Federal credit unions (FCUs) routinely rely on third parties for a range of products and services. 1 In particular, third parties are crucial to FCUs' provision of payment cards, which are vital and deeply rooted components of the American and global economy. These cards are among the most universally accepted and common methods of payment and are routinely used by millions of consumers to pay for products and services worldwide. 2

Card networks are a crucial means of allowing FCUs to exercise their statutory authority to offer share accounts and lend. FCUs contract with card networks ( e.g., Visa and Mastercard) and others to facilitate payment card transactions. When acting as the issuers of credit and debit cards, they provide payment cards to members, assess cardholder risk, and offer services including fraud detection and prevention, dispute resolution, and rewards programs. When acting as acquirers they contract with merchants who accept payment cards and connect these merchants to the card network so that transactions are seamlessly processed and settled.

To compensate FCUs and other card network participants for their services, the participants are paid fees. These fees, which include interchange fees, compensate these parties for the costs of their participation, incentivize their provision of services and continued participation in the network, and enable enhancements, such as fraud detection and prevention, rewards programs, and technology upgrades. Interchange fees are an important aspect of the compensation structure that an FCU evaluates when deciding whether to participate in a card network.

An FCU could engage in bilateral negotiations with myriad merchants and other financial organizations involved in processing payment card transactions to establish the terms of this activity, including fees. Given the global nature of payment card systems, however, such a process would be complex, inefficient, ineffective, and costly. Moreover, most FCUs do not have the resources to engage in such activities. Accordingly, most FCUs agree to the interchange fees set by the card networks.

In its 2024 spring session, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA) to ban FCU credit and debit card issuers and acquirers from receiving from or charging merchants any interchange fees on the portion of a transaction made up of state and local taxes and gratuities. 3 The IFPA defines an interchange fee as “a fee established, charged, or received by a payment card network for the purpose of compensating the issuer for its involvement in an electronic payment transaction.”  4 The enactment of the IFPA set off a chain of litigation about the scope of a state's ability to regulate national banking entities, including FCUs.

A Federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois recently held that NCUA rules do not preempt the IFPA regarding FCU credit and debit card interchange fees. 5 The court found that § 701.21(b) of NCUA's rules, NCUA's preemption rule related to loans and lines of credit, does “not preempt all state laws regulating credit cards but instead, identifies specific aspects of the relationship between credit unions and their members that states cannot regulate.”  6 The court reasoned that since § 701.21(b) “refer[s] to state laws regulating fees charged to credit union members in connection with an initial line of credit” and that interchange fees are not directly tied to loan interest or repayment terms, then NCUA preemption is not implicated.

The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) authorizes FCUs to offer credit and debit cards to members and provides NCUA authority to regulate FCUs' charging of non-interest charges and fees related to these products, including interchange fees. 7 Section 701.21(b) does not explicitly state NCUA's preemption authority related to such non-interest charges and fees. 8 To address this gap, and to ensure § 701.21(b) more accurately states NCUA's exclusive authority to regulate non-interest charges and fees, NCUA is issuing this interim final rule (IFR) to consolidate and clarify NCUA's preemption rules. The IFR clarifies that FCUs have authority under the FCU Act to charge non-interest charges and fees, including interchange fees, and NCUA has exclusive authority over FCUs' ability to charge non-interest charges and fees.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recently issued a similar IFR to clarify the longstanding powers under federal law for national banks to charge certain fees, regardless of whether those fees are set by the bank or a third party. 9 The OCC simultaneously issued an interim final order to further confirm that federal law preempts the IFPA, expressly providing that national banks and federal savings associations are neither subject to nor required to comply with the IFPA. Following OCC's IFR, the Federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois granted a permanent injunction preventing Illinois from enforcing the IFPA's interchange fee limitation against (1) national banks; (2) banks chartered by states other than Illinois that are subject to the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act;  10 (3) federal savings associations; and (4) payment card networks. 11 NCUA has consulted with OCC staff in issuing this IFR and is adopting language that is substantially similar to the language adopted by the OCC.

The FCU Act provides FCUs the power “to make contracts,”  12 “to make loans . . . and extend lines of credit to its members,”  13 and “to exercise such incidental powers as shall be necessary or requisite to enable it to carry on effectively the business for which it is incorporated.”  14 A credit card constitutes a form of a line of credit and falls squarely within the scope of FCU lending authority under the FCU Act and NCUA regulations. Additionally, NCUA has long maintained a regulation governing the circumstances under which the FCU Act and NCUA regulations preempt state laws that would otherwise apply to FCU lending activities. 15 This provision, codified at 12 CFR 701.21(b), sets forth a list of areas that are specifically preempted under FCU lending authority. 16 Included in § 701.21(b) are state laws affecting rates of interest, amount of finance charge, use of and limits on variable rate credit, maturity limits and other terms of repayment, and various other conditions. The list is illustrative only and is not intended to be exhaustive. 17

The FCU Act also provides FCUs authority to receive shares, share certificates, and share draft accounts  18 and also provides authority for FCUs “to make contracts”  19 and “exercise such incidental powers as shall be necessary or requisite to enable it to carry on effectively the business for which it is incorporated.”  20 Debit cards, which permit a member to electronically withdraw funds from a share account, are permissible under these authorities and have long been recognized as such by NCUA. 21 Consistent with the preemption principles applicable to lending, NCUA has also issued a regulation governing the applicability of state laws to FCU share, share certificate, and share draft accounts. This provision, codified in 12 CFR 701.35, states that FCUs may determine the types of fees or charges and other matters affecting the opening, maintaining and closing of share, share draft or share certificate accounts and that state laws purporting to regulate such matters do not apply to FCUs. 22

Accordingly, FCUs have broad powers to engage in activities that are part of, or incidental to the business for which it is incorporated, including issuing debit cards and credit cards (payment cards) and processing payments. Federal courts have also recognized that national banks' federally authorized power to provide banking services includes the authority to charge for those services. 23 This reasoning applies equally to FCUs, which similarly possess the authority to impose non-interest charges and fees associated with credit card and debit card transactions. 24 FCUs are also explicitly permitted to derive income from incidental activities. 25 Additionally, NCUA has previously recognized that FCUs may solicit members that are retail merchants to accept merchant card processing services offered through a third party in exchange for compensation from the third party. 26

An FCU's decision to contract with a card network and receive compensation through interchange fees is directly and reasonably related to its authority to issue payment cards to members. Accordingly, the FCU Act affords FCUs broad authority to issue credit and debit cards and to charge non-interest charges and fees associated with those products.

Finally, NCUA has broad power to issue regulations governing FCUs and is issuing this IFR pursuant to its general regulatory authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs. 27 Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 28

Although NCUA believes that its preemption rules already allow FCUs to impose fees that are set by a third party without state interference, NCUA is adopting this IFR to clarify that the FCU Act provides authority for FCUs to charge, whether directly or indirectly, non-interest charges and fees, including interchange fees, in connection with offering permissible activities or services and that state laws regulating such activities are not applicable to FCUs. NCUA is satisfied that, in stating its position, it is exercising the rulemaking authority granted by Congress to preempt state laws regarding share accounts, loans, and lines of credit made by FCUs, and any incidental powers related to such authorities. The IFR is intended to preempt any state law affecting the non-interest charges and fees related to payment card services, including the IFPA. The Board believes the IFR resolves any uncertainty about the scope of the FCU Act, NCUA's preemption rules, and FCUs' obligation to comply with the IFPA.

To clarify its position, NCUA is adding a new § 701.5 on preemption to part 701. Section 701.5 consolidates NCUA's preemption rules in §§ 701.21(b) and (g)(6) and 701.35(c) and (d) in one section and adds a new provision explicitly stating that FCUs may charge non-interest charges and fees and that state law limiting those charges are preempted. Each section of § 701.5 is discussed below.

First, § 701.5 includes introductory language to set forth NCUA's intent concerning preemption of state laws. This language provides that NCUA applies preemption principles derived from the United States Constitution, as interpreted through judicial precedent, when determining whether state laws apply.

Section 701.5(a) governs preemption related to share, share draft, and share certificate accounts and is identical to NCUA's long-standing preemption provisions in § 701.35. To reflect that consolidation, the IFR moves paragraphs (c) and (d) from § 701.35 to § 701.5(a), and removes them from § 701.35.

Section 701.5(b) governs preemption related to loans to members and lines of credit to members and is substantially identical to § 701.21(b) and (g)(6), related to due-on-sales clauses. The only amendment to current § 701.21(b) is the removal of the words “to members” in § 701.21(b)(1). The removal of the words “to members” is intended to clarify that the authority to regulate the rates, terms of repayment and other conditions of FCUs loans and lines of credit (including credit cards) is not limited to charges directly to members. As reflected in the new definition of “charge” in § 701.5(c)(1), one of the purposes of § 701.5 is to clearly articulate an FCU's power to receive non-interest charges and fees for providing products or services, regardless of whether the charge or fee comes directly from the member receiving the product or service or via a third party that may not have a “member” relationship with the FCU. To reflect that § 701.21(b) is moved to § 701.5(b), the IFR reserves § 701.21(b).

Section 701.5(b) also includes existing authority in § 701.21(g)(6) related to due-on-sales clauses. The IFR makes no amendments to the historic language in § 701.21(g)(6) and has only moved the provisions to § 701.5(b)(5) to consolidate NCUA's preemption authority. Current § 701.21(g)(6) is amended to remove the existing language and replace it with a cross reference to § 701.5(b)(5).

Section 701.5(c) is new language that is substantially similar to the OCC's section 7.4002 and is intended to state explicitly that FCUs have authority to charge non-interest charges and fees related to permissible activities.

Some of the ambiguity about the scope of NCUA's current preemption rules appears to be related to whether an FCU's authority regarding receiving fees for its services must be directly between the FCU and its member. Accordingly, the IFR is adding a definition of “charge” to § 701.5(c)(1) and explicitly stating an FCU's authority to impose non-interest charges and fees. This definition clarifies that charge means to assess, collect, impose, levy, receive, reserve, take, or otherwise obtain, including through a fee sharing or similar economic relationship. This definition also clarifies that FCUs may take such actions directly or through intermediaries, partners, payment networks, interchanges, or other third parties. These amendments are intended to encompass various means by which a FCU may obtain non-interest charges for providing a product or service, regardless of which entity sets the amount of the non-interest charge or fee or exactly how the FCU obtains the charge or fee.

Paragraph (c)(2) states that an FCU may charge non-interest charges and fees, including share account service charges and interchange fees from credit and debit card operations. Section 701.5(a) (current § 701.35) also permits FCUs to charge non-interest charges and fees related to share account service charges, but NCUA is including the reference in paragraph (c)(2) as well for clarity. The IFR also explicitly includes interchange fees as a nonexclusive example of the non-interest charges and fees covered to provide additional clarity. NCUA continues to emphasize, however, that the inclusion of this example does not imply the exclusion of others.

Paragraph (c)(3) describes the factors an FCU considers when making a business decision to establish non-interest charges and fees in accordance with safe and sound banking principles. 29 The IFR provides that each FCU should make business decisions regarding non-interest charges and fees on a competitive basis and not on the basis of any agreement, arrangement, undertaking, understanding, or discussion with other financial institutions or their officers.

This IFR also makes explicit that an FCU's choice regarding charging non-interest charges and fees, including whether to enter into business relationships or lines of business or charge fees set by or in consultation with third parties, are also business decisions to be made by each FCU, in its discretion, according to sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking principles. The provisions reflect the reality of the modern financial system and global economy, where products and services may be more efficiently and effectively provided through third parties, which may also make or influence decisions regarding pricing.

The IFR also provides factors for determining whether an FCU establishes non-interest charges and fees in accordance with safe and sound banking principles. These factors include, among others:

(A) The cost incurred by the FCU in providing the service;

(B) The deterrence of misuse by members of financial services;

(C) The enhancement of the competitive position of the FCU in accordance with its business plan and marketing strategy;

(D) The use of third parties to provide or facilitate the provision of a product or service; and

(E) The maintenance of the safety and soundness of the FCU.

These factors are identical to the factors included in § 7.4002.

The OCC's § 7.4002 provides that charges and fees that are “interest” within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 85 are governed by § 7.4001. NCUA is not adopting a similar provision. NCUA notes that while 12 U.S.C. 1785(g) is similar to 12 U.S.C. 85, it has historically been interpreted to accord “most favored lender” status to a state chartered federally insured credit union. 30 Therefore, it is not relevant to FCU's authority to charge non-interest charges and fees.

The OCC's section 7.4002 also provides that fees related to fiduciary activities are not covered under § 7.4002. The NCUA notes that NCUA fiduciary authority is generally limited, but an FCU is authorized to act as trustee or custodian, and may receive reasonable compensation for so acting, under certain written trust instrument or custodial agreement created or organized in the United States and forming part of a tax-advantaged savings plan. 31 Given the limited applicability of NCUA's fiduciary authorities, § 701.5 does not include a parallel provision as § 7.4002(e), but the NCUA confirms that FCUs may continue to receive reasonable compensation for acting as trustee or custodian, as provided under § 724.1.

NCUA is issuing this IFR without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the delayed effective date that are ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 32 Pursuant to the APA, general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  33

NCUA has found that prior notice and public comment are impracticable for this IFR due to the abbreviated timeline between the February 2026 district court case and the effective date of the IFPA. 34 As the court's analysis in the opinion was based, in part, on a perceived lack of clarity in § 701.21(b) regarding non-interest charges and fees charged to third parties, absent this IFR, there likely will be significant uncertainty as to whether FCUs are required to comply with the IFPA.

As explained below, the IFPA creates a complex and potentially unworkable standard, and it imposes significant potential liability for non-compliance. Therefore, financial institutions, including FCUs, may take drastic actions to avoid these risks, up to and including declining payment card transactions subject to the IFPA. 35 Given the complexity of the payment card systems and the modern economy, these effects may not be limited to Illinois.

For FCUs that choose to continue to support these payment card transactions, NCUA understands that these card issuers will need to inform customers, in advance of the IFPA's July 1 effective date, that the terms and conditions of their payment cards may soon change. 36 NCUA also understands that FCUs will need to inform merchants about possible changes, including updates to how they process payments, the need for new software or hardware, or that some transactions may be declined. 37 These communications, as well as the potential for FCUs to stop supporting covered payment card transactions, may generate significant customer and merchant confusion about whether, or how, payment cards will work after the IFPA's effective date. These potential actions may cause doubt about continued access to basic lending and deposit services, which could lead to economic harm and disruption and pose significant risks to the safety and soundness of FCUs or the nation's banking system as a whole.

In light of these potential consequences, NCUA, for good cause, finds that advance notice and comment is impracticable and is issuing this IFR. This IFR will provide regulatory clarity that NCUA preemption rules include non-interest charges and fees and, therefore, that the IFPA is preempted. The IFR is intended to help prevent the imminent negative effects of the IFPA's application to FCUs. Given the importance of this issue, however, NCUA invites public comment on all aspects of this IFR and intends to issue a final rule as soon as possible after the close of the comment period and sufficient time to consider and address comments.

In the modern economy, millions of customers and merchants worldwide rely on payment cards every day, including an estimated 1.3 million merchants in Illinois. 38 As discussed above, FCUs serve an essential function in the U.S. payment card systems. 39 A significant disruption of these payment networks could cause substantial economic harm.

On June 7, 2024, Illinois enacted the IFPA, which, among other things, prohibits card issuer banks, card networks, acquirer banks, and other participants from receiving or charging a merchant an interchange fee on the tax or gratuity amount of a payment card transaction. 40 This prohibition, known as the interchange fee prohibition, applies if the merchant informs the acquirer of the tax or gratuity amount as part of the authorization or settlement of the transaction (automatic process). 41 Alternatively, the merchant has 180 days to transmit the relevant documentation ( e.g., paper receipts) to the acquirer bank, after which the issuer has 30 days to credit the merchant for any interchange fee charged on the tax or gratuity amount (manual process). 42 Violations of the interchange fee prohibition carry a civil penalty of $1,000 per transaction. 43

In August 2024, the Illinois Credit Union League, Illinois Bankers Association, America's Credit Unions, and American Bankers Association (collectively, IBA) sought to enjoin the IFPA. 44 In February 2026, the district court found that the interchange fee prohibition was not preempted by federal law. 45

NCUA understands that current payment card infrastructure does not support the IFPA's automatic process and cannot be updated by the IFPA's effective date. 46 To implement this process would appear to require, at a minimum: (1) the card networks to develop new technological and standards changes in coordination with relevant U.S. and international standards bodies; (2) acquirer and issuer FCUs to implement these changes; and (3) merchants to develop and adopt systems to transmit the requisite information at the point of sale. 47 Such changes likely would entail lengthy and careful planning because implementation glitches or failures could disrupt global payment card systems or create opportunities for fraud or misuse. 48

As an alternative, certain merchants may invoke IFPA's manual process by submitting tax documentation. It is unclear, however, how this process could be implemented. Acquirer FCUs may not be able to identify the issuer in a given transaction. 49 Even if identification were possible, there is generally no mechanism for direct communication between these institutions. 50 Furthermore, based on the broad definition of tax documentation, which includes “invoices, receipts, journals, ledgers, and tax returns,” an issuer institution may not be able to reliably identify the tax and gratuity amount for each transaction or calculate the corresponding interchange fee credit. 51 Even if each of these hurdles could be overcome, building new systems and hiring staff to facilitate this highly manual process would require time to develop and test. 52

Despite the complex and potentially unworkable nature of the interchange fee prohibition, the IFPA exposes FCUs to penalties of $1,000 per transaction for failing to comply with its provisions. 53 Given the upwards of 6.5 billion payment card transactions that occur yearly in Illinois, participants in the payment card could be subject to as much as $6.5 trillion in liability per year for non-compliance with IFPA. 54 The potential liability could pose significant risk to an FCUs' safety and soundness as well as the nation's banking system.

In light of the above, the card networks and FCUs may seek to mitigate their liability, for example, by advising merchants in Illinois to not accept payment cards for tax and gratuity, attempting to decline certain classes of transactions ( e.g., purchases of gasoline, where excise tax is imbedded in the product's price), 55 or denying payment card transactions originating in Illinois or elsewhere. 56 Some smaller FCUs may even be forced to stop offering payment cards altogether. 57 Some have stated that compliance with the IFPA could lead to “potentially business-ending consequences” for some participants. 58

NCUA understands that FCUs will need to communicate with members and other stakeholders about the effects of the IFPA, including potential changes to the functionality of payment cards. 59 As noted above, these communications may generate significant confusion and doubt about access to basic lending and deposit services, especially when combined with potential widespread and unpredictable declines of payment card transactions. This could lead to economic harm and disruption and pose significant risks to the safety and soundness of FCUs and the nation's banking system as a whole.

To avoid these potentially grave consequences, NCUA is acting by IFR. For the same reasons, the Board is not providing the usual 60-day comment period before issuing this IFR. 60

The APA also requires a 30-day delayed effective date, except for (1) substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. 61 The NCUA finds there is good cause to issue the IFR without a 30-day delayed effective date for the same reasons set forth above regarding advance notice and opportunity for comment.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended by Executive Order 14215, a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 62 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 63 This IFR was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this IFR is an economically significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.

As discussed above, the IFPA would impose substantial costs on FCUs. This IFR clarifies the scope of FCUs' power to charge non-interest charges and fees. The IFPA, however, prevents or significantly interferes with this power. Therefore, this IFR, the effect of which is to preempt the IFPA, will result in significant cost savings.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 64 This IFR is expected to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192, because it may provide legal clarity for affected FCUs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  65 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 66 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 67

As discussed previously, consistent with the APA, NCUA has determined for good cause that general notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, and thus, NCUA is not issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. 68 Rules that are exempt from notice and comment procedures are also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, NCUA has concluded that the Regulatory Flexibility Act's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

However, the NCUA evaluated whether the IFR will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At year-end 2025, there were 2,514 small federally insured credit unions. Of these, 1,723 are FCUs (directly supervised and insured) or 68.5 percent. Of these, 46.7 percent had nonzero credit card balances at year-end 2025 and roughly 90 percent offered ATM cards.

However, the IFR imposes no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected FCUs. Therefore, the NCUA believes that the IFR will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA has reviewed this IFR and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this IFR.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 69 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This IFR preempts state laws and therefore constitutes a policy that has a federalism implication. In formulating and implementing this IFR NCUA was guided by the fundamental federalism principles and special requirements for preemption included in Executive Order 13132. Specifically, Executive Order 13132 provides agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a federal statute to preempt state law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute. NCUA is satisfied that, in stating its position on preemption of state law in this IFR, it is exercising the specific and general rulemaking authority granted by Congress to preempt state laws regarding the share accounts, loans and lines of credit made by FCUs, and any incidental powers related to such authorities.

NCUA believes that this IFR preempts state law only as necessary to achieve the objectives of the FCU Act and to ensure FCUs are permitted to charge non-interest charges and fees for permissible restriction without regard to state restrictions. Executive Order 13132 also requires that when an agency acts through rulemaking to preempt state law, as is occurring here, the agency shall provide all affected state and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation. Due to timing considerations as discussed above, it was not practicable to consult with state authorities.

NCUA has determined that this IFR will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 70 The IFR clarifies that FCUs' power to charge non-interest charges and fees includes the power to assess, collect, impose, levy, receive, reserve, take, or otherwise obtain non-interest charges and fees, including interchange fees from credit and debit card operations. The IFR does not directly affect family well-being and any effect on family well-being, including financial well-being, is expected to be indirect, at most.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA) generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 71 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 72 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this IFR is a major rule as defined by the CRA. 73 For the same reasons noted above, however, NCUA is adopting the IFR without the delayed effective date generally prescribed under the CRA. The delayed effective date required by the CRA does not apply to any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 74 In light of current market uncertainty, NCUA believes that delaying the effective date of the rule would be contrary to the public interest for the same reasons discussed above. NCUA will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

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

NCUA is adopting an IFR to clarify that FCUs' power to charge non-interest charges and fees includes the power to assess, collect, impose, levy, receive, reserve, take, or otherwise obtain non-interest charges and fees, including interchange fees from credit and debit card operations. Further, the IFR explains that FCUs may charge non-interest charges or fees, even when such charges and fees are set by or in consultation with third parties.

The IFR and the summary can be found at https://www.regulations.gov.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 701 as follows:

Since 1934, the Federal Credit Union Act (the FCU Act) has restricted FCU board compensation. Under section 111 of the FCU Act (section 111), only one FCU board member may be compensated as a board officer, and no other FCU official may receive compensation for serving as a board or committee member. 1 By statute, such compensation excludes the payment of reasonable expenses incurred in executing official credit union duties. 2

The NCUA regulation at 12 CFR 701.33 (§ 701.33) implements section 111. Under the NCUA regulation, reasonable and proper costs incurred by an official in carrying out their responsibilities may be paid directly or reimbursed by an FCU. 3 This is contingent on the payment being determined by the FCU board of directors to be necessary or appropriate to carry out official credit union business. And, the payment must be in accordance with written policies and procedures (including documentation requirements) established by the FCU board of directors. The NCUA Board considers the “necessary or appropriate” requirement to mean that the reimbursement is appropriate for the official to fulfill their responsibilities to the members in the effective management of the FCU. FCU board policies should also ensure that such payments are reasonable in amount in relation to the FCU's resources and financial condition. 4

On January 26, 2026, the NCUA Board published a proposed rule to amend the definition of the term compensation under § 701.33 to exclude dependent care costs incurred by volunteer officials while attending board meetings and performing official credit union duties. 5 The proposed rule followed feedback that the NCUA Board received on past staff interpretations deeming childcare costs as not “reasonable and proper” under § 701.33. These opinions cited the considerations leading the NCUA Board to reject lost wages in 1988 as applicable to childcare costs. 6 As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, a national trade association representing credit unions requested that the NCUA Board reconsider this position. The association cited several factors supporting dependent care reimbursement to encourage board participation, noting evolving family needs and recruitment benefits, especially for single parents or caregivers. 7

The NCUA Board, after considering public feedback and other factors described in the preamble to the proposed rule, proposed amending § 701.33(b)(2)(i) to clarify that dependent care costs may be reasonable and proper in certain situations. For this purpose, the NCUA Board proposed adding a definition for dependent care costs using the Internal Revenue Code's definition of a qualifying individual. 8 Based on 12 CFR 701.21(c)(8)(ii), the proposed rule also defined volunteer official to mean an official of a credit union who does not receive compensation from the credit union solely for his or her service as an official. All other sections of the regulation would remain unchanged.

As proposed, the amendments would apply to FCUs, including corporate FCUs. The NCUA Board solicited public comments on the proposed changes providing a 60-day comment period that concluded on March 27, 2026.

The NCUA Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 9 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the NCUA Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 10 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 11 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 12 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the NCUA Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (“Share Insurance Fund”) remain safe and sound.

Section 111 allows the reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred by volunteer officials in executing their official credit union duties but provides no further definition or standards for assessing reasonableness. While the legislative history is limited, the statutory amendment allowing reasonable expenses was among several changes designed to facilitate FCU management and operating flexibility. 13

Under the rules of statutory construction, words of a statute are interpreted according to their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning unless Congress clearly expressed a different intent. 14 “Reasonable” is generally understood to mean “possessing sound judgement,” “within sensible or rational limits,” and “not extreme or excessive.”  15 “Reasonable” reflects good judgment that is “fair and proper under the circumstances” or “rational, sound, and sensible.”  16 The Supreme Court has also recognized that statutes using terms such as “appropriate” or “reasonable” leaves agencies with flexibility and authority to exercise a “degree of discretion” in interpreting statutes. 17 The NCUA regulation, § 701.33, implements section 111. Given this framework, the NCUA Board has used its discretion under the FCU Act to interpret these terms and give FCU boards latitude in fashioning reimbursement policies and making individualized determinations. 18

This final rule follows publication of the January 26, 2026, proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on March 27, 2026, NCUA received 19 comment letters regarding the proposed rule. Comments were received from trade associations, credit union leagues, federal credit unions, and individuals. After carefully considering the comments, NCUA is publishing this final rule with one non-substantive edit for clarity and precision. All other sections of the regulation remain unchanged.

The NCUA Board requested comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and, specifically, the following topics: broadening board participation, eligible officials, other federal agency standards regarding dependent care costs, FCU board responsibilities, lost wage comparisons, reimbursement situations, industry statistics, state-level best practices, and corporate FCUs. Most commenters opted to provide general comments rather than address the specific questions posed in the preamble to the proposed rule. Only two commenters specifically addressed each of the 12 questions presented. This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the NCUA Board's responses to the comments.

The comments were largely supportive of the proposed regulatory amendments. Most comments supported reimbursing reasonable dependent care costs for volunteer officials, citing reduced financial barriers and increased board participation. One commenter questioned the proposal's practical benefit for small FCUs but ultimately supported NCUA's intent and the proposal if it would benefit some credit unions.

Most commenters described dependent care costs as a tangible barrier that can discourage skilled candidates with caregiving responsibilities from board service—particularly single parents, working parents, military families, and caregivers for persons with disabilities. The rising expenses of childcare and eldercare were frequently cited by commenters. Several commenters observed that offering reimbursement can ease this financial burden, making volunteering more accessible to those with caregiving duties. One commenter noted that reimbursing dependent care costs would give FCUs greater flexibility to support work-life balance among volunteer officials. Others emphasized its potential to strengthen credit union governance and improve recruitment efforts to attract skilled candidates.

NCUA Response. The NCUA Board appreciates the support expressed by the commenters. Based on the public feedback and other factors described in the preamble to the proposed rule, the NCUA Board agrees that recognizing dependent care costs as a reimbursable expense will provide FCUs with greater flexibility to support volunteer officials with caregiver responsibilities and whose duties include credit union business.

As proposed, the NCUA Board would authorize FCUs to extend dependent care reimbursement to a “volunteer official,” as defined in 12 CFR 701.21(c)(8)(ii). This term refers to a credit union official who does not receive compensation from the credit union solely for his or her service as an official. Under the current regulation, § 701.33(a) defines “official” to include a member of the FCU board of directors, credit committee or supervisory committee, or other volunteer committee established by the FCU board. Section 701.33(b), however, only allows payments when an official carries out the responsibilities of their credit union position.

Four comments discussed whether dependent care reimbursement should extend to officials other than FCU board members like associate directors, directors emeriti, and committee members. Two commenters suggested eligibility should be based on board-assigned duties, noting that associate directors and committee members frequently undertake significant responsibilities that may justify reimbursement. The other two commenters supported extending reimbursement to all volunteers engaged in credit union governance.

NCUA Response. After careful consideration of the public comments, the NCUA Board has decided not to exclude volunteer officials, such as associate directors and committee members, who provide board designated services and who act in more than an honorary capacity from the final rule. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, since 2011, associate directors or similar FCU officials who meet these conditions have been eligible for reimbursement of training and travel costs under § 701.33. 19 The NCUA Board believes that these volunteer officials are distinguishable from directors emeritus who are not authorized to perform any duties other than providing advice to the credit union's board, staff, and other committees as needed. 20 The NCUA Board agrees that, if the volunteer official in question provides board designated services that go beyond merely serving in an honorary capacity, the usual requirements governing payments apply to dependent care costs.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, the NCUA Board invited comment on whether the final rule should include other federal agency standards addressing dependent care costs. The NCUA Board proposed defining dependent care costs as expenses for the care of a qualifying individual (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 21). The proposed provision adopted the Internal Revenue Code's definition for qualifying individual under 26 U.S.C. 21. In the proposal, the NCUA Board noted that the qualifying individual standard also applies to dependent care assistance programs, such as flexible spending accounts. 21 As proposed, examples of qualifying individuals would include: (1) a dependent child under 13 years of age; (2) a spouse who is physically or mentally incapable of self-care and resides with the volunteer official for more than half of the year, or (3) other dependents (such as an adult child or elderly relative) who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves and who live with the volunteer official for more than half of the year.

While NCUA has historically found Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretations to be persuasive, the proposed rule did not further define “care of a qualifying individual” based on IRS regulations. For example, under the IRS regulation at 26 CFR 1.21-1(d), expenses are considered for the care of a qualifying individual if the primary function is to assure the individual's well-being and protection. The IRS regulation also outlines additional requirements regarding the care of a qualifying individual, including expense allocation, indirect expenses, incidentals, and the manner of care. The IRS regulation provides illustrations for determining whether a particular dependent care cost may be eligible for the dependent care tax credit. 22

The preamble to the proposed rule also discussed the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approach as another potential alternative. For federal financial assistance awards, OMB regulations allow temporary dependent care costs beyond regular dependent care, if they: (i) directly result from travel to a conference for the Federal award; (ii) align with written travel policies; and (iii) are only temporary during travel. 23 The OMB regulation adopted the Internal Revenue Code's definition of dependent (26 U.S.C. 152) but did not specifically define “dependent care costs.”  24

Eight comments responded to defining dependent care costs using other federal agency guidelines. Commenters differed on whether the final rule should define “dependent care costs.” Several urged the NCUA Board to avoid strict definitions or monetary limits, citing regional cost variations and differences in credit union size. Some opposed regulatory definitions, warning such measures might inadvertently exclude certain groups or overlook regional needs. Many of these commenters noted that FCU boards are best suited to set relevant policies and suggested NCUA manage safety and soundness via supervision. Others recommended clarifications in the preamble to the final rule or through guidance.

Two commenters supported defining “dependent care costs” using the Internal Revenue Code's definition for qualifying individual but preferred leaving documentation requirements to FCU board discretion. Others cited the OMB regulation as persuasive. As an alternative, one FCU suggested defining “dependent” to include any qualifying individual for whom the volunteer official has primary caregiving responsibility and for whom care is necessary for the official's credit union duties. According to the commenter, this would encompass minor children, spouses, adult children, parents, and other household members incapable of self-care and residing with the official most of the year. The commenter recommended “dependent care costs” include reasonable, necessary, and documented expenses for supervision, care, or custodial support incurred specifically for credit union activities, such as meetings, training, travel, or other approved functions. The commenter wrote that these costs could involve payments to licensed childcare providers, in-home caregivers, adult day care services, or similar arrangements, provided they are reasonable in amount, properly documented, and related to official duties.

NCUA Response. The NCUA Board welcomes feedback on regulatory clarity and remains committed to working to ensure clear regulatory obligations. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, FCUs face the task of balancing the FCU Act's restriction on compensation with the need to recruit skilled volunteer officials. The NCUA Board appreciates the thorough review and recommendations provided by commenters.

After careful consideration of the comments and alternatives, the NCUA Board believes it is appropriate to maintain a regulatory definition for dependent care costs in the final rule. The final rule incorporates only the Internal Revenue Code's statutory definition for qualifying individual under 26 U.S.C. 21(b). Additionally, a non-substantive change has been made to the proposed definition of dependent care costs. The proposed rule referenced the statutory definition of qualifying individual found in 26 U.S.C. 21. For clarity, the final rule now refers to paragraph (b) in 26 U.S.C. 21, which specifically defines qualifying individual. Accordingly, the NCUA Board is adopting this clarification in the final rule, with dependent care costs meaning expenses for the care of a qualifying individual (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 21(b)).

The NCUA Board also finds the comments cautioning against additional prescriptive requirements to be persuasive. As such, the NCUA Board agrees that it is not necessary to incorporate additional detailed requirements into the final rule. The NCUA Board considered the alternatives but has determined that the final rule offers the most appropriate balance to clarify supervisory expectations while preserving FCU board flexibility. The NCUA Board has not further defined terms such as “care” or “care of” in the final rule as they should generally be understood according to their common, ordinary meaning. For example, care refers to “responsibility or attention to health, well-being, and safety,” while take care of means “providing for or attending to someone's needs”. 25 The NCUA Board believes this plain-language meaning allows FCU boards to create written policies, including documentation requirements, suitable for their size, financial condition, governance, operational complexity, and the volunteer ethos of FCUs. As stated in the proposed rule, the NCUA Board has historically left such details to each FCU's board of directors, within the boundaries of reasonableness and safety and soundness. 26 While the final rule does not impose more prescriptive requirements, the NCUA Board recognizes that FCU boards may refer to the noted alternatives when establishing comparable or stricter procedures in their reimbursement policies. Further, the NCUA Board believes the plain meaning of dependent care costs is sufficient to enable the agency to address any instances where a credit union's policy allows remuneration beyond what reasonably would qualify as dependent care costs for a volunteer official.

In the proposed rule, the NCUA Board invited public comment on an FCU board's responsibilities in amending payment policies to include dependent care costs for volunteer officials. The NCUA Board also solicited comments on potential obstacles and associated cost considerations for FCU boards electing to pay dependent care costs for volunteer officials.

The general consensus among commenters was that dependent care reimbursement should be voluntary and that FCU boards should have discretion to adopt more restrictive policies or to disallow such reimbursements entirely. Some commenters recommended that credit unions not planning to use this authority should not be forced to adopt a standalone policy, as it could create unnecessary administrative burden, especially for smaller FCUs with limited resources. Commenters anticipated that related expenditures should be negligible due to the discretionary nature of reimbursement, existing regulatory boundaries, and if a targeted approach is adopted by FCU boards. They noted that FCUs are adequately equipped to manage costs through measures such as restricting eligibility, documentation standards, and internal approval processes. And, if needed, FCU boards can implement alternative measures should reimbursement prove overly costly or impractical.

Commenters also supported a principles-based supervisory model that requires reasonable documentation to validate actual costs related to official credit union duties. Many suggested FCU boards should, subject to supervisory oversight, establish reasonableness standards with written policies tailored to each institution's size and complexity. These policies would address documentation, internal controls, eligibility criteria, and duty-based connections. Commenters proposed substantiating dependent care costs through invoices or receipts clearly showing the nature of services provided, dates and duration of care, amounts paid, and the official purposes necessitating these costs. While acknowledging that tax matters fall outside the NCUA Board's purview, some commenters requested clarification on possible tax reporting consequences, such as relevant reporting thresholds.

NCUA Response: The NCUA Board agrees that provided the dependent care costs are reasonable, within the bounds of § 701.33, and safety and soundness concerns are met, payments should be with the discretion of the individual FCU's board of directors. The NCUA Board observes that the current NCUA regulation, § 701.33, requires an FCU board to satisfy several conditions to reimburse volunteer officials for out-of-pocket expenses. First, the payment must be for reasonable and proper costs incurred by an official in carrying out their credit union responsibilities. As the NCUA Board has noted on prior occasions, this step includes determining whether the payment is reasonable in amount in relation to the resources and financial condition of the FCU. Second, the FCU board must determine that the payment is necessary or appropriate in order to carry out the official business of the credit union. Third, the payment must be in accordance with the board-adopted written policies and procedures, including documentation requirements.

With this regulatory amendment, the NCUA Board is authorizing FCU boards to choose whether to adopt written policies for reimbursing or directly paying dependent care costs, as long as these conditions are met. The NCUA Board agrees with commenters that any cost increase for members should be minimal if these requirements are followed. The NCUA Board emphasizes that, under the final rule, dependent care payments remain optional and are not mandatory. The NCUA Board also acknowledges that an FCU board of directors can set stricter policies or ban these payments altogether. Ultimately, these decisions are up to each FCU board, within the boundaries of the rule.

As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the NCUA Board cautions FCUs that the final rule has no effect on applicable IRS regulations governing the reporting and taxing of any payments or reimbursements. In 2005, NCUA issued guidance to FCUs addressing the tax consequences of paying travel expenses for FCU volunteer officials and their guests. 27 The NCUA Board believes that the same considerations would apply to paying dependent care costs and encourages FCUs to review the 2005 guidance, which is available on NCUA.gov . For information on IRS requirements, NCUA recommends that FCUs and their officials consult with tax advisors or attorneys.

Several comments addressed small FCUs. One commenter underscored the benefit for smaller FCUs, which often operate with a limited pool of volunteers and may face recruitment difficulties if prospective board members must absorb out-of-pocket expenses. Two commenters noted that dependent care reimbursement should not be viewed as an entitlement or perk. Conversely, one commenter wrote that the proposal would provide minimal value to small FCUs given their restricted budgets and the credit union volunteer philosophy. This commenter also observed that the increased use of remote meetings diminishes the necessity for dependent care reimbursement, and that such reimbursement is unlikely to substantially influence volunteer recruitment or retention for small FCUs. This commenter emphasized that there are more pressing regulatory burdens on small FCUs, such as lengthy examinations, punitive findings, “over-compliance” pressures, unrealistic expectations for unpaid supervisory committee volunteers, and complex regulations. The commenter urged additional tiered relief in these areas as more meaningful for small credit unions. Another commenter recommended that NCUA offer additional guidance, flexibility, or financial support to mitigate any financial impact on smaller FCUs.

NCUA Response. The NCUA Board welcomes the public comments submitted on the proposed rule and appreciates the support expressed by most commenters. Requests for additional regulatory relief are outside the scope of the proposed rule. Although the comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking, the NCUA Board values this feedback and will bear the suggestions in mind in considering other regulatory changes as appropriate in the future.

While the NCUA Board is sympathetic to the financial constraints raised by the commenters, the requests for federal financial assistance is beyond the purview of this final rule. This final rule follows established principles for paying reasonable expenses under section 111 and § 701.33. As discussed in more detail in this preamble, the NCUA Board observes that payments under § 701.33 remain optional and are not mandatory. The NCUA Board has long recognized that discretionary reimbursements under § 701.33 should be reasonable in amount in relation to the FCU's resources and financial condition. For example, smaller FCUs may have fewer board members, or have fewer volunteers who would qualify for dependent care reimbursement. While section 111 permits FCUs to pay reasonable expenses incurred by volunteer officials in performing official credit union business, the provision does not authorize NCUA to provide federal financial assistance for such costs. Accordingly, the NCUA Board has not revised the rule in response to these comments.

FISCUs are not subject to § 701.33 and must comply with applicable state laws pertaining to board member compensation. 28 The NCUA Board invited public comment on state requirements and FISCU policies governing reimbursing credit union officials for dependent care expenses. Six commenters responded to the question on state-level practices for reimbursing dependent care expenses. Several commenters noted that some state frameworks already permit compensation or broader reimbursement. These commenters supported the proposal, noting it would help federal charters remain competitive while maintaining volunteer-governance principles. Another commenter suggested that adopting this proposal may encourage some state regulators to implement similar policies for state-chartered credit unions. One national trade association is currently reviewing state policies and plans to share best practices with NCUA.

NCUA Response. The NCUA Board recognizes the importance of state law in regulating FISCUs and that FISCUs may be subject to state-specific board reimbursement policies. 29 No comments provided further information on state-level practices or requirements for the NCUA Board's consideration.

The NCUA Board requested public comments on whether similar considerations for prohibiting the payment of lost wages apply to dependent care costs. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, a national trade organization maintained that lost wages to attend a board meeting are not similar to childcare expenses. 30 A few comments agreed that dependent care costs are out-of-pocket expenses similar to travel costs incurred for official duties. Several commenters suggested that the NCUA Board should reconsider permitting reimbursement for lost wages or leave taken to attend board meetings or conferences. Another commenter urged expanding the final rule to allow reimbursement for lost opportunity costs like honoraria for speaking engagements or representing the credit union at events, and retainers for professional services performed in an official role.

NCUA Response. The NCUA Board agrees that dependent care costs are distinguishable from lost wages. The NCUA Board believes that, unlike lost wages, dependent care costs are actual out-of-pocket expenses. The other suggestions made by commenters to add lost wages and lost opportunity costs to the final rule are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The NCUA Board notes that, in 1988, the credit union community overwhelmingly opposed reimbursing volunteer officials for lost pay or leave. 31 Therefore, the NCUA Board has not revised the rule in response to these comments.

The NCUA Board requested feedback on whether corporate FCUs should be regulated differently but received no substantive comments. Accordingly, the final rule applies to corporate FCUs.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 32 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 33 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is “not significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 34 This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 35 If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 36 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 37 The NCUA Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule would permit small FCU boards of directors to adopt family friendly policies that directly pay or reimburse volunteer officials for reasonable dependent care costs incurred in carrying out their official board duties. Small FCUs traditionally have had the most difficulty recruiting volunteer officials, and this rule provides them with another recruiting tool. Consistent with long-standing practices, the NCUA Board expects that small FCU payment policies including dependent care costs will continue to be reasonable in relation to its resources and financial condition while maintaining financial stability and capital adequacy. As outlined in the preamble to this rule, smaller FCU boards would be able to set their own cost limits or opt not to implement payment policies entirely. Additionally, the NCUA Board anticipates that small FCU boards are unlikely to opt to pay dependent care expenses without evaluating whether the recruiting benefits (for example, the enhanced ability to attract and keep talented volunteer officials) outweigh the associated expenses. Small FCUs choosing to adopt such policies can also mitigate costs by limiting eligibility requirements, setting monetary limits, and establishing internal approval procedures. The NCUA Board anticipates that related expenses will remain minimal given the optional nature of reimbursements, current regulatory frameworks, remote meeting capabilities, and the possibility for small FCU boards to take a targeted approach. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

The final rule will require revision of an existing information collection to be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB for approval under the PRA. NCUA is proposing to extend for three years, with revision, this information collection.

OMB Control Number: 3133-0130.

Title of Information Collection: Written Reimbursement Policy, 12 CFR 701.33.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,715.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.3.

Estimated Annual Responses: 3,620.

Estimated Hours per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,263.

The final rule contains information collection recordkeeping requirements that would impose PRA burden governing reimbursement of dependent care costs. This burden is associated with modifying the written reimbursement policy to incorporate dependent care costs for volunteer board members.

The burden table lists the estimated annual number of responses per respondent and estimated time per response. Note that the number of respondents for information collection activity 2 have been annualized to reflect a three-year PRA cycle in which respondents incur implementation burden in the first year and ongoing burden in the second and third years.

Since the implementation burden is incurred only in year one of the three-year PRA clearance cycle, the annual burden is the average of the implementation burden imposed over three years or .3333 hours per year. (1 hour in year one, plus zero hours for years two and three; divided by three).

NCUA estimates a total annual burden of 2,263 hours as follows:

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. While some states incorporate federal regulations by law or by practice, states may still decide for themselves whether to incorporate the proposed changes by reference. States remain free to establish their own policies for board compensation and for reimbursing FISCU officials for reasonable expenses incurred in executing official credit union duties. 38 NCUA has therefore determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 39 Relative to the current state, reimbursements for childcare expenses will increase disposable income and thus decrease financial strain (and potentially poverty) for the families receiving such reimbursement. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, median full-day childcare price for one child in 2022 ranged from $6,552 ($7,266 in 2024 dollars) to $15,600 ($17,300) per year, depending on provider type, the child's age, and geographic location. These costs represented 8.9 percent to 16.0 percent of median family income per child in paid care. 40 The financial impact on the family in question is, therefore, positive. The funds needed for reimbursement may come from credit union members in the form of reduced interest on deposits/higher interest on loans. The cost per member, however, should be minimal. In addition, based on the NCUA Call Report data, the benefit to FCU members from having volunteers versus paid employees should outweigh the cost of reimbursing for childcare. 41

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 42 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 43 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. Specifically, the rule will not (i) have an aggregate economic impact greater than or equal to $100 million, (ii) produce an increase in prices/costs for consumers or other industry stakeholders/regulators, or (iii) adversely affect domestic competition or the ability of U.S. enterprises to compete in foreign markets. NCUA will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 701 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4650; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00514-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, 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 final rule 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 final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Soban Saeed, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued Emergency AD 2026-10-51, dated May 15, 2026 (also referred to as the emergency AD), to address an unsafe condition on Hélicoptères Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The emergency AD requires inspecting the MR mast for cracks and corrosion pitting, and depending on the results of the inspection, the emergency AD requires accomplishing the corrective actions. The emergency AD also requires modifying the MR mast, which includes applying corrosion protection to the MR mast and reporting inspection results within 14 days after accomplishment of the inspection. The emergency AD prohibits installing an MGB having part number (P/N) G21-10-000, P/N G21-10-001, P/N G21-10-002, or P/N G21-10-003, unless certain requirements are met.

Emergency AD 2026-10-51 was prompted by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD 2026-0095-E, dated May 12, 2026 (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition on Hélicoptères Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters. The MCAI states a report was received of a crack on the MR mast after the crew reported an abnormal increase of vibration.

The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct any cracks or corrosion on the MR mast. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the MR mast, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4650.

The FAA reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 26-009 B, Revision B, dated May 13, 2026. This material specifies procedures for disassembly of the MR mast, inspection of the MR mast for a crack or corrosion pitting, and corrective actions, which include removing affected parts from service and contacting HG customer support for further instructions.

The FAA also reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 18-023 E, Revision E, dated May 13, 2026, which specifies procedures for inspecting the MR mast for corrosion and applying protective coatings.

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

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Referenced Material.”

Where the referenced material specifies contacting HG for repair instructions or corrective actions, this AD requires using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Hélicoptères Guimbal's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2026-10-51, issued on May 15, 2026, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the MR mast is critical to flight of a helicopter. Cracking of the MR mast may lead to destruction of the MR mast, departure of the main rotor head, and loss of control of the helicopter. Since the FAA has no information pertaining to the extent of cracking of the MR mast that may currently exist in helicopters, the initial actions required by this AD must be accomplished before further flight for certain helicopters. This compliance time is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for the publication of the final rule. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 67 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-02-11, Amendment 39-21908 (87 FR 7033, February 8, 2022) (AD 2022-02-11). AD 2022-02-11 was prompted by EASA AD 2018-0289R1, dated February 10, 2021 (EASA AD 2018-0289R1), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. AD 2022-02-11 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2022-02-11 required repetitive rototest inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any cracking and repair if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2022-02-11 to address cracking of the web holes at the door stop fittings, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2026 (91 FR 9202). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0111, dated May 14, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0111) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states, after issuance of EASA AD 2018-0289R1, Airbus revised the inspection and modification service bulletins. The inspection service bulletin now refers to newly developed structural repair manual tasks as corrective action for certain findings for current engine option (CEO) airplanes, with no need for specific repair instructions from Airbus. Further, it was decided, for new engine option (NEO) airplanes, the applicable airworthiness limitations item tasks should be replaced with the applicable inspection and modification service bulletins.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-02-11, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0111 and to expand the applicability by adding Airbus SAS Model A319-151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes; Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -271NY, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2281.

The FAA received a comment from an individual who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received an additional comment from American Airlines (American). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

American requested the FAA add an exception to this AD that specifies airplanes having the modification service bulletin (defined in EASA AD 2025-0111) embodied after 6,100 flight cycles since airplane first flight but prior to the effective date of this AD are considered applicable to this AD, but terminated for the repetitive requirements of this AD. American is concerned that excluding airplanes, which were applicable to AD 2022-02-11 but had the modification (terminating action for the repetitive inspections) accomplished under the authority of AD 2022-02-11 prior to the effective date of this AD, could unintentionally be misleading as to the true status (modified) of those airplanes.

The FAA disagrees with the request. Operators should have records documenting accomplishment of the modification. Those records will show that the repetitive inspections required by AD 2022-02-11 were terminated by the modification, and that this AD does not apply to the modified airplane. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

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

EASA AD 2025-0111 specifies procedures for performing repetitive rototest inspections of the door stop fitting holes at positions 1 and 7 at fuselage frame (FR) 16 and FR20 on left- and right-hand sides, respectively, for any cracking and repair if necessary.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,979 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2025-06-04, Amendment 39-22992 (90 FR 14723, April 4, 2025), (AD 2025-06-04). AD 2025-06-04 applied to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2025 (90 FR 53238). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0044, dated February 28, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0044) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that after a fleet design review for detection of particles in the MGB, it was determined that additional maintenance actions are necessary to improve detection of particles in MGB that have certain part-numbered planet gear bearings installed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions of AD 2025-06-04 and revise the interval compliance times. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct particles in the MGB. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced or loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were Airbus Helicopters and an anonymous individual. The individual did not request any changes to the AD, therefore the FAA infers that the commenter supported the NPRM. Airbus Helicopters requested that the FAA require periodic inspections and requested revision to the interval compliance times.” The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Airbus Helicopters requested that the proposed AD be revised to require a periodic borescope inspection of the bevel wheel without condition. Airbus Helicopters stated that the proposed AD only requires a borescope bevel wheel inspection in case of particles found on MGB magnetic plugs during a visual inspection, and this does not address the unsafe condition.

The FAA infers that Airbus Helicopters requested that the periodic borescope bevel wheel inspections be required at defined compliance times, without any conditions in accordance with the Airbus material. The proposed AD already adopts paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0044, which requires accomplishing repetitive borescope inspections of the bevel wheel of the affected MGB in accordance with the instructions of the material. Therefore, there is no change made to this AD based on this request.

Airbus Helicopters stated the interval compliance times listed in Table 1 to paragraph (h)(6)(i) of the proposed AD (150 hours time-in-service (TIS) for EC130T2 and 100 hours TIS for all other versions) are not in accordance with published maintenance documents, including the Airworthiness Limitations Section, the Master Servicing Manual, the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), or the Maintenance Manual.

The exception in paragraph (h)(6) of the proposed AD was intended to address the compliance times of the AMM tasks and not change the inspection requirement. After further review the FAA has determined this exception, which includes Table 1 to paragraph (h)(6)(i), is no longer necessary due to the FAA incorporating the MCAI compliance times. Accordingly, the final rule has been updated with the deletion of this exception and table.

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

This AD requires EASA AD 2023-0044, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of May 9, 2025 (90 FR 14723, April 4, 2025). EASA AD 2023-0044 specifies procedures for performing repetitive borescope visual inspections of the bevel wheel of the affected MGB for particles, collecting and analyzing any particles detected, and depending on the results, accomplishing further actions, accomplishing corrective action in accordance with the ASB, or contacting AH [Airbus Helicopters] for further corrective action. EASA AD 2023-0044 also specifies procedures for accomplishing a borescope visual inspection of the bevel wheel of the affected MGB for particles following the detection of any particles at the MGB magnetic plug during accomplishment of certain maintenance tasks and depending on the results, taking corrective action. EASA AD 2023-0044 also prohibits installing an affected MGB on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met.

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

The MCAI applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.

Where Note 1 in the material referenced in the MCAI specifies the option of 1 mechanical technician and 1 crew member, for this AD, the pilot is only permitted to turn the tail rotor (b) because the other actions specified in the note must be accomplished by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3. Therefore, for the purposes of this AD, the owner/operator (pilot) may turn the tail rotor (b) and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of this AD in the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves turning the tail rotor (b). This action can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This action is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.

Where the material referenced in the MCAI specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for a certain action, this AD requires accomplishing action in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 522 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.

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

Certain corrective action could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no data to determine the costs to accomplish the corrective action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2026 (91 FR 16867). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0209, dated September 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0209) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that during manufacturing investigation of an early production A350-941 airplane, it was found that improper application of the fastener retorque process at the CWB and BF junctions could lead to insufficient clamping. Fasteners with part number EN6115 code B were particularly susceptible to rotation, and if not torqued correctly, could potentially compromise structural integrity and compliance with the electromagnetic hazard requirements of the airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could, in the case of a fuel leak, create a source of ignition, possibly resulting in an uncontrolled fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing affected fasteners installed on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the CWB and BF junctions and applying additional head nut cap protection, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0209. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3475.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) that they supported the NPRM.

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

EASA AD 2025-0209 specifies procedures for replacing affected fasteners installed on the LH and RH sides of the CWB and BF junctions and applying additional head nut cap protection.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2026 (91 FR 13240). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2025-0271, dated December 2, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0271) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that during a test flight on a Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplane in which the airplane flew specific maneuvers where gravitational loads (g-loads) were close to 0 g, during landing with flaps at 40 degrees, the SWPS triggered at a higher-than-expected airspeed, including the aural warning, stick shaker, and stick pusher. This same software is on the delivered airplanes that are affected by this AD. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced safety margins of the airplane, increased pilot workload, and reduced control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require updating operational software and incorporating a POH TR. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected software, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0271. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2715.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0271, which specifies procedures for updating the Honeywell Primus APEX operational software, and for incorporating Pilatus PC-12/47E POH TR No. 32 into the POH. EASA AD 2025-0271 also allows for the incorporation of a later POH revision that includes the same POH amendment content and prohibits the installation of affected software. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 265 airplanes of U. S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), in 21 U.S.C 823(h), 1 has long mandated that practitioners who dispense narcotic drugs for maintenance or detoxification treatment must obtain an annual separate registration for that purpose  2 and has also provided exceptions to that requirement in a previous iteration. Congress has revised, and then removed, the exceptions over time. Previously, 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2) set forth the conditions under which a practitioner could, without being separately registered as a Narcotic Treatment Program (NTP), dispense a narcotic drug in Schedule III, IV, or V for the purpose of maintenance treatment  3 or detoxification treatment. 4 On October 24, 2018, the President signed the SUPPORT Act into law as Public Law 115-271. Sections 3201 and 3202 of the SUPPORT Act amended certain provisions of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2) [now 823(h)(2)]. 5 Section 3204 of the SUPPORT Act amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by adding section 309A (21 U.S.C. 829a), which sets forth the conditions under which a pharmacy may deliver certain controlled substances to the prescribing practitioner or the practitioner administering the controlled substance (administering practitioner) for the purpose of maintenance or detoxification treatment. All of the changes to the CSA, from these sections of the SUPPORT Act, will be fully described below.

On December 29, 2022, the President signed the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 into law by way of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (hereinafter Omnibus), as title I of Division FF of Public Law 117-328. Section 1262 of the Omnibus amended the CSA by striking section 303(h)(2) (21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)) in its entirety and striking parts of 303(h)(1) (21 U.S.C. 823(h)(1)), eliminating the DATA-waiver program. 6 Additionally, Section 1263 of the Omnibus added paragraph (m) to section 303 (21 U.S.C. 823), implementing a one-time training requirement for prescribers of controlled substances. 7 Section 1264 amended section 309A(a)(5) (21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(5)) by increasing the number of days within which certain controlled substances must be administered. All of the changes to the CSA from these sections of the Omnibus will be fully described below.

Opioid use disorder in the United States continue to impact disparate communities and populations. According to the report “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health” released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an estimated 1.6 million people (0.6 percent of this population) aged 12 or older had an opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2019. 8 The share of the population 12 and older estimated to have had an OUD in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 was 0.9 percent, 0.8 percent, 0.8 percent, and 0.7 percent respectively. Among people aged 12 or older with an OUD in 2019, about 294,000 received medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for OUD at a specialty facility  9 in the past year, or 18.1 percent of all those with an OUD. The percentage of those with an OUD that received treatment at a specialty facility in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 was estimated to be 21.7 percent, 21.1 percent, 28.6 percent, and 19.7 percent respectively.

DEA published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) with request for comments in the Federal Register on November 2, 2020. 85 FR 69153. The regulations went into effect on October 30, 2020; however, comments could be submitted through January 4, 2021.

In the IFR, in accordance with § 3201(a) of the SUPPORT Act (formerly codified at 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)), DEA revised 21 CFR 1301.28(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2) to provide flexibility to practitioners regarding the number of patients they may treat under a DATA-waiver, without being separately registered as an NTP. In addition to the options that were available before the SUPPORT Act, DEA added more opportunities to increase the applicable number of patients that may be treated under a DATA-waiver from 30 to 100. DEA also revised 21 CFR 1301.28(b)(1)(iii)(B) in the IFR to clarify that a practitioner treating up to 275 patients must meet the requirements set forth in 42 CFR 8.610 to 8.655. 10

Prior to passage of the Omnibus, the CSA mandated that a practitioner who dispensed narcotic drugs for maintenance treatment or detoxification treatment under a DATA-waiver be a qualifying practitioner, which included “qualifying physicians” and “qualifying other practitioners.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)(B)(i). Pursuant to §§ 3201(b)-(d) of the SUPPORT Act, the IFR revised 21 CFR 1301.28(b)(1)(i) to permanently allow a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant to be considered a “qualifying other practitioner,” and temporarily (until October 1, 2023) expanded the definition of a “qualifying practitioner” to also include a clinical nurse specialist (CNS), certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA), or a certified nurse midwife (CNM) who meets the qualifications set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)(G)(iv), allowing more flexibility.

Section 3202(a) of the SUPPORT Act added an eighth option for a physician to be considered a “qualifying physician” for purposes of the DATA waiver. In the IFR, DEA revised 21 CFR 1306.04 by adding paragraph (d) to implement this new option. Specifically, paragraph (d) allows a physician to be considered a qualifying physician if they graduated in good standing from an accredited school of allopathic medicine or osteopathic medicine in the United States within the five-year period immediately preceding the date that the physician notified the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (Secretary of HHS or Secretary) of their intent to dispense narcotic drugs for maintenance or detoxification treatment, and successfully completed a comprehensive allopathic or osteopathic medicine curriculum or accredited medical residency that included training as further specified in the statute.

Section 3204(a) of the SUPPORT Act amended the CSA by adding section 309A (21 U.S.C. 829a), which sets forth the conditions in which a pharmacy may deliver certain prescribed controlled substances to an administering practitioner, where previously a pharmacy could only deliver such prescribed controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject. The preamble of the IFR explained, at length, the conditions stipulated in 21 U.S.C. 829a for a pharmacy to deliver certain prescribed controlled substances to the prescribing practitioner's or administering practitioner's registered location for the purpose of maintenance or detoxification treatment to be administered to a patient. See 85 FR 69153, 69155. Briefly, 21 U.S.C. 829a allowed a pharmacy to deliver narcotic drugs in schedule III, IV, or V, or combinations of such drugs, approved by FDA for use in maintenance or detoxification treatment, in accordance with a prescription, to a practitioner for the purpose of administration by injection or implantation. Under the SUPPORT Act, the prescription was required to be issued by a qualifying practitioner and the prescription could not be used to supply any practitioner with a stock of controlled substances for the purpose of general dispensing to patients. In the IFR, DEA implemented these conditions by adding § 1306.07(f).

In addition, at the time, 21 U.S.C. 829a stipulated that the practitioner must administer the controlled substance (by implantation or injection) to the patient named on the prescription not later than 14 days after the date of receipt by the practitioner. DEA implemented this requirement in § 1306.07(f)(5).

Finally, 21 U.S.C. 829a stipulates that the practitioner and pharmacy need to be authorized to conduct these activities in the State in which such activities take place. The prescribing practitioner and administering practitioner must maintain complete and accurate records of all controlled substances delivered, received, administered, or otherwise disposed of, including the persons to whom controlled substances were delivered and such other information that the Attorney General may require by regulations. DEA implemented these specific conditions in the IFR, again in § 1306.07(f).

Following passage of the Omnibus, the separate registration requirement in 21 U.S.C. 823(h) is only applicable to practitioners dispensing narcotic drugs in schedule II for the purpose of maintenance or detoxification treatment. Any practitioner wishing to dispense narcotic drugs in schedule II for the purpose of maintenance or detoxification treatment must obtain a separate registration as an NTP pursuant to that section.

By limiting the applicability of 21 U.S.C. 823(h) to only narcotic drugs in schedule II, Congress eliminated the need for practitioners to obtain a waiver of the requirement for a separate registration to dispense narcotic drugs in schedules III, IV, and V for maintenance or detoxification treatment. As such, Congress eliminated the waiver described in 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2) and all conditions for such waiver, including the requirement to notify the Secretary of HHS, the applicable number, and the requirement to be a “qualifying practitioner” and associated definition. These amendments require DEA to remove 21 CFR 1301.28. DEA also must eliminate 21 CFR 1306.05(b) and make conforming changes to 21 CFR 1306.04(c) and (d), and 1306.07(a), (d) and (f)(2). In so doing, DEA is revising 21 CFR 1306.04(c) to state in an affirmative manner the prescribing authorities that exist after the passage of the Omnibus.

In Section 1263 of the Omnibus, Congress added training requirements to 21 U.S.C. 823(m) as a condition of receiving a DEA registration for any qualified practitioner to dispense controlled substances in schedules II—V. These requirements are similar to those previously applicable to DATA-waiver practitioners under the repealed 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2), although the new 21 U.S.C. 823(m) includes more provisions. Section 1263 defined the term “qualified practitioner” as a practitioner who is licensed under State law to prescribe controlled substances and is not solely a veterinarian.

Prior to the Omnibus, training was only required for qualifying practitioners who wished to obtain a waiver of the requirement for a separate registration to dispense controlled substances in schedule III, IV, or V for maintenance treatment or detoxification treatment. Now, all practitioners (except those who are practicing solely as a veterinarian) seeking a DEA registration or registration renewal to dispense controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V are required to satisfy a one-time training requirement. This new requirement applies to any registration or renewal application submitted on or after June 27, 2023. These amendments require a modification to 21 CFR 1301.11 and to the definitions in 21 CFR 1300.01.

Last, Section 1264 of the Omnibus amended 21 U.S.C 829a(a)(5) by changing the number of days before which a controlled substance that was delivered by a pharmacy to an administering practitioner must be administered (by implantation or injection) to the named patient. As stated above, 21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(5) initially mandated 14 days however the Omnibus has amended the statutory requirement to be 45 days. This requires a modification to § 1306.07(f)(5).

DEA received 55 comments from the public, companies, associations, and state representatives; however, a few of these comments were duplicates. Each issue is summarized below, along with DEA's responses.

Issue: Overall, many commenters praised the IFR's increase in the number of patients that a practitioner may treat for maintenance treatment or detoxification treatment, without separately being registered as an NTP. However, there were some who expressed concern with the increase saying that it could lead to harmful and undesirable outcomes. Commenters expressed concern that while there aren't enough providers to treat addiction, simply allowing providers to treat more patients will not address the shortage. It was stated that treatments need to be carefully monitored by providers and stated that many providers, even those who have undergone training, do not understand that it takes a minimum of six months to address opioid use disorders. Commenters also asserted that the number of patients should be reflective of the administrative support, expertise, and experience of each individual physician.

Commenters also mentioned that with the increase, there is the potential for patients to fall through the safety net of their provider so DEA should make sure that physicians aren't pressured to take on more patients than they can handle. It was further suggested that DEA should set clear guidelines for legal ramifications of mistreatment, and add a requirement to this rule that will force practitioners to follow their patients more closely, along with some incentive for patients to return to their providers more regularly.

The commenters also discussed the two additional circumstances under which a DATA-waived practitioner may treat up to 100 patients ( i.e., if the practitioner holds additional credentialing or if a practitioner provides MAT within a qualified practice setting  11 ), saying that the circumstances may stunt the positive impact. Many commenters brought up the socioeconomic factors, stating that in the areas most affected, the practitioners that are most likely to benefit are primary care physicians and they would lack the additional credentialing required to take advantage of the increase in patients. It was suggested that there be a requirement for a provider to register if they are providing treatment with the expanded flexibilities but not condition the ability to treat more patients upon being able to meet these two “proposed” circumstances. One commenter stated that a provider should be required to inform DEA if they are treating an expanded number of patients or if they are providing treatment in an unqualified practice setting. This commenter also suggested that DEA redefine “additional credentialing” by allowing the credentials to be a provider's unrestricted license to provide MAT within their scope of practice.

DEA also received comments supporting the increase implemented in the IFR, stating the increase will allow practitioners to treat more people and improve the lives of those who suffer from opioid use disorders. The commenters also mentioned that allowing practitioners to treat more patients will benefit rural and underserved areas that are suffering from increased rates of opioid addiction by removing barriers for treatment in underserved regions.

DEA Response: DEA acknowledges the concerns for potential harm expressed by commenters, however the Omnibus has removed the DATA-waiver provisions in 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2) and all conditions on those waivers. As such, there is no longer a federal limit on the number of patients that a practitioner may treat for maintenance treatment or detoxification treatment, without separately being registered as NTP. Accordingly, DEA is removing the applicable number of patients in this final rule.

Issue: Prior to the SUPPORT Act, the CSA defined a “qualifying practitioner” under 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)(G)(iii), for purposes of the DATA waiver, to include a “qualifying other practitioner” which temporarily (until October 21, 2021) included NPs and PAs who met certain conditions. The SUPPORT Act made the inclusion of NPs and PAs permanent. Some commenters supported the permanent inclusion of NPs and PAs as qualifying other practitioners for purposes of the DATA-waiver, with one commenter noting that this elimination of the temporary time limit was one of the most important amendments of the SUPPORT Act. Commenters stated that this elimination and the expansion of the definition of “qualifying other practitioner” (temporarily until October 1, 2023, to include a CNS, a CRNA, or a CNM who meets certain conditions) increases the number of providers qualified to prescribe drugs used in MAT for OUD. Commenters also mentioned that the bottleneck of patients waiting to be seen in a detoxification or maintenance treatment center existing at the time of the IFR will be reduced or eliminated and patients will be treated more quickly; however, DEA should ensure that prescribers have an understanding of MAT, as the mismanagement of MAT by physicians could decrease the effectiveness and even be harmful. A commenter suggested that DEA, SAMHSA, and other relevant stakeholders provide additional education and support for MAT.

Commenters supported the elimination of the time limit for NPs and PAs, stating that this expands the number of quality practitioners available and the amount of patients that can receive care. Commenters explained that NPs and PAs are qualified to address addiction since they can specialize their course of study and they can write prescriptions for narcotics. Commenters added that this elimination will be a benefit because it will help lessen the workload of physicians. Commenters said that this allows NPs and PAs to continue their relationships with their patients, encouraging steady, uninterrupted treatment and increasing affordability and patient-provider trust.

In addition, commenters supported the SUPPORT Act's temporary inclusion of CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs as qualifying other practitioners, stating that the expansion will allow for flexibilities in underserved regions that may not have physician coverage. One commenter also mentioned that the expansion would allow for an expanded “team based” coverage at facilities, but suggested that DEA should further explain the flexibilities and ensure that qualifying other practitioners and qualifying practitioners  12 are sufficiently trained to identify patients with opioid addiction and administer narcotics for maintenance and/or detoxification treatments due to the immense risks and challenges to healthcare organizations and the patients.

DEA received comments disapproving of the time limit elimination for NPs and PAs, stating that care for opioid use disorders should be led by a physician. One commenter expressed that while health professionals should collaborate, regulations shouldn't be implemented which undermine the physician-led team-based care models that have proven to be effective. Commenters also stated that the skillset of an NP and a PA is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.

Some commenters did not support the temporary expansion to include CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs, stating that this could endanger patients by allowing the nursing specialties to prescribe buprenorphine when it is not their typical scope of practice. Commenters suggested that CRNAs and CNMs do not possess qualifications that guide them in caring for patients with opioid addiction.

Commenters also expressed socioeconomic concerns that, while the expansion of the definition of qualifying other practitioners may help improve access in low-income and rural communities, it may lead to more practitioners in suburban and higher-income communities. A commenter suggested that there needs to be specific legislative efforts that prioritize expanding access to low income and rural communities so that they are granted access to these opportunities.

DEA Response: The amendments made in the IFR are no longer applicable due to the implementation of the Omnibus. With the removal of paragraph (2) of 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the CSA no longer uses the classifications of qualifying practitioner and qualifying other practitioner. DEA recognizes that there are socioeconomic factors that come into play with the additions to the regulations that have already been implemented by the IFR. The elimination of the time limit for NPs and PAs along with the expansion of the definition of “qualifying other practitioner” opens up possibilities for those in low income and rural areas to have greater access to more providers.

DEA notes that many commenters were concerned about the educational qualifications for NPs, PAs, CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs. In the Omnibus, Congress added training requirements for all qualified practitioners who wish to register to dispense controlled substances in schedule II-V. The CSA no longer explicitly states that CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs can qualify to dispense. To obtain a DEA registration, all non-physician practitioners must be legally authorized by the State to dispense controlled substances in schedule II-V and, if they do not practice solely as a veterinarian, must satisfy one of the training conditions set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(B). DEA is making changes in this final rule from the provisions that had previously been adopted in the IFR to implement the Omnibus training requirements.

Additional Option to Allow a Physician to Become a Qualifying Physician Issue: As noted above, the SUPPORT Act added an eighth method by which physicians could be considered qualifying practitioners for purposes of the DATA waiver. Multiple commenters did not support the requirement in this eighth option that the medical school, from which the physician graduated in good standing, be located within the United States. The commenters said that all physicians must pass the same licensing exams to enter residency, regardless of their school's location, and residency is a requirement to practice medicine in the United States. A commenter also expressed concern that this will marginalize the skill and expertise of a pool of potential providers, as 25 percent of the physicians in the U.S. are international medical graduates. The commenter further stated that these graduates tend to specialize in primary care and practice in underserved areas. Commenters also opposed the SUPPORT Act limitation that no more than five years may have elapsed between the physician's successful completion of a particular medical school curriculum or residency and the physician's notification to HHS that they intend to begin dispensing certain narcotic drugs to patients for maintenance or detoxification treatment under 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2)(B)), noting that it neglects to consider the physicians that have been practicing medicine for more than five years.

Another commenter was concerned about this SUPPORT Act option because it only requires graduating in good standing from an accredited institution and only eight hours of training, stating that this frames opioid dependence as something that is simple. This commenter added that this option does not take into account that this disorder is a complex condition that requires a level of expertise.

Other commenters supported the additional option saying that requiring the additional training allows clinicians to make improvements to deal with the opioid epidemic. Various commenters also said this will enable physicians to educate their patients on opioid medication and offer alternatives. Commenters spoke to the training requirement having a positive impact, as practitioners will be more likely to review patients' history in order to ensure they do not have an opioid use disorder.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the numerous commenters' views regarding the additional training option for a physician to be considered a “qualifying physician” eligible for a DATA-waiver. Section 3202(a) of the SUPPORT Act amended the CSA to add this option and the IFR merely implemented Federal legislation. DEA does not have the authority to change the statutory provisions set forth by Congress. Due to the amendments made in the Omnibus, DEA is omitting these provisions related to the DATA-waiver from this final rule by removing the corresponding provision in 21 CFR 1306.04(d) and as such, this option is no longer relevant. However, Congress enacted a similar, but not identical, provision in the new training requirements for dispensers of controlled substances in schedules II, III, IV, and V.

Because the new training requirements in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A) discusses the condition of graduation from an accredited institution within the 5-year period immediately preceding the date on which the physician first registers with DEA, 13 DEA wants to clarify that additional options are available for those physicians who have been practicing longer than five years. DEA notes that a designation of “qualifying practitioner” no longer exists. Instead, relevant practitioners would be considered “qualified practitioners.” Physicians that have been practicing longer than five years can use one of the alternative options for meeting the training requirements, including the option applicable to physicians that are already board certified or trained in addiction medicine or addiction psychiatry. Alternatively, 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A) allows physicians to meet the training requirements by completing not less than 8 hours of training on the specified topics provided by the types of organizations mentioned in the law. However, a newer graduate would be less likely to be board certified and will have likely gone through a curriculum similar to the additional training. As such, this provision allows a practitioner who is a physician to meet the training requirements if they have recently (within the previous five years) graduated from an accredited allopathic or osteopathic medical school or dental surgery or dental medicine curriculum in the United States and completed a curriculum or an accredited medical residency which included not less than eight hours of training on treating and managing patients with opioid or other substance use disorders, or the other topics now mentioned in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A)(v). As stated above, the requirement that the medical school be in the United States is a statutory mandate and cannot be changed.

Issue 1: The IFR implemented section 3204(a) of the SUPPORT Act to allow a pharmacy to deliver a controlled substance to the prescribing practitioner's or administering practitioner's registered location, rather than only to the ultimate user or research subject, pursuant to a valid prescription for administration to the patient for purposes of maintenance or detoxification treatment within 14 days from when the practitioner receives the controlled substance (14-day limit). DEA received many comments stating that allowing a pharmacy to deliver a controlled substance in this manner will help to ensure that patients are receiving the treatment they need and complying with drug treatment plans, and that opioids are ending up with the correct person. Commenters also opined that this is a good step in ensuring that opioids are properly distributed while still increasing access. Commenters suggested that this will streamline service to patients, can decrease costs along the line of care, and will allow patients to access treatment directly within facilities under the direct supervision of their providers, hopefully increasing the level of care received.

While many commenters believe this delivery method to the practitioner will further allow for the ability to successfully treat patients in underserved regions, other commenters said this provision does not take into account low-income communities, where care would be inaccessible due to the lack of insurance and shortage of treatment options. The commenters said MAT centers and health care facilities are often far from rural and low-income communities and transportation is often an issue. One commenter said “clear and specific legislative efforts” are needed that prioritize the expansion of access to low income and rural communities. They also mentioned that while transportation is not the fault of DEA, DEA can work towards filling the gap of health care access “by focusing on equaling the distribution of MAT, through waived and qualified practitioners, across the nation.” Another commenter also stated that DEA is not considering patients who are being released from jail/prison. The commenter mentioned that upon release from jail, care coordinators need time to find appropriate medical care and practitioners to support the patient's recovery, which can take weeks.

DEA Response 1: DEA agrees with the many commenters' assertions that Congress's decision to allow pharmacies to deliver these medications to the prescribing or administering practitioner's location will be helpful for patients receiving treatment. While the IFR, as well as this rule, are not focused solely on rural and low-income areas, DEA is committed to creating regulations that allow access to care regardless of the socioeconomic status or location of the patient. For example, DEA has incorporated alternative methods to bring treatment to those in rural or other areas (see 85 FR 11008, Feb. 26, 2020) and patients can reach out to state opioid treatment authorities, which provide oversight and support to opioid treatment programs, for other alternatives for treatment. DEA acknowledges the commenters' wants for clear and specific legislative efforts addressing low income and rural communities, however DEA is only responsible for the implementation of legislation created and mandated by Congress, but does not actually create the legislation.

DEA believes that the delivery method defined in 21 U.S.C. 829a and 21 CFR 1306.07(f) increases provider options, helps to address the socioeconomic issues that commenters have expressed, and helps increase access to treatment in low-income and rural communities. As mentioned by commenters, the IFR did not address issues created by patients' lack of insurance, as insurance was outside the scope of the rule and the legislation on which the IFR was based. However, DEA believes that allowing a pharmacy to deliver these medications to the prescribing or administering practitioner may reduce burdens on patients by reducing other costs to access the medication, including the cost of transportation to the pharmacy. This delivery provision coupled with the provision discussed below where an administering practitioner does not have to be DATA-waived are steps toward filling the gap of MAT access.

In addition, the increase in provider options for administering should ease some concerns relating to the time needed to find care for patients being released from jail. While care coordinators are finding the appropriate medical care to support the patient's recovery, patients will be able to find an initial practitioner to whom the prescription can be sent for administration temporarily.

In this final rule, DEA is making no changes from the provisions that had previously been adopted in the IFR regarding to whom the prescription can be delivered.

Issue 2: Many companies, associations, and organizations requested that DEA clarify whether practitioners who are not DATA-waived can administer long-acting injectable (LAI) and implantable buprenorphine pursuant to a lawful prescription by a DATA-waived practitioner. According to these commenters, DATA-waived practitioners may not have the facility to administer the injections, so non-DATA waived practitioners should be permitted to administer injections ordered by a DATA-waived provider.

DEA Response 2: Since the DATA-waiver program no longer exists, DEA is not making any clarification. Instead, DEA is amending 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(2) to align with the amendments made by the Omnibus.

Issue 3: Companies, associations, organizations, and other commenters requested that DEA clarify that pharmacists are administering practitioners under 21 U.S.C. 829a, and are allowed to administer controlled substances pursuant to a valid prescription from a DATA-waived practitioner and to the extent authorized by state law. Three of these commenters provided a detailed rationale for why a pharmacist who is employed by a DEA-registered pharmacy and is authorized by state law to dispense controlled substances should be included in the CSA's definition of “practitioner,” which is found at 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 14 and therefore, should be able to administer such substances. Commenters also noted that Congress did not expressly require that the administering practitioner be a “qualifying practitioner.” Commenters also said that pharmacists have been appropriately trained and therefore, DEA should treat pharmacists as practitioners who may administer LAI buprenorphine to the extent authorized by state law.

Commenters suggested various limitations for the pharmacists to be considered an administering practitioner. Some stated that the pharmacist must be employed at a pharmacy while others specified that such pharmacy must hold a DEA registration. Still others noted that certain states allow a pharmacist to administer LAI buprenorphine under specified conditions and thus such administration would be within the scope of the pharmacist's practice. In addition, one commenter noted that DEA itself recognizes pharmacists in certain states as registered mid-level practitioners (MLPs) with specified controlled substance authority including administration. 15 Most commenters suggested that pharmacists be permitted to administer both LAI and implantable controlled substances; however, one commenter stipulated that the pharmacist's administration should only include injectables, not implantables.

Commenters stated that the clarification that pharmacists can be administering practitioners is necessary to avoid delays or disruptions in care when a DATA-waived practitioner is unavailable to administer the substance. The commenters maintained that this clarification will have a positive effect on patients in rural areas and in residential care facilities, and those receiving regular treatment via telemedicine, during natural disasters and during pandemics.

DEA Response 3: As noted by three commenters, the CSA's definition of “practitioner” includes a “pharmacy . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.” Section 3204(a) of the SUPPORT Act required only that the prescribing practitioner be a “qualifying practitioner” and placed no such limitations on the administering practitioner. DEA has considered the commenters' positions on pharmacists being considered an administering practitioner.

However, DEA declines to specifically list pharmacists as an administering practitioner in this final rule. DEA believes that Congress intended 21 U.S.C. 829a to allow a pharmacy to deliver a controlled substance to a different location from the pharmacy ( i.e., to the location listed on the certificate of registration of the prescribing practitioner or to the location listed on the certificate of registration of the administering practitioner). In furtherance of that intent, DEA is requiring the administering practitioner be individually registered under 21 U.S.C. 823(g) (pursuant to which DEA issues registrations) to dispense, and acting within the scope of such registration. While states also regulate pharmacists and decide what a pharmacist licensed in their state is authorized to do, currently, only a limited number of states allow MLPs individually registered with DEA as Registered Pharmacists to administer controlled substances.

Note, in this final rule, that DEA does not need to clarify that an administering practitioner is not required to be DATA-waived because the DATA-waiver program no longer exists.

Issue 4: Many commenters suggested that DEA use the authority granted by Congress under section 3204 of the SUPPORT Act (codified at 21 U.S.C. 829a) to modify the 14-day limit for administering such controlled substances to the patient named on the prescription. Commenters requested that DEA increase the 14-day limit to 30 or 60 days. Specifically, these commenters noted that section 3204 expressly allows DEA (under authority delegated by the Attorney General), in coordination with HHS, to change the time limit after the publication of a required report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on “access to and potential diversion of controlled substances administered by injection or implantation.” Some of the commenters also mentioned that the required GAO report, issued in August 2020, concluded that there is low use of implantable and injectable buprenorphine and the risk of diversion of implantable and injectable buprenorphine has been reduced.

Commenters had many concerns with the 14-day limit and expressed that this provision discourages providers from treating these patients. A commenter expressed concern that the 14-day limit could lead to overdose due to patients not being able to access the medication the remaining 16 days of the month. Commenters mentioned that patients have difficulty keeping appointments for reasons such as patient needs, insecure housing, transportation issues, problems with insurance, and holidays. They stated that the 14-day restriction puts an undue burden on the use of the valuable product because often times a patient is unable to schedule or reschedule within 14 days, and that after that time the provider would have to send the medication back and absorb the costs. Commenters also mentioned that when a patient requests a change in dosage strength after a medication has been delivered, the doctor would have to absorb the cost of the delivered patient-specific medication if the doctor cannot retain the medication in their inventory longer than 14 days. Commenters said that starting the process again after 14 days is taxing on staff and slows down the effort to help patients suffering from the opioid epidemic.

Companies, associations, and other DEA registrants mentioned that the alternative, non-patient-specific method by which practitioners can obtain these medications, “buy and bill,” is costly and many practitioners cannot bear the financial risks, especially when considering the uncertainty over whether a patient's insurance will reimburse, and if so, how much. These commenters also noted that non-patient-specific medication obtained by “buy and bill” is permitted to be stored until the medication expires.

Multiple commenters stated that 14 days is impracticable, as administering within this timeframe involves coordination of many components, including the pharmacy, practitioner, and patient. Commenters also informed DEA that there is a forthcoming product that will be shipped with four separate weekly injections at a time. Commenters said that the 14-day limit does not consider delays in shipping from retail and specialty pharmacies and is proving unworkable for providers and patients.

Commenters also said the requirement to destroy the received controlled substance after 14 days creates a large potential for waste. They opined that providers will be deterred from using this option due to fears that they may have to destroy it and incur significant costs in doing so.

DEA Response 4: DEA acknowledges the concerns regarding the 14-day limit. With the enactment of the Omnibus, Congress increased the 14-day limit to 45 days in section 309A(a)(5) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(5)). Because 45 days is the new baseline requirement, which DEA may modify in coordination with the Secretary of HHS pursuant to section 309A(b)(2) (21 U.S.C. 829a(b)(2)), DEA is implementing the increase to 45 days in this final rule. DEA will consider whether it is necessary to modify the 45-day limit, in consultation with the Secretary, in the future.

Finally, DEA notes that the time expended in obtaining insurance authorizations or during shipping does not affect the 45-day limit. The 45-day timeframe established by 21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(5) and 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(5) runs from the date the controlled substance is received by the practitioner. Additionally, DEA notes that neither the CSA nor DEA regulations require the destruction of the dispensed controlled substance after the 45-day period elapses. To the extent that destruction is required by state authorities, commenters may wish to engage with those state authorities.

Issue: One commenter expressed skepticism regarding DEA's analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the IFR. This commenter took issue with DEA's estimates regarding the number of qualifying providers, the number of patients receiving treatment, the treatment success rate of 29 percent, societal cost savings, and, as a result, the economic burden reduction derived from these estimates. In fact, the commenter believed the effect might instead add another cost burden on local, State, and Federal governments, and urged DEA to do further evaluations before finalizing the IFR.

More specifically, the commenter believed the projected number of NPs, PAs, CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs providers is too high, the estimated number of two million patients with OUD is not accurate, estimated “cost reduction” by twenty-nine percent is too high, and the lost productivity savings and criminal justice cost savings are too high.

DEA Response: While this commenter questioned the underlying assumptions of DEA's economic analysis, the commenter did not provide any studies, data sources, or alternative calculations that would assist DEA in refining its analysis. DEA's analysis is based firmly upon many academic studies, its own provider data, and making reasonable assumptions where specific data is not available. Data sources are clearly cited in the IFR. The projection for providers is based on DEA's registration data. The number of patients with opioid use disorder is based on published research (noted in the IFR) which includes the number of patients with opioid use disorder reported by SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health as meeting the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for abuse or dependence. 16 Furthermore, DEA believes the commenter misunderstood the use of “twenty-nine percent” in the analysis. The commenter believed the “twenty-nine percent” represented cost reduction; however, it represents the treatment success rate in the analysis. Therefore, DEA does not have enough additional information to alter the conclusions of the analysis, or to warrant further evaluations. The economic analysis in the Regulatory Analysis section below focuses on the impact of the limited changes from the IFR to the Final Rule.

While DEA considered the public comments submitted on the IFR, the Omnibus repealed many of the statutory provisions on which the IFR is based. Through this final rule, DEA is finalizing the IFR with modifications pursuant to the Omnibus. As such, DEA is removing many of the provisions that had been implemented by the IFR on the basis of now-repealed laws. DEA is implementing minor changes to some regulations to conform to the new statutory language adopted through the Omnibus. Additionally, DEA is implementing in this rulemaking the separate registration requirement for NTPs that was implemented in the CSA by the NATA. Through this rule, DEA is also making modifications where necessary to clarify issues presented by commenters.

First, DEA is including the definition of “qualified practitioner” in the regulations pursuant to the definition set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(4)(B). A qualified practitioner is a practitioner who is licensed under State law to prescribe controlled substances and who is not solely a veterinarian. This definition is found in 21 CFR 1300.01.

Second, in 21 CFR 1301.11, DEA is setting forth the requirement that NTPs obtain a separate registration for that purpose, annually. This will be found in the new paragraph (b), with the current paragraph (b) being moved to paragraph (d). This corresponds to the requirement in 21 U.S.C. 823(h).

In the newly added paragraph (c) of 1301.11, DEA is including the training requirement for “qualified practitioners” who wish to obtain a registration from DEA to dispense controlled substances, as found in 21 U.S.C. 823(m). The 21 U.S.C. 823(m) training requirements are determined by whether the qualified practitioner is or is not a physician, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 1395x(r). In accordance with moving the current paragraph (b) to paragraph (d), DEA is also revising paragraph (a) to update the reference to paragraph (b).

In accordance with these new training requirements for qualified practitioners, DEA has modified its forms 224 and 224a to require practitioners to self-attest to training when applying for registration and renewing their registration. The Omnibus requires the practitioners to meet the training requirement starting with the first applicable registration. The first applicable registration is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(4)(A) as the first registration or renewal of registration by a qualified practitioner that occurs on or after 180 days of the date of enactment of the Omnibus. That date is June 27, 2023.

Third, DEA is removing 21 CFR 1301.28 in its entirety and will be reserving that section for future use. This regulation implemented 21 U.S.C. 823(h)(2) by describing the DATA-waiver program, which has now been removed from the CSA by the Omnibus. There is no longer the opportunity or requirement to receive a waiver from the separate NTP registration requirement to dispense controlled substances in schedule III-V for maintenance or detoxification. There is no longer a definition for “qualifying physician,” “qualifying practitioner,” and “qualifying other practitioner.” In addition, there is no longer an applicable number to limit how many patients can be treated by a practitioner.

Next, DEA is modifying 21 CFR 1306.04(c) to remove the reference to 21 CFR 1301.28 since it will be deleted. Also, DEA is revising 21 CFR 1306.04(d) by removing references to “qualifying” throughout the paragraph and the applicable references to conform to the CSA.

DEA is also modifying 21 CFR 1306.05 by removing and reserving paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) required a prescription issued under the DATA-waiver program to include the identification number issued by DEA when registering for the program. However, now that the DATA-waiver program no longer exists, this regulation is no longer valid. In addition, DEA is revising 21 CFR 1306.07(d) by removing the citation reference to 21 CFR 1301.28 and adding a corresponding clarification in 21 CFR 1306.07(a). Again, 21 CFR 1301.28 is being removed and the new training requirements can now be found in 21 CFR 1301.11, which now applies to all qualified practitioners.

DEA is also revising 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(2) to align with the amendments to the CSA. Specifically, DEA is removing the citation to the now-revoked DATA-waiver program in the CSA, as well as the requirement that a prescribing practitioner be a qualifying practitioner, and is repeating in the regulatory text the language of 21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(2) as enacted by the Omnibus. DEA is also amending 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(5) to modify the current 14-day limit (the time for the practitioner to administer the controlled substance to a patient from when the practitioner receives the controlled substance) to 45 days, as now set forth in the CSA. 17 In response to commenters of the IFR, DEA is also revising 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(1) to use abbreviated language for clarity. Specifically, rather than repeating “the practitioner administering the controlled substance” in several paragraphs of this subsection, DEA is adding the parenthetical “(in this paragraph referred to as the `administering practitioner')” in 1306.07(f)(1) and then making the relevant textual replacements in 1306.07(f)(3) and (f)(6).

This final rule also revises the existing language in 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(3) for clarity and consistency. While the current text exactly reflects the language of 21 U.S.C. 829a(a)(3), DEA is revising the term “practitioner” to read “the prescribing practitioner, and the administering practitioner” to be consistent with the remainder of paragraph (f). This change is non-substantive, as this is the only possible reading of the statutory text, and does not change the meaning of the existing regulatory text.

Last, DEA is making a minor, non-substantive change to include a cross-reference in 21 CFR 1306.07(f)(6). DEA's regulations in 21 CFR 1304.03(c) and 1304.06 define recordkeeping requirements relating to controlled substances that are prescribed. Under 21 CFR 1304.03(c), prescribers must maintain records of all substances that are prescribed in the course of maintenance or detoxification treatment of an individual, which would include controlled substances prescribed in the course of maintenance or detoxification treatment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 829a. DEA notes that under 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3), DEA-registered pharmacies must maintain complete and accurate records of all controlled substances delivered, which would include deliveries of controlled substances to the prescribing or administering practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 829a.

An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring public notice and comment prior to implementation (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. Portions of this rule were originally introduced as an IFR, with an opportunity for comment; however, after passage of the Omnibus, the legal provisions underlying much of the already implemented provisions of the rule were eliminated.

Along with the elimination of old provisions, Congress also created new provisions in the Omnibus, and DEA identified another existing statutory provision that had never been incorporated into DEA's regulations. Specifically, DEA is adding a new provision in 21 CFR 1301.11(b) based on the NATA, which was previously incorporated into the CSA. This rule merely incorporates the existing statutory provision into DEA regulations without any changes. Additionally, while this rule does implement Congress's new requirement that certain practitioners complete training to receive a DEA registration number, DEA is not adding any additional requirements beyond those mandated by Congress. DEA is adding a cross-reference to recordkeeping requirements currently contained in other sections of DEA's regulations, without expanding the existing requirements. As such, DEA concludes that it is unnecessary to accept comment on provisions that implement the Omnibus or other Federal laws, that cross-reference existing regulatory provisions for clarity without changing or expanding their applicability, or that standardize language without making any new interpretation.

DEA has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this final rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.”

The interim final rule was determined to be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 with a net annualized benefit of $543 million over five years, and accordingly, the interim final rule was reviewed by OMB.

The interim final rule was estimated to have a net present value of benefits (in form of cost savings) of $2,627 million and $2,226 million at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively, and an annualized net benefit of $574 million and $543 million at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. 18 The net present value of the estimated maximum cost is $3,141 million and $2,725 million at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. Applying a factor of 1.23 to adjust IFR figures to 2024 dollars, the IFR net present value of benefits (cost savings) is $3,231 million and $2,738 million at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. 19 The combined effect of the IFR and final rule is the sum of net present value of benefits (cost savings) of the IFR and the net present value of costs of this final rule. At 3 percent discount rate, the combined effect is $90 million ($3,231 million−$3,134 million) in cost savings. At 7 percent discount rate, the combined effect is $13 million ($2,738 million−$2,725 million) in cost savings. These net cost savings do not include expected, but not quantified, cost savings from treatment of OUD anticipated in this final rule.

The following discussion analyzes the economic impact of the changes from the interim final rule to this final rule.

DEA has examined the benefits and costs of this final rule and believes this rule will be of net economic benefit. DEA does not have a good measure of the number of impacted practitioners or the number of additional patients that will be treated as a result of this rule. However, based on an estimated maximum number of impacted practitioners, DEA has estimated a maximum annualized cost of $368,278,282 and $387,997,558 at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. However, due to potentially high societal cost savings from the expected increase in the number of patients treated for OUD, the break-even is low. For example, in the first year of the analysis period, the break-even is 3,047 patients treated for OUD by the 639,821 practitioners who would be newly authorized to provide MAT. This is a ratio of 210 practitioners to one patient. DEA believes this rule has a low break-even point and the economic impact of this rule will be a net cost savings. The analysis below details the aforementioned figures and other benefits/cost savings.

This final rule adopts the provisions of the interim final rule that are still applicable as final, with minor changes. In addition, this final rule implements the provisions of the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 that relate to this rule by way of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Omnibus). This final rule makes the following changes to the interim final rule. First, DEA is removing the DATA-waiver program and is including new training requirements for a qualified practitioner's registration. Second, DEA is setting forth the requirement that NTPs obtain a separate registration for that purpose, annually. Third, DEA is modifying the current 14-day limit (the time for the practitioner to administer the controlled substance to a patient from when the practitioner receives the controlled substance) to 45 days, as now set forth in 21 U.S.C. 829a. Finally, DEA is making a minor, non-substantive change to recordkeeping requirements for clarity. The analysis of these changes is below.

This final rule amends the DEA regulations only to the extent necessary to implement the provisions of the Omnibus and NATA. 20 The Omnibus amended the CSA to remove the DATA-waiver program and added new training requirements for registration. Additionally, the Omnibus amended the CSA by changing the number of days before which a controlled substance that was delivered by a pharmacy to an administering practitioner is to be administered (by implantation or injection) to the named patient from 14 days to 45 days. NATA amended the CSA to require separate registrations for NTPs, which DEA is now including in 21 CFR 1301.11(b). DEA is obligated to implement these amendments to the CSA. As a result, DEA has no discretion not to amend its regulations as is being done in this final rule. This final rule simply updates the DEA regulations to reflect these new provisions; thus, no alternative approaches are possible.

The Omnibus removed the DATA-waiver program and sets new requirements for qualified practitioners. “Qualified practitioner” means a practitioner who is licensed under State law to prescribe controlled substances; and is not solely a veterinarian. [21 U.S.C. 823(m)(4)(B)].

As a condition on registration under this section to dispense controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V, the Attorney General shall require any qualified practitioner, beginning with the first applicable registration for the practitioner, to meet the following:

If the practitioner is a physician, the practitioner must meet one or more of the following conditions:

1. Hold a board certification as specified in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A)(i)-(iii),

2. Completed not less than eight hours of training as specified in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A)(iv), or

3. Graduated in good standing as specified in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(A)(v).

If the practitioner is not a physician, the practitioner must be legally authorized by the State to dispense controlled substances under schedule II, III, IV, or V, dispense such substances within such State in accordance with all applicable State laws, and meet one or more of the following conditions:

1. Completed not less than eight hours of training as specified in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(B)(i), or

2. Graduated in good standing as specified in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(B)(ii).

The CSA no longer explicitly states that CNSs, CRNAs, and CNMs can qualify to dispense. Therefore, beginning June 27, 2023, to obtain a DEA registration, all non-physician practitioners must be legally authorized by the State to dispense controlled substances in the schedules for which they are seeking registration and, if they do not practice solely as a veterinarian, must satisfy one of the training conditions set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(m)(1)(B).

The Omnibus requires all qualified practitioners to meet the condition above starting with the first applicable registration that occurs on or after the date that is 180 days after December 29, 2022.

This change, removing the DATA-waiver program, greatly expands the number of practitioners who will be authorized to dispense narcotic drugs in schedules III, IV, and V for maintenance or detoxification treatment. With this change, all DEA-registered practitioners are authorized under the CSA to dispense narcotic drugs in schedules III, IV, and V for maintenance or detoxification treatment, greatly expanding the number of practitioners authorized to provide treatment.

Additionally, treatment providers will not be subject to any patient limits. The expansion in the number of practitioners authorized to dispense narcotic drugs in schedules III, IV, and V for maintenance or detoxification treatment is expected to lead to more patients being treated for OUD and the increase in the number of patients treated is expected to result in better patient outcomes and societal benefits.

While DEA is unable to quantify the number of additional patients that will be treated as a result of this final rule, DEA anticipates there will be an increase. DEA anticipates the increase in the number of patients receiving treatment authorized by this final rule will generate a substantial benefit in the form of societal cost savings. In a 2015 study of the efficacy of various interventions for opioid dependence, the study concluded that among opioid-dependent patients, practitioner-initiated buprenorphine treatment “significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services.”  21

A study published in 2021 of the societal costs for OUD found that the “Costs for opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose in 2017 were estimated to be $1.02 trillion. The majority of the economic burden is due to reduced quality of life from opioid use disorder and the value of life lost due to fatal opioid overdose.”  22 According to the report, in 2017 total non-fatal costs are $471 billion and total fatal costs are $550 billion, there were 2.1 million persons ages 12 years and older with an OUD, and 47,600 fatal opioid overdoses. The $471 billion in non-fatal costs include costs associated with health care ($31 billion), substance use disorder treatment ($4 billion), criminal justice ($15 billion), lost productivity ($31 billion), and the value of reduced quality of life ($390 billion). The $550 billion in fatal costs include costs associated with lost productivity ($69 billion), health care ($0 billion), 23 and value of statistical life lost ($481 billion). 24 Dividing the total non-fatal costs of $471 billion by the number of persons ages 12 and older with an OUD, 2.1 million, the societal cost of non-fatal OUD is approximately $224,000 ($471 billion/2.1 million) per person per year. Dividing the total fatal costs of $550 billion by the number of fatal opioid overdoses, 47,600, the societal cost of fatal overdoses is approximately $11.6 million ($550 billion/47,600) per person. While DEA is unable to quantify how many of the affected patients will be successfully treated for OUD or how many fatal opioid overdoses will be avoided as a result of this final rule, the potential cost savings are disproportionally large compared to any cost associated with this rule.

DEA first calculated the unit cost for a practitioner that may need to obtain training, then applied that unit cost to the estimated number of practitioners that will need to obtain training.

With the Omnibus implemented, in order to obtain a DEA registration to dispense controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V, all practitioners who are not solely a veterinarian will need to meet the training requirements in 21 U.S.C. 823(m). DEA estimates some practitioners already meet the requirements, resulting in no cost, and others will need to obtain eight hours of training at a cost.

• Scenario 1: the practitioner already meets training requirement, there is no additional cost as a result of this change.

• Scenario 2: the practitioner does not meet training requirement and the practitioner will need to obtain eight hours of training.

In both scenarios, the practitioner, or prospective practitioner, will need to self-attest on the registration application to meeting training requirements. The cost of self-attestation is expected to be minimal.

For scenario 2, the eight-hour training course for physicians and non-physicians is available online, free of charge. 25 As the eight-hour training is online and free, cost of this requirement is limited to the practitioners' opportunity cost associated with obtaining the training.

This TFR temporarily amends the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services (Schedule), 22 CFR 22.1, to create a $750 fee for a new service that will enable B1/B2 business and tourism NIV applicants to obtain an expedited interview appointment, within ten business days after paying an NIV expedited appointment fee in accordance with applicable instructions, subject to availability of expedited appointments at the location selected. This service will be offered at limited overseas posts, as published on travel.state.gov, for the duration of the TFR. The service will only be available to B1/B2 NIV applicants. It is being offered as a proof-of-concept designed to assess demand from applicants for visas who seek to bypass longer wait times for visa interviews.

The Department generally sets and collects fees for consular services based on the concept of full cost recovery to the U.S. government. The Department's Cost of Service Model (CoSM) uses an activity-based costing (ABC) methodology to calculate annually the direct and indirect costs to the U.S. government associated with each consular good and service the Department provides. Consular fees are based on these cost estimates, and the Department aims to update the Schedule of Fees biennially unless a significant change in costs warrants an immediate recommendation to amend the Schedule. After a review, the Department determined that demand for expedited NIV appointments warrants piloting a new expedited NIV appointment program. Applying the CoSM's standard ABC methodology, the Department estimates that the cost of providing this service will be $750 per applicant and is therefore implementing a $750 fee via this TFR for the duration of the pilot. Once the pilot is complete, the Department will analyze the data from the pilot and determine whether to continue offering this service in some form and adjust the fee as needed based on the results of the CoSM.

Several statutes address specific fees relating to NIVs. For instance, Sec. 140 of Public Law 103-236, as amended, reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1351 (note), establishes a retained, cost-based application processing fee for nonimmigrant machine-readable visas (MRV) and border crossing cards (BCC). See also 8 U.S.C. 1713. Additionally, Sec. 501 of Public Law 110-293, reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1351 (note), requires the Secretary of State to collect an additional $2 surcharge (the “HIV/AIDS/TB/Malaria surcharge”) on all MRVs and BCCs as part of the application processing fee; this surcharge must be deposited into the Treasury and goes to support programs to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. 1351 establishes a reciprocal NIV issuance fee, requiring that the fee charged an applicant from a foreign country for issuance of an NIV be based, insofar as practicable, on the amount of visa or other similar fees charged to U.S. nationals by that foreign country.

The Department's NIV fee authorities do not speak directly to a fee for expedited NIV appointments; however, the Department derives the general authority to charge cost-based fees for consular services it provides from the general user charges statute, 31 U.S.C. 9701. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) (“The head of each agency . . . may prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value provided by the agency . . . based on . . . the costs to the government.”). The President also has the power to set the amount of fees to be charged for consular services provided at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 4219 and has delegated this authority to the Secretary of State, E.O. 10718 (June 27, 1957). A majority of the fees listed in the Schedule of Fees are established based on these authorities, including the fee established via this TFR. In the absence of a specific statutory fee retention authority, fees collected for consular services must be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3302(b).

OMB Circular A-25 states that it is the objective of the U.S. government to “(a) ensure that each service, sale, or use of Government goods or resources provided by an agency to specific recipients be self-sustaining; [and] (b) promote efficient allocation of the Nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as costs to the Government of providing the special benefits . . . .” OMB Circular A-25, 5(a)-(b); see also 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) (agency “may prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value provided by the agency . . . based on . . . the costs to the Government . . . .” and the “value of the applicant” of that service). To set prices that are “self-sustaining,” the Department must determine the full cost of providing consular services. Following guidance provided in Statement 4 of OMB's Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS), available at http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas-4.pdf, the Department developed and uses an ABC model to determine the full cost of the services listed in its Schedule of Fees, both those whose fee the Department changes, as well as those whose fee will remain unchanged from prior years.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines activity-based costing as a “set of accounting methods used to identify and describe costs and required resources for activities within processes.” Because an organization can use the same staff and resources (computer equipment, production facilities, etc.) to produce multiple products or services, ABC models seek to precisely identify and assign costs to processes and activities and then to individual products and services through the identification of key cost drivers referred to as “resource drivers” and “activity drivers.”

Example: Imagine a government agency that has a single facility it uses to prepare and issue a single product—a driver's license. In this simple scenario, every cost associated with that facility (the salaries of employees, the electricity to power the computer terminals, the cost of a blank driver's license, etc.) can be attributed directly to the cost of producing that single item. If that agency wants to ensure that it is charging a “self-sustaining” price for driver's licenses, it only has to divide its total costs for a given time period by an estimate of the number of driver's licenses to be produced during that same time period.

However, if that agency issues multiple products (driver's licenses, non-driver ID cards, etc.), has employees that work on other activities besides licenses (for example, accepting payment for traffic tickets), and operates out of multiple facilities it shares with other agencies, it becomes more complex for the agency to determine exactly how much it costs to produce any single product. In those instances, the agency would need to know what percent of time its employees spend on each service and how much of its overhead (rent, utilities, facilities maintenance, etc.) can be allocated to the delivery of each service to determine the cost of producing each of its various products—the driver's license, the non-driver ID card, etc. Using an ABC model allows the agency to develop those costs.

Consistent with OMB Circular A-25 guidelines, the Department regularly reviews its fees for consular services to ensure that fees are properly “assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general public.” OMB Circular A-25, section 6.

Normally, there are three avenues for an NIV applicant to request and receive an expedited interview at no cost in exceptional circumstances. In each of these cases, the applicant still must demonstrate that he or she qualifies for the visa classification requested. All require personal intervention by consular and mission staff under strict criteria. These are:

• The “Referral” process whereby a senior U.S. government employee of the U.S. diplomatic mission in country vouches for the applicant and attests that his or her travel benefits U.S. interests. Of these three methods, this is the only avenue for an authorized U.S. government official to advocate for visa issuance.

• The “Priority Appointment Request” whereby an authorized U.S. government employee of the U.S. diplomatic mission may request the consular section provide an earlier appointment to a contact who furthers U.S. national interest.

• Applicant-Requested Expedite Request: Applicants in extreme circumstances may request an expedited appointment to enable travel for humanitarian reasons or other post-specific criteria for urgent travel. Consular managers at post review each of these requests.

These resource-intensive methods for expediting an appointment negatively affect the Department's capacity to process all visa applications. The new service to be implemented on a limited basis via this TFR will create a fee-based mechanism for applicants to obtain an expedited interview appointment that will reduce the strain on consular resources by bypassing both the requirement for the applicant to justify his or her need for an expedited interview appointment and the requirement that consular staff review each expedited request.

Additionally, while the median global wait time for an NIV appointment is approximately 30 days, at certain posts wait times exceed 12 months, making it difficult for some applicants to apply for visas for urgent or last-minute travel In any given year, the United States hosts special events that draw significant last-minute visitors, including professional sporting events, major concerts, festivals, etc. In the wake of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and ahead of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles, the Department has determined that now is the time to test the demand for and provision of a new fee-based expedited interview appointment service.

During the pilot program implemented through this TFR, applicants at identified posts will have a chance to move to the front of the appointment line by paying a $750 fee without providing a written justification or seeking personal intervention through the Priority Appointment Request or Referrals processes. Recipients of this service will also receive enhanced passback options for return of the passport, if available. Applicants who opt to pay for an expedited appointment will still be subject to all standard visa eligibility and processing requirements, including any administrative processing deemed necessary. An expedited visa appointment in no way guarantees visa issuance. This service will not expedite any processing steps, including any time needed for administrative processing. Because expedited appointments will be capped at a percent of selected posts' overall interviewing capacity, this service will not meaningfully affect wait times for NIV appointments for all other applicants. Consular managers at both pilot posts and non-pilot posts will maintain the ability to expedite interviews without a fee for specific humanitarian reasons or for urgent travel when in the U.S. national interest, for example, someone needing serious and urgent medical treatment best provided in the United States. At the conclusion of this pilot, the Department will analyze the data to determine next steps.

As discussed above, the Department generally sets and collects fees for consular services based on the concept of full cost recovery to the U.S. government. The Department's Cost of Service Model uses an ABC methodology to calculate annually the direct and indirect costs to the U.S. government associated with each consular good and service the Department provides. Costs are generated by an ABC model that accounts for all costs to the U.S. government of providing a particular service. Unlike a typical accounting system, which accounts for only traditional general-ledger-type costs such as salaries, supplies, travel and other business expenses, ABC models measure the costs of activities, or processes, and then provide an additional view of costs of an organization's products and services through the identification of the key cost drivers of the activities.

The costs of managing the existing expedite processes are currently incorporated into the Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee. The cost estimate for this new fee is predicated on a projected capacity of approximately 25,000 expedite requests, which is based on an assessment of demand at the consular sections overseas with the longest wait times and a preliminary expectation that expedited appointments at those posts would be capped at a percent of interview capacity for a period of six months, noting that the Department may adjust that cap based on demand for and capacity to adjudicate these applications. Since one goal for this temporary program is to ascertain demand for the service, the Department will provide the expedited appointment service through December 31, 2026, whether or not demand meets or exceeds this estimate during the pilot period.

Costs for this service include those associated with managing no-fee expedited appointments generally, as the activities for both are similar, and consular work to differentiate urgent humanitarian cases where the fee is waived and regular fee-based applicants is likely to increase. The Department expects the demand for, and potential for fraud and malfeasance in, urgent humanitarian expedite cases will concurrently (and temporarily) increase under this program, even if most requests for no-fee expedites will be denied.

The bulk of the costs incorporated in the fee relate to:

• Appointment management: Providing this new service will require additional work by consular managers and staff at all posts to manage the appointment queues and communications related to the pilot program. Establishing and maintaining a low-fraud expedite queue will require additional vigilance on behalf of consular managers at all posts to ensure that not all expedite appointments are available at the same time every day.

• Strategic Adjustments: Consular managers worldwide will have to adjust staffing to account for changes in demand, and internal embassy coordination. Resources also will be consumed implementing policy changes related to this service, particularly with regard to the expected burden on the no- fee expedite request processes outlined above, both at posts included in the pilot and those that are not included.

• Special Event Adjustments: Consular staff always need to plan for special event preparedness, policy adjustments for these special events, and related activities. These events drive demand surges of varying size at multiple posts simultaneously. At any given time, the United States hosts multiple international events, including sporting events, concerts, conferences. Sometimes, as in the case of the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the surge is global. While other events tend not to draw as many international visitors as the World Cup or Olympic Games, consular staff still spend significant time planning and adjusting for these events. Notably, this temporary program does not increase adjudicatory capacity; it merely provides an additional route to obtaining an appointment.

• Other Costs: In addition to the major costs listed above, the estimate includes costs related to managing appointments, resource requirements for expediting appointments and making this option available, collecting fees and overseeing such collection, expediting the return of approved visas where applicable, developing and managing the pilot, and ongoing fraud prevention measures to detect and prevent illicit abuse of the above no-fee expedite option.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs will control which embassies and consulates can offer this service. The MRV fee was last updated in May 2023 and is currently set at $185 for B1/B2 applicants. Individuals seeking an expedited appointment who pay the $750 fee will continue to pay the MRV fee, which is not anticipated to change for the duration of this TFR.

Designated consular sections will make limited amounts of expedite appointments available based on embassy and consulates' capacity. The appointment selection process occurs after the applicant has submitted a completed DS-160 visa application through the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) and paid his or her MRV fee. An applicant for B1/B2 visas at posts where the paid expedite service is offered will first schedule a traditional (non-expedited) appointment. If the applicant then wishes to schedule an earlier (expedited) appointment, he or she will so indicate, at which point, he or she will see the available expedited appointments within the next ten business days. Should the applicant choose one of these appointments, a 5-10-minute hold will be placed on the appointment while he or she pays the $750 expedite fee. If the applicant fails to pay the fee within this time, he or she will lose the hold, and the expedited appointment will be reopened to other applicants. As consular sections will only make a limited number of expedited appointments available, there is no guarantee that expedited appointments will be available to all interested applicants. Applicants will only see expedited appointments available for booking if such appointments are available. Upon selection of an expedited appointment, applicants will be required to pay the expedite fee online prior to confirmation of the appointment. Failure to pay the expedite fee at that time will result in the applicant not being scheduled for the expedited appointment, reverting instead to the original, non-expedited appointment. An applicant who selects an expedited appointment and either does not attend his or her appointment or cancels his or her appointment forfeits the expedited appointment fee.

Applications with expedited appointments are subject to standard processing, including interview by a consular officer, and all vetting requirements. Payment of the expedite fee does not entitle the applicant to any other expedited processing beyond scheduling of the visa interview appointment and return of the applicant's passport with the visa, if approved, as available.

The Department is publishing this rule as a temporary final rule, with a 60-day provision for post-promulgation comments and with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication.

Consistent with his statutory authority, 1 the Secretary of State has determined that all policy related to visa operations and issuance, among other matters, constitutes a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 2

The Department asserts the foreign affairs exemption to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). This is consistent with the Attorney General's opinion  3 that was issued concurrent with the passage of the APA that

The subject matter of this final rule involves the collection of visa fees and the provision of a nonimmigrant visa service. The administration of this program is a foreign affairs function of the United States.

Visas are issued by the Department of State to foreign citizens in foreign countries. Accordingly, this rule is properly viewed as one that “clearly and directly involve[s] activities or actions characteristic to the conduct of international relations.” Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coal. v. Trump, 471 F. Supp. 3d 25, 53 (D.D.C. 2020); E.B. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 583 F. Supp. 3d 58, 64 (D.D.C. 2022). The D.C. Circuit likely would apply this test as well, as that court has adopted a direct-involvement test for the analogous benefits exception contained in the same subsection of the APA. Crafting visa policy for the United States is inherently a foreign affairs function under any test.

This temporary final rule is designed to collect information from select countries about the demand for a fee-based process to expedite a nonimmigrant visa interview appointment and will inform the Department's future decision-making about establishing a permanent process. The Department is creating this rule now because of extended wait times at certain posts. The pilot program will be run in advance of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic games. Demand for fee-based expedited interviews during the pilot program will provide critical and timely statistical data to inform foreign policy decisions related to facilitating secure, legitimate, and timely travel to the United States.

Since this rule is not subject to notice and comment procedures, it is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501-1504.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Department has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Orders. OMB has determined that this rule is significant under Executive Order 12866.

Current mechanisms for expediting B1/B2 visa appointments, such as humanitarian requests or government referrals, are resource-intensive, require case-by-case review, and are not designed to handle high volumes of time-sensitive travel. The Department considered several alternatives, including maintaining the status quo, offering expedited appointments without a fee, and implementing a variable fee structure. Each of these options either failed to address broader demand, risked overwhelming resources, or introduced unnecessary administrative complexity.

This rule establishes a separate expedite fee for nonimmigrant visa applicants who do not qualify for humanitarian or urgent need but seek faster processing. While introducing this fee may allow some applicants to secure earlier appointments, it will not change the total number of applicants or the overall capacity of the visa process.

The fee-based service offers several benefits: it improves operational efficiency by reducing the burden on consular staff, provides a transparent and predictable process for applicants, and supports U.S. interests during major international events. Although the $750 fee is significant, it reflects the full cost of providing the service and complies with statutory requirements. The pilot is designed to minimize impacts on regular appointment wait times by capping expedite appointment availability and preserves humanitarian expedite options for urgent cases.

The Department is establishing this fee in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701, 22 U.SC. 4219, and OMB Circular A-25, as described in more detail above. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) (“The head of each agency . . . may prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value provided by the agency . . . based on . . . the costs to the Government.”).

Details of the fee changes are as follows:

This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule does not create or revise any reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. government with respect to aliens.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 22 is amended as follows:

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (89 FR 57810-57819) on July 16, 2024, for a 60-day public comment period. A total of 5 comments were received.

All comments received were generally supportive of the updates to the rule to prohibit DoD from assisting entertainment projects that comply with or are likely to comply with a censorship demand from the CCP or PRC to advance the national interest of the PRC. Two commenters provided additional recommendations to further specify the types of projects supported or to express concerns regarding content restrictions. These two comments and DoD's responses are discussed below.

One commenter recommended expanding the definition of entertainment to include non-fiction stories. This commenter also recommended considering featuring real scenarios to increase impact and authenticity, increasing content about cyber warfare specialties, promoting true stories of military professionals to aid recruitment, and allocating extra funding for program investigating human rights violations by the CCP or PRC. After review, DoD determined no additional substantive changes were required to the rule. The rule currently allows for support for non-fiction stories or documentaries. The rule also requires that DoD assistance to entertainment projects benefit DoD or be in the best interest of the Nation based on whether the project provides a reasonably realistic depiction of the Military Services and DoD, is informational and likely to contribute to public understanding of the Military Services and DoD or may benefit recruiting and retention programs. Additionally, DoD does not allocate funds for assistance to entertainment projects. Assistance to a project is provided at no additional cost to DoD and on a reimbursable basis if applicable.

Another commenter asked for clarification of the standards and the criteria the DoD will use to determine the likelihood that an entertainment project will comply with a censorship demand from the CCP or PRC. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule would give the DoD too much discretion to create a content-based restriction to deter any project that depicts China favorably, which could contribute to anti-Chinese racism. The commenter recommended that instead of reviewing the script before a censorship demand is made, the DoD could simply require the production company to promise not to comply with a demand from the PRC or CCP, and if the production company breaches the contract by complying with a demand to censor its project, it would then be liable to refund whatever assistance the DoD provided the production company. After review, DoD determined that no additional substantive changes were necessary because project consideration is conditioned upon multiple requirements. These include the production company's certification that the project has not complied and is not likely to comply with a demand from the CCP or PRC to censor the project's content in a material manner to advance the national interest of the PRC. In addition, however, the project must meet other previously noted criteria of benefiting DoD or being in the best interest of the Nation based on reasonably realistic depictions of the military and DoD, contributing to public understanding of the military and DoD, or potentially benefiting recruitment and retention programs.

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 113 and DoD Directive 5122.05, the Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs the responsibility for establishing policy, plans, and programs for DoD assistance to non-Government and entertainment-oriented motion picture, television, and video productions, in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5410.16 (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/541016p.pdf ). Further, 10 U.S.C. 2264 authorizes crediting of applicable appropriations with reimbursements for expenses incurred by the Department resulting from assistance provided to non-Government, entertainment-oriented media-producers and for which the DoD requires reimbursement under 31 U.S.C. 9701 or any other provision of law. Additionally, 31 U.S.C. 9701 permits the head of a U.S. Government agency to prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value provided by the agency, if charges are fair and based on costs to the U.S. Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served and other relevant facts. Finally, section 1257 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023 imposed restrictions on DoD's ability to assist entertainment projects that have complied or are likely to comply with certain censorship demands from the PRC or CCP and is the primary impetus for this final rule.

Currently, those seeking DoD production assistance request it through the Military Departments or National Guard Bureau entertainment media offices. To be considered for assistance, the entertainment media institution or individual producer, in addition to meeting DoD's other criteria for support, previously published in the last rule update and addressed above, must certify that the project has not complied and is not likely to comply with a demand from the PRC, CCP, or an entity under their direction to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the PRC. DoD personnel who process requests for DoD assistance to entertainment projects or coordinate during an approved production will follow the process outlined in this rule.

Based on section 1257, this final rule will now require production companies seeking DoD assistance to make requests using the DD Form 3205. This final rule also updates the PAA samples to reflect the requirements imposed by section 1257.

To ensure consistency of approach among DoD and its components, support and assistance for a non-Government, entertainment-oriented media production should be at no additional expense to the Government and taxpayers ( i.e., in excess of those costs DoD otherwise would have incurred, as determined by DoD). After DoD agrees with a production company to provide production assistance and the parties have signed a PAA, the operations, maintenance, supply, and equipment costs incurred by DoD as a consequence of providing support for individual productions are reimbursed by the non-Government entertainment production company. Reimbursement ordinarily is made in advance per section 20.4(b) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/a11.pdf), as statutory authority is required for agencies to incur obligations dependent on orders from non-Federal sources without an advance. The sample PAAs used by the Department include a provision specifying the production company's obligation to indemnify the DoD for claims arising from the production company's possession or use of DoD property or other assistance.

The current criteria allow DoD to provide support to an entertainment media production when it benefits the Department or when such cooperation would be in the best interest of the Nation based on whether the production presents a reasonably realistic depiction of the Military Services and DoD, is informational and considered likely to contribute to public understanding of the Military Services and DoD, or may benefit Military Service recruiting and retention programs.

DoD currently receives approximately 200 requests, including documentary support requests, for assistance annually. (During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and 2022, requests decreased to about 140 annually.) Each respondent-requester submits one request for support, requiring an estimated 45 minutes with an estimated cost per request of $30.10, based on a median hourly wage of $40.13 for a producer. (See data from 2024 Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/producers-and-directors.htm ). Therefore, total non-Government cost of requesting support is estimated to be $5,869.50. The cost to the Federal Government to review requests is estimated to be $37.12 per response (requiring 45 minutes per response) based on the 2025 hourly rate of $49.50 of a GS-12 Federal employee (average level/rank) located in the Los Angeles area where most of the Military Services have offices that are the initial point of review for requests. The total estimated cost to the Federal Government in reviewing requests for support is estimated to be $7,424.

With the enactment of section 1257 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023, individual producers and production companies will now certify that they have not complied and are not likely to comply with demands from the PRC, CCP, or an entity under the direction of the PRC or CCP to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the PRC.

With this rulemaking, DoD is also finalizing DD Form 3205, to formalize and streamline the collection of the information required to evaluate requests, consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Due to the restrictions of section 1257, DoD estimates that the number of respondents requesting DoD assistance is likely to decrease to 195, resulting in an estimated 2.5 percent decrease in non-Government and Government costs. Using this lower estimate of requests and the same rates as applied to the current rule, the total non-Government cost is estimated to be $5,869.50, and the total cost to the Federal Government for reviewing requests for support is estimated to be $7,238.

DoD believes the amendment will most likely affect requests for assistance to feature film projects with larger budgets that may wish to have the option of distributing a project in China. On average, DoD assists 7 feature film projects per year, which is a small portion of the approximately 100 projects DoD supports annually. Most DoD support is to unscripted, documentary, or other entertainment productions, which are not typically submitted for release for distribution in China. According to public reporting, all films publicly released in China require a permit from Chinese regulators and censorship is pervasive (source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/media/hollywood-china-censors-box-office-intl-hnk/index.html ). If producers and production companies seeking DoD support for their entertainment projects are unable to certify that the project has not complied and is not likely to comply with Chinese censorship demands, DoD cannot support such projects. This rule prohibits DoD assistance to entertainment projects that comply with a censorship demand that advances the national interest of the PRC or CCP in a material way. This rule does not apply to projects not supported by DoD.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated not significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 14192 do not apply.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. DoD will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2)

The ATSD(PA) certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The entities most impacted by this final rule are typically larger production companies rather than small businesses, and very few in number. Further, each year, the vast majority of DoD assistance to entertainment productions is generally for unscripted or documentary projects, which are not typically submitted for release in China, and are produced by small production companies; DoD support to these types of entertainment projects is not expected to be affected by this final rule.

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 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This final rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, and will not affect private sector costs.

Section 238.6 of this rule contains information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and as part of the proposed rule, DoD requested comments on a new information collection at 89 FR 57810. While DoD received comments on the rule, no comments specific to the elements or burden of the collection instrument were received. The OMB control number associated with this rule is 0704-0682, DD Form 3205, Request for DoD Production Assistance. Additional information regarding this collection of information—including all background materials—can be found at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that has federalism implications, imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or has federalism implications and preempts State law. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian tribes, preempts tribal law, or affects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian tribal governments.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 238 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that a series of fireworks displays will be launched from a barge in the Laguna Madre, near South Padre Island, TX. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Corpus Christi has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks, including handling of explosive material and falling projectiles, are a safety concern for anyone within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks launching point.

Because of these hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and comment. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard was not provided with complete details for this series of fireworks displays until May 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by June 5, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards. Therefore, we do not have sufficient time to receive, consider, and respond to comments before the series of fireworks displays begins.

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

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 5, 2026, through July 31, 2026. The safety zone will be subject to enforcement from the hours of 9 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day it is in effect. It is anticipated that fireworks will only take place on each of the following nights: June 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30; July 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28, and 31. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and dates for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of the Laguna Madre and is defined by a 700-foot radius around the launching platform at 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 800-874-2143.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule is a safety zone. 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. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by Title XX of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq. ), the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq. ), the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq. ), the Assets for Independence Act (42 U.S.C. 604 note), and Title VII, Subtitle D of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11461 et seq. ).

45 CFR part 96, “Block Grants” is a comprehensive regulatory framework established under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35) that governs the administration of multiple federal block grant programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Originally published on July 6, 1982, this regulation applies to seven major block grant programs: Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Preventive Health and Health Services, Community Mental Health Services (MHBG), Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services (SUBG), Maternal and Child Health Services, Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Part 96 establishes uniform procedures for grant applications, awards, payments, financial management, audit requirements, and enforcement mechanisms across these programs. It includes specific provisions for financial management requirements (Subpart C), direct funding of Indian tribes and tribal organizations (Subpart D), and enforcement procedures including complaint resolution and hearing processes (Subparts E and F). The regulation also contains program-specific requirements for each block grant, such as the SSBG annual reporting requirements using uniform service definitions (Subpart G) and LIHEAP weatherization waivers and leveraging incentive programs (Subpart H).

45 CFR part 1000, “Individual Development Account Reserve Funds Established Pursuant to Grants for Assets for Independence” is a focused regulation published on September 25, 2001, that governs the Assets for Independence (AFI) Program administered by ACF's OCS. This regulation establishes requirements for reserve funds that qualified entities must maintain when operating Individual Development Account (IDA) programs under federal AFI grants, which were last issued in FY 2016.

Unfunded after FY 2016, IDAs were matched savings accounts that assisted low-income individuals in building assets for specific purposes such as homeownership, postsecondary education, or small business development. The regulation defines key terms including “Individual Development Account,” “Qualified Entity” (which may include nonprofit organizations, state/local government agencies, tribal governments, low-income credit unions, or community development financial institutions), and “Reserve Fund.” It requires that no less than 85 percent of federal grant funds in the reserve fund be used as matching contributions for Individual Development Accounts, and subjects these funds to HHS uniform administrative requirements under 2 CFR 200.334 through 200.338.

45 CFR part 1080, “Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program” was established on February 9, 1989, under Title VII, Subtitle D of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Pub. L. 100-77) and was administered by ACF's OCS. This regulation governed emergency grants to states and Indian tribes to provide comprehensive services to people experiencing homelessness. Funds were allocated to states using the Community Services Block Grant Act formula (42 U.S.C. 9903(a) and (b)), with at least 1.5 percent set aside for direct grants to Indian tribes. The regulation specifies that at least 95 percent of state allocations must be awarded to community action agencies, migrant and seasonal farmworker organizations, and other eligible entities. The program was repealed by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220, title I, §  199(b)(1)).

This final rule rescinds multiple regulations that are either unnecessary or wholly obsolete. The regulations contained in this final rule to be rescinded and reserved can be categorized into three groups: those that are duplicative, those that are better suited as a different type of sub-regulatory format, and those that are obsolete.

The duplicative regulations are those that exist yet, carry no impact as the authority and requirements stated in the regulation exist or are stated elsewhere such as in statute. This renders the language found in the regulation to be either duplicative or otherwise generally unnecessary.

The regulations that are better suited as a different format, i.e., as a sub-regulatory document, are those that generally read like a Frequently Asked Questions document or are overly prescriptive and carry technical details that belong in programmatic instruction. These documents are being rescinded in order to allow them to be published in the more appropriate format.

Finally, obsolete regulations are those that are outdated. This includes regulations that refer to grant programs that are no longer funded, practices that are no longer followed, or are otherwise no longer relevant.

This final rule will become effective 60 days from the date of its publication.

The provisions of this final rule are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid. The changes address a variety of issues relevant to OCS. None of the provisions contained herein are central to an overall intent of the proposed rule, nor are any provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.

HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on April 8, 2026, (91 FR 17777) proposing revisions to 45 CFR parts 96, 1000, and 1080. HHS provided a 30-day comment period during which interested parties could submit comments in writing electronically through Regulations.gov or via email to the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary.

During the 30-day comment period, HHS received 5 comments from individual members of the public. Of the comments received, all 5 were posted on www.regulations.gov. Of the 5 comments posted on www.regulations.gov, all 5 comments were unique and none were duplicative. At the conclusion of the public comment period, HHS analyzed the content of the comments to inform the development of the final rule. All comments were reviewed to determine each commenter's support or opposition towards the policies proposed in the NPRM.

Public comments reflected various opinions of the commenters, with two commenters expressing support for the proposed rescissions, two commenters expressing opinions unrelated to the proposed rule or providing incomplete information, and one commenter generally opposing the changes. All comments were reviewed and those relating to the subject were used to inform the Department's consideration of the final rule.

The preamble in this final rule discusses the changes to current regulations. Where language of the previous regulations remain unchanged, the preamble explanation and interpretation of that language published with all prior final rules are also retained, unless specifically modified in the preamble to this rule.

This final rule includes the removal of multiple sections of regulations relating to 45 CFR parts 96, 1000, and 1080. HHS received and reviewed comments on the proposed changes. Following review of all comments, HHS has maintained all proposed changes from the NPRM. Specific comments are discussed below.

The majority of the individual commenters who provided a response pertaining to the proposed changes, expressed overall support for the proposed rescissions, noting that the proposals would remove paperwork and administrative complication which could then improve program efficiency. One commenter expressed general opposition to the rule without explanation and commented on other Federal policies unrelated to the proposal at hand. HHS acknowledges concerns raised by the commenter who opposed the NPRM but moves forward with rescinding the four requirements as proposed. Two commenters either provided insufficient information for HHS to determine their position on the proposed rule or provided comments unrelated to the topic at hand.

HHS did not receive comments about changes proposed to specific subparts of the regulation. Below, HHS identifies each subpart and states the rationale for the final rule.

This Section identifies information collection approval numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act that pertain, or at one time pertained, to block grants. This Section is not needed in regulation as the language does not state any requirement imposed on grantees, but rather serves, or served, as a reference guide. According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Inventory of Currently Approved Information Collections (March 2, 2026), available online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, only one of the listed approval numbers, for the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, is current. For the one information collection that is current, the removal of this Section does not affect grantees' obligation to comply with the information collection because the collection is still required under the authorizing statute and other provisions of Part 96.

This section clarifies that Subpart G of Part 96 is specific to the SSBG program only. This section is removed because it is unnecessary. We believe the title of the Subpart and context of the provisions therein provide sufficient basis to establish that the provisions apply to the SSBG program alone. The removal will eliminate unnecessary regulatory text without affecting program operations or clarity.

This section is removed as it contains provisions that are duplicative of statutory language found at 42 U.S.C. 1397a(d). As such, this Section is not needed and is removed. This removal will not impact the operation of any block grant program.

This section clarifies that Subpart H of Part 96 is specific to LIHEAP only. This section is removed because it is unnecessary. The title of the Subpart and context of the provisions therein provide sufficient basis to establish that the provisions apply to the LIHEAP program alone. The removal will eliminate unnecessary regulatory text without affecting program operations or clarity.

This Section sets forth procedures for implementing and administering the Leveraging Incentive Program which provides benefits and enhancements to grantees that utilize other sources of funds for energy assistance for low-income individuals. This Section is not needed in regulation as the program is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 8626a, which provides sufficient authority alone to implement the program. Furthermore, this program has not been utilized by the Secretary in a decade. The removal of the Section will not prohibit the program from being available to the Secretary as it is still authorized in statute.

This Section details the scope of Subpart K, which applies to the community services, preventative health and health services, alcohol and drug abuse and mental health services, and maternal and child health services block grants. This Section is not needed in regulation as it refers to a transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are proposed to be removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact to any of the block grant programs.

This Section details that the regulations promulgated by HHS and the Community Services Administration will remain in place until new regulations can be promulgated by HHS reflecting the transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact on any of the block grant programs.

This Section details a couple of components related to the CSBG, including provisions allowing flexibility for FY 1981 and penalties specific to FY 1982 and 1983. This Section is not needed in regulation as it refers to a transition period pertaining to the closure of the Community Services Administration and the implementation of the Block Grant Program that began on October 1, 1981. The transition has long since ended and therefore these regulations are no longer necessary and are removed. As this Section is obsolete, there will be no impact on any of the block grant programs.

Part 1000 which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 1000.1, 1000.2, and 1000.3, refers to the Individual Development Account Reserve funds which was a program funded from 1999 to 2016 pursuant to the Grants for Assets for Independence. However, as this program distributed the last remaining funds of its five-year projects a decade ago, this program is now defunct. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for an unfunded project. Thus, this final rule eliminates this part.

Part 1080 which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 1080.1, 1080.2, 1080.3, 1080.4, 1080.5, 1080.6, 1080.7, 1080.8, and 1080.9, refers to the Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program which was created following the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 and was administered for 12 years until 1999. It was replaced when the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was passed into law, effectively ending the program. Nonetheless, the regulations still remain on the books yet have no practical impact. Thus, due to the regulation part being wholly obsolete, this rulemaking rescinds part 1080.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. This final rule does not contain any information requiring OMB approval under the PRA and, therefore, will not create any new paperwork burdens or modify existing burdens subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This final rule would not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This NPRM would not pre-empt State law. The changes in this final rule are removing unnecessary and obsolete regulations from OCS rules. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS determined it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment because the actions in this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are “significant” under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) if they “have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.” Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.” OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a significant action under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f). This analysis indicates that the final rule is a deregulatory action as defined by Section 3 of Executive Order 14192.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities. Because this is simply repealing obsolete and unnecessary language, we certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects over that threshold must also seek input from State, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when regulations have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.” Similarly, ACF's Tribal Consultation Policy says that consultation is triggered for any legislative proposal, new rule adoption, or other policy change that significantly affects Tribes, meaning there exists a reasonable presumption that it has or may have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, on the amount or duration of ACF program funding, on the delivery of ACF programs or services to one or more Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. However, as this is a deregulatory action, per OMB M-25-36, Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions, this action presumptively does not trigger the Tribal Consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 nor does it meet ACF's standard for consultation.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR subtitles A and B as follows: