In this issue of the Federal Register , OPM is publishing a notice with revised normal cost percentages under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, as amended, based on economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. By statute under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), the revisions to the actuarial assumptions require corresponding changes in factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the FERS Act. There are two sets of factors in this direct final rule: (1) Basic Employee Death Benefit Factors, which did not change, and (2) Early Commencing of Survivor Annuities Factors, which were revised. Additionally, one column was removed from the factor table below. The following paragraphs summarize these changes.

Section 843.309 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates the payment of the basic employee death benefit. Under 5 U.S.C. 8442(b), the basic employee death benefit may be paid to a surviving spouse as a lump sum or as an equivalent benefit in 36 installments. In its meeting on June 16, 2025, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System (the Board) reviewed the long-term economic assumptions and determined that they should remain unchanged; therefore, the factors used to convert the lump sum to 36-installment payments under 5 CFR 843.309(b)(2) will remain unchanged.

Section 843.311 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates the benefits for the survivors of separated employees under 5 U.S.C. 8442(c). This section provides a choice of benefits for eligible current and former spouses. If the current or former spouse is the person entitled to the unexpended balance under the order of precedence under 5 U.S.C. 8424, he or she may elect to receive the unexpended balance instead of an annuity. If the separated employee died before having attained the minimum retirement age, the annuity commences on the day the deceased separated employee would have been eligible for an unreduced annuity as specified under this section. If the current or former spouse instead elects to receive an adjusted annuity earlier, beginning on the day after the death of the separated employee, the annuity is actuarially reduced to compensate for it being paid at an earlier date, and is reduced using the factors in appendix A to subpart C of 5 CFR part 843 to make the annuity actuarially equivalent to the present value of the annuity that the spouse or former spouse otherwise would have received. This reduces the risk of any unfunded liability to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. These revisions amend appendix A to subpart C of 5 CFR part 843 to conform the factors to the revised actuarial assumptions.

In addition to amending the factors, OPM also edited the table titled “With at least 30 years of creditable service.” The current table is separated into two columns. One column containing factors for individuals born after 1966 and a second column containing factors for individuals born from 1950 through 1966. The second column, for individuals born from 1950 through 1966, has been removed because individuals born before 1966 have already reached their minimum retirement age. Since the purpose of these factors is to reduce annuities when a separated employee dies before attaining the minimum retirement age, the factors for individuals born from 1950 through 1966 are unnecessary.

OPM has determined that a 30-day period for comments on this direct final rule is sufficient to allow for meaningful public input. These revisions to appendix A to subpart C of part 843 are necessary under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i). Under section 8461(i) and 5 CFR part 841, subpart D, OPM is required to make changes to the factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits under the FERS Act whenever the Board of Actuaries established under 5 U.S.C. 8347(f) revises related actuarial assumptions. In June 2025, the Board of Actuaries made such revisions. Accordingly, OPM must now implement these revisions and is proposing the corresponding changes, which must go into effect on the first day of the fiscal year.

OPM is issuing this direct final rule to revise the table of reduction factors for early commencing dates of survivor annuities for spouses of separated employees who die before the date on which they would be eligible for unreduced deferred annuities. The current factors can be found in appendix A to subpart C of 5 CFR part 843.

Of all the applications for survivor annuity death benefits OPM receives annually, OPM expects this rule to impact approximately one percent of those survivor annuity death applications it receives that are based on the death of a separated employee. Of the changes this rule implements, the most significant change is to conform the factors to the revised actuarial assumptions when the current or former spouse elects to receive an adjusted annuity beginning on the day after the death of the separated employee. The annuity is reduced using the factors in appendix A to subpart C of 5 CFR part 843 to make the annuity actuarially equivalent to the present value of the annuity that the spouse or former spouse otherwise would have received. When OPM updates the FERS normal cost, the FERS law at 5 U.S.C. 8461(i) requires that OPM make corresponding changes to the factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits under FERS. Specifically, this rule is needed to revise the present value conversion factors for certain benefits payable under FERS to current and former spouses of deceased separated employees. This rule allows certain survivors to make choices about what benefits they want to receive and, in some instances, when they want the benefits to begin. Considering the small number of survivor annuities affected, OPM does not anticipate this rule will substantially impact local economies or have a large impact in local labor markets.

Although 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 1105 and 1103(b)(1) generally require OPM to seek comment on certain rules, the requirement for comment is not required when OPM for good cause finds that comment is unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The amendments made by this rule are statutorily mandated. Providing a comment period on the result of mathematical computations resulting from the changed actuarial assumptions is unnecessary and, to the extent that it would delay benefit payments, is contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, OPM historically has not received comments on previous iterations of this rulemaking.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule was not designated as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Therefore, this rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

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

This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) Executive Order 12988.

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.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). OPM will submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States a report regarding the issuance of this action.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

This rule involves an OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA titled “Application for Death Benefits (FERS)/Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits when Deceased was an Employee at the Time of Death (FERS),” OMB Control Number 3206-0172. The public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this form is 16,751 hours. The system of record notice for this collection is: OPM SORN CENTRAL-1 Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 843 as follows:

Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), 29 U.S.C. 3248 (Section 188), establishes nondiscrimination requirements for programs and activities receiving financial assistance under Title I of WIOA.

Subsection (a)(1) of Section 188 provides that, for the purpose of applying prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age, disability, sex, or race, color, or national origin, WIOA-funded programs are to be treated as programs receiving Federal financial assistance under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq. ), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) (Section 504), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) (Title IX), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ) (Title VI). 29 U.S.C. 3248(a)(1). Subsection (a)(2) prohibits discrimination in WIOA Title I programs on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief. 29 U.S.C. 3248(a)(2). Finally, subsection (e) directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that adopt standards for determining discrimination and procedures for enforcement that are consistent with the Acts referred to in subsection (a)(1).

Pursuant to subsection (e), in 2016, the Department promulgated 29 CFR 38.40, which requires recipients of WIOA Title I financial assistance to “take appropriate steps to ensure that they are providing equal access to their WIOA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities,” which should involve “reasonable efforts” to conduct affirmative outreach to different demographic groups, “including but not limited to persons of different sexes, various racial and ethnic/national origin groups, various religions, individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals with disabilities, and individuals in different age groups.” The rule provided examples of outreach efforts that recipients might undertake. “Recipients” are defined in 29 CFR 38.4(zz) as entities to which financial assistance under Title I of WIOA is extended, directly from the Department or through the Governor or another recipient (including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient).

On July 1, 2025, the Department proposed to rescind 29 CFR 38.40 on the grounds that it exceeded statutory authority. Rescission of Affirmative Outreach Requirements for Recipients of WIOA Title I Financial Assistance, 90 FR 28245 (proposed July 1, 2025). The Department was further concerned that a government mandate to conduct affirmative outreach based on race and ethnicity creates tension with the Constitution's Equal Protection principles. Id. Voluntary outreach programs would still be permitted under the Department's proposal.

The Department received 84 comments on the proposed rule. Eighty-three commenters opposed rescission, including national and local disability rights organizations, civil rights groups, a labor union, and advocacy organizations. Several commenters represent organizations that are engaged by WIOA recipients to assist with or perform affirmative outreach activities mandated by the current regulation. These commenters argued that affirmative outreach is necessary to ensure meaningful nondiscrimination, contending that without affirmative efforts many individuals will never learn of or benefit from WIOA-funded services. After reviewing and carefully considering all comments, as well as considering alternatives to rescission, the Department has decided to finalize the rescission as proposed because it concludes that it lacks statutory authority to enforce an affirmative outreach provision.

Several commenters contended that WIOA's statement of purpose, 29 U.S.C. 3101(1), reflects a congressional goal of increasing access to workforce-development services for individuals with barriers to employment, and that this goal supports interpreting Section 188 to authorize mandatory affirmative outreach requirements based on race, sex, religion, disability status, and other demographic characteristics.

The Department does not dispute that WIOA's purpose clause expresses broad and aspirational objectives, nor does it question that recipients remain free to undertake voluntary outreach efforts that further those objectives. However, a statutory statement of purpose does not itself confer regulatory authority. Courts have repeatedly rejected efforts to derive legal authority from general purpose provisions. 1

Accordingly, WIOA's purpose clause cannot expand the scope of the Department's authority beyond the specific delegation contained in the Act's operative provisions. The Department's authority to promulgate regulations is limited to Section 188, which does not reference or mandate outreach. Other operative provisions within the statute do reference or mandate outreach, and comparing these provisions demonstrate that Congress knew how to require affirmative outreach when it intended to do so; its omission of such language in Section 188 is instructive. 2

Here, the operative provision is Section 188, which prohibits unlawful discrimination and directs the Department to adopt standards for determining unlawful discrimination and procedures for enforcement that are consistent with four enumerated civil-rights statutes: the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (age), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, or national origin). Under the majority of those statutes, the standard for a determination of unlawful discrimination is intentional disparate treatment, and none of them mandate affirmative conduct such as proactive outreach to address perceived imbalances in access among protected groups.

Because section 188(e) requires the Department's regulatory standards for determining discrimination to be consistent with those statutes, the Department lacks authority to treat the absence of affirmative outreach efforts as a new form of unlawful discrimination. Under the best reading of section 188(e), the Department's authority is confined to the same definitions of discrimination that apply under Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act. Nothing in WIOA's text authorizes the Department to redefine unlawful discrimination to include failure to undertake affirmative outreach efforts toward “persons of different sexes, various racial and ethnic/national origin groups, various religions, individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals with disabilities, and individuals in different age groups,” as former § 38.40 requires.

Commenters also argued that affirmative outreach is necessary to give practical effect to Section 188's nondiscrimination protections because individuals with barriers to employment may not otherwise learn of WIOA services. The Department disagrees. Nondiscrimination and outreach are distinct concepts. Recipients may fully comply with Section 188 by refraining from differential treatment on prohibited grounds, without undertaking the outreach activities described in former § 38.40. Although outreach may advance broader workforce-development goals and may be beneficial in practice, the Department cannot redefine nondiscrimination to require proactive measures absent statutory authorization.

Nothing in this final rule prevents recipients of WIOA Title I financial assistance from voluntarily engaging in outreach to broaden awareness of their programs, and the Department anticipates that many recipients will continue to do so. Such voluntary efforts may be useful tools to promote inclusivity and to raise awareness regarding the availability of WIOA services, as some commenters have suggested. Indeed, the Department itself conducts outreach, particularly with respect to American workers with disabilities, and permits and encourages recipients to use WIOA funds to recruit program participants, such as individuals with low-income status or limited English proficiency. The sole question addressed here is whether Section 188 authorizes the Department to enforce such practices as a matter of law. For the reasons stated above, it does not. The decision whether and how to conduct affirmative outreach rests with recipients, not with the Department. The Department considered revising § 38.40 instead of rescinding it but determined that any revision would still give the appearance of requiring affirmative outreach to particular demographic groups and would not cure the lack of support in the operative provision of the authorizing statute. By rescinding § 38.40, the Department ensures that recipients remain free to adopt outreach strategies best suited to their circumstances, without being subject to coercive regulation that lacks statutory foundation and risks constitutional conflict.

The NPRM expressed concern that mandating affirmative outreach may create tension with equal-protection principles. For instance, § 38.40 requires recipients to consider race and ethnicity when designing outreach efforts and thus may trigger strict scrutiny. The canon of constitutional avoidance therefore reinforces the Department's conclusion to interpret section 188 not to mandate recipients to engage in race-conscious affirmative outreach.

Several commenters, including the NAACP and AFL-CIO, asserted that § 38.40 is race-neutral because it applies uniformly to all protected groups listed in the regulation and does not require recipients to give a preference to any particular demographic group. These commenters argued that the provision merely requires broad dissemination of information and does not impose differential treatment based on race, sex, national origin, or any other protected characteristic.

The Department disagrees that the regulation, which explicitly states that recipients “must take appropriate steps” that “should involve reasonable efforts to include members of . . . various racial and ethnic/national origin groups,” is race-neutral. That formulation inherently directs recipients to identify racial and ethnic categories and to structure their outreach efforts with reference to race and ethnicity. A regulatory requirement that turns on racial classifications is not rendered neutral simply because it does not single out one group for disparate treatment. If, in an effort to comply with § 38.40, a WIOA recipient targets outreach to a particular racial group that would otherwise not have been targeted, that is a race-conscious decision resulting from a government mandate. A regulation requiring affirmative outreach to “various racial . . . groups” is therefore race-conscious. 3

Nor does the fact that the regulation concerns outreach rather than, for example, admission or hiring, render it race neutral, as some courts have suggested. See Peightal v. Metro Dade Cnty., 26 F.3d 1545, 1557-58 (11th Cir. 1994) (characterizing in dicta as “race neutral” the city's policy to “provide information to and solicit applications from young minorities”). Indeed, NAACP's comment quotes approvingly to language in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 recognizing that an outreach policy to attract students and faculty of different races “in a targeted fashion” would be “race conscious.” 551 U.S. 701, 789 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

To be sure, NAACP correctly notes that Justice Kennedy's concurrence continued to state that such race-conscious outreach “is unlikely [to] demand strict scrutiny,” id, and certain lower court decisions have agreed. 4 Those cases, however, did not involve a federal mandate requiring regulated entities to tailor outreach based on demographic categories that include race and ethnicity. The D.C. Circuit applied strict scrutiny to one such mandate and held it unconstitutional in MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Association v. FCC. 5 Although the rule at issue in that that case explicitly incentivized recruitment for women and minorities and involved additional requirements beyond outreach alone—including reporting and enforcement—the Department need not resolve whether those distinctions would ultimately be constitutionally significant here. Rather, the canon of constitutional avoidance counsels against interpreting Section 188 to authorize a race-conscious regulatory mandate that raises constitutional concerns in the first instance. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) (“[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.” (citing NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 440 U.S. 490, 499-501, 504 (1979)).

Several commenters, including ASAN, the NAACP, and NPWF, argued that the Department's reliance in the NPRM on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is misplaced because that decision arose in the context of higher-education admissions. 6 The Department agrees that SFFA involved a different factual context. Nonetheless, the decision reaffirmed the broader constitutional principle that race-conscious governmental requirements are subject to strict scrutiny. The Court declared without qualification that “[r]acial classifications are simply too pernicious to permit any but the most exact connection between justification and classification.”  7 Section 38.40 requires recipients to consider race and ethnicity when developing outreach policy and therefore constitutes a race-conscious governmental requirement.

To be clear, the Department does not opine on the ultimate constitutionality of such a mandate. Rather, the Department interprets Section 188 in a manner that avoids that constitutional question, particularly where that interpretation is supported by the best reading of the statutory text. Any potential conflict between § 38.40 and equal-protection principles is not an independent basis for rescission but instead reinforces the Department's conclusion that Section 188 does not authorize mandatory affirmative outreach. Of course, voluntary outreach efforts to the groups listed at section 38.40 remain permissible and often encouraged.

Some commenters expressed concern that rescinding § 38.40 will reduce awareness of WIOA Title I services among individuals with disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency, displaced homemakers, returning citizens, and other individuals facing barriers to employment. These commenters provided data showing disparities between groups in employment and WIOA participation. However, they did not offer analysis demonstrating that these disparities are caused by, or would be exacerbated by, the absence of mandatory outreach requirements.

As a general matter, the Department believes commenters' predictions of practical effects are overstated because recipients remain free to engage in voluntary outreach efforts to the aforementioned groups. Moreover, since the adoption of § 38.40 in 2016, the Department has not initiated a single enforcement action predicated on a recipient's failure to conduct affirmative outreach. Given that the mandate has not been enforced in practice, the Department does not expect that rescission will disrupt recipients' operations or materially alter the delivery of WIOA services.

Several disability-rights organizations—including The Arc, ASAN, PACER Center, CommunicationFIRST, and Detroit Disability Power—argued that individuals with disabilities often face unique and significant barriers to learning about available workforce services. The Department acknowledges that outreach can serve important programmatic purposes and that individuals with disabilities and other groups may face substantial challenges in accessing information about available services. The Department agrees that recipients may communicate proactively with these communities to promote awareness of WIOA opportunities. Nothing in this final rule prevents such outreach. Recipients retain full discretion to continue, expand, or redesign their current outreach efforts, including outreach specifically intended to engage individuals with disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency, and others. Recipients may also continue to partner with disability organizations, schools, VR agencies, and other community-based entities should they choose to do so.

As noted previously, the Department itself through its Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) regularly conducts outreach to job seekers with disabilities, promoting services available through the public workforce system. ODEP funds two WIOA technical assistance centers, the National Center on Leadership for the Employment and Economic Advancement of People with Disabilities (LEAD Center) and the Center for Advancing Policy on Employment for Youth (CAPE-Youth). These centers provide training to workforce system staff to build their knowledge in successfully serving jobseekers with disabilities in a variety of career pathways and conduct outreach directly to individuals with disabilities. ODEP also administers initiatives that require contractors and grantees to connect individuals to the workforce system. For example, the Retaining Employment and Talent after Injury/Illness Network (RETAIN) demonstration grants recruits and helps thousands of ill or injured workers remain in the workforce by providing coordinated health and employment services delivered through the workforce system. The National Expansion of Employment Opportunities Network (NEON) initiative conducts outreach to and connects individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and those with mental health conditions to workforce, education, developmental disabilities, and Medicaid systems. However, the question under section 188(e) is whether the Department is authorized to mandate such outreach as a legal requirement of nondiscrimination. As explained elsewhere in this preamble, the Department has concluded that section 188(e) incorporates the definitions of discrimination contained in Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act. None of these statutes has been interpreted to define unlawful discrimination to include a failure to perform proactive outreach to particular demographic groups. Accordingly, even though outreach may be permissible and beneficial in some instances when performed on a voluntary basis, Section 188 does not provide the Department with the legal authority to enforce such outreach.

Commenters expressed concern that eliminating § 38.40 may undermine coordination between WIOA programs and other programs such as state VR agencies, youth transition programs, TANF programs, or adult-education providers. Commenters pointed to WIOA provisions that encourage or require coordination across programs and argued that outreach obligations help support these statutory expectations.

The Department appreciates the importance of coordination across workforce and education systems and encourages recipients to continue collaborating with VR and other partner programs. This rescission does not diminish or alter recipients' statutory duties under other provisions of WIOA. Recipients must still comply with Titles I-IV, the implementing regulations, and joint guidance concerning referrals, coordination, and integrated service delivery. Recipients remain free to use outreach as a tool to fulfill these other statutory duties. The rescission simply clarifies that the Department cannot impose an additional nondiscrimination requirement that mandates outreach obligations under Section 188. Indeed, many of the Department's grant programs, include unemployment, poverty, or low-income status as eligibility criteria for participants and awardees. Furthermore, State Workforce Agencies, State Workforce Boards, American Job Centers (AJCs), and WIOA funding recipients regularly engage in outreach activities to reach different categories of people which often include high-unemployment or low-income participants. And 2 CFR 200.421 specifically allows grantees to use funds to recruit program participants and to engage businesses by communicating with them. The AJC brand itself was created to increase program awareness of the services the public workforce system offers and to facilitate outreach. This WIOA program is delivered through AJCs nationwide and there are approximately 2,400 AJCs, all of which provide the public a one-stop-shop for employment services.

Some commenters—including Chicago Jobs Council, PACER, and NCLD—asserted that § 38.40 provides helpful “clarity” and “a framework” for recipients, and that removing it could create uncertainty regarding how recipients should ensure equal access. Commenters argued that rescission may increase recipients' compliance burden by eliminating explicit examples of outreach practices.

The Department acknowledges that § 38.40 supplied a non-exhaustive list of outreach activities that recipients “might undertake.” However, § 38.40 imposed a federal mandate to conduct outreach with reference to protected demographic categories, and for the reasons described elsewhere, the Department lacks statutory authority to impose such a requirement. Recipients retain broad flexibility to design outreach strategies that fit their operational needs and may continue to use any practices previously informed by § 38.40. Because the rescission removes a federal mandate rather than prohibiting outreach, the Department concludes that the rescission does not impose new burdens on recipients.

Several commenters asserted that the Department did not adequately justify its departure from the 2016 rule. They argued that the 2016 interpretation reflected a permissible reading of Section 188 and that the NPRM did not provide a sufficient reason to adopt a different view. The Department disagrees. The NPRM acknowledged the change from the 2016 rule and explained that, upon further review of section 188(e) and the four statutes it incorporates, the Department now concludes that those statutes do not authorize the Department to mandate proactive outreach. After Loper Bright, agencies must adopt the “best reading” of statutory text rather than rely on judicial deference or custom. The Department has determined that the best reading of Section 188 confines its authority to standards consistent with the four referenced statutes, none of which defines discrimination to include failure to undertake affirmative outreach. The Department therefore has a reasoned basis for its change in position.

Several commenters, including PACER and Chicago Jobs Council, argued that the Department failed to consider reliance interests allegedly created by the 2016 rule, including reliance by recipients, state workforce agencies, disability-rights organizations, and outreach partners.

The Department disagrees. Recipients remain free to continue affirmative outreach activities on a voluntary basis, including collaborations with community organizations and targeted dissemination of information. The only effect of this rule is that recipients are no longer compelled to structure outreach around protected classifications. Because recipients retain full discretion to continue the very practices on which commenters claim to rely, the rescission does not impair any legitimate reliance interest. Moreover, reliance interests cannot expand an agency's statutory authority. Even if some entities preferred the 2016 approach, the Department may not preserve a regulatory requirement that exceeds the limits Congress established in section 188(e).

For the foregoing reasons, the Department is rescinding 29 CFR 38.40 in its entirety. The Department is also making the following conforming edits to remove references to § 38.40: Removing the phrase “consistent with § 38.40” from § 38.31(e); Removing § 38.54(c)(1)(v), which requires a State's nondiscrimination plan to describe how it complies with the affirmative outreach requirements at § 38.40; and Revising § 38.54(c)(2)(viii)(F) to say “§§ 38.34 through 38.39” instead of “§§ 38.34 through 38.40.”

Among other requirements, Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. See 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. OIRA has determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to, among other things, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. See 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 recognizes that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts. Id.

The Department has considered the requirements of E.O. 13563 and has determined that the benefits of this proposed rescission justify any associated costs. The principal benefit of this action is the removal of a regulatory requirement that is not authorized by statute. Although these benefits are not readily quantifiable in economic terms, ensuring that agency action remains within statutory limits promotes limited constitutional government and individual liberty.

The Department further concludes that this rescission would impose no compliance costs because it removes, rather than imposes, a regulatory obligation and does not prohibit voluntary outreach efforts. Any regulatory familiarization costs are expected to be negligible because recipients would not need to take action, nor even be aware of this rulemaking, to comply with the rescission. Accordingly, the Department has determined that the benefits of the proposed action outweigh its costs, and that the proposal is consistent with E.O. 13563.

Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. This final rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action because it reduces regulatory burden for recipients of WIOA Title I financial assistance.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies engaged in rulemaking to consider the impact of their rules on small entities, consider alternatives to minimize that impact, and solicit public comment on their analyses. The RFA requires assessment of the impact of a regulation on a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. If the regulatory action would have such an impact, then the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. See id. However, if the agency determines that the regulatory action would not be expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, then the head of the agency may so certify and the RFA does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 605. DOL reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the RFA and certifies that the impacts of the rescission will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will not impose any new costs or compel any entities to change their current practices.

This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12250, the Department of Justice has the responsibility to “review . . . proposed rules . . . of the Executive agencies” implementing nondiscrimination statutes such as Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent.” The Department of Justice has reviewed and approved this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 29 CFR part 38 as follows:

On January 20, 2026, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation notified the Coast Guard that it would be sponsoring the Jones Beach Air Show from 9 a.m. on July 1, 2026, through 9 p.m. on July 6, 2026. The Coast Guard later received an application from that office for a permit under 33 CFR 100.15 to host an event deemed to introduce extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on the navigable waters below and in the vicinity of the air show. The event will be held each day from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. in Wantagh, NY. The air show is expected to draw approximately 2,000 spectator craft and 400,000 spectators.

The Captain of the Port Long Island Sound (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the large concentration of spectator vessels and the air show include the risk of aircraft collisions during the event, as well as other hazards inherent to air shows and practice sessions, which involve aircraft performing aerobatic maneuvers over the water. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. There has not been enough time since adjudicating the application for an event permit to issue an NPRM, consider comments, and issue a final rule by July 1, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.

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

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 9 a.m. on July 1, 2026, until 9 p.m. on July 6, 2026. The SLR comprises three separate regulated areas. One is a “No Entry Zone”, which includes all navigable waters of Oyster Bay Harbor in Long Island Sound off Oyster Bay, NY within a 1,000-foot radius of the launch platform in approximate position 40°53′42.50″ N, 073°30′04.30″ W. The “No Entry Area” will be enforced each day from the start of the air show at 9 a.m. until 30 minutes after it concludes. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the “No Entry Zone” without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The other regulated areas are a “Slow/No Wake Area” and a “No Southbound Traffic Area.” Each of those regulated areas will be enforced each day, beginning at 9 a.m. and continuing for six hours after the air show concludes.

The “Slow/No Wake Area” includes all navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in position 40°35′49.01″ N, 73°32′33.63″ W; then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in position 40°39′14″ N, 73°34′0.76″ W; then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in position 40°39′51.32″ N, 73°30′43.36″ W; then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in position 40°35′47.30″ N, 073°30′29.17″ W; then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin.

The “No Southbound Traffic Area” includes all navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay at position 40°36′29.20″ N, 073°29′22.88″ W and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay at position 40°36′16.53″ N, 073°28′57.26″ W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. 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 100 as follows:

In August, 2025, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a swim within a 100-yard radius of the Mackinac Bridge from 7 a.m. to noon on July 18, 2026. Approximately 400 swimmers will swim from Mackinaw City to St. Ignace on the east side of the bridge. The Captain of the Port Sector Northern Great Lakes (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the bridge. On May 5, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac, Mackinaw City, MI (91 FR 24147). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this swim event.

Under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, the COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the swim event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

During the comment period that ended June 4, 2026, we received no comments. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until noon on July 18, 2026. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of the Mackinac Bridge while swimmers are beneath it. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

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

The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the safety zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. This safety zone will only impact a small designated area for a few hours. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Marines via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the zone from the COTP.

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).

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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge in the Trenton Channel in the Detroit River in Trenton, MI. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 250-yard radius of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 1, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by June 27, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

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

This rule establishes a safety zone on June 27, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Detroit River within a 250-yard radius of a fireworks site in the Trenton Channel, Trenton, MI. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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 action applies only to Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain Facility (Clean Harbors) located in Tooele County, Utah.

The EPA is finalizing no-migration variances (NMVs) for up to a combined 250 put piles at any one time for the 4 categories/groups of wastes identified in The Petition section of this approval as requested by Clean Harbors in their July 16, 2024 petition, for the Grassy Mountain facility. For the reasons described in the December 31, 2025 (90 FR 61356) preamble to the proposed approval and in the Agency's response to the three comments received on the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the variance without alteration. The term of this NMV shall be no longer than the term of the RCRA Subtitle C permit for the permitted landfill.

Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d) through (g), prohibit the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR treatment standards (“treatment standards”) established by EPA (“Agency”).

However, RCRA 3004(d)(1), 1 and its implementing regulations found at 40 CFR 268.6, provide an option for land disposal of hazardous waste that does not meet the applicable treatment standards where EPA has approved an NMV petition. Specifically, 40 CFR 268.6(a) describes the components that a demonstration of no migration must address; 268.6(b) specifies certain criteria that must be satisfied for that demonstration, and 268.6(c) describes the monitoring program that will be used to verify that the conditions of the NMV are being met.

On July 16, 2024, Clean Harbors submitted an NMV petition to the EPA for its Grassy Mountain facility in Tooele County, Utah, seeking an exemption from the LDR prohibition on placing hazardous waste on the ground if that waste does not meet the prescribed LDR standards of 40 CFR 268.40, by demonstrating that for as long as the waste remains hazardous, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal units. In response to EPA requests following the original November 2023 submission, Clean Harbors provided supplemental information for the Agency's evaluation of Clean Harbors' no-migration demonstration. The original petition and associated responses to Agency information requests (together referred to as “the petition”) can be found in the docket (EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420).

Clean Harbors' no migration demonstration applies to the following four categories/groups of wastes stored in up to a combined 250 put piles at any one time located within the facility's Subtitle C Landfill cell, known as “Cell 8.”

(1) general metals (1) general metals (D002, D004-D011);

(2) cyanide/sulfide with metals (D002, D004 through D011, F006 through F012, F019);

(3) high-chromium wastes (D002, D004 through D011, F006);

(4) ammonia (D002, D004-D011).

While the basis for EPA's final approval is that Clean Harbors demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty that no hazardous constituents will migrate from the put piles for as long as the wastes remain hazardous, this NMV is conditioned upon the temporary nature of the put piles within Landfill Cell 8 and is intended for situations where the put piles are used as part of an overall strategy to confirm consistent and compliant treatment that meets the applicable LDR treatment standards.

The Agency concludes that Clean Harbors has provided sufficient analytical data to justify a six (6)-month duration ( i.e. 180 days) for storage of a put pile from the time the pile is first staged until final disposal in the working face of the Landfill Cell 8. If an issue arises where greater than 180 days temporary staging of a put pile is necessary, the Utah DEQ may issue an extension, if warranted.

This section describes engineered controls required for put piles, in addition to site-wide engineered controls described in the petition and proposed approval found in the docket under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420.

All put piles must be temporarily stored in a designated area of Landfill Cell 8 until LDR compliance has been confirmed. The put piles must then be moved to the working face of Landfill Cell 8.

The put piles must be encapsulated (liner below and Posi-Shell® atop) by the unit-specific engineered barriers discussed below to prevent migration of hazardous constituents beyond the put pile boundary. These unit-specific barriers are distinct from the existing landfill controls for Landfill Cell 8, such as run-on and run-off controls, that were considered in the overall prevention of migration of hazardous constituents.

A liner of at least 20-mil thickness polyethylene geomembrane must be used as a barrier to vertical and lateral migration for the put piles. The liner beneath the pile will provide a barrier for vertical migration. Because the layout of the put piles is accommodated within the standard width of a prefabricated geomembrane roll, the liner must be one solid piece without the need for welding of seams. The lack of seams lends to additional assurance that hazardous constituents will not migrate through a broken seam. The Agency concludes that a liner of at least 20-mil thickness, in conjunction with the inspection program described in the Compliance Monitoring Program section, is appropriate for use in this temporary disposal scenario; however, there must always be at least 12 inches of the liner visible on all sides of the put pile to prevent potential horizontal migration of the waste from the edge of the liner.

Before placing the put piles in the temporary storage area of Landfill Cell 8, Clean Harbors must grade the temporary storage area where put piles will be located. The grading must be relatively flat but with a slight positive grade to preclude ponding of water on the polyethylene liners.

Clean Harbors must use a Posi-Shell® cover to act as a rain and wind barrier for put piles, to ensure no migration of hazardous constituents from the put piles occurs via lateral migration or air pathways. Posi-Shell® is a spray-applied mortar applied as a coating to the surface of the put piles, with a minimum cover thickness of 3/8 -inch. Because Posi-Shell® is a mortar, curing is necessary to allow it to harden. Curing typically occurs within 12-24 hours in dry weather, forming a relatively impermeable thin layer of durable, hardened mortar. However, if moderate to heavy rainfall occurs unexpectedly or is imminent, sustained freezing temperatures are expected for more than one day, or the temperature falls below 30 °F, the Posi-Shell® will not harden sufficiently. During these times of inclement weather, Clean Harbors must temporarily cover the put piles with polyethylene sheeting of at least 20-mil thickness, anchored with sandbags around its edges, until the adverse weather conditions abate, and the Posi-Shell® coating can be applied. Within twenty-four (24) hours of weather conditions amenable to Posi-Shell® application, Clean Harbors must apply the coating.

Upgradient of the staging area for each put pile, Clean Harbors must construct and/or maintain a diversion berm of sufficient height/width to direct run-on away from each of the put piles. As Landfill Cell 8 is filled, if the waste grade changes adjacent to the put pile temporary storage area, additional diversion berms must be added, if necessary to divert stormwater run-on and run-off to isolate the staging area on the working face of Landfill Cell 8. To control run-off, in addition to the Posi-shell® coating, Clean Harbors must include, at a minimum, ditches around the inside perimeter of Landfill Cell 8 embankments and must remove ponded stormwater that accumulates on top of the put piles.

In accordance with 40 CFR 268.6(a)(4), Clean Harbors must maintain at the facility, a put pile monitoring plan that includes, at a minimum, components 1-16 below, many of which were included by Clean Harbors in the petition and the Agency adopts as proposed.

Deficiencies identified during inspection must be remedied/repaired to ensure no migration of hazardous constituents occurs. Deficiencies may include cracking, breakdown, or insufficient application of the Posi-Shell cover; gaps, tears, or holes in plastic sheeting utilized for the management of the unit; presence of stormwater run-on flow and/or ponded water; visibly exposed waste; and poor overall pile condition. Deficiencies must be remedied within one (1) week of discovery, and remedies must be recorded in the facility's operating record.

Deficiencies described by this section must be remedied regardless of whether Clean Harbors determines that a migration of hazardous constituents has occurred or may have occurred if LDR compliance verification of the waste in the unit is not yet available. If Clean Harbors determines that there has been a migration of hazardous constituents from any of the put piles or is unable to remedy any deficiency within one (1) week of discovery, Clean Harbors must immediately suspend receipt of waste at the affected put pile and notify the Region 8 Administrator, in writing, within ten (10) days of the determination that a release has occurred or that a deficiency was unable to be remedied within one (1) week.

Clean Harbors must:

1. Review and track LDR standard “pass rates” for put piles. To ensure that the waste piles are only being “temporarily stored,” as described in the February 2023 guidance, if the failure rate of the initial verification test for treated put piles exceeds 5% in a calendar month, Clean Harbors must conduct a root cause analysis and adjust the treatment protocol for the affected category of waste.

2. Inspect the temporary staging area for put piles prior to deploying the 20-mil polyethylene liner. The underlying area must be free of large or rigid objects that may damage the liner.

3. Observe that the liner is not displaced or damaged during placement of the waste piles on the liner to confirm the integrity of the liner beneath a waste pile. A damaged liner must be replaced with a new liner.

4. Perform daily inspection of covered waste piles to verify integrity of the liner, cover, and overall pile condition. Inspectors must, at a minimum, check for (1) signs of stormwater run-on flow that has or is migrating towards a put pile, or other signs of potential for put pile erosion, undermining, or washout of the waste encapsulation barriers; (2) damage from strong winds, heavy rain, or other extreme weather events ( e.g., in particular, causing holes, uplift, or other breaches in the Posi-Shell® cover) within 24 hours of such event; (3) visible exposed waste; (4) releases of waste (washout/undermining, displacement/movement of the pile such as shifting or slumping, windblown waste particles, etc.); (5) other indications of potential for migration or actual observed migration of hazardous constituents from the pile ( e.g., liquid seeps on the waste pile slopes or emanating from its base); and (6) cracks in the Posi-Shell®.

5. Ensure Appropriate Posi-Shell® application. Adhering to inclement weather application prohibitions as recommended by the manufacturer. If a waste pile is unable to be immediately covered with a Posi-Shell® ( e.g., moderate to heavy rainfall occurs unexpectedly or is imminent), the waste pile must be temporarily covered with polyethylene sheeting of at least 20-mil thickness and anchored with sandbags around its edges until the adverse weather conditions abate and the Posi-Shell® coating can then be applied. Posi-Shell® should not be applied when temperatures at or below 32 °F are expected for more than one day or for any length of time when temperatures are below 30 °F.

6. Verify that 100% coverage of Posi-Shell® is achieved over the entire put pile (no bare or thin spots).

7. Confirm that the minimum 3/8 -in thickness of Posi-Shell® is achieved.

8. Confirm that the Posi-Shell® cover is sufficiently set (hardened) before a moderate to heavy rainfall event.

9. Promptly re-apply Posi-Shell® cover if any deficiencies are identified during application, including but not limited to lack of coverage, thickness, or hardening.

10. Check for loss of 100% coverage of Posi-Shell® or other signs of cover degradation (imminent potential for loss of barrier effectiveness or thickness).

Landfill Cell 8-specific remediation requirements:

11. Remove ponded water on the landfill surface that could affect the put piles.

12. Modify, as needed, run-on controls to continue to divert surface water around each put pile staging area.

13. Maintain or alter, as appropriate, landfill grading to prevent put pile run-on.

14. Isolate the four waste categories/groups of put piles from each other to prevent potential commingling.

15. Maintain landfill equipment.

16. Submit a duplicate copy of the RCRA annual report required by 40 CFR 268.6(c)(3). This will include all LDR verification sampling, resampling, and retreatment to EPA Region 8 at: Jesse Newland; Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 8; 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, Mail Code: 8LCR-RC-P; telephone number: (303) 312-6353.

If Clean Harbors anticipates needing to exceed 250 put piles at any one time, it must request approval from EPA Region 8 Administrator prior to creating new put piles. Clean Harbors also requested that this variance proactively apply to future put piles of identical waste characteristics that would be staged in future proposed and permitted Subtitle C landfill cells.

While this Final Approval applies only to those put piles placed within existing Landfill Cell 8, upon permit approval of new cells, Clean Harbors may submit to EPA Region 8 an addendum to this petition to expand this NMV and all of its conditions and requirements, for the put piles located within the new landfill cell if:

1. Clean Harbors is in compliance with the approved NMV;

2. The new landfill cell uses the same disposal unit engineered controls ( e.g., landfill cell interior berms for run-on and run-off control) as approved in this variance;

3. The duration of temporary placement remains at six (6) months or less and complies with the conditions established herein;

4. The waste categories remain the same; and

5. The monitoring program ( e.g., groundwater monitoring) is expanded to include the new landfill cell.

Additionally, 40 CFR 268.6(e) acknowledges the potential for post-approval changes in conditions at the no migration unit(s) and/or the environment around the no migration unit(s). For the purpose of this NMV, all changes that significantly depart from the conditions described in the petition and proposed approval found in Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420 must be reported to the Region 8 Administrator if the changes have the potential to affect migration of hazardous constituents from the put piles:

1. If Clean Harbors plans to make changes to the unit(s)' design, construction, or operation, such a change must be proposed, in writing, and include a demonstration to the Region 8 Administrator at least 30 days prior to making the change. The Region 8 Administrator will determine whether the proposed change invalidates the terms of the approved variance and will determine the appropriate response. A proposed change must first be approved by the Region 8 Administrator before taking any action.

2. If Clean Harbors discovers a site condition that does not occur as modeled or predicted in the petition, this change must be reported, in writing, to the Region 8 Administrator within 10 days of discovery. The Region 8 Administrator will determine whether the reported change from expected conditions alters the terms of the approved variance and thus requires further action.

EPA announced its proposal to approve the Clean Harbors NMV petition and provided 30-day public comment period on December 1, 2025. The comment period closed on January 30, 2026 (90 FR 61356, December 31, 2025). EPA received three comments in response to the proposed NMV approval. The public comments and EPA's responses are available in the docket for this action (EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420). Portions of the three comments were outside the scope of this action; EPA addresses the relevant issues in the Response to Comments document provided in the docket.

The agency concludes that Clean Harbors has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents beyond the unit boundary for treated hazardous wastes temporarily stored in put piles within permitted Subtitle C hazardous waste Landfill Cell 8 while awaiting verification of compliance with the LDR standards. Accordingly, EPA hereby approves the NMV for Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain facility, subject to the terms and conditions stated herein and as presented in the petition found in the docket.

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

Per 46 U.S.C. 53402, as enacted by Section 3511(a) of NDAA FY21, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of War, is required to establish a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately owned product tank vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements. NDAA FY22 section 3515(b) amended the eligibility requirements of vessels in TSP to disqualify any vessel under charter to the United States Government for any period that, together with options, exceeds 180 continuous days. TSP provides a stipend to tanker operators of U.S.-flagged vessels that meet certain qualifications and operate in accordance with operating agreements issued by MARAD in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 53401-12. TSP supports the United States maritime industries and workforce to promote national security and economic competitiveness as articulated in Executive Order (E.O.) 14269 (90 FR 15635-41; Apr. 15, 2025).

TSP currently authorizes payments to participating operators of $8.16 million per ship, per fiscal year, subject to annual appropriations. Participating operators are required to make their commercial transportation resources available upon request by the Secretary of War for military purposes during times of war or national emergency.

A fuel tanker study required by Section 3519 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92, Dec. 20, 2019) (NDAA FY20) examined the sufficiency of the U.S.-flagged tanker fleet to meet National Defense Strategy (NDS) requirements. A summary of the report was provided on the docket for the IFR. The report's summary found a substantial risk to the Nation's defense associated with a heavy reliance on foreign-flagged tankers, particularly within a contested environment. The location, timing, and specific missions associated with some tanker requirements dictate the need for U.S.-flagged assets, for which there are currently insufficient numbers available. The report's gap analysis found a clear and critical need for a tanker security program to increase U.S.-flagged tanker capacity, to reduce the risk of reliance on foreign-flagged tankers for the most important fuel missions, and to ensure the Department of War (DOW)  1 has sufficient tanker capabilities to meet NDS objectives.

In response to the NDAA FY20 Fuel Tanker Study, in the NDAA FY21, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of War, to establish a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately-owned product tanker vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements and maintain a United States presence in international commercial shipping. 2 The Maritime Administration worked with the DOW's United States Transportation Command to identify and shape TSP requirements and timelines.

Consistent with NDAA FY21, the rule establishes requirements that support typical DOT and MARAD commercial economic objectives such as the tanker vessel eligibility requirements in MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR 294.9. Specifically, tanker vessels must be commercially viable, be not more than 10 years in age, and operate in U.S. foreign commerce. In addition, § 294.9 requires tanker vessels to be suitable for use by the United States for national defense or military purposes in time of war or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary of War. Section 294.11 also requires vessel owners, charterers, and operators to meet certain requirements of NDAA FY21 to establish their corporate citizenship to ensure security through proper operational control. Section 294.25 requires a TSP participant to agree to install onboard its vessel militarily useful features as approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and the vessel's classification society. Section 294.23(d) requires TSP participants to enter into the Voluntary Tanker Agreement, which is an emergency preparedness agreement by which TSP participants commit to making commercial transportation resources (including services) available for military use, upon request by the Secretary of War during a time of war or national emergency, or whenever the Secretary of War determines that it is necessary for national security or contingency operation. Section 294.31 also provides for annual payments to program participants and specifies payment conditions set forth in the statute. Taken together, the TSP supports both the Nation's economy and its national security by strengthening and ensuring the continued availability of U.S.-flag tanker capacity.

Since the publication of the IFR in 2022, MARAD, in conjunction with United States Transportation Command, has awarded TSP Operating Agreements covering the operation of product tank vessels in TSP, and those vessels have begun operation in the Tanker Security Fleet.

MARAD has made several changes to this Final Rule from the IFR, one pursuant to a comment and others following additional analysis by MARAD. The first change clarifies that a vessel operating in TSP placed under a long-term charter to the Government (defined as any charter that, together with options, occurs for more than 180 continuous calendar days) only becomes ineligible to participate in TSP on the date and time on which the vessel is actually delivered to, and accepted by, the Government for operation under the charter. One commenter proposed this modification (see Comments on the Interim Final Rule, below), and MARAD incorporates this change into § 294.21(e).

MARAD has also updated the duration of the operating agreements to reflect statutory updates to the program since its initial enactment. The IFR defined operating agreements as annual agreements that automatically renewed each year until the end of FY 2035 in accordance with the original authorizing statute. Congress extended TSP's authorization to 2040 under section 3531(b) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2025 (Pub. L. 118-159 (Dec. 23, 2024)) (NDAA FY25), and MARAD accordingly has extended the authorization period of the operating agreements to the end of FY 2040. MARAD also clarified that obligations under the operating agreements are subject to actual appropriations for any given fiscal year and that MARAD may enter into new operating agreements after the start of the initial ten operating agreements. Any such agreements are also authorized through the end of FY 2040.

MARAD has modified §§ 294.21 and 294.31 to make clear that, in the event that appropriations for TSP payments are lower than the authorized amount, all current participants would receive stipend payments pro rata based on the appropriated amount. MARAD would not renew operating agreements for lack of funding only if Congress does not appropriate any money toward TSP, e.g., an extended Government shutdown. The ability to maintain payments to program participants at appropriated levels, even if lower than authorized levels, ensures that TSP remains as close to maximum readiness as possible, which is critical should there be a sudden crisis, armed conflict, or national emergency requiring the use of these vessels by the Government to meet urgent needs.

MARAD is clarifying § 294.23(d) to promote the sustainability of the Tanker Security Fleet in the event of a national security event. Under 46 U.S.C. 53407 and 46 CFR 294.23(d), all vessels operating in TSP must enter into a Voluntary Tanker Agreement (VTA), in which they commit to make their TSP vessel available to fulfill DOW requirements in times of war or national emergency. MARAD has clarified that a vessel activated under the VTA  3 is not considered to be operating under a long-term charter to the United States for purposes of the statute and this rule. In the absence of a VTA activation, a Government charter lasting more than 180 days would make the vessel ineligible to remain in the TSP. As charters of vessels pursuant to a VTA activation are not made under normal commercial conditions but to fulfill contingency operation requirements, disqualification of any vessel due to its national security obligations would fundamentally frustrate the program's purpose.

MARAD has also clarified that it will not terminate a TSP Operating Agreement if the TSP vessel has been activated under VTA, suffers a marine casualty while operating pursuant to the activation, and the Agreement Holder makes all reasonable and timely efforts to either repair or replace the vessel, as determined by MARAD. As VTA participation is a statutory requirement, an Operating Agreement termination for failure to operate a qualified vessel when the failure results from a VTA-related marine casualty could undermine the goals of the TSP Program. However, carriers also have a responsibility to operate and maintain qualified vessels under TSP Operating Agreements, and MARAD will ensure that, in the event of a marine casualty during a VTA activation, the Agreement Holder makes all reasonable and timely efforts to resume TSP operations. Further, this new subparagraph does not obligate MARAD to continue TSP payments to the Agreement Holder following the marine casualty. Accordingly, MARAD is adding § 294.23(d)(3) to ensure the stability of the Tanker Security Fleet during a VTA activation while also relying on MARAD's technical expertise to ensure proper oversight and enforcement of this provision.

MARAD has also updated the schedule of payments in TSP to reflect statutory updates to the program. Section 294.31(a) of the IFR reflected TSP's original statutory authorization. Section 3531(a) of the NDAA FY 2025 both extended the authorization of TSP out to the end of FY 2040 and updated the payment schedule, and MARAD makes those same updates here, including the caveat that all such payments are subject to actual appropriations.

MARAD is incorporating into the final rule Article I-8(c) of the Operating Agreement that all Agreement Holders must report any period of maintenance, survey, inspection, or repair to MARAD in advance if the work being done on the vessel will render it unable to move under its own power or makes it unable to meet its national security obligations under VTA on an immediate basis. Existing requirements at § 294.31(c)(1)(v) provide that MARAD will not make payments to Agreement Holders for any day that a TSP Fleet Vessel is in maintenance, survey, inspection, or repair that exceeds 30 days per fiscal year unless the Agreement Holder obtains MARAD's prior authorization to exceed the 30-day limit. However, this does not provide MARAD with full visibility of the readiness of the Tanker Security Program Fleet at any given time, which could compromise the TSP Fleet's national security mission if called to respond. The Operating Agreement permits MARAD to request that Agreement Holders notify MARAD in advance of any period of maintenance, survey, inspection, and repair, regardless of expected duration. Accordingly, MARAD is adding paragraph (f) to § 294.23 to require reporting of any period when the TSP Fleet Vessel would not be able to respond immediately to an emergency activation due to maintenance, survey, inspection, and repair. This new paragraph does not supersede the existing requirement at § 294.31(c)(1)(v) to request extensions of maintenance, survey, inspection, and repair periods for TSP Fleet Vessels if the Agreement Holder believes they will exceed 30 days.

MARAD updated § 294.17(a) to reflect the expansion of the TSP Fleet since the initial enactment of 46 U.S.C. ch. 534. Section 3511(a) of NDAA FY 21 set the maximum TSP Fleet size at ten vessels. Section 3501(b)(2) of the NDAA FY 2023 (Pub. L. 117-263 (Dec. 23, 2022)) expanded the maximum TSP Fleet size to twenty vessels starting in FY 2024, and section 3531(c) of NDAA FY 2025 (Pub. L. 118-159 (Dec. 23, 2024)) phased in the increase in the TSP Fleet size over a three-year period through a funding schedule, with funding for fifteen vessels authorized for FY 2025-26 and twenty vessels for FY 2027-28. MARAD added a clause in § 294.17(a) to reflect the changes in statute and allow for any future TSP Fleet expansions.

MARAD also made two clerical changes to reflect updates to the titles of applicable offices and officials. First, MARAD updated § 294.33(b) to reflect the change in the title of the USTRANSCOM official to whom carriers or applicants may direct communications when relevant. The prior title was the Director of Strategic Plans, Policy, and Logistics, but is now the Director of Strategic Plans, Policy, Logistics, and War-Fighting Development. Second, MARAD updated references from the IFR regarding the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense consistent with E.O. 14347 (Sept. 5, 2025).

In response to the publication of the IFR in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 74977-87), which sought public comment concurrent with the promulgation of the IFR, MARAD received two separate comment submissions. MARAD responds to the comments below.

One commenter requested that MARAD modify the language of 46 CFR 294.21(e) to further clarify at what point vessels under long-term charter to the Government become ineligible to operate in TSP. We agree, and have updated § 294.21(e) accordingly, as explained in Summary of Changes from IFR, above.

The commenter expressed concern that MARAD might accept a vessel into TSP that was found commercially viable but would not benefit national security. In response, MARAD emphasizes that all vessels accepted for TSP must be found both commercially viable, as determined by MARAD, and militarily useful, as determined by U.S. Transportation Command. The dual requirement is specifically designed to ensure that TSP is comprised of the vessels that best suit the program's dual mandate of economic competitiveness and national security, and to minimize the risks to the Federal Government.

The commenter also requested that any vessel enrolled in TSP be required to meet all standards of the International Maritime Organization, United States Coast Guard (USCG), and standards set by recognized classification societies. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking because USCG is responsible for U.S. vessel registration and inspection, and vessels in TSP must be registered and inspected under United States law to qualify for participation in the program.

The commenter requested that U.S.-built vessels be given selection priority for TSP Operating Agreements. Under 46 U.S.C. 53403(b)(2), the highest priority in vessel selection is its military utility, followed by the applicant's record of owning and operating vessels, followed by any other priorities MARAD considers appropriate. In the IFR at § 294.15(b), MARAD established a third priority that focuses on the citizenship of the applicant. Following promulgation of the IFR, the President issued E.O. 14269 (90 FR 15635-41 (Apr. 9, 2025)) directing agencies involved in United States maritime policy, including MARAD, to develop and implement policies that would, among other objectives, invest in United States shipbuilding. In support of that E.O. and MARAD general authority at 46 U.S.C. 50101(a), MARAD has added a fourth selection priority under § 294.15(b) for vessels built in the United States. MARAD believes that this revised prioritization will balance the applicable equities, ensuring that the program (1) has a sufficient U.S.-based nexus while also giving both applicants and the Federal Government the greatest latitude to select the most capable vessels for the program and (2) supporting E.O. 14269's focus on United States shipbuilding activities.

One commenter asked MARAD to clarify if TSP vessels are considered public vessels of the United States. The comment raises an issue that is dependent on facts and circumstances in an analysis under the Public Vessels Act rather than the Tanker Security Act and thus is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

This rule has been determined to be not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). TSP statutory authorities currently authorize the establishment of a fleet of product tank vessels, engaged in U.S. foreign commerce and available for use by DOW during times of war or national emergency. Statutory language defines, among other elements: the maximum size of the TSP Fleet at 20 vessels; the general vessel selection criteria; the obligations and rights of program participants; the maximum annual payments per vessel under each agreement and the conditions of such payments; and each participant's national security obligations under the program.

The major benefits of TSP are that it will: (1) provide DOW with assured access to U.S.-flagged product tank vessels that may be used to supply the armed forces of the United States with fuel during times of war or national emergency, and (2) help to ensure that a core fleet of U.S.-based product tankers can operate competitively in international trade and enhance U.S. supply chain resiliency for liquid fuel products. The DOW's Fuel Tanker Study found an insufficient supply of U.S.-flagged tankers to meet National Defense Strategy requirements. In addition, TSP will help maintain a U.S.-flag presence in international commerce. The TSP vessels will be a critical component of U.S.-flag capability that contributes to the U.S. mariner base for utilization on both the commercial, Ready Reserve Force, and DOW fleets.

Congress set statutory limits on the maximum number of participant vessels and the annual payment per vessel. TSP statutory authorities allow the participation of up to 20 vessels in TSP through the end of FY 2040. MARAD is authorized to pay each operator of a TSP vessel an annual stipend per vessel ranging from $8,160,000 for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 to $9,833,000 for fiscal years 2039 and 2040, subject to the availability of appropriations and specific operating requirements. Program funding is authorized at $122,400,000 per year for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, with gradual increases in funding authorization to $196,660,000 per year for fiscal years 2039 and 2040. Application costs for vessels that apply for the TSP are discussed in the section below, describing MARAD's compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act for this rule.

Section 3511 of the FY21 NDAA provides for the TSP with new funding authorization and establishes a dedicated product tanker fleet program distinct from the existing Maritime Security Program (MSP) fleet. Congress also prescribed the minimum requirements of the TSP, including ship ownership, vessel eligibility, vessel documentation, program duration, the number of participating vessels, the amount of funding, and national security obligations. The Act provides detailed requirements for establishing and operating the TSP, and MARAD does not have discretion to deviate from those requirements in the regulations that establish the TSP's operation.

Since publishing the IFR, this final rule now includes a prioritization for commercial tankers built in the United States. In support of this new addition, MARAD points to its longstanding objectives and policies that ensure the U.S. Merchant Marine is composed of the best equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel. 4 At this time, there are no US-built tanker vessels, but this new priority could prompt the building of tanker vessels in the United States without foreclosing foreign built tanker program participation. In addition, MARAD has made updates to the duration of its operating agreements and the payment schedules that were set by Congress in section 3531 of NDAA FY25, clarifications on when TSP vessels are on charter to the Government, and improvements to the marine casualty provision designed to benefit operating agreement holders by providing them with greater clarity and flexibility of business operations in the event their vessels are activated under VTA, which can be highly disruptive to standard commercial activities.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule is required by law and is excepted from E.O. 14192 as not meeting the definition of a regulation or rule because it is being issued “with respect to a military, national security, . . . related function of the United States.” (Section 5(a) of E.O. 14192).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., rules that are exempt from notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other law are also exempt from the RFA analytical requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a).

On December 7, 2022, MARAD published its Tanker Security Program regulations (87 FR 74977) as an IFR without notice and the opportunity for public comment and delayed the effective date ordinarily prescribed by the APA. As discussed in the IFR, MARAD concluded that the rule involved a military function of the United States under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) and was therefore exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Nonetheless, MARAD also analyzed the rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and determined that it had good cause to waive prior opportunity for notice and comment. For similar reasons, MARAD determined that it had good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553. Following publication of the IFR, MARAD received comments and has addressed those comments above under the heading Comments on the Interim Final Rule. Because this rule is exempt from the APA notice and comment requirements, MARAD is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of OMB control number. This OMB approved collection of information is identified under OMB Control Number 2133-0554. The collection is necessary to accept applications, undertake the review of applicant qualifications to ensure applications are complete, monitor participation and vessel availability, and administer and maintain all aspects of the TSP program. The annual burden estimate is $2,438.50.

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

The regulations in 50 CFR part 10 establish definitions applicable throughout title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations governing wildlife and wildlife products under the jurisdiction of the Service. Section 10.12 defines “shellfish” as “any species of mollusk having a shell,” a formulation that reflects historical terminology rather than contemporary biological classification or modern commercial use.

Cephalopods—including squid, cuttlefish, octopus, and nautilus—are mollusks but are characterized by either an internal shell, a reduced shell, or no shell at all. ( Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (12th ed. 2025)). Similarly, Cephalopods are members of the Cephalopoda family, which includes Ammonites, characterized by a flat-coiled spiral shell. ( Oxford English Dictionary (3d. ed., June 2026)). As a result, the current regulatory definition has created ambiguity as to whether cephalopods qualify as shellfish for purposes of wildlife importation, exportation, declaration, inspection, and enforcement under 50 CFR parts 10, 14, and related provisions.

In practice, this ambiguity has led to inconsistent treatment of cephalopod products at ports of entry, confusion among regulated entities, and unnecessary regulatory burden on importers, exporters, and enforcement personnel.

After consideration of the information provided through the public comment process, we are finalizing this rule with minor grammatical corrections. We are adding the term “Phylum” before the word Mollusca in subparagraph (1) and adding a comma after “but not limited to” in subparagraphs (1) and (2). We are also removing the words “an” in subparagraph (1) and “a” in subparagraph (2). We have provided responses to questions and concerns submitted during the public comment period under Summary of Comments and Responses, below.

In finalizing the specific change to the current regulations in the rule portion of this document and setting out the accompanying clarifying discussion in this preamble, we are establishing prospective standards only. These regulations will apply to shipments being imported into or exported out of the United States on or after the effective date of this rule and will not apply retroactively to shipments that were imported or exported prior to the effective date of this rule. For the effective date of this rule see DATES , above. Nothing in these revisions to the regulations is intended to require that the Service reevaluate actions taken on shipments of affected species imported or exported prior to the effective date of this rule on the basis of these final regulations.

In our March 6, 2026, proposed rule (91 FR 11019), we requested public comments by April 6, 2026. We received a total of 69 comments, 66 of which contained substantive remarks on the proposed rule with specific support or opposition to the definition change. One of the substantive comments was an exact duplicate of another and submitted by the same commenter. Two of the comments were non-substantive in nature, expressing either general opposition or support to the proposed rule with no supporting information or analysis. One comment contained no information. Commenters included individual members of the public, industry members and representative organizations, non-governmental and environmental organizations, and a Federal agency, among others. Below, we summarize and respond to the significant, substantive comments we received.

Comments regarding biological, ecological and conservation concerns: The Service received comments from the cephalopod industry and their representative organizations, and one Federal agency, the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, supporting the proposed rule stating that the change better aligns with commercial use and scientific understanding of the species in question.

The Service received comments opposed to the rule due to concerns that cephalopods are biologically distinct from shellfish and should not be consolidated into the same category as shellfish. These comments also stated that the very disparate source and harvest methods used for shellfish and cephalopods, primarily aquaculture for shellfish and various methods of wild harvest for cephalopods, do not support applying the same regulations to both taxa. Additionally, concerns were raised that the proposed rule ignores known risks to wild populations of cephalopods due to poorly regulated international harvesting. Some comments raised questions related to animal welfare due to the intelligence of cephalopods and the lack of control over international harvest methods.

Several comments raised concern regarding traceability and data loss that could be critical to monitoring and ensuring sustainability of wild populations and trade. Several comments mentioned concerns that this proposed rule would undermine ecological management of cephalopod populations and their sustainability based on known concerns about the lack of regulations governing international sourcing of cephalopods. They raised concerns that the proposed rule shows a lack of thorough analysis of impacts of this rule on conservation and ecological management and sustainability. The Service received comments from the public and the shellfish industry stating that the proposed rule does not align with current scientific and taxonomic treatment of these species, or the common usage of the term “shellfish” both within the industry and within vernacular language.

Response: While the Service acknowledges these concerns, this rule is intended to align with the statutory language (16 U.S.C. 1538(d)-(f)) exempting shellfish and fishery products for human or animal consumption and to clarify whether the Service's import/export regulations apply to cephalopods. Current scientific classification agrees that cephalopods are mollusks, whether an external shell is present or not. Multiple other biological characteristics define the group of animals including a soft, unsegmented body and living in a damp or aquatic habitat, with some members of the group having a hard, external shell. Most cephalopods possess a hard internal shell rather than an external shell, thus still qualifying them as shellfish. One instance where the accepted definition clearly includes cephalopods is in the case of a medical term for “shellfish allergy.” (Wai, et al. 2020, Gelis, et al. 2020). Squid, octopus, and cuttlefish are all included when referencing the common sources of shellfish allergies in the medical community, despite their not having an external shell. Rather than leave ambiguity, the Service is clarifying that the term shellfish includes cephalopods to align with the scientific nomenclature.

Comments concerning enforcement considerations: Some comments supported the proposed rule stating that it reduces ambiguity in the regulatory requirements and introduces consistency and clarity to the import/export process. These comments also contend that there is sufficient regulatory oversight from other Federal and State agencies upon harvest, as well as import, and this rule would eliminate duplicative efforts by the Service.

The Service received numerous comments raising concerns that the proposed rule creates gaps in regulatory oversight, both within the Service and between Federal agencies; weakens import controls including allowing a mechanism for tariff evasion; and hinders detection of illegal trade and IUU fishing of cephalopods. One comment stated that cephalopods are subject to growing legislative scrutiny and that this proposed rule could undermine efforts by the States and others to regulate this commodity.

Response: The Service appreciates the concerns raised regarding these enforcement considerations. The Service works closely with its Federal and State agency partners to ensure proper oversight and enforcement actions within our jurisdictions. While cephalopods will no longer be subject to certain import/export requirements, the Service retains authority to inspect all shipments being imported into or exported from the United States and to ensure the legality of wildlife trade when there are concerns of potential illegal activities being conducted.

Comments concerning the effects on trade and the public: Multiple industry commenters expressed strong support for the proposed rule due to the reduced costs to the U.S. cephalopod industry which would in turn be passed on to consumers. Comments stated that U.S. businesses would benefit from the improved regulatory efficiency since other Federal and State agencies provide oversight of this trade. Commenters also stated that the U.S. cephalopod industry would benefit from streamlined import and export procedures with the removal of limitations on ports of entry and exit and delays due to waiting for clearance from the Service. One commenter supported the proposed rule stating that the current definition is confusing, costly, redundant, and misdirected. The commenter argues that the proposed rule's removal of an unnecessary burden from the industry would allow the FWS to better focus on mission priorities such as wildlife trade. Another commenter supports the proposed rule in order to correct an outdated classification. The commenter appreciates that the proposed rule would align the Service's definition with that of other federal agencies, with international trade designations, and the scientific taxonomy of Mollusca, and, finally, enhance global competitiveness for U.S. seafood producers. One commenter argued that the current definition disadvantages U.S. seafood producers relative to foreign competitors and the proposed rule would remove additional costs and logistical obstructions currently placed on U.S producers by the U.S. government that hinder performance in international markets. One commenter supports the proposed rule and further comments on the lack of evidence that squid fisheries are more vulnerable to criminal or illegal activity than other types of fisheries included in the Service's current definition of shellfish.

The Service also received some comments expressing concern over the potential effects of this proposed rule on the U.S. seafood trade and impacts to consumers and the public. These comments argued that the proposed rule would negatively affect U.S. businesses by reducing accountability and consumer confidence in product sourcing. Additionally, some comments argued this rule could benefit foreign trade competitors over U.S. businesses by removing the oversight mechanisms that ensure foreign competitors are held to the same high standards as U.S. businesses. Some comments stated that local fishing communities could be negatively affected by competition from foreign sourced products. One commenter preferred the current definition of shellfish, urging the Service to reject taxonomic definitions and maintain existing physical criteria for the regulation which includes bivalves while excluding other members of Mollusca. Another commenter described concerns with the proposed rule's potential impact on the sustainable aquaculture industry.

Response: The Service appreciates the significant engagement from producers and from industry organizations and the supportive comments regarding the potential impact of the proposed rule. The Service values the concerns raised in some of the comments submitted, however, no one supplier or industry is being favored over another with this clarification of a definition. Rather all in the industry are subject to the same regulatory authority and, given that the Service retains the authority to inspect and ensure the legality of all wildlife shipments, and our close coordination with our Federal and State regulatory partners, proper oversight of this industry will be maintained. The question of whether a particular practice is sustainable falls outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to revising the regulatory definition. Evaluating the sustainability of practices involves separate analyses and policy considerations that are not part of this definition change.

Comments concerning lack of analysis of and justification for the proposed rule: The Service received multiple comments asserting that the proposed definition change is a significant change to the regulations and as such requires thorough consideration of the impact of the change to both industry and conservation to ensure it is in the best interests of the American public and businesses. These comments stated that a thorough economic analysis and examination of the extent of the impacts of this proposed rule are warranted. Additional comments stated that the proposed rule lacked sufficient justification for the need for the change.

Response: The Service acknowledges the concerns raised in these comments; however, the rule aligns with our statutory authority. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), in the publication of the proposed rule, the Service certified that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. This rule clarifies a regulatory definition and reduces compliance obligations that should result in a cost savings for small businesses. This rule does not establish new compliance requirements, reporting obligations, or performance standards for small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601, thus, a detailed economic analysis is not necessary. Similarly, the Service has determined that the proposed rule provided sufficient justification to support the change to the shellfish definition at 50 CFR 10.12.

Comments requesting the inclusion of additional species: The Service received several requests to include red and purple sea urchins and one request to include sea cucumbers in the revised definition to exempt them from Service import/export requirements as well.

Response: Red and purple sea urchins and sea cucumbers are not mollusks rather they are echinoderms. ( Oxford English Dictionary (3d. ed., June 2026)). An echinoderm is radially symmetrical unlike mollusks where symmetry is not considered under current literary definitions. ( Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (12th ed. 2025)). Additionally, Echinodermata phylum as a species frequently has fivefold radial symmetry, like the starfish, hardly comparable to commonly understood species of shellfish. ( Oxford English Dictionary (3d. ed., June 2026)). Both sea urchins and sea cucumbers are more closely related to sand dollars and sea stars than to squid, lobster, or octopus. They differ significantly from the members of Mollusca. Sea urchins and sea cucumbers lack the mantle and muscular foot that characterizes most mollusks, even when the external shell is absent. Many mollusks are carnivorous, herbivorous or filter feeders with specialized feeding structures while the echinoderms are detritivores and consume sediment and organic debris, or floating particles. Finally, sea urchins and sea cucumbers have a unique water vascular system that all the members of Mollusca lack. Therefore, FWS declines to include sea cucumbers and sea urchins in the definition of shellfish.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).

This final rule clarifies a regulatory definition and is deregulatory in nature and should result in cost savings for small businesses. This final rule does not establish new, and reduces existing, compliance requirements, reporting obligations, or performance standards to the benefit of small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. However, we do not expect this potential effect to rise to the level of a significant economic effect nor affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Service hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we have determined the following:

(a) A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. We are the lead agency for carrying out regulations that govern and monitor the importation and exportation of wildlife and for carrying out U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). No small government assistance or impact is expected as a result of this proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed rule has no effect on small governments or their responsibilities.

(b) This rule will not produce a Federal requirement that may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This rule will not result in any combined expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments.

Under E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. It will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. A takings implication assessment is not required. The purpose of this rule is to clarify and streamline the requirements and processes related to the import and export of wildlife at U.S. ports and borders. Therefore, this rule does not have significant takings implications.

Under E.O. 13132, this rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (“Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments;” 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (“Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation;” 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government- to-government basis. In accordance with S.O. 3206 of June 5, 1997 (“American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act”), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.

This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA implementing regulations at 43 CFR 46.210, and the DOI Handbook of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (516 DM 1).

We have determined that there will be no significant individual or cumulative effect on the environment with the revision of the definition of “shellfish” in 50 CFR 10.12 and have applied the Department of the Interior categorical exclusion for “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case” (43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 do not apply to the direct effects of this rule.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O.13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend part 10, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. ) was enacted to protect migratory birds and gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the authority to regulate the harvest of certain migratory birds. The law further authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to ensure that the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska may take certain migratory birds and collect their eggs for nutritional and other essential needs during seasons established by the Secretary to provide for the preservation and maintenance of these migratory birds (16 U.S.C. 712(1)).

The take of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska occurs primarily during the spring and summer, a timeframe not included in the fall and winter general migratory game bird hunting regulations for the United States. Regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 92. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds and establish when and where the harvesting of certain birds in Alaska may occur within each subsistence region.

The migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations are developed cooperatively. The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (Council or AMBCC) consists of the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Native representatives. The Council's primary purpose is to develop recommendations pertaining to the subsistence harvest of migratory birds.

This rule incorporates changes to the subsistence harvest regulations that were recommended by the Council in 2025 as described below.

Per the collaborative process described above, we published a proposed rule on March 9, 2026, to update the regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during spring and summer (91 FR 11266). By the end of the comment period on April 8, 2026, we received six comments pertaining to the proposed rule. We made no changes to the proposed rule as a result of input we received via the public comments, however, we added further discussion to this rule regarding the regulatory revisions based on public comments we received. See Final Regulations, below, for more information.

Issue: One commenter believed that there should be no legal subsistence harvest opportunity for migratory birds in Alaska.

Response: For millennia, Indigenous peoples of Alaska have harvested migratory birds for subsistence purposes during the spring and summer months. The U.S. treaties with Canada and Mexico were amended for the express purpose of allowing subsistence harvest of migratory birds during these months. The MBTA allows for the lawful and sustainable harvest of migratory birds and their eggs per regulations.

Issue: Four commenters expressed support of the process presented in the proposed rule that was used to incorporate local input and Indigenous Knowledge in determining a meaningful region name and more appropriate harvest season dates.

Response: The Service appreciates the commenters' support for involvement of Tribal regional representatives in developing regulatory changes.

Issue: One commenter recommended the Service collect subsistence harvest data to measure the effect of the proposed regulatory change.

Response: Harvest of waterfowl and cranes by rural residents within the Upper Copper River/Ahtna Territory region represents less than 0.2 percent of the statewide harvest (Naves and Schamber 2024) and the population of the eight eligible communities in the region represents about 1.3 percent of the statewide population in eligible subsistence harvest areas ( https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/landing/pop-cen.html ). In addition, there are no threatened eiders or species of conservation concern ( e.g., emperor geese) present in this region. These factors suggest that any increase in regional subsistence harvest due to the proposed change in season dates is unlikely to have any measurable effect on harvest or population size of migratory birds in Alaska. Past subsistence harvest surveys in Alaska have lacked the precision to detect small changes in statewide harvest and would incur an unnecessary burden on subsistence harvesters.

Issue: One commenter recommended implementation of flexible harvest closure dates based on annual environmental conditions.

Response: The use of static closure dates that approximate the primary nesting periods for their respective geographic areas may not align the timing of nesting activity with closure dates for some species in some years. However, static closure dates increase the clarity of regulations for subsistence harvesters and law enforcement and have been implemented successfully in 10 of the 12 regions, including the Upper Copper River/Ahtna Territory region. The co-management process allows a region to petition the AMBCC to change to a flexible closure date process, as two regions have already done, but the Upper Copper River/Ahtna Territory has not proposed such changes.

Issue: One commenter recommended that urban residents be restricted from the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and eggs during spring and summer.

Response: Residents of urban areas are generally restricted from harvest of migratory birds in spring and summer per regulation (50 CFR 92.5).

Issue: One commenter recommended records of all Tribal consultations be included in the final rule.

Response: To date, no requests for formal or informal Tribal consultation on the proposed rule have been requested.

Issue: One commenter recommended that sources of Indigenous Knowledge be credited under the discussion in Revisions to Subpart D in the final rule.

Response: The Service appreciates the commenter's suggestion to recognize the source of Indigenous Knowledge in the development of harvest regulations. The source of Indigenous Knowledge that supports the proposed change in harvest season dates was submitted in a proposal to the AMBCC in December 2025 (AMBCC Proposal No. 2026-02) and originated from members of the Copper River Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, through the Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission. Oral testimony from the Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission in support of the proposal was presented at the May 9, 2025, AMBCC meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.

Issue: One commenter recommended the Service ensure adaptive management strategies are in place to respond to climate-driven shifts in nesting chronology.

Response: The Service adapts its management strategies for the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds and their eggs through participation in the AMBCC. The AMBCC meets twice annually and provides an opportunity for regional Alaska Native representatives to describe observations from the communities they represent. Such observations include changes in the abundance and species of birds, harvest, climate, bird migration patterns, and nesting activity. From these observations and other supporting data, the Council can identify where regulatory proposals may be needed to change 30-day closure dates to adequately protect birds during the principal nesting period.

Issue: One commenter recommended the Service implement a 3-year evaluation period to measure the effect of the proposed change in subsistence harvest season dates on migratory bird species harvested during the spring-summer season in this region.

Response: The Service does not believe a 3-year evaluation period is necessary to assess the effect of the proposed change in subsistence harvest season dates on migratory bird populations in this region. This region has low harvest levels and few hunters, making any increase in subsistence harvest due to the proposed changes unlikely to have any population level effects (see response above to third issue for additional information). Implementation of a 3-year evaluation period would incur an unnecessary burden on subsistence hunters and cost to the public. The Service evaluates the status of migratory birds annually throughout North America using aerial waterfowl population surveys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2025), including within the region described in the proposed action, and together with partners in the AMBCC will evaluate all available information and propose regulatory changes where warranted.

We are making no changes to the regulatory revisions proposed in our March 9, 2026, proposed rule (91 FR 11266) as a result of the input we received via the public comments.

The rule sets forth the following revisions to the regulations for the taking of certain migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring and summer.

In 50 CFR part 92, subpart A (general provisions), we change the name of the Upper Copper River region to the Ahtna Territory region in § 92.5. The Upper Copper River region is one of 12 geographic regions (called regional management areas) in Alaska based on common subsistence resource use patterns and the 12 Alaska Native regional corporation boundaries established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. 1606). The Upper Copper River region has eight eligible communities whose harvest area includes Alaska State Game Management Units (GMUs) 11, 12, and 13. The Copper River Migratory Bird Co-Management Council submitted a proposal to the AMBCC requesting their region be renamed Ahtna Territory to reflect the desires of member communities to self-identify with an appropriate regional name. The current name inaccurately reflects the region's community membership and eligible harvest area, as the community of Cantwell is not located in the Copper River drainage and its traditional hunting areas are within the watersheds of other major rivers ( e.g., the Yukon and Susitna). Renaming this region as the Ahtna Territory will help clarify Ahtna Tribal communities included in the region and better identify those eligible to participate in the spring-summer subsistence harvest.

The AMBCC recommended an amendment to the regulations to change the name of the Upper Copper River region to the Ahtna Territory region on April 9, 2025. This regulatory amendment was supported by the Pacific Flyway Council on September 12, 2025, and the SRC on December 16, 2025, and intended for implementation beginning with the 2026 subsistence season.

In 50 CFR part 92, subpart B (program structure), we change the name of the Upper Copper River region to the Ahtna Territory region in § 92.11 as described above for subpart A.

In 50 CFR part 92, subpart D (annual regulations governing subsistence harvest), we make several changes for the Upper Copper River region: changing the region's name, clarifying language regarding the harvest area, and modifying the season dates.

First, we change the name of the Upper Copper River region to the Ahtna Territory region in § 92.31(i) as described above for subpart A.

Second, we clarify and simplify the language in § 92.31(i) regarding which GMUs are included in the harvest area for the Upper Copper River region. Currently, § 92.31(i) states that the harvest area for the eight eligible communities—Gulkana, Chitina, Tazlina, Copper Center, Gakona, Mentasta Lake, Chistochina, and Cantwell—includes GMUs 11 and 13. However, § 92.31(i)(3) later adds GMU 12 as a harvest area for the Copper River Basin communities listed in § 92.31(i). This creates confusion, as one of the communities (Cantwell) is not located in the Copper River Basin. The current language implies that GMUs 11, 12, and 13 are open for the seven Copper River Basin communities, while Cantwell's harvest area is limited to GMUs 11 and 13. However, Cantwell is located north of the Alaska Range, which qualifies it as an “included area” under § 92.5(a). As such, its residents are eligible to harvest birds during the spring-summer season in areas north of the Alaska Range, like GMU 12. To clarify the regulations, we add GMU 12 to the list of GMUs in § 92.31(i) for all eight communities. We also remove § 92.31(i)(3), as it would become redundant following this change and the season date revisions described below.

Third, we modify the season dates within the Upper Copper River region listed in § 92.31(i)(1) and (i)(2). This change will simplify the regulations and better align season dates with bird presence in the region. The Upper Copper River region's harvest area includes GMUs 11, 12, and 13 as described above, but currently the hunting and egg gathering seasons for GMUs 11 and 13 are different from those in GMU 12. The Copper River Migratory Bird Co-Management Council proposed changing the season dates for GMUs 11 and 13 (currently: April 15-May 26 and June 27-August 31; closure: May 27-June 26) to match those in GMU 12 (season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31; egg gathering May 1-June 14 only; closure: June 15-July 15). The change will better align the season dates in GMUs 11 and 13 with the availability of birds in the region and improve alignment of the 30-day nesting closure with the principal nesting period. The change would also simplify regulations for the region by establishing consistent season dates in all three GMUs (11, 12, and 13) and, along with the clarification described above, allows the removal of § 92.31(i)(3).

Harvest of waterfowl and cranes by rural residents within the Upper Copper River/Ahtna Territory region represents less than 0.2 percent of the statewide harvest (Naves and Schamber 2024) and the population of the eight eligible communities in the region represents about 1.3 percent of the statewide population in eligible subsistence harvest areas ( https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/landing/pop-cen.html ). In addition, there are no threatened eiders or species of conservation concern ( e.g., emperor geese) present in this region. These factors suggest that any increase in harvest due to these changes is unlikely to have any population level effects. The AMBCC relied on Indigenous Knowledge from the region to substantiate the necessity of adjusting season dates.

On April 9, 2025, the AMBCC recommended an amendment to the regulations to change the season dates for GMUs 11 and 13 in the Upper Copper River region to April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31; egg gathering May 1-June 14 only; closure: June 15-July 15 to match those in GMU 12. The word “only” is used after the egg gathering season dates to be consistent with the current regulations, e.g., at § 92.31(h) for the Interior region. This regulatory amendment was supported by the Pacific Flyway Council on September 12, 2025, and the SRC on December 16, 2025, and intended for implementation beginning with the 2026 subsistence season.

The Service has dual objectives and responsibilities for authorizing a subsistence harvest while protecting migratory birds and threatened species. Although these objectives are challenging, they are not irreconcilable, provided that: (1) regulations continue to protect threatened species, (2) measures to address documented threats are implemented, and (3) the subsistence community and other conservation partners commit to working together.

Mortality, sickness, and poisoning from lead exposure have been documented in many waterfowl species, including threatened spectacled eiders ( Somateria fischeri ) and the Alaska-breeding population of Steller's eiders ( Polysticta stelleri ). While lead shot has been banned nationally for waterfowl hunting since 1991, Service staff have documented the availability of lead shot in waterfowl ammunition for sale in communities on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and North Slope. The Service continues to work with partners to increase education, outreach, and enforcement efforts to ensure that subsistence waterfowl hunting is conducted using nontoxic shot.

Based on long-term monitoring of harvest and population size of the migratory bird species taken for subsistence, we find that this final rule will provide for the preservation and maintenance of migratory birds as required by the MBTA. Communication and coordination with the AMBCC and the Pacific Flyway Council have aided in the establishment of hunting regulations to ensure the long-term viability of the migratory birds exposed to harvest.

Spectacled eiders and the Alaska-breeding population of Steller's eiders are listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Their migration and breeding distribution overlap with areas where the spring and summer subsistence migratory bird harvest is open in Alaska. However, neither eider species is present in the Upper Copper River region where this final rule applies. In addition, both species are closed to subsistence harvest and under §§ 92.21 and 92.32 the Service may implement emergency closures, if necessary, to protect Steller's eiders or any other endangered or threatened species or migratory bird population.

Section 7 of the ESA requires the Secretary to review other programs administered by the Department of the Interior and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. The Secretary is further required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Department of the Interior is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

The Service's Alaska Region Migratory Bird Management Program conducted an intra-agency consultation with the Service's Northern Alaska Fish and Wildlife Field Office on the proposed rule (91 FR 11266; March 9, 2026). Given the absence of listed eiders in the action area, a no effect determination was made. Therefore, the Service will not need to issue a letter of concurrence or biological opinion, and we have determined that this rule complies with the ESA.

This rule takes effect on the date set forth above in DATES . To respect the subsistence hunt of many rural Alaskans, either for their cultural or religious exercise, for providing sustenance, or for acquiring materials for cultural use ( e.g., handicrafts), the Department of the Interior finds that it is in the public interest to make this rule effective as soon as possible. Delaying the effective date for 30 days would have detrimental effects on Alaskans seeking to conduct subsistence harvest of migratory birds. Within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the regulations in 50 CFR part 92 recognize a statutory exemption provided to rural Alaskans for the subsistence harvest of migratory birds. For these reasons, under the authority of the APA and the MBTA, this rule takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed these revisions to the CFR in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Accordingly, a small entity compliance guide is not required. The regulations at 50 CFR part 92 legalize a preexisting subsistence activity. The commodities that are regulated under these regulations are migratory birds, and the resources harvested are consumed. This final rule makes only modest changes to the current regulations.

This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional Review Act. This final rule:

(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The regulations at 50 CFR part 92 legalize the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, do not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. This final rule would not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns.

(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This final rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, would not have an impact on prices for consumers.

(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This final rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It would not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate substantial effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.

We have determined and certified under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) that this final rule would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, State, or Tribal governments or private entities. The final rule would not have a significant or unique effect on local, State, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. Participation on regional management bodies and the Council requires travel expenses for some Alaska Native organizations and local governments. In addition, they assume some expenses related to coordinating involvement of village councils in the regulatory process. Total coordination and travel expenses for all Alaska Native organizations are estimated to be less than $300,000 per year. When funding permits, the Service makes annual grant agreements available to the partner organizations and the ADFG to help offset their expenses. However, this final rule would not revise any regulations pertaining to participation in the regulatory process.

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule would not have significant takings implications. The changes to the regulations at 50 CFR part 92 are not specific to particular landownership but instead apply to the harvesting of migratory bird resources in portions of Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does not have significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The Service worked with the State of Alaska to develop these regulations. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department, in promulgating this final rule, has determined that it would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

In accordance with E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), and the Department of the Interior's manual chapters at 512 DM 2, 512 DM 4, and 512 DM 6, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. We sent letters via electronic mail to all 229 federally recognized Indian Tribes in Alaska. Consistent with 512 DM 5 and 512 DM 7, we also sent letters to approximately 200 Alaska Native Corporations and other Tribal entities in Alaska soliciting their input as to whether or not they would like the Service to consult with them on the proposed changes to the migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations.

We implemented the amended treaty with Canada with a focus on local involvement. The treaty calls for the creation of management bodies to ensure an effective and meaningful role for Alaska's indigenous inhabitants in the conservation of migratory birds. According to the Letter of Submittal, management bodies are to include Alaska Native, Federal, and State of Alaska representatives as equals. They develop recommendations for, among other things: seasons and bag limits, methods and means of take, law enforcement policies, population and harvest monitoring, educational programs, research and use of traditional knowledge, and habitat protection. The management bodies involve village councils to the maximum extent possible in all aspects of management. To ensure maximum input at the village level, we required each of the 11 participating regions to create regional management bodies consisting of at least one representative from the participating villages. The regional management bodies meet up to twice annually to review and/or submit proposals to the statewide body.

This final rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with subsistence harvest reporting and assigned the following OMB control numbers:

• Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Household Survey, OMB Control Number 1018-0124 (expires July 31, 2027), and

• Regulations for the Taking of Migratory Birds for Subsistence Uses in Alaska, 50 CFR part 92, OMB Control Number 1018-0178 (expires July 31, 2027).

The regulations at 50 CFR part 92 and options are considered in the Finding of No Significant Impact, “Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska; Harvest Regulations for Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 2026 Spring/Summer Season.” Copies are available online at: https://www.fws.gov/media/usfws-finding-no-significant-impact-2026.

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under this E.O.; it allows only for traditional subsistence harvest and improves conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. This final rule would not have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211, and a statement of energy effects is not required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service amends 50 CFR part 92 as set forth below:

The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seaward of Washington, Oregon, and California is managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (hereafter, Groundfish FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the Groundfish FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The Secretary of Commerce approved the Groundfish FMP and implemented the provisions of the plan at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G. Species managed under the Groundfish FMP include roundfish, flatfish, rockfish, sharks, and skates.

This final rule (also referred to as the “action”) includes regulations that remove the Cordell Bank Groundfish Conservation Area (GCA) off central California for all groundfish fisheries and implement a new Groundfish Exclusion Area (GEA) for all groundfish fisheries to protect sensitive habitat. GEAs are authorized as an area closure type under section 6.8.10 of the Groundfish FMP; therefore no further changes to the Groundfish FMP are necessary to designate a new GEA.

For information on the development of this action, refer to the “Background” section of the proposed rule (91 FR 4485; February 2, 2026).

This final rule removes the Cordell Bank GCA closure from the Federal regulations at § 660.70, as well as the associated groundfish prohibitions for the trawl, limited entry fixed gear, open access, and recreational fishery sectors specified at §§ 660.130, 660.230, 660.330, and 660.360, respectively. Although the former GCA was 64 square miles (sq mi) (165.8 square kilometers (sq km)), only 40.1 sq mi (104 sq km) is being opened, including 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) to almost all trawl gear and the full 40.1 sq mi (104 sq km) to non-trawl gear. The former GCA overlapped with two other closures: (1) the Cordell Bank Biogenic Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Area (EFHCA), which prohibits fishing with bottom trawl gear (except for demersal seine) by all fisheries (hereafter referred to as the “bottom trawl EFHCA”); and (2) the Cordell Bank (50-fm isobath) EFHCA, which prohibits fishing with bottom contact gear by all fisheries (hereafter referred to as the “bottom contact EFHCA”). The former GCA bordered a third closure at the 100 fathom (fm) line—the Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (Non-Trawl RCA), which prohibits commercial groundfish fishing with most types of non-trawl gear. These closures can be viewed on figure 1 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES ). These three closures and their associated prohibitions remain in place, and a GEA now overlays the exact geographic footprint of the bottom contact EFHCA (see next section).

The coordinates for the former Cordell Bank GCA include coordinates commonly referred to as the “100-fm ring.” These coordinates are distinct from the 100 fm (183 meter (m)) depth contour line defined at § 660.73. Per the trawl management measure regulations at § 660.130(c)(1)(ii), trawling with large footrope gear is prohibited in the area south of 46°16′ North latitude (N lat.) and shoreward of 100 fm (183 m). Removing the Cordell Bank GCA coordinates from Federal regulations entirely would default to allow trawling with large footrope gear in the 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) opened to trawl gear. In order to maintain this prohibition, the coordinates for the 100 fm ring have been transferred to § 660.73, which is where the coordinates for the coastwide 100 fm (183 m) line and other lines around islands and banks are defined.

GEAs were first created by and used via Amendment 32 (88 FR 83830, December 1, 2023), which implemented eight GEAs in the Southern California Bight to protect sensitive coral ecosystems from groundfish fishing impacts when the Cowcod Conservation Areas were removed for non-trawl commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries. The Groundfish FMP authorizes the creation of additional GEAs via rulemaking (see section 6.8.10). GEAs are a different type of closure from GCAs in that their primary purpose is not to protect groundfish species, but to protect habitat. GEAs are different from EFHCAs in that GEAs do not necessarily protect groundfish-specific essential fish habitat (EFH). Rather, a GEA may be established to protect other types of oceanic and seafloor habitats.

As described in the prior section, there are currently a number of overlapping or bordering fishery closures in the Cordell Bank area, including the bottom contact and bottom trawl EFHCAs, and the Non-Trawl RCA. Each closure has different regulations that prohibit different fisheries from operating and different gear types from being used (see table 1 of the Analysis), consequently creating confusion among fishermen and challenges for enforcement officers. The purpose of this action is to reduce regulatory complexity and increase fishing opportunities, while protecting the Cordell Bank ecosystem. Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP designated the Cordell Bank as a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) in 2006, because it contains a substantive amount of rocky reef habitat. The Cordell Bank GCA was initially implemented in 2004, to reduce catch of several overfished groundfish stocks, which are all now rebuilt. Therefore, although there is no longer a need for the Cordell Bank GCA to protect overfished groundfish species, there remains a need to protect sensitive habitat in the area (see next section).

This final rule establishes the Cordell Bank GEA at § 660.70. All groundfish fishing is prohibited within the Cordell Bank GEA. Groundfish vessels are allowed to continuously transit through the Cordell Bank GEA as long as all groundfish gear is stowed. The Cordell Bank GEA is 26.4 sq mi (68.4 sq km), of which 23.9 sq mi (61.9 sq km) is inside the former Cordell Bank GCA and the remaining 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) is outside of the former GCA. The 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) that is outside of the former GCA overlaps with the bottom contact EFHCA and Non-Trawl RCA, meaning groundfish fishing with non-bottom contact gear ( e.g., troll gear) used to be allowed in this area. The new GEA now prohibits all groundfish fishing, thereby taking away the ability to use non-bottom contact gear in this 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km). With the addition of the GEA, approximately 37 percent of the former Cordell Bank GCA footprint remains closed to all groundfish fishing, and most of the remaining area still has restrictions in place from the bottom contact and bottom trawl EFHCAs. Only 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) or 16 percent of the former GCA is now open to trawl gear, as there are no other overlapping closures in this area. Overall, this final action opens a net area of 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km). Of this area, 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) is open to trawl gear and the full 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km) is open to non-trawl commercial and recreational gear. The Cordell Bank GEA coordinates are the same as the coordinates for the existing bottom contact EFHCA (listed at § 660.79(r)), which is expected to substantively reduce regulatory complexity and enforcement challenges in the area.

This final rule also revises the regulations at § 660.10 to remove the definition of GEA from the list of defined GCAs and categorize it as its own type of conservation area. This change better reflects the regulatory purpose of GEAs, which is to protect sensitive habitats from groundfish fishing as opposed to overfished groundfish species from groundfish fishing. The definition of “Continuous transiting or transiting through” has been accordingly revised to no longer specify that continuous transit is allowed in a GCA or EFCHA, but rather, all defined conservations areas, which includes GCAs, EFHCAs, and GEAs.

Known for its extensive rocky reef habitat, the Cordell Bank area is designated as groundfish EFH and a HAPC via Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (71 FR 27408, May 11, 2006). It is also located within the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (NMS). The Analysis for this action (see ADDRESSES ) discloses potential impacts to habitat that may result from the opening of the Cordell Bank GCA. Specifically, the Analysis includes maps of varying benthic substrates ( e.g., sandy bottom vs. hard substrate) as well as corals, sponges, and sea pens that occur in the areas opened to groundfish trawl and non-trawl gear types. The Analysis also discusses potential shifts in fishery effort by each relevant fishery sector.

Under this action, approximately 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) of new area will be exposed to trawl gear. As described in the Analysis, available data show that approximately 3.3 percent (0.54 sq mi or 1.4 sq km) of that area is rocky reef habitat, with limited coral, sponge, and sea pen observations. The remaining area is primarily made up of sand substrate with some unconsolidated mineral substrate. The Analysis also explains that significant fishing effort with trawl gear is not anticipated in the newly opened area, as the area is only 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km), and there has been limited to no trawl effort in the vicinity of the Cordell Bank GCA since 2018. Bottom trawl vessels typically avoid high relief rocky habitat to avoid gear damage; therefore, even if trawl vessels came to the newly opened area, they would likely fish over the areas with a flatter bottom. Additionally, trawl regulations at § 660.130(c)(1)(ii) prohibit the use of large footrope gear in the area south of 46°16′ N lat. and shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour; therefore, only small footrope gear (generally considered to be less damaging than large footrope gear) would be permitted in the 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) area opened. As the name implies, small footrope gear—in contrast to large footrope gear—has smaller diameter footrope, including rollers, bobbins, and other material, which is designed for lower relief seafloor types and may reduce seafloor impact and bycatch. Overall, the Analysis concludes that a minimal amount of rocky reef habitat will be exposed to trawl gear, and minimal impact from fishing is expected to occur if trawl effort shifts into that area. For a more detailed analysis on potential habitat impacts from trawl gear, see section 3.1.2 the Analysis.

Under the action, approximately 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km) of new area will be exposed to non-trawl gear ( e.g., pots, bottom longline, hook-and-line), which is generally considered to be less impactful than trawl gear (see appendix C to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP). As described in the Analysis, available data shows that approximately 8.9 percent (3.6 sq mi or 9.3 sq km) of the 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km) newly opened area is rocky substrate with an additional 43.2 percent (17.3 sq mi or 44.8 sq km) categorized as unconsolidated mineral substrate. The remaining half of the newly opened area is categorized as sand. Additionally, there are limited coral, sponge, and sea pen observations in the area.

The Analysis also predicts some effort shift into the 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km) newly opened area from the non-trawl catch share sector fisheries, as effort data since 2021 indicates those vessels have been fishing in the vicinity of the Cordell Bank GCA. However, these vessels would likely use hook-and-line gear, which is generally considered to be less impactful on benthic habitat than non-trawl gear types that are actively fished on the bottom ( e.g., pot or longline). In their November 2024 statement (see Agenda Item I.5.a, Supplemental GAP Report 1 at https://pcouncil.org ), the Council's Groundfish Advisory Subpanel discussed that limited pot gear activity is likely to occur in the area due to the high relief habitat features and the fact that the area is too shallow for sablefish (the primary target species for pot gear). Hook-and-line gear for midwater stocks will likely be the targeted fishery occurring in the action area.

Effort shift from the recreational sector is also anticipated, as the Cordell Bank area has historically been a recreational fishing ground, and public comments from the November 2024 Council meeting (see https://pcouncil.org ) and on the proposed rule indicate interest in adding the Cordell Bank area to a rotation of recreational fishing locations to spread out effort on other nearby fishing locations. Overall, the Analysis anticipates some, but not significant, potential impact in the newly opened area from non-trawl gear due to anticipated effort shift from the commercial and recreational non-trawl sectors. For a more detailed analysis on potential habitat impacts from non-trawl gear, see section 3.1.2 the Analysis.

In addition to opening the 40.1 sq mi (103.9 sq km) of area discussed above, NMFS is closing approximately 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) in the Cordell Bank area that is currently open to non-trawl non-bottom contact gear. This 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) area is currently within the bottom contact EFHCA, and therefore, non-bottom contact gears are permitted. However, the proposed GEA would close this small 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) area to all groundfish fishing.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations require that FMPs describe and identify EFH and minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing. As such, EFH along the U.S. West Coast is described in appendices B and C to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and includes the Cordell Bank area. The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP authorizes the use of EFHCAs to protect groundfish EFH from specific types of fishing activity. As a result of the Council's 2006 EFH review process, a bottom trawl EFHCA and a bottom contact EFHCA were implemented in the Cordell Bank area via Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (71 FR 27408, May 11, 2006). The coordinates for these EFHCAs are listed at § 660.79(q) and (r), respectively. As a result of the 2014-2020 EFH process, which included review of the Cordell Bank area, the bottom trawl EFHCA was later expanded via Amendment 28 (84 FR 63966, November 19, 2019). The bottom contact EFHCA was not changed at that time because there was not new, definitive information on the benthic habitat effects of non-trawl bottom contact gear that compelled revisions. During the development of this action, the Council and its Habitat Committee reviewed new information on the potential impact to EFH in the Cordell Bank area from opening the newly opened areas to both trawl and non-trawl fishing. This evaluation is documented in the Analysis (see section 3.1.2). Overall, the Analysis concludes that there will not be new significant impacts to EFH from this action that would require additional mitigative measures.

As described in the Analysis, significant habitat impact from this action (including to designated EFH) is not anticipated. Although there is some expected effort shift from the commercial and recreational non-trawl sectors, the primary gear type used would be hook-and-line, as fishermen tend to avoid high relief rocky habitat with bottom gear to avoid gear damage. Additionally, the newly opened area is too shallow for sablefish, which is the primary target for non-trawl bottom gear types. The vast majority of coral, sponge, and sea pen observations occur within the new GEA and, therefore, will remain protected from groundfish fishing impacts.

The 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule (91 FR 4485) occurred from February 2, 2026, through March 4, 2026. NMFS received 80 comments supporting the proposed rule, 47 comments opposing the proposed rule, and five neutral comments that either indicated a mix of support and opposition, or provided general commentary with no clear stance on the proposed rule. No changes were made to the proposed rule in response to public comments.

The majority of the supportive comments were from industry stakeholders, including fishing association representatives and individual fishermen. These comments generally expressed enthusiasm for gaining back access to historical fishing grounds and the positive socio-economic effects that are anticipated to result for California coastal communities. Several of the comments also expressed support for the ability to use the newly opened area as a rotational fishing location for recreational fisheries, which is expected to take partial pressure off other nearby recreational fishing locations, including Rittenburg Bank.

NMFS received 47 comments opposing the proposed rule. The majority of these comments expressed concern over potential adverse environmental impacts from opening the 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq. km) portion of the former GCA to bottom trawl gear. Four of the comments, which were all from environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), included this issue, as well as other concerns. NMFS responds to these four comments below. NMFS' response to these four comments also addresses the general concerns about bottom trawl gear expressed in the other comments.

The environmental NGOs, which include Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN), Fish On, and Earth Island Institute submitted letters that, in summary, claim the proposed rule is inconsistent with the mandates of the MSA in regard to EFH protection and with NMFS' obligations related to National Marine Sanctuary protections. Oceana and TIRN brought forward six primary claims, which are responded to in Comments 1 through 6 below. The responses to Comments 1 through 5 address the claims in the Fish On letter. The response to Comment 5 addresses the claim made in the Earth Island Institute letter.

Comment 1: Oceana, TIRN, and Fish On commented that the proposed rule should have been evaluated alongside the Council's routine groundfish EFH review process, and that proceeding with opening portions of the Cordell Bank area to fishing before this process undermines EFH protections. Additionally, Oceana comments that evaluating this action outside of a formal EFH review process precludes a coherent, science-based evaluation of cumulative and long-term impacts.

Response 1: The MSA and its implementing regulations require that FMPs describe and identify EFH and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(7); 50 CFR 600.815(a)(2)(i)-(ii)). There is no requirement in the MSA or its implementing regulations to conduct an updated EFH review prior to implementing a fishery action. However, because amendments to the FMP or its implementing regulations must ensure that the FMP continues to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing (50 CFR 600.815(a)(2)(ii)), it is appropriate to identify and evaluate new information relevant to EFH prior to implementing a fishery action. The development of this action included a thorough review of the best scientific information available (BSIA) on habitat and benthic substrate in the action area, including new information available since the last Pacific Coast groundfish review, which occurred from 2014-2020. The Council's Habitat Committee vetted that scientific information, alongside information on fishing gear impacts to benthic habitats that is provided in the Fishing Gear Effects on Marine Habitats Database. This rule therefore complies with the MSA and its implementing regulations. The Analysis prepared for the rule is based on the most up-to-date scientific information available (see additional explanation under the Response 4 below) and discloses and evaluates potential impacts from fishing to groundfish EFH in the Cordell Bank area. Additionally, the Groundfish FMP (which is incorporated by reference in the Analysis) describes groundfish EFH, including fishing impacts, in appendices B and C.

Comment 2: Oceana, TIRN, and Fish On commented that opening up the 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) area to bottom trawling is inconsistent with the Council's and NMFS' precautionary approach of “freezing the footprint” of bottom trawling unless and until there is area-specific data indicating the absence of sensitive habitats.

Response 2: Neither the Council nor NMFS has codified a policy of “freezing the footprint” of bottom trawling off the U.S. West Coast as contended in the comment letters. As part of Amendment 19 to the Groundfish FMP, the Council and NMFS established the Seaward of 700 fm (1,280 m) contour closure, which was intended to preemptively close waters beyond the depths where bottom trawling has historically occurred. This closure is intended to prevent the expansion of bottom trawling into areas where groundfish EFH has not historically been adversely affected by bottom trawling. The closure is listed in Section 6.8.7 of the Groundfish FMP and is described as the “bottom trawl footprint closure”. This closure appears to be what commenters refer to as “freezing the footprint” of bottom trawling; however, Amendment 19 instituted a depth closure as opposed to a policy generally freezing the footprint of bottom trawling. Additionally, as part of Amendment 28 to the Groundfish FMP, the Council and NMFS established the Deep-Water Ecosystem Conservation Area (DECA) closure (>3,500 m), which was intended to close waters deeper than designated groundfish EFH to protect deep sea corals from exploratory fishing, and may have been mistakenly referred to as a “footprint closure”. This action does not modify either of these depth closures. In summary, the Council and NMFS do not have a specific policy or requirement to freeze the footprint of bottom trawling on the West Coast, as described by the NGOs. Rather, when considering the exposure of seafloor habitat to bottom trawling, the Council and NMFS adhere to the mandates of the MSA, with regard to EFH protections and BSIA, on an action-by-action basis. As such, bottom trawling is prohibited in the expansive coastwide network of existing bottom trawl EFHCAs, which includes 152,355 sq mi (394,598 sq km) of area that has been reviewed through the Council's EFH process and specifically designated as in need of protection from bottom trawling. The existing bottom trawl EFHCA in the Cordell Bank area covers all but 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) of the former Cordell Bank GCA footprint. This EFHCA was reviewed during the 2014 EFH review process and appropriately expanded via Amendment 28 to the Groundfish FMP (84 FR 63966, November 19, 2019). When considering this action, the Council used the most updated information available on habitat in the Cordell Bank area to evaluate potential EFH impacts, and this information indicates that the small area newly opened to bottom trawling is predominantly sandy bottom (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Analysis). Accordingly, this action is consistent with the MSA, implementing regulations, and Council and NMFS policies. If new information is presented at the next EFH review that warrants further expansion of the bottom trawl EFHCA in the Cordell Bank area, or other West Coast EFHCAs, then the Council may recommend that approach to NMFS at that time.

Comment 3: Three NGOs, including Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network, and Fish On, claimed that NMFS violated NEPA's requirement to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Specifically, Oceana comments that NMFS' range of alternatives was insufficient because it lacked an alternative that maintained prohibitions on all bottom contacting fishing gear. Similarly, TIRN comments that NMFS did not meaningfully evaluate an alternative that would keep all existing bottom-trawl closures in place and limit the reopening to non-trawl gear; or an alternative with different boundaries for the new GEA that would avoid more sensitive habitats or that would delay reopening until additional habitat mapping is completed.

Response 3: NEPA requires Federal agencies to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions. To meet its NEPA obligations for this action, NMFS completed an Environmental Assessment (EA). NEPA does not specify a minimum requirement for the number of alternatives to be evaluated; NEPA requires that the range simply be reasonable (42 U.S.C. 4331(2)(H)). NOAA's Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities define reasonable alternatives as those that are technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. An EA may include only the preferred and no action alternatives (Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, Section XIV (U)). This guidance is supported by Federal case law. See, e.g., Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Service, 87 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2023) (an agency satisfies NEPA when it considers only two alternatives); City of Los Angeles v. Federal Aviation Administration, 63 F.4th 835 (9th Cir. 2023) (a court determines whether an agency considered a reasonable range of alternatives based on its purpose and need). The stated purpose and need for this action is: The purpose of this action is to provide fishing access to previously closed areas surrounding Cordell Bank while protecting sensitive habitats. The Cordell Bank GCA was initially implemented to reduce catch of several overfished groundfish stocks, which are all now rebuilt or rebuilding ahead of schedule. This action is needed to remove unnecessary regulations and to reduce regulatory complexity. The EA for this action evaluated two alternatives: keeping the prior Cordell Bank GCA regulations in place (No Action), or removing the Cordell Bank GCA and replacing it with a new GEA over the Cordell Bank bottom contact EFHCA that would be applicable to all groundfish fisheries (the Preferred Alternative). No additional alternatives were necessary to complete a reasonable range. As stated in the purpose and need, the primary groundfish stocks of concern that motivated the implementation of the GCA are now rebuilt. Thus, the Cordell Bank GCA met its purpose and is no longer necessary for the management of overfished stocks. The action alternative meets the need of reducing regulatory complexity in the Cordell Bank area, and the EA evaluated potential impacts resulting from the action on sensitive habitat, including EFH. Accordingly, the two alternatives evaluated were sufficient under NEPA; particularly in this case where NMFS determined in its EA that the action would not have a significant impact on the environment.

Comment 4: Fourth, Oceana, TIRN, and Fish On commented that NMFS violated the MSA's National Standard 2 ( i.e., the requirement that fishery conservation and management measures be based on BSIA) because NMFS did not adequately consider recent data from the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries documenting extensive hard and mixed substrates, as well as coral and sponge communities, on and around Cordell Bank.

Response 4: The Analysis for this action used and evaluated the BSIA on habitat and benthic substrate. The data specifically referenced by Oceana and TIRN was not publicly available during the development of the Analysis, nor had it been peer-reviewed. However, once aware of the new data, the Council and NMFS coordinated with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to incorporate the information into the Analysis. All new data from the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, which includes predictive habitat classification and additional coral and sea sponge observations, is displayed in the Analysis in Figures 8 through 13. This information was considered by the Council prior to making their final recommendation to NMFS. As stated in the Analysis (see Section 3.2.1), and as supported by the BSIA, the majority of hard substrate and coral and sponge observations in the Cordell Bank area will remain inside the new Cordell Bank GEA.

Comment 5: Oceana, TIRN, Fish On, and Earth Island Institute either specifically or generally commented that NMFS failed to follow the directive and mandates of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) to protect sanctuary resources and the Cordell Bank NMS designation because the rule reopens areas to bottom contact fishing in Cordell Bank and because the rule reopens these areas without adequate safeguards in place. Relatedly, Oceana and TIRN also claim that NMFS lacks a monitoring framework sufficient to detect and assess impacts to benthic habitats, EFH, or protected species.

Response 5: NMFS finds that the fishing area being opened has adequate safeguards in place to minimize, to the extent practicable, the effects of fishing on EFH and protect sanctuary resources consistent with both the MSA and the NMSA. The NMSA provides the authority for the Secretary of Commerce to designate a discrete area of the marine environment as a national marine sanctuary and to promulgate regulations implementing such designation, if the area is determined to be of special national significance due to (1) its conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or esthetic qualities; (2) the communities of living marine resources it harbors; or (3) its resource or human-use values (16 U.S.C. 1433(a)). The Cordell Bank NMS was designated in 1989 to protect an approximately 400 sq mi (1,036 sq km) area consisting of a nutrient-rich, offshore rocky bank off the coast of California. The designation explained that, “Cordell Bank and its surrounding waters, because of a rare combination of oceanic conditions and undersea topography, provide a highly productive marine environment in a discrete, well defined area” (54 FR 22417, May 24, 1989). Under the NMSA, the terms of a sanctuary designation include the types of activities that will be subject to regulation by the Secretary to protect a specific sanctuary's characteristics (16 U.S.C. 1433(a)). The Cordell Bank NMS designation specifically authorizes the regulation of five types of activities within the sanctuary, not including fishing (54 FR 22417, May 24, 1989). With respect to fishing, the designation “reaffirms that no regulation of fishing, other than by existing State and Federal statutes, will occur” and that “[a]ll State and Federal regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, including Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, remain in effect”. Stated differently, the Cordell Bank NMS designation provides that fishing within the area will continue to be regulated through Council and NMFS action, consistent with this rulemaking. Of the 64 sq mi (165.8 sq km) footprint of the former Cordell Bank GCA, all but 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) will remain inside of a protective closure—either an EFHCA, the new GEA, or both. For the fishing activity that does take place in the newly opened area, participating vessels will remain subject to their sector's respective management measures, including but not limited to carrying a vessel monitoring system that tracks fishing location (commercial trawl and non-trawl sectors), species-specific catch limits/bag limits/quotas (all sectors), gear limitations (varies across all sectors; e.g., maximum hook requirements in the recreational sector), logbook reporting (commercial trawl and non-trawl sectors), seasonal depth restrictions (recreational sector), partial observer coverage (non-trawl commercial sector), 100 percent observer coverage or electronic monitoring (trawl sector), and the requirement to carry and use a descending device when returning discarded fish to depth (recreational sector). Even in the 10.2 sq mi (26.4 sq km) that is now open to all bottom contact gear, NMFS is adjusting the regulations such that the prohibition on using large footrope trawl gear shallower than 100 fm (183 m) is maintained to mitigate seafloor damage (see Removal of the Cordell Bank GCA above and in the same section of the proposed rule). NMFS finds these protections and required monitoring measures in the newly opened areas, including within the limited area newly opened to bottom trawl, to be adequate to detect and assess impacts to benthic habitats, EFH, or protected species within the sanctuary, and thus to protect sanctuary resources and minimize to the extent practicable, the effects of fishing on EFH.

Comment 6: Last, Oceana and TIRN comment that the removal of spatial protections under the Cordell Bank GCA is particularly concerning when considered together with other recent actions recommended by the Council, including the removal or reclassification of select stocks in the Groundfish FMP. The NGOs argue that cumulatively the actions diminish safeguards for ecologically important habitats and sensitive species.

Response 6: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The removal of stocks from, or reclassification of stocks as Ecosystem Component (EC) species within, the Groundfish FMP does not adversely (or otherwise) impact spatial protections in the Cordell Bank area, including those protections provided by the EFHCAs or the new GEA, or otherwise diminish safeguards for habitats or sensitive species. In a separate action, subject to full evaluation under the MSA and its implementing regulations, NEPA, and other applicable law, the Council and NMFS, consistent with their jurisdiction, have evaluated those stocks currently managed in the Groundfish FMP to determine if they are in need of conservation and management within the EEZ. This is a robust, stock- and fact-specific analysis. See 50 CFR 300.605(c). Following this evaluation, certain stocks will be proposed to be removed from the Groundfish FMP or re-classified as EC species. Any related future rulemakings will be subject to MSA and NEPA review and public notice and comment. Potential reasonably foreseeable effects of these future actions will appropriately be considered at that time. For the purposes of this final rule, even if a target species in the Cordell Bank area is taken out of the FMP at a future time and no longer Federally-managed, participating fishing vessels would still be subject to catch limits and any other management measures dictated by the State of California.

Pursuant to sections 303(c) and 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the rule effective immediately upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register as delaying the effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest. This rule effectuates the long-awaited opening of the Cordell Bank GCA, which will restore access to historical fishing grounds to groundfish fishermen in Central California. This rule will primarily benefit recreational fishermen in the San Francisco Management Area; specifically, fishermen running charter boats out of San Francisco and Bodega Bay. The rule is also likely to benefit non-trawl commercial fishermen fishing off Central California. A delayed effective date for this rule would be contrary to the public interest as it could have a substantial adverse economic impact on fishery participants and fishing communities.

The 2026 recreational fishery in the San Francisco Management Area opened on April 1, 2026, and will close on December 31, 2026. Though the season is 9 months long, the summer (June through August) is by far the fishery's busiest season. This busy season aligns with the summer tourist season, and with good weather conditions for fishing, in and off Central California. In recent years, participants in the California recreational fishery have struggled economically due to decreased fishing opportunities along the coast, including the lack of salmon fishing opportunity. For these fishery participants, the opening of the Cordell Bank GCA creates an important new fishing and economic opportunity and business plans and decisions for 2026 were likely made surrounding the anticipated opening of the GCA prior to the fishery's busy summer season. The Cordell Bank GCA was one of many fishery closures implemented along the U.S. West Coast in the early 2000s to protect overfished groundfish species. These closures resulted in significant adverse socio-economic impacts for fishermen and fishing communities. All of the once-overfished species are now rebuilt or rebuilding ahead of schedule and, in 2019, NMFS began restoring access to previously closed areas. The Council recommended this action to open the Cordell Bank GCA in March 2025. Accordingly, the relevant fishery stakeholders initially anticipated that this rule would be effective by January 1, 2026. NMFS has received feedback from fishery participants that business plans were made with the expectation that the GCA would be open for fishing before the recreational fishery opened on April 1, 2026. A delay in the effectiveness of this rule would result in further delay in the opening of the Cordell Bank GCA, beyond the date that the affected public was expecting; therefore, it would result in economic harm to fishery participants and fishing communities by continuing to constrain recreational fishing opportunity off the Central California coast during the fishery's busy summer season.

Making this rule effective upon filing with the Office of Federal Register is also in the public interest because it will benefit the public by providing additional opportunity for recreational fishermen in 2026 to fully utilize the California recreational fishery's annual groundfish allocations. According to information provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the groundfish species targeted in and around the Cordell Bank GCA are generally underattained. Specifically, based on available data, CDFW has indicated that species that would likely be targeted by the recreational sector at Cordell Bank are highly underattained, with most species tracking at 40% or less attainment of their fishery harvest guideline or the overall non-trawl allocation. Opening the Cordell Bank GCA to fishing immediately, and particularly during the busy summer season, would therefore increase the likelihood of full utilization of the 2026 groundfish allocations. As such, making this rule effective immediately upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register would be consistent with the public interest, as it would support the Magnuson-Stevens Act's goal of promoting optimal yield within the fishery.

Finally, a delayed effective date is not necessary to provide sufficient notice to the fishing community. The purpose of the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA is generally to give the regulated community time to adjust to new regulations. The opening of historical fishing grounds creates no new restriction or requirement that warrants such time for adjustment. The only fishing area being newly closed as part of the GEA is the 2.5 sq mi (6.5 sq km) that prior allowed the use of non-bottom contact gear. Otherwise, the rest of the GEA includes area that is already closed, as it is within the geographic footprint of the former GCA. Moreover, the Cordell Bank GCA is no longer needed for its original purpose—to protect groundfish species. Therefore, it is in the public interest to increase fishing access on the California coast as soon as possible and good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Increasing fishing access in the Cordell Bank area immediately upon the filing of this rule with the Office of Federal Register will provide additional opportunity for groundfish fishermen in 2026, which will increase the likelihood of full utilization of annual groundfish allocations.

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

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

A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2) of E.O. 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, as the action area is outside of the Usual and Accustomed fishing areas for tribes with Federally-recognized treaties to fish for groundfish. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required and has not been prepared.

An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES section). NMFS is recommending this final rule based on its assessment of the net benefits of these measures.

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

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 660 as follows: