), 257.73(d)(1)(iv), 257.74(a)(4), and 257.74(d)(1)(iv) for vegetative cover for slope stability, but is not seeking approval because the Federal provision has been challenged and is under reconsideration;

2. A portion of LAC 33:VII.1003.A: The State has adopted the groundwater protection standards for cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum found at 40 CFR 257.95(h)(2), but is not seeking approval because the Federal provision has been challenged and is under reconsideration.

3. The variance and exemption provisions in LAC 33:I.Chapter 18, LAC 33:VII:307, and La. R.S. 30:2014, 2014.1: LDEQ may grant or approve variances or exemptions for permitted solid waste facilities that differ from the regulations. However, as written, it would be difficult for EPA to establish a record to support finding that this variance process would meet the RCRA section 4005(d) approval standard. As a result, LDEQ is not seeking approval for the variance and exemption provisions.

Second, the following list identifies amendments to the requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D that were not included in Louisiana's application. These provisions will continue to apply directly to, and remain Federally enforceable for, each CCR unit in Louisiana. Meaning, the requirements in LAC 33:VII.1003.A that do not meet the standard for approval as of the date of the Proposed Approval, as enumerated below, are not being approved:

1. 40 CFR 257.90(g) for suspension of groundwater monitoring;

Third, EPA amended certain provisions of the Federal CCR regulations in the 2024 Legacy Rule that apply to all CCR units and are more prescriptive than the requirements in the 2015 CCR Rule. LDEQ did not adopt these amendments and did not seek approval of these provisions. Thus, the following Federal provisions will be applicable to CCR units in Louisiana:

1. “Operator”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 specifies the definition of operator to include certain other person(s) including those responsible for disposal or otherwise actively engaged in the solid waste management of CCR and person(s) responsible for directing or overseeing groundwater monitoring, closure or post-closure activities at a CCR unit.

2. “Owner”; this amendment to 40 CFR 257.53 broadened the definition of owner to include person(s) who own a facility, whether in full or in part.

3. 40 CFR 257.80(b)(6); this amendment specifies that the owner or operator must amend the written fugitive dust control plan no later than 30 days whenever there are certain changes in condition.

4. 40 CFR 257.102(c)(2); this amendment specifies the criteria for complete removal and decontamination activities during the active life and post-closure care period of a CCR unit.

5. 40 CFR 257.102(d)(2); this amendment specifies that the closure performance standards for drainage and stabilization of a unit when leaving CCR in place apply to all CCR units, including CCR management units (CCRMU) and CCR landfills, where free liquids remain in the unit.

6. 40 CFR 257.102(f)(2)(ii)(C) and (D); these amendments specify that CCR landfills that intersect with groundwater are eligible for the closure time extensions available to CCR surface impoundments, subject to certain requirements.

7. 40 CFR 257.104(a)(2), (c)(1) and (3); these amendments specify that an owner or operator closing a CCR unit pursuant to the closure by removal and decontamination standards during the active life and post-closure care period, 40 CFR 257.102(c)(2), must complete groundwater corrective action.

8. 40 CFR 257.104(g); this amendment specifies that a deed notation, required pursuant to 40 CFR 257.102(i), may be removed after the owner or operator demonstrates that groundwater monitoring concentrations no longer exceed any protection standard ( i.e., the unit must be in detection monitoring) and certain notifications of completion of post-closure care are completed.

9. 40 CFR 257.105(a); this amendment specifies that each file in the operating record must indicate the date the file was placed in the record.

10. 40 CFR 257.105(e); (f)(1) through (14); (f)(19); (g); (h)(1) through (4); (h)(10) and (11); (h)(13) and (14); (i)(4) through (20); these amendments extend the retention times for certain documents maintained in the operating record.

11. 40 CFR 257.107(b); this amendment specifies that owners and operators using one website to meet the requirements of multiple environmental rules must delineate the postings for each regulatory program under a separate heading on the combined website.

12. 40 CFR 257.107(e); (f)(1) through (4); (f)(6) through (13); (f)(18); (g); (h)(1) through (3); (h)(8); (h)(10) through (11); (i)(4) through (20); these amendments extend the retention times for certain documents maintained on the facility's CCR website.

Fourth, in the 2024 Legacy Rule, EPA added requirements for legacy CCR surface impoundments. LDEQ did not adopt these amendments. Thus, any legacy CCR surface impoundments in Louisiana will remain subject to the following Federal CCR regulations:

1. 40 CFR 257.50(e); this amended provision specifies that 40 CFR part 257, subpart D applies to electric utilities or independent power producers that ceased producing electricity prior to October 19, 2015 and have a legacy CCR surface impoundment onsite.

2. “Inactive facility or inactive electric utility or independent power producer”; this added definition to 40 CFR 257.53 specifies the facility where legacy CCR surface impoundments are located.

3. “Legacy CCR surface impoundment”; this added definition to 40 CFR 257.53 specifies a new type of CCR unit that meets certain criteria.

4. 40 CFR 257.100(a)(2); EPA amended 40 CFR 257.100(a) to add paragraph (2), which specifies that legacy CCR surface impoundments are subject to all of the requirements applicable to existing CCR surface impoundments, except for the requirements in 40 CFR 257.60 through 257.64 and 257.71.

5. 40 CFR 257.100(f) through (j); these additional provisions include reporting and technical requirements for legacy CCR surface impoundments.

6. 40 CFR 257.101(e); this added provision specifies the deadlines when owners or operators of legacy CCR surface impoundments must initiate closure.

7. 40 CFR 257.101(g); this added provision specifies requirements for deferral to permitting for closures conducted under substantially equivalent regulatory authority.

8. 40 CFR 257.105(k), 257.106(k), and 257.107(k); these added provisions specify recordkeeping, notification, and CCR website posting requirements for legacy CCR surface impoundments.

Fifth, in the 2024 Legacy Rule, EPA also added requirements for CCR management units. LDEQ did not adopt these provisions. Thus, any CCR management units in Louisiana will remain subject to the following Federal CCR regulations:

1. 40 CFR 257.50(d); this amended provision specifies the scope of CCRMU requirements.

2. “CCR management unit”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is for a new type of CCR unit.

3. “Closed prior to October 19, 2015”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 specifies the applicability of CCR landfills or surface impoundments that completed closure of the unit in accordance with State law prior to October 19, 2015.

4. “Critical infrastructure”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 specifies infrastructure, large buildings, or other structures vital to the success or continuation of current site operations or activities for the public welfare. Under the Federal CCR regulations, CCRMU located under critical infrastructure have the option to defer certain requirements to permitting.

5. “Inactive CCR landfill”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is for a new type of CCR unit related to CCRMU.

6. “Regulated CCR unit”; this additional definition in 40 CFR 257.53 is a conforming change, which means any new CCR landfill, existing CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, existing CCR surface impoundment, inactive CCR surface impoundment, or legacy CCR surface impoundment. This term specifies that CCRMU are not considered regulated CCR units.

7. 40 CFR 257.75; this additional section includes requirements for identifying CCRMU.

8. 40 CFR 257.90(b)(3); this additional provision specifies a deadline for the owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with certain groundwater monitoring requirements.

9. 40 CFR 257.90(e); EPA amended one sentence in this provision to add an annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report deadline for CCRMU. LDEQ has not adopted this amendment, see LAC 33:VII.1003.A. Therefore, the majority of this provision, as adopted by LDEQ based on the December 14, 2020 version of 40 CFR 257.90(e), is approved for LDEQ to administer, but the added deadline for CCRMU will remain the applicable criteria for CCRMU in State and any CCRMU in State will remain subject to the Federal CCR regulations.

10. 40 CFR 257.95(b); this amended provision adds a deadline for CCRMU to sample and analyze the groundwater for all constituents in 40 CFR part 257, appendix IV.

11. 40 CFR 257.101(f); this additional provision specifies the deadlines when CCRMU must initiate closure.

12. 40 CFR 257.101(g) and (h); these include additional requirements for deferral to permitting for closures conducted under substantially equivalent regulatory authority and under critical infrastructure.

13. 40 CFR 257.102(b)(2)(iii) and (v); these amended provisions renumber paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to (iv) and add new paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (v). The added provisions are only applicable to CCRMU.

14. 40 CFR 257.102(f)(1)(iii); this additional provision specifies when CCR management units must complete closure activities.

15. 40 CFR 257.102(f)(2)(ii)(E) and (F); these additional provisions specify when CCR management units may extend the complete closure activities.

16. 40 CFR 257.104(d)(2)(iii); these amended provisions renumber paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to (iv) and add a new paragraph (d)(2)(iii). This added provision is only applicable to CCRMU.

17. 40 CFR 257.105(f)(25) and (26), 40 CFR 257.106(f)(24) and (25), 40 CFR 257.107(f)(24) and (25); these include additional recordkeeping, notification, and CCR website posting provisions for CCRMU.

Sixth, Louisiana has one exclusion in the State CCR regulations that is not being approved as EPA has determined the provision is not at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations. Therefore, the Federal CCR regulations will continue to apply for this type of unit.

1. At LAC 33:VII.1001.B.2, Louisiana exempts from the State's CCR regulations “CCR surface impoundments that no longer contain water or can no longer impound liquids.”

EPA has preliminarily determined that the Louisiana CCR regulations contain all of the technical elements of the Federal CCR regulations, including requirements for location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post-closure care, recordkeeping, notification, and CCR website posting requirements. The Louisiana partial CCR permit program also contains State-specific language, references, definitions, and requirements that differ from the Federal CCR regulations, but which EPA has preliminarily determined to be “at least as protective as” the Federal criteria. These State-specific requirements are also discussed further in sections III.1. and V. of the Technical Support Document.

The effect of approving a partial State CCR permit program is that, except for the provisions for which EPA has not granted approval, the Louisiana partial CCR permit program will operate in lieu of the Federal CCR regulations. For the State provisions that are not approved upon finalization, the corresponding Federal requirements will continue to apply directly to facilities, and therefore facilities must comply with both the Federal requirements and the State requirements. RCRA section 4005(d)(3).

In accordance with LAC 33:VII.1004.A, all CCR units must be permitted in accordance with LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10. LDEQ has not issued any LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10 CCR permits in the State. In accordance with LAC 33:VII.1004.A the owner or operator of existing CCR landfill and CCR surface impoundment must submit an application for a major modification or permit renewal within 365 days of the approval of the State CCR permit program for all current CCR units that have LDEQ solid waste permits. In accordance with LAC 33:VII:1003.C, the disposal or management of CCR in a new or lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or surface impoundment is prohibited unless such activity is authorized by a permit issued in accordance with LAC 33:VII.509, 513, and 517.

Since LDEQ has not issued permits under LAC 33:VII.Chapter 10 regulations, no LDEQ permits are part of the permit program record under review. In accordance with RCRA sections 4005(d)(3)(A) and 4005(d)(6), in the absence of a permit issued under an approved State program, the owner or operator of a CCR unit must continue to comply with the Federal CCR regulations until a permit from an approved State is issued. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(3)(A), and (d)(6). Any permits issued after approval will be subject to program review provisions required by RCRA sections 4005(d)(1)(D)(i) and 4005(d)(1)(D)(ii). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i), and (ii).

EPA has preliminarily determined that the Louisiana partial CCR permit program meets the statutory standard for approval. Therefore, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana partial CCR permit program.

This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM in WC Docket Nos. 26-96, 10-90; FCC 26-35, adopted on May 20, 2026 and released on May 21, 2026. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-modernization-high-cost-program-0 .

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

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

The Commission's Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) High-Cost Program plays a critical role in supporting connectivity in America, particularly in rural areas. Indeed, the FCC's high-cost support mechanisms have enabled carriers to build out connections to some of the hardest-to-reach locations in the nation. These mechanisms are grounded in section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, which directs the Commission to preserve and advance universal service with a guiding principle of promoting “[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services . . . in all regions of the Nation.” In implementing section 254, the Commission created the High-Cost Program to support carriers' costs of network deployment and maintenance in hard-to-serve rural and high-cost areas. There are currently a dozen different legacy and modernized support mechanisms under the High-Cost Program.

In this document, the Commission kicks off a process to examine how it can make some of the Commission's high-cost mechanisms even more efficient and effective into the future. Ensuring a predictable High-Cost Program for years to come—call it High-Cost Modernization—will provide continuing support for the Commission's Build America Agenda, supercharge American leadership in AI by efficiently supporting the broadband-capable networks upon which AI-enhanced applications and services will be delivered and accessed, and will help accelerate the transition to IP networks. The Commission is also asking these questions now because several of the relevant high-cost mechanisms are set to sunset absent Commission action in 2026 and 2028, and others have no ongoing deployment requirements. In addition, the Commission wants to ensure that, going forward, it has a rational approach for aligning various broadband funding programs, including the rollout of the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, with the Commission's high-cost mechanisms, and that it regulates mindful of the increased offerings in rural areas by both terrestrial and satellite providers.

Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on updating a certain subset of its high-cost mechanisms that apply to rate-of-return carriers. Specifically, the Commission is looking at its high-cost mechanisms that provide funding to legacy rate-of-return carriers that currently are not subject to any forward-looking buildout obligations: namely, Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS) and High-Cost Loop Support (HCLS). Separately, the Commission seeks comment on what next steps, if any, it should take with respect to the areas supported by the sunsetting Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II mechanisms. The Commission distinguishes these mechanisms from Enhanced A-CAM, which offered nearly $20 billion of forward-looking support over 15 years to carriers transitioning from A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, ACAM II and CAF BLS in exchange for new service obligations at a broadband speed of at least 100/20 Mbps.

To date, the Commission's high-cost mechanisms have advanced the goal of ensuring that every American has access to communications services. But gaps remain for rural America. Consistent with the Commission's Build America Agenda, its proceeding today seeks comment on how a High-Cost Modernization initiative could best ensure that all Americans, particularly those in rural areas, have access to next-generation services in an ever-changing environment. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on what should come next for ongoing high-cost support, what form such support should take, and the costs that should be eligible. The Commission also seeks comment on ways it may modernize its legacy high-cost support mechanisms to align them with the modern communications landscape.

Since the Commission originally adopted the legacy, cost-based CAF BLS ($995 million in 2025) and HCLS ($202 million) and model-based A-CAM I ($8 million), Revised A-CAM I ($166 million), and A-CAM II ($218 million) high-cost mechanisms, there have been dramatic changes in broadband technology and performance as well as significant broadband deployment by many providers. These changes only underscore the need for the Commission to evaluate what comes next for these high-cost mechanisms. In light of this, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how it should reform its legacy high-cost support mechanisms and address the soon-to-be sunsetting model-based support mechanisms. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how it should establish a new support mechanism to ensure sufficient, predictable support for high-cost carriers.

In considering changes, the Commission asks questions in the following about the types of support that are necessary in areas where the carrier already provides service or where a competitor already provides service or will provide service pursuant to an enforceable commitment through a funding program such as BEAD. With competitive voice and broadband options available in these rate-of return areas and $42.5 billion currently dedicated to any areas that are not already served, how should the Commission leverage its high-cost mechanisms to advance universal service principles while promoting the efficient expenditure of finite federal resources?

The High-Cost Program and intercarrier compensation system were originally intended to make voice telephone service available to residential customers in rural, insular, and high-cost areas at just, reasonable, and affordable rates and at rates reasonably comparable to the rates for similar services in urban areas. With the ongoing IP transition from time-division multiplexing to IP-based communications, the continued emergence of satellite communications, and the increased availability of alternative federal funding, this document examines the levels and types of universal service high-cost support needed going forward for legacy support mechanisms and those A-CAM support mechanisms that are soon to sunset. The Commission in 2023 sought comment on how to modernize the legacy support mechanisms to align them with the current broadband deployment and support environment. The Commission seeks to refresh the record and further ask whether and how it should modernize these legacy and A-CAM support mechanisms. For example, there could be at least three potential paths forward: (1) the Commission could update these high-cost support mechanisms to align with the current landscape; (2) the Commission could establish a new single modernized fixed-support mechanism replacement; or (3) the Commission could take no further action and maintain the status quo for legacy support mechanisms and allow the A-CAM support mechanisms to sunset.

Which of these three approaches should the Commission take to provide ongoing high-cost support efficiently and effectively? Should a new high-cost support mechanism be model-based? If not, what other method could be used to calculate ongoing support, other than cost-based? What are the advantages and disadvantages of either updating existing high-cost support mechanisms or establishing a new mechanism? Should the Commission limit ongoing high-cost support to certain areas? If so, what type of areas should the Commission support and how should the Commission determine those areas? If model-based mechanisms providing support in lieu of CAF BLS and HCLS were allowed to expire, how would recipients' support levels change?

If the Commission were to modernize the existing mechanisms or establish a new mechanism, what types of expenses should it prioritize? Should the Commission focus support on capital expenditures or operating expenses? Would there be benefits to establishing a new support mechanism that would enable the deployment of high-speed networks where gaps remain and/or support the ongoing costs of existing networks that were built using high-cost funds? If so, would model-based support be the most appropriate? If a new support mechanism was established to support only operating expenses for existing high-cost networks, should it be limited to certain operating costs? To what extent is support necessary for carrier operating costs to protect those that have already made substantial investments and rely on the existing support mechanisms to recover a portion of the costs to maintain their networks or service existing debt while charging reasonably comparable rates? To what extent is support necessary for communities to continue to be served? If the Commission determined that capital expenses should also be supported under a new mechanism, should that support be limited to certain capital expenditures and subject to a cap? What should the cap be? With any changes either to the existing support mechanisms or with the establishment of a new mechanism, how much time should the Commission provide for carriers that will transition to different support level amount than what is currently authorized? For example, should the Commission provide a transition path over a number of years where there is a percentage reduction in support year-to-year during the transition period? Commenters should provide details on any suggested transition path.

If the Commission takes either approach, should there be deployment obligations as a condition of receiving support? If there are deployment obligations, what should they be and what should be the timeline for deployment? Should there be milestones that carriers must meet as part of the deployment obligations? If the Commission does require deployment obligations, should it require the deployment of voice and broadband service at a speed of at least 100/20 Mbps to unserved or underserved locations, consistent with the BEAD and Enhanced A-CAM deployment obligations? In addition to offering a broadband service speed of at least 100/20 Mbps, what specific latency, upload thresholds, and capacity are needed to support participation in the AI economy in rural areas? To what extent should the Commission require carriers to implement cybersecurity precautions and capabilities as a condition to receive funding as the Commission did with Enhanced A-CAM carriers? What is the relationship between the nature and extent of conditions imposed on high-cost support recipients and the calculation methodology and/or magnitude of high-cost support providers will need in order to meet those conditions?

What unserved or underserved locations will remain given the commitments made under Enhanced A-CAM and BEAD? If the Commission adopts an obligation to deploy 100/20 Mbps, how should the Commission determine the number of locations to which the carrier must deploy? If the Commission modernizes existing mechanisms or establishes a new mechanism, should it limit support to locations where there is no unsubsidized competitor presently offering service or a competitor with an enforceable commitment to serve, thus reducing the chance of overbuilding? For either approach, the Commission proposes to base deployment obligations on the broadband serviceable locations (BSL) Fabric and the Broadband Data Collection (BDC). How can the Commission ensure that those data sources are used in a way that results in deployment obligations that are predictable at the time rate-of-return carriers need to make informed participation decisions? If there are locations that the carrier will not or cannot serve, should the Commission remove those locations from the carrier's obligations along with any corresponding support? Should there be penalties for a carrier that is unable or unwilling to serve such locations? How should the Commission's decisions in this regard be informed by the potential likelihood of, or challenges to, future service to the locations a carrier is unable or unwilling to serve?

Are there different or additional deployment obligations the Commission should consider? In light of other federal funding, what purpose would a support mechanism with no deployment obligations serve? Similar to the offer to take Enhanced A-CAM, should legacy carriers be permitted to elect to participate in a new model-based support mechanism and relinquish any ongoing support from its existing high-cost mechanism? If so, how should such an offering be structured, e.g., term, public interest obligations, and support amounts/limits? Given the focus on improving performance incentives, should the Commission structure the offer so that full support is only received once certain performance objectives are achieved, e.g., broadband adoption rate is at or above 70%? To the extent the Commission is considering providing ongoing support for operating expenses, should there be other, non-deployment obligations that would accompany such support? What should those obligations be, and how would they be measured?

Even with the substantial amount of high-cost support made available and the private investment made by carriers, there are locations in the hardest-to-reach areas that lack access to quality, terrestrial fixed broadband service. If the Commission updates its legacy and A-CAM mechanisms or establishes a new mechanism, should it exclude from future buildout obligations these cost-prohibitive locations that are not otherwise served by an unsubsidized terrestrial competitor and that do not otherwise have an enforceable commitment from another state or federal program? Should the Commission instead rely on commercially available satellite service for such locations? How should the Commission identify such locations? Should carriers be required to make a showing that the areas are too difficult to reliably serve with fiber-based or terrestrial fixed wireless service and, if so, what kind of showing is needed? Or should the Commission simply rely on the National Broadband Map to identify such unserved locations? If low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite service is available in locations that are not covered by the high-cost support recipient, should carriers relinquish a corresponding amount of support? How should the Commission calculate the amount of corresponding support?

Two-Year A-CAM I Extension. Notwithstanding the information in this document, the Commission seeks comment on adopting a short-term A-CAM I extension through the end of 2028. This would align the terms of the three sunsetting A-CAM mechanisms so that all three will conclude at the end of 2028. The carriers would continue to receive their previously authorized annual support amount while the location adjustment process is implemented.

As a condition of receiving this extension of support, the Commission proposes to require carriers to maintain voice and broadband service and be required to serve additional locations upon reasonable request. The Commission notes that carriers failing to meet broadband deployment obligations by the end of 2026 will have until the end of 2027 (the cure period) to meet those obligations. Carriers failing to meet the A-CAM I obligations by the end of the cure period are subject to support recovery, and the Commission seeks comment on including support for 2027 and 2028 into the “carrier's total relevant high-cost support over the support term for that support area” that would be subject to recovery. The Commission notes that if it includes support for 2027 in the support recovery calculation, that would also apply to support recovered if the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) later determines in a compliance review that the carrier lacks evidence to demonstrate it fulfilled its performance obligations.

The Commission further proposes that during the two-year extension, carriers will remain subject to quarterly network testing obligations and certifications and annual reporting requirements. Given the requirement to maintain service, the Commission seeks comment on specific support recovery rules for carriers failing to meet their broadband service obligations based on network testing results that are simple to understand and implement. For instance, the Commission could apply the current network testing compliance levels to 2028 testing: (1) full compliance, no support recovery; (2) level 1, USAC would recover 25% of extension support received in 2028; (3) level 2, USAC would recover 50% of extension support received in 2028; (4) level 3, USAC would recover 75% of the extension support received in 2028; and (5) level 4, USAC would recover 100% of extension support received in 2028. If the Commission adopts an extension of A-CAM I until 2028, should it take additional measures with regard to performance or reporting obligations during the extension period? If so, what should those measures be? Commenters are encouraged to be specific about any measures the Commission should take.

Based on the National Broadband Map, the Commission estimates there are approximately 3.1 million BSLs in the areas served by legacy and the relevant A-CAM rate-of-return carriers. These rate-of-return carriers collectively offer voice and broadband service of at least 100/20 Mbps to 2.5 million BSLs in these areas, or 80% of the total BSLs. Unsubsidized competitors, not including satellite providers, offer broadband service of at least 100/20 Mbps to 58% of the BSLs in these areas, which includes a BSL overlap of 46% with those carriers receiving high-cost support. There are about 267,000 BSLs that still do not receive broadband service of at least 100/20 Mbps—or roughly 9% of the BSLs in these areas. Nearly all of these BSLs are shown on the June 30, 2025, NBM as served by a LEO satellite provider with a broadband speed of at least 100/20 Mbps.

Separately, there has been a steady and significant downward trend in the use of end-user switched access voice lines. Of the 3.1 million BSLs, legacy and relevant A-CAM carriers collectively reported almost 932,000 switched access voice lines in service as of the end of 2024. About 1.4 million, or 43%, of these 3.1 million BSLs have fixed voice service available from an unsubsidized interconnected VoIP competitor. At least one mobile provider offers voice service to about 99% of the 3.1 million BSLs in these areas.

The Commission has long endorsed a policy that “providing support in areas of the country where another voice and broadband provider is offering high-quality service without government assistance is an inefficient use of limited universal service funds.” Support should instead be directed to areas where “providers would not deploy and maintain network facilities absent a USF subsidy.” If the Commission updates its existing mechanisms or establishes a new mechanism, should ongoing support for maintenance of existing networks and operational expenses be limited to areas where there is no unsubsidized competitor? How should the Commission weigh the presence of an unsubsidized competitor when considering how to provide high-cost support in the future? Should the Commission reevaluate the definition of an unsubsidized competitor for the purposes of ongoing high-cost support? What lessons can be drawn from the Commission's proceeding on technology transitions concerning discontinuances in which the carrier or unaffiliated providers offer alternative services through interconnected VoIP, mobile wireless, or other voice services?

Additionally, the Commission in recent years has declined to provide high-cost support for locations where there was an enforceable commitment to provide service. What is the role of high-cost support, if any, where there is already an enforceable commitment to serve locations? Should support for maintenance and operational expenses be limited to areas where there is no enforceable commitment to provide service? Should the Commission only provide support for locations that are not subject to an enforceable commitment and reduce or eliminate support for locations where there is an enforceable commitment? How should the Commission calculate support or any reduction in support?

Competitive Overlap. The Commission seeks comment on measures to prevent duplication of support where a service provider other than the legacy rate-of-return carrier is awarded funding for broadband deployment. For example, § 54.319 of the Commission's rules states that CAF BLS support will be eliminated for those census blocks of an incumbent LEC study area “where an unsubsidized competitor, or combination of unsubsidized competitors . . . offer voice and broadband service meeting the public interest obligations [including offering broadband service at a speed of at least 25/3 Mbps] to at least 85 percent of residential locations in the census block.” The Commission adopted this rule change for CAF BLS to address the inefficiency of providing more universal support than necessary by “subsidizing a competitor to a voice and broadband provider that is offering service without government assistance.”

The Commission seeks comment on how it should evaluate high-cost support in census blocks for which competitors have been awarded funding to provide broadband service or where unsubsidized competitors are operating. The Commission proposes to use the Broadband Funding Map and the National Broadband Map to identify overlap areas where there is already a provider with a funding commitment and/or an unsubsidized competitor is present. How should the Commission use this mapping data to evaluate high-cost support? As a universal service policy matter, at what level of granularity ( e.g., individual BSLs) or generality ( e.g., census blocks) should that assessment occur?

Should the Commission's determination of a competitor providing qualifying service be technology-neutral, and if so, what should that mean in practice? Should the Commission treat the specific type of technology used as entirely irrelevant? Or should it look in some manner at the technology used to provide the services, such as whether it is provided by fiber, cable, fixed wireless, or LEO satellite? Could the particular technology used to provide service have any implications for the Commission's efforts to preserve and advance universal service through a particular high-cost mechanism?

How closely does mapping data align with particular policy considerations that might underlie a given high-cost support mechanism, and how should that inform the use of those data? For example, should the Commission give different weight to evidence regarding providers subject to legally-enforceable obligations to provide service to particular locations than to evidence regarding unsubsidized competitors not ultimately subject to any legal duty to serve those locations? How, if at all, should the Commission account for the fact that mapping data does not include pricing information such as connection costs and recurring charges, while high-cost support historically has been used, in part, to preserve and advance reasonable comparability and affordability of rates in rural and high-cost areas?

How should the “snapshot” nature of mapping data be factored in to the Commission's high-cost support decisions? For example, if the Commission is undertaking to set policy for a 10- or 15-year support term, how, if at all, should that inform the use of present availability data? Are there situations where future demand might constrain the universe of BSLs that ultimately can be served with a given technology (such as technologies relying on shared resources like spectrum)? Are there situations where future technological advancements, regulatory developments, or both, might improve the geographic scope and/or quality of service that can be offered using a given technology? More generally, how should the Commission account for any changes in availability from an unsubsidized competitor as shown in the mapping data over time?

To what extent should the Commission provide high-cost support recipients an opportunity to dispute claims of an unsubsidized competitor before support is reduced or eliminated? Should the Commission instead rely on the existing availability challenge process provided within the BDC? Should any reduced or eliminated support be restored if subsequent changes in mapping data show a reduced geographic scope of service availability from an unsubsidized competitor for a relevant performance level? If so, under what circumstances and what magnitude of support should be restored? How should our decisions about reducing or eliminating support, or restoring support, be informed by potential difficulties a provider might have—due to lack of geographic contiguity or otherwise—in serving the BSLs not ultimately served by the unsubsidized competitor? At times the Commission has treated geographic areas as ineligible for support despite the fact that less than 100% of subscribers would be served by the unsubsidized competitor. What factors should the Commission weigh when making such a policy decision and designing the associated the high-cost support mechanism?

There has been a rise of broadband service provided by satellite providers. As discussed previously, LEO satellite systems have emerged providing widely available low latency coverage at high speeds across America. These LEO systems, such as SpaceX's Starlink and Amazon's Leo, can provide broadband service to remote and rural regions with low population densities and difficult topographies at competitive retail rates. Starlink offers residential broadband service, “Residential Lite,” with a stated download speed of up to 250 Mbps and an upload speed of up to 35 Mbps for $80 a month, and a “Residential” plan for $120 a month with a stated typical download speed of up to 305 Mbps and an upload speed of up to 40 Mbps. In comparison, the Commission provides as much as $200 each month per location in USF support to underwrite the provision of voice and 25/3 Mbps broadband service by some legacy recipients.

How should widely available satellite service affect the establishment of a new high-cost support mechanism? For the purposes of determining service adequacy and eligibility for high-cost support, should the Commission classify federally supported terrestrial networks such as fiber optic networks as the primary infrastructure for ensuring resilient communications to critical areas? Should the Commission consider non-terrestrial services, while valuable as a secondary and redundant layer, as an insufficient substitute for robust primary infrastructure? Would support for such secondary and redundant layers constitute “overbuilding” and a waste of federal resources? How is such treatment of satellite service consistent the Commission's technology-neutral approach to address the voice and broadband service needs of consumers? What level of capacity, and what latency, is necessary to support participation in the AI economy? What inferences, if any, should the Commission draw from the mix of technologies, including satellite service, awarded BEAD funding?

If the Commission were to modernize existing mechanisms, how should it consider the presence of satellite service in areas receiving support under those mechanisms? Is there a role for satellite in the most difficult and expensive to serve areas? If so, should those areas be removed from the service requirements of high-cost support recipients? Is there a concern that if terrestrial network carriers are no longer supported in these areas, satellite providers would increase their rates significantly above the reasonably comparable rates charged for similar services in urban areas? Given the economics of satellite deployment, do rates for satellite-based broadband service in rural areas exceed rates in urban areas by a significant amount? How could the Commission address such concern?

In 2023, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking to build a record to help the Commission explore methods to ensure universally available and affordable fixed broadband services into the future, in light of section 254(c)(1)'s definition of universal service as an “evolving level of . . . service, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.” Commenters generally supported the continued funding of on-going support to sustain and maintain operations in high-cost areas. NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association suggested the “first step is to determine where a market failure exists such that ongoing support is needed, followed by a determination of the appropriate level of such support to ensure that the enduring mission of universal service is fulfilled.”

In the past, high-cost support largely sought to incrementally upgrade deployed broadband network speeds in high-cost areas. The Commission now seeks additional comment on what role, if any, the Fund can play to encourage the transition to an all-IP network environment. The Commission also seeks comment on the benefits of encouraging a transition to VoIP and an all-IP network, and on the challenges this transition may present to rural areas. Are there special challenges in remote areas supported with high-cost funding, such as the ability of rural 911 systems to operate in an all-IP environment? What are the potential cost savings associated with delivering traffic in IP, including reducing maintenance, electricity, and real estate expenses? How would transitioning to an all-IP network reduce support costs? Are there costs associated with the transition to IP that carriers would need to recover? If so, how would carriers recover those costs? How could universal service funding help ensure a successful IP transition?

Delete, Delete, Delete. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are High-Cost Program rules that it should consider removing. Are there rules that are no longer necessary? Which rules or statutory provisions will be affected by any changes the Commission may make to the High-Cost Program? Commenters are encouraged to be as specific as possible in identifying rules or statutory provisions that may be impacted.

All filings made in response to the questions in the NPRM should be filed in WC Docket No. 26-96. The Commission has also opened a new docket—WC Docket No. 25-311, “Reforming Legacy Rules for an All-IP Future,” and established WC Docket No. 25-208, “Accelerating Network Modernization” and WC Docket No. 25-209, “Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Charges.” The Commission incorporates the comments filed in response to these proceedings herein by reference.

Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits of the proposed reforms. What would be the likely benefit of reforms to A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, A-CAM II, CAF BLS, and HCLS? What would be the likely benefits of the three potential avenues for reform of the model-based and legacy support programs, for which comment was sought: (1) update existing legacy high-cost support mechanisms to align with the current landscape; (2) establish a new high-cost support mechanism that could replace the different legacy high-cost support mechanisms with a single, modernized mechanism; or (3) take no further action with regard to ongoing high-cost support and maintain the status quo for legacy support mechanisms and allow the relevant A-CAM support mechanisms to sunset? What would be the benefits of each approach for consumers, carriers, and the Fund? Would there be any benefit from reduced administrative burden if these High Cost programs are reformed? How should the Commission consider the benefits of reforms to High Cost programs that are set to expire? If funding is reformed and additional deployment obligations are required, how should the Commission measure the benefit of those additional obligations? What are the potential benefits if the Commission decides to limit support to certain areas? How should the Commission view the benefits of potential reforms given that satellite service is now widely available?

Costs. The Commission seeks comment on the likely costs of the proposed rules. Will any of the proposed reforms increase carrier compliance costs? If so, are these costs expected to be transitory or ongoing? If the Commission phases down the high-cost mechanisms or offer carriers participation in other funding programs, would carriers be forced to incur additional costs to meet new administrative requirements of those programs? If funding is reformed and additional deployment obligations are required, how can the Commission evaluate the cost of these deployments? Additionally, what are the likely costs if funding is reduced or restricted to certain areas. If the reduction or restriction in funding causes some carriers to exit the market, what is the likelihood of this occurrence and what would be the resulting costs? The Commission encourages commenters to provide quantitative estimates where feasible and to distinguish between one-time implementation costs and recurring compliance burdens.

IP Transition and Other Issues. To the extent that any rules the Commission adopts in the proceeding encourage carriers to transition to a fully IP-based network, what are the potential benefits and costs of the IP transition? What would be the potential benefits, to carriers and customers, of carriers transitioning their network? What would be the potential costs?

The Rural Broadband Protection Act. On May 11, 2026, the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025 (Pub. L. No: 119-89) (RBPA) was enacted. The Commission invites comment on the application of the RBPA to any support mechanisms that stem from this item. If there is no direct application because these mechanisms would not be “new covered funding awards,” are there principles embodied in the RBPA that could be used to help improve the future operation of these high-cost mechanisms or the support they distribute? To the extent the RBPA applies to these mechanisms, how should the specific application of the “vetting” principles be informed by processes already developed for the high-cost auctions?

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on ongoing high-cost support and existing legacy and modernized high-cost support mechanisms. In the following, the Commission discusses its legal authority to initiate this proceeding and invite comment on its analysis.

Section 254. The Commission intends to rely on its statutory authority under section 254 of the Act to modernize legacy universal service support mechanisms. Section 254(d) directs the Commission to establish and maintain “specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms . . . to preserve and advance universal service.” Section 254(c) defines “universal service” as “an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.” Section 254(e) further states that universal service “should be explicit and sufficient to achieve the purposes of this section.”

In establishing the services that may be supported by the Fund, the Commission must consider the extent to which telecommunications services are “(A) essential to education, public health, or public safety; (B) have, through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers; (C) are being deployed in public telecommunications networks by telecommunications carriers; and (D) are consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” As the Supreme Court has explained, the “Act's embrace of evolution—the permission it gives the FCC to subsidize different services now than 30 years ago—ensures that the universal-service program will be of enduring utility.” And, “nothing in the statute limits the FCC's authority to place conditions . . . on the use of USF funds,” including by imposing certain broadband requirements as the Commission did in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011.

Currently, voice telephony service is the telecommunications service supported by the universal support mechanisms. The service must be capable of providing “voice grade access to the public switched network or its functional equivalent; minutes of use for local service provided at no additional charge to end users;” access to emergency services; and toll limitation services to qualifying low-income consumers. An eligible telecommunications carrier must offer voice telephony service to receive Federal universal service support per the Commission's rules. That said, the Commission recognizes that voice telephony is simply a service that can be delivered over broadband-capable loops and thus transformed the ICLS program into CAF BLS that allows funding for consumer broadband-only loops in conjunction with the offering voice telephony service by carriers.

As carriers continue to transition to all-IP networks, does the Commission need to revisit its definition of the supported services for rural, insular, and high cost areas? Section 54.101 of the Commission's rules states that the eligible voice telephony service must provide “access to the public switched network or its functional equivalent.” Does the Commission need to update its reference to the “public switched network” in light of the IP transition? As the Supreme Court recently recognized, universal service is an “evolving level of telecommunications services” and thus section 254's “embrace of evolution—the permission it gives the FCC to subsidize different services now than 30 years ago—ensures that the universal-service program will be of enduring utility.”

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

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

The USF High-Cost Program plays a critical role in supporting connectivity in America, particularly in rural areas. The NPRM seeks comment on potentially reforming our legacy high-cost mechanisms, i.e., the CAF BLS and HCLS programs to more efficient fixed support mechanisms. The NPRM also seeks comment on what next steps, if any, the Commission should take with respect to the areas served by the soon to be ending A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II mechanisms, including a two-year extension of the A-CAM I support mechanism past its 2026 sunset date. The NPRM also seeks comment on the elimination of regulations that will no longer be necessary in a post time TDM environment.

Specifically, the three potential avenues for reform of the model-based and legacy support programs, for which the Commission seeks comment are to: (1) update existing legacy high-cost support mechanisms to align with the current landscape; (2) establish a new high-cost support mechanism that could replace the different high-cost support mechanisms with a single, modernized mechanism; or (3) take no further action with regard to ongoing high-cost support and maintain the status quo for legacy support mechanisms and allow the relevant A-CAM support mechanisms to sunset.

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

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

The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Where available, the Commission also provides additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified in the following.

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

In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals that, if adopted, would improve the efficient allocation of high-cost universal service support in rural areas. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to update existing legacy high-cost support mechanisms to align with the current landscape, whether this new support mechanism should focus on capital or operating expenses, and what deployment and other obligations small and other carriers would have from receiving this support. The NPRM also seeks comment on extending some support mechanisms. For example, as a condition of receiving a short-term extension of A-CAM I support through the end of 2028, the NPRM proposes that carriers be required to maintain voice and broadband service, serve additional locations at a reasonable request, and remain subject to quarterly and annual reporting requirements. Carriers who could not meet those obligations would be subject to existing penalties for partial or non-compliance. The NPRM also seeks comment on how to evaluate the need for high-cost support in areas where there are unsubsidized competitors or an enforceable commitment to provide service. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment the role of broadband service provided by satellite carriers in establishing a new high-cost support mechanism. Finally, the NPRM requests comment on costs of the proposed changes to the high-cost support mechanism, including whether changes may increase carriers' costs for compliance and other burdens.

The proposals in the NPRM would require the Commission to update existing legacy and soon-to-be sunsetting model-based high-cost support mechanisms to align with the current landscape. The two main categories of mechanisms addressed in the NPRM—legacy rate-of-return and sunsetting A-CAM model support—account for approximately $1.6 billion in support to carriers, which if phased out or allowed to sunset, may impact small and other carriers that participate in these programs. Other proposed rules will have more minor impacts. Primarily this would require carriers to change administrative procedures. Carriers receiving or who have received support should be familiar with reporting, recordkeeping, and obligations of the existing programs, but may need to hire professionals to assist with compliance obligations associated with a new high-cost support mechanism. Before reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding, the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the NPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small entities and how any impact can be minimized.

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

In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that it expects will minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rules on small entities. Specifically, the Commission invites comment on alternative approaches for high-cost support mechanisms in ways that reduce administrative burdens. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on small entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the NPRM, including comments related to the costs and benefits of these proposed rules. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters will further develop the record and could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes to minimize any possible economic impact the final rules may have on small entities.

Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-202, 206, 214, 218-220, and 251-254, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 201-202, 206, 214, 218-220, 251-254, 1302, and §§ 1.1 and 1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.412, the NPRM hereby is adopted .

It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the NPRM on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register , and reply comments on or before 90 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The shrimp fishery in the Gulf of America (Gulf) is managed under the Shrimp FMP. The Shrimp FMP was prepared by NMFS and the Gulf Fishery Management Council (Council), 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, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that upon receiving an FMP or FMP amendment, NMFS must publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.

Prior to 2001, approximately 4,000 vessels fished for shrimp annually in Federal waters of the Gulf. To improve the collection of fishing effort and catch data, NMFS implemented a Federal permit requirement for all vessels harvesting shrimp commercially from Gulf Federal waters through the final rule for Amendment 11 to the Shrimp FMP (67 FR 51074, August 7, 2002). Between 2002 and 2006, NMFS issued permits to approximately 2,951 vessels. During that time, the shrimp fishery experienced economic losses, primarily because of high fuel costs and reduced shrimp prices caused by competition from imports. These economic losses resulted in the exodus of vessels from the fishery and reduced fishing effort. Despite this exodus, the fishery remained overcapitalized, with more vessels than needed to harvest the available shrimp resources at the most profitable level. To prevent effort from returning to former levels that further reduced or removed profitability for the fleet overall, the Council recommended a 10-year moratorium on the issuance of new Federal commercial shrimp vessel permits through Amendment 13 to the Shrimp FMP, while still allowing for permit transferability. NMFS implemented the final rule for the moratorium on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006), and issued 1,933 vessel permits under the qualifying criteria of the 2006 rule by 2008.

The Council subsequently considered the need to continue limiting access in the fishery in Amendment 17A to the Shrimp FMP. The Council chose to recommend extending the permit moratorium for an additional 10 years to maintain stability and prevent overcapacity in the shrimp fishery. The Council chose not to permanently limit access to the fishery at that time, because economic conditions could change in the future. NMFS implemented the final rule continuing the 10-year moratorium on August 22, 2016, and the moratorium was extended through October 26, 2026 (81 FR 47733, July 22, 2016).

Only a valid Gulf shrimp permit can be used to commercially harvest Gulf shrimp. A shrimp vessel permit remains valid if it is renewed, and is renewable within 1 year of its expiration date. After 1 year from the expiration date with no renewal, a permit is terminated and permanently removed from the pool of available permits. From 2019 through 2023, the average annual number of vessels with valid Gulf shrimp moratorium permits was 1,376, though the number of vessels with permits declined each year during this time. In 2024, 1,287 moratorium permits were valid or renewable. Accordingly, since NMFS renewed the 1,933 shrimp vessel permits in 2008, the number of permits has decreased by 646. NMFS has permanently removed those 646 permits from the permit pool.

If approved, Amendment 19 would extend the moratorium on the issuance of new commercial shrimp vessel permits in the Gulf for an additional 10 years, through October 26, 2036. The purpose of Amendment 19 is to continue limiting the total number of permits and, thereby, the maximum potential shrimping effort in the Gulf. Gulf shrimp stocks are currently healthy, but the previously mentioned non-regulatory issues continue to hinder the profitability of the commercial shrimp fleet and to cause the decline in shrimping effort throughout the Gulf.

NMFS expects Amendment 19 would continue to result in positive impacts for those who hold Federal Gulf commercial shrimp permits because the permits would retain value as a limited asset, which would be lost if the moratorium were to expire. Permits would continue to be transferable, allowing for entry to and exit from the shrimp fishery. While new entrants would be required to pay more for a moratorium permit versus an open access permit, NMFS expects the benefits of this action to current permit holders would outweigh the cost to any new entrants. The cost of acquiring a shrimp moratorium permit, when compared to similar limited access commercial permits in other fisheries, is comparably low. For example, from 2022 through 2024, the median price to transfer a Federal Gulf shrimp permit was $5,250.

Extending the moratorium would also provide the Council with time to re-evaluate the minimum shrimp permit threshold for optimizing yield in the fishery in light of new science and the current economic condition of the fishery. The Council established a threshold of 1,072 Gulf shrimp permits in Amendment 17B to the Shrimp FMP (82 FR 60564, December 21, 2017), and currently there are approximately 1,200 valid or renewable Gulf shrimp permits. The minimum permit threshold represents the predicted number of vessels needed to achieve aggregate optimum yield in the fishery, while accounting for high shrimp catch per unit effort and landings, and reducing the risk of exceeding thresholds of sea turtle and juvenile red snapper bycatch.

A proposed rule to implement Amendment 19 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the Shrimp FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

The Council has submitted Amendment 19 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 19 must be received no later than August 4, 2026. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 19 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 19. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.