The Department of Agriculture is correcting its final rule that published April 3, 2026 at 91 FR 17062 by amending an incorrect cross-reference.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1b is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4661; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01530-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

The FAA issued AD 2024-25-10, Amendment 39-22912 (90 FR 8661, January 31, 2025) (AD 2024-25-10), for certain RRD Model Trent XWB-97 engines. AD 2024-25-10 was prompted by an emergency AD originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA Emergency AD 2024-0174-E, dated September 5, 2024 (EASA Emergency AD 2024-0174-E) to correct an unsafe condition identified as damage to the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold. AD 2024-25-10 required a one-time set of visual and dimensional inspections of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold to confirm softness, compliance, and lack of resistance, and for shrinkage, cracks, chafing, dents, kinks, necking, and degradation of the hose braid wire; and, if necessary, replacement of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold. The FAA issued AD 2024-25-10 to prevent damage to the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold.

EASA superseded EASA Emergency AD 2024-0174-E and issued EASA AD 2024-0182, dated September 19, 2024 (later revised) (EASA AD 2024-0182); EASA AD 2024-0182R1, dated October 9, 2024 (superseded) (EASA AD 2024-0182R1); EASA AD 2025-0128, dated June 3, 2025 (later revised) (EASA AD 2025-0128); and EASA AD 2025-0128R1, dated June 17, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0128R1) (also referred to as the MCAI).

EASA AD 2024-0182 included new service material, specified that a certain cleaning process available during engine refurbishment may lead to degradation of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold, that additional engine model groups were affected by the unsafe condition, and that repetitive inspections were necessary. EASA AD 2024-0182R1 included a revision to the service material and clarified the terminating action for the repetitive inspections. EASA AD 2025-0128, included a revision to the service material and identified an additional population of engines affected by the unsafe condition and required repetitive inspections and corrective actions for those engines.

The MCAI states that damage to a fuel manifold main fuel hose was reported, which led to a controlled, temporary engine fire and heat damage to the exterior and interior of the engine nacelle (thrust reverser C-ducts). The occurrence resulted in an in-flight shutdown. In-service and in-shop inspections identified a specific cleaning process available during engine refurbishment that may lead to degradation of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold. Additionally, multiple additional populations of affected engines were identified, and a determination was made that the initial population of affected engines could be reduced to exclude certain engine serial numbers. To address this potential unsafe condition, the manufacturer published service information that specifies procedures for a one-time set of visual and dimensional inspections of the fuel manifold main fuel hoses and corrective action instructions. This condition, if not addressed, in combination with additional failures, could lead to an engine fire and damage to the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4661.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0128R1, which specifies procedures for a one-time set of on-wing visual and dimensional inspections of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold to confirm softness, compliance, and lack of resistance, and for shrinkage, cracks, chafing, dents, kinks, necking, and degradation of the hose braid wire and, if necessary, replacement of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold, and reporting the inspection results to RRD. EASA AD 2025-0128R1 also specifies procedures for on-wing and in-shop repetitive visual and dimensional inspections of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold to confirm softness, compliance, and lack of resistance, and for shrinkage, cracks, chafing, dents, kinks, necking, and degradation of the hose braid wire and, if necessary, replacement of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold, and reporting the inspection results to RRD. EASA AD 2025-0128R1 also allows installation of an affected part on any airplane provided that the part is serviceable and allows installation of an affected engine provided that the engine passed the required inspections, or the findings were corrected. EASA AD 2025-0128R1 also includes optional terminating action for the repetitive visual and dimensional inspections provided that the engine has passed an inspection with no findings or the findings are corrected, or the engine has not yet reached the threshold of the required inspections.

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

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0128R1, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2025-0128R1 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0128R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0128R1 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0128R1. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0128R1 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4661 after this AD is published.

The preamble to AD 2024-25-10 specifies that the FAA considers that AD to be an “interim action” and that the FAA might consider further rulemaking depending on the results of the investigation. The manufacturer has since developed such repetitive inspections and, if necessary, replacement of the main fuel hose assembly of the fuel manifold for certain engines, which is optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by AD 2024-25-10. The FAA has determined that these actions must be required to mitigate the unsafe condition.

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

The FAA justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no domestic operators use this product. It is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from any U.S. operator.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no engines with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2025 (90 FR 52573). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating door assist handles pulled loose from their lower attach point in the doorway support bracket during pre-flight checks. Boeing determined a lower maximum allowable door assist handle flex value, coupled with an out-of-tolerance door assist handle, contributed to this failure. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installing a new retainer above the lower keyway of the support bracket assembly and installing a placard on certain support bracket assemblies or marking the part, and for certain airplanes, proposed to require an inspection of the forward and aft door assist handles and applicable on-condition actions. For certain other airplanes, the FAA proposed to require installing a new retainer above the lower keyway of the support bracket assembly at certain locations and reidentifying the support bracket assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address door assist handles becoming detached, which could cause injuries to passengers, crew, or maintenance personnel when opening the door, and could limit exit from the airplane during a time-limited emergency evacuation.

The FAA received comments from All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, Norse Atlantic Airways, and United Airlines (United). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing and ANA requested that the FAA allow the use of alternative materials due to difficulties obtaining the materials referenced in the required service information. In addition, ANA raised environmental concerns about the required materials.

The FAA agrees to allow the use of BMS5-105, Type II or Type VI, as an alternative to BMS5-105, Type 5; and Uralane 5774-1 A/C as an alternative to Uralane 5774 A/C. The FAA has added new exceptions in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this AD, respectively.

Norse Atlantic Airways and United requested that the FAA explain its rationale for withdrawing an NPRM that would have required the previous issue of the Boeing requirements bulletin required by this AD. Norse Atlantic Airways stated it did not identify any significant changes between the two issues of the service bulletin and therefore would like to know what criteria (data or tests) was used to determine that the later issue of the service bulletin is significantly better for mitigating the unsafe condition.

After further analysis, the FAA has determined that the corrective actions in Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-1205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021, mitigate the unsafe condition. Further, the FAA acknowledges there are no significant changes between Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-1205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021; and Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 11, 2024, except for adding airplanes to the effectivity of the later issue of the bulletin. The FAA is mandating the later issue of the bulletin in this AD to address airplanes that were not included in the NPRM that was withdrawn. Additionally, the later issue of the bulletin provides relief to operators with the option to mark on the part that the bulletin has been completed instead of installing a placard. Further, the later issue of the bulletin provides the option to use a later revision of the supplier service bulletin to accomplish certain actions. Therefore, the FAA has added credit for accomplishing the required actions using Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-1205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 001, dated June 18, 2021, to paragraph (i) of this AD.

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

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

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period and add the IBR materials to the AD docket.

In the preamble of the NPRM, the FAA notified the public that the IBR material would be available for review under Docket No. FAA-2025-3428 at regulations.gov . This material was posted to the AD docket on November 21, 2025. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA, and if reporting is required, stay the reporting requirement until the PRA requirements are satisfied.

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

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

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

The FAA identified three domestic entities affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (displayed in the table below), one entity is a small business.

While FAA has determined that this AD affects a small entity, the high-case cost of compliance with the AD relative to the small entity's annual revenue is minimal. The AD cost as a percentage of annual revenue imposes a cost no greater than 0.15%. The table below displays the high-case cost impact of the AD on the small entity.

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA clarify its cost estimate for determining the AD is not significant under Executive Order 12866. The commenter stated the FAA should publish the number of affected U.S. airplanes and costs per airplane (labor hours, parts, downtime, and special tools).

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of affected airplanes on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours and parts cost provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket. Based upon the analysis provided throughout the proposed AD and in the previous comment response, the FAA certifies that this AD is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250253-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 11, 2024. This material specifies procedures for installing a new retainer above the lower keyway of the support bracket assembly and installing a placard on the forward and aft support bracket assemblies or marking the part to indicate the required actions were accomplished. For certain airplanes, this material specifies procedures for a detailed inspection for correct installation of the forward and aft door assist handles and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacement of upper spring clips.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250254-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2021. This material specifies procedures for installing a new retainer above the lower keyway of the support bracket assembly at each passenger entry door located at the forward and aft door assist handle and reidentifying the support bracket assembly with a new part number.

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

The FAA estimates this AD affects 116 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51227). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in stringers and splice fittings located at stringer splices at multiple body stations. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of each free flange of the stringers at the stringer splice for radius fillers at certain fastener locations, an inspection for cracking of the stringers and stringer splice fittings at certain stringer splice locations, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

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

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

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

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period and add the IBR materials to the AD docket.

In the preamble of the NPRM, the FAA notified the public that the IBR material would be available for review under Docket No. FAA-2025-4000 at regulations.gov. This material was posted to the AD docket on November 19, 2025. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

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

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

The FAA identified two carriers affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard shown in the table below, both entities are classified as large businesses.

Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), if an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA supplement the economic analysis to reflect realistic costs for parts, labor, airplane downtime, and repetitive action costs and confirm the AD is not significant under Executive Order 12866. The commenter stated that the FAA omitted indirect costs such as airplane downtime, repetitive actions, engineering development of alternative methods of compliance, supply chain constraints, and training and operational disruptions. The commenter also stated that the AD should specify whether the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) threshold is met.

The FAA notes that in preamble of the proposed AD, the FAA certified that this regulation is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, which means, in part, that the regulation will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Further, in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed that the required inspections are estimated to cost U.S. operators up to $344,080, per airplane. The repetitive inspections are estimated to cost $85 per inspection area, every 48 or 96 months, depending on findings.

The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in an AD typically does not include indirect costs since the FAA lacks data on those costs, and they vary significantly among operators. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed all known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, the FAA determined that the existing analysis is complete. Based upon the analysis provided throughout the proposed AD and in the previous comment response, the FAA certifies that this AD is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2907 RB, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2025. This material specifies procedures for an inspection of each free flange of the stringers at the stringer splice for radius fillers at the fastener locations, a detailed inspection for cracking of the stringers and stringer splice fittings at certain stringer splice locations, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include detailed inspections for cracking or radius fillers, removal or installation of radius fillers, and contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair ( i.e., replacement of a cracked splice channel).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-4667; Project Identifier AD-2026-00584-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jeff Johnson, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; email: ecb-cos@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued Emergency AD 2026-13-51, dated June 18, 2026 (the emergency AD), to address an unsafe condition on certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 airplanes. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. The emergency AD requires a visual inspection of the upper surface of the engine mount to the forward and aft thrust strut mount at the hollow pin head interface, of the left and right engines, for evidence of movement or distress; an inspection of the forward and aft thrust strut mount hardware to ensure the sleeve bushing, nut, washers, and cotter pins are properly installed; and applicable corrective actions.

The emergency AD was prompted by a report indicating that a hollow pin cap on the right-side engine aft thrust strut mount interface was found broken due to a missing sleeve bushing. Further investigation found the sleeve bushing was loose (displaced) within the engine pylon. The airplane had accumulated 1,056 total flight hours and 324 total flight cycles. During a subsequent audit, an additional airplane failed a gap check at the right-side engine forward thrust strut mount interface. The additional airplane had accumulated 551 total flight hours and 182 total flight cycles. The engine thrust struts on both airplanes were previously disconnected to perform production retrofit activities prior to entry into service. An improperly installed engine thrust strut could compromise the structural integrity of the engine mount system and lead to failure of the engine mount system. This condition, if not addressed, could result in an in-flight separation of the engine from the airplane, leading to loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA reviewed Gulfstream GVIII-G700 Alert Customer Bulletin No. 001, dated June 16, 2026; and Gulfstream GVIII-G800 Alert Customer Bulletin No. 001, dated June 16, 2026. This material specifies procedures for visually inspecting the upper surface of the engine mount to the forward and aft thrust strut mount at the hollow pin head interface, of the left and right engines, for evidence of movement or distress ( i.e., paint abrasion or witness marks, gouging or surface damage, a broken or compromised hollow pin); inspecting the forward and aft thrust strut mount hardware to ensure the sleeve bushing, nut, washers, and cotter pins are properly installed; and depending on findings, submitting certain information to the manufacturer for further evaluation and engineering disposition ( i.e., corrective action).

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

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If a final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

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

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2026-13-51 issued on June 18, 2026, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the urgency of the unsafe condition necessitates prohibiting further flight until the airplane is inspected and the applicable corrective actions are performed. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make it effective to all persons. Given the significance of the risk presented by this unsafe condition, it must be immediately addressed. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hub Field, Jewett, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2026-3532 in the Federal Register (April 1, 2026, 91 FR 16168; corrected April 7, 2026, 91 FR 17618), proposing to establish the Class E airspace at Hub Field, Jewett, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

After publication of the NPRM, an FAA database review noted that the incorrect coordinates were used. This final rule replaces the incorrect coordinates with the correct coordinates, Lat 31°25′50″ N, long 96°08′05″ W. This correction represents a ministerial change. It does not change the airspace dimensions or operating requirements. Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that recirculating the NPRM for notice and comment is unnecessary.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Hub Field, Jewett, TX. This action supports new instrument procedures.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The Department is rescinding portions of its regulations promulgated pursuant to Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1, to more closely align those regulations with Title VI's original public meaning, avoid constitutional concerns, reduce compliance costs, and better serve the public interest. In addition, these revisions conform to Executive Order 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, 90 FR 17537 (Apr. 23, 2025), and Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025), but the Department adopts this rulemaking independent of Executive Order 14281 and Executive Order 14173. First, this rule rescinds the full text of 29 CFR 31.3(b)(2), which currently prohibits the utilization of “criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of race, color or national origin . . . .” Second, this rule removes the two uses of the phrase “or effect” from 29 CFR 31.3(b)(3). Third, this rule rescinds the full text of 29 CFR 31.3(b)(6), which requires affirmative action in certain circumstances. Fourth, this rule rescinds the full text of 29 CFR 31.3(c)(2), which addresses employment practices subject to Federal financial assistance. Fifth, this rule makes technical edits to delete references to the now-revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Opportunity Employment, 30 FR 12319 (Sep. 28, 1965), at 29 CFR 31.12(a)(1) and 31.3(c)(3). Finally, this rule deletes 29 CFR 31.3(d) in its entirety because that section contains references to program names that are now obsolete and employment practices only covered by § 31.3(c)(2), thus rendering it confusing and unhelpful to recipients of Federal financial assistance.

This rule makes clear that the Department's Title VI regulations do not prohibit conduct or activities solely on the basis that they have an unintentional disparate impact.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d. Title VI also directs Federal departments and agencies that extend Federal financial assistance to “effectuate the provisions of” Title VI “by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. The section of Title VI that sets forth the prohibited conduct, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, prohibits only intentional discrimination and makes no reference to disparate impact.

Shortly after Title VI was enacted, on December 4, 1964, the then-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued the initial set of model regulations for Title VI. These model regulations included a provision that recipients of Federal funds may not use “criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.” See 29 FR 16298, 16299 (Dec. 4, 1964).

Concurrently with the model regulations, the Department promulgated its Title VI regulations. See 29 FR 16284 (Dec. 4, 1964). Like the model regulations, the Department's Title VI regulations prohibited recipients of Federal financial assistance from administering programs in a manner that has the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. See id.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) adopted these model regulations in 1966. 31 FR 10265, 10266 (July 29, 1966). On December 10, 2025, DOJ amended its Title VI regulations to eliminate disparate-impact liability. DOJ's rule noted that “[b]ecause of the Department's unique role in the interpretation and enforcement of Title VI . . . [DOJ] expects that this rule will cause other Federal departments and agencies to consider similarly revising their Title VI regulations.” See Rescinding Portions of Department of Justice Title VI Regulations To Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and To Implement Executive Order 14281, 90 FR 57141 (Dec. 10, 2025).

The Department's implementing regulations describing the scope of prohibited discriminatory conduct, 29 CFR 31.3, currently include prohibitions on conduct that has an unintentional disparate impact.

In 1978, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended Title VI to prohibit “only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause” if committed by a government actor. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287 (1978) (Powell, J., announcing judgment); id. at 325, 328, 352 (Brennan, J., joined by White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., concurring in part). Just prior to Bakke, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits only intentional discrimination, and that discriminatory effect or disparate impact alone does not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) (finding Equal Protection Clause requires a showing of discriminatory intent); see also Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977) (“Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”); Personnel Admin. of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979) (“[E]ven if a neutral law has a disproportionately adverse effect upon a racial minority, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if that impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.”). Taken together, these Supreme Court cases confirm that Title VI's statutory prohibition extends only to intentional discrimination.

In 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that understanding in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-81 (2001). In Sandoval, the Supreme Court held that private plaintiffs could not bring a Title VI action to enforce DOJ's implementing regulation prohibiting unintentional disparate impact because the statutory provisions of Title VI prohibited only intentional discrimination. Although the Supreme Court in Sandoval assumed, without deciding, that DOJ's disparate-impact regulation was valid, the Court wrote that the regulation was in “considerable tension” with the Supreme Court's Title VI precedents. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 281-82, 284-85.

The Supreme Court's Sandoval decision has led to a divergence between Title VI enforcement by private plaintiffs and Federal departments and agencies. Private plaintiffs can enforce only Title VI's statutory prohibition on intentional discrimination. Federal departments and agencies, however, can enforce both the statutory prohibition on intentional discrimination and the much broader disparate-impact regulations. The Sandoval decision has also sparked uncertainty as to the future of disparate-impact regulations promulgated by nearly every Federal department and agency.

The divergence between private litigation and agency enforcement is especially unsustainable after the Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, In c., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 409-12 (2024). In reaching that result, the Supreme Court made clear that “statutes . . . have a single, best meaning” that is “ ‘fixed at the time of enactment.' ” Id. at 400 (quoting Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 585 U.S. 274, 284 (2018)). “That is the whole point of having written statutes,” the Supreme Court explained. Id. Thus, Title VI's bar on discrimination can have only one meaning. And under Supreme Court precedent, the single, best meaning of Title VI is that it “prohibits only intentional discrimination” and “permits” facially neutral policies that result in disparate outcomes so long as there is no discriminatory intent. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 280, 286 n.6.

On April 23, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14281. This Order restated the “bedrock principle of the United States . . . that all citizens are treated equally under the law.” 90 FR at 17537. The Order explained that this “principle guarantees equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes,” and “promises that people are treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group.” Id. The Order also explained that disparate-impact liability “endangers this foundational principle” because it “all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.” Id. As the Order explained, disparate-impact liability “not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution.” Id. The Order relayed that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” Id. Section 5 of the Order directed the Attorney General to “initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all agencies to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability.” Id.

The Attorney General promulgated a final rule revising DOJ's Title VI regulations to remove disparate-impact liability on December 10, 2025. 90 FR 57151. The rule explained that DOJ would take this action independent of Executive Order 14281. Id. at 57143. In support of the rule, DOJ cited the “bedrock principles” of equality of opportunity, individual merit, and a colorblind society. The rule concluded that disparate-impact liability endangers these principles, raises constitutional concerns, conflicts with Title VI's original meaning, creates confusion, increases costs, and is not in the public interest. Id. at 57143-44. The rule explained that each of these reasons independently supports its elimination. Id. at 57143-45. DOJ considered alternatives, including a modified version of disparate-impact liability, but concluded that any version of disparate-impact liability would be inconsistent with Title VI's original public meaning. Id. at 57144-45. And DOJ concluded that the regulatory “extension of prohibited conduct to include conduct with an unintentional disparate impact reaches a vastly broader scope than the statute itself,” that “[t]his scope is too broad to be considered a simple prophylactic measure aimed at preventing intentional discrimination,” and that Title VI regulations adopting disparate-impact liability “do not `effectuate' Title VI.” 90 FR at 57143 (quoting 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).

The Department agrees with the Attorney General's reasons, 1 and for its own independent reasons discussed below, revises its own Title VI regulations.

The Department's regulation at 29 CFR 31.3, titled “General Standards,” contains several provisions that go beyond the statutory text and constitutional requirements by prohibiting facially neutral policies that have a disparate impact and in some instances encourage or even require unlawful discrimination labeled as “affirmative action.” Section 31.3(b)(2) is the current regulation's general disparate-impact prohibition, which states that “a recipient . . . may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color or national origin . . . .” 29 CFR 31.3(b)(2).

Beyond that general prohibition, § 31.3(b)(3) addresses a Federal funding recipient's selection of the site or location of facilities and includes two references to “effect” that extend the scope of prohibited conduct to include conduct with an unintentional disparate impact. Section 31.3(b)(6) concerns the use of “affirmative action” and provides that funding recipients may (and sometimes must) use race, color, or national origin to overcome unintentional disparate “effects.” But this provision does not expressly specify that the funding recipient must narrowly tailor such use nor that this use must serve a compelling governmental interest, as is required to satisfy strict scrutiny. Section 31.3(c) addresses prohibited discriminatory employment practices and extends beyond intentional discrimination to prohibiting conduct that “tends” to have a discriminatory effect. Finally, § 31.3(d) provides illustrative examples with respect to the applicable scope of the regulations that refer to program names no longer in use. It also muddles the distinction between prohibited discrimination in employment practices where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment and those practices that “tend” to have a discriminatory impact on participation in covered programs. In the interest of clarity for the regulated community, this rule deletes § 31.3(d) in its entirety.

There are serious statutory and constitutional concerns with the legality of the Department's Title VI disparate-impact regulations. The Department also has serious policy concerns with its current disparate-impact regulations because they create confusion, undermine public confidence in the nation's civil rights laws and the rule of law, and produce burdensome litigation and compliance costs.

There are serious statutory concerns as to whether Title VI authorizes the disparate-impact provisions of the current regulations. As the Supreme Court has made clear, Title VI prohibits “only intentional discrimination” and “permits” facially neutral policies that result in disparate outcomes when there is no discriminatory intent. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 280, 286 n.6. That is the “single, best meaning” of Title VI. Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 400. Sandoval calls into serious doubt the legality of the Department's “disparate-impact regulations.” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 281-82, 284-85 (noting that DOJ's regulations were in “considerable tension” with the Supreme Court's Title VI precedents). Although Sandoval resolved only the question of private enforceability, subsequent cases such as Loper Bright have made clear that the Department cannot extend Title VI beyond its original public meaning. See 603 U.S. at 412-13 (holding that “courts must . . . ensur[e] that [an] agency acts within” its statutory authority). And even in the absence of Supreme Court precedent, the Department would have concluded that the best reading of Title VI is that it prohibits only intentional discrimination.

Title VI authorizes agencies to promulgate regulations “to effectuate” the statute's prohibition of intentional discrimination. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. The current regulations' extension of prohibited conduct to include conduct with an unintentional disparate impact reaches a vastly broader scope than the statute itself. This scope is too broad to be considered a simple prophylactic measure aimed at preventing intentional discrimination. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286 n.6 (“[Title VI] permits the very behavior that the regulations forbid.”). Thus, the disparate-impact regulations do not “effectuate” Title VI. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.

There are also serious concerns about whether the Department's Title VI regulations pass constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. As the Supreme Court recently held in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) ( SFFA ), “the Equal Protection Clause . . . applies without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality—it is universal in its application” and the “guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.” Id. at 206 (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886); and then quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 289-90 (Powell, J.)). Despite the promises of the Equal Protection Clause, a funding recipient's risk of disparate-impact liability under the Department's regulations is triggered by unintentional disparate outcomes, which the recipient may not even know about without investigation. To evaluate and avoid this risk, the funding recipient must incur investigatory costs, such as conducting an impact analysis, and is coerced to proactively consider race, color, and national origin, and potentially use it to change the unintended disparate outcomes.

In short, disparate-impact liability encourages and, in some cases, requires covered entities to engage in the intentional use of race and racial balancing to eliminate those disparate outcomes by treating certain racial groups differently from others—the exact conduct the Equal Protection Clause forbids. See id. The serious constitutional concerns raised by these perverse incentives further confirm that the best reading of Title VI is that it prohibits only intentional discrimination and does not authorize the Department to impose disparate-impact liability. 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))).

Further, Federal programs that are found to create racial or ethnic classifications are subject to the most searching review. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, for instance, the Supreme Court held that Federal affirmative action programs that use racial and ethnic criteria as a basis for decision-making are subject to strict scrutiny. 515 U.S. 200, 220 (1995). Such programs satisfy strict scrutiny only if they serve a “compelling interest” and are “narrowly tailored” to the achievement of that interest—a “daunting” standard to achieve. Id. at 235-37; SFFA, 600 U.S. at 206; see also Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461, 484 (2025) (“Strict scrutiny—which requires a restriction to be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest—is `the most demanding test known to constitutional law.'” (quoting City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 534 (1997))). The use of race, color, or national origin necessitated by the disparate-impact provisions runs into serious issues with the requirement of narrow tailoring to achieve a compelling interest. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 206-07.

Similarly, the “affirmative action” provision authorizes and sometimes requires the intentional use of race without requiring that this intentional use be narrowly tailored to serve a recognized compelling interest. Instead, it encourages intentional racial balancing “to overcome the effects of” unintended racial disparities. 29 CFR 31.3(b)(6). Thus, for substantially the same reasons as above, the “affirmative action” provision raises serious constitutional concerns.

As summarized above, there are serious statutory and constitutional concerns with the Department's disparate-impact regulations. But even if the regulations were consistent with the statute, the Department finds that eliminating the potential constitutional concerns addressed above would independently justify the amendment of the regulations. Cf. U.S. Tel. Ass'n v. FCC, 188 F.3d 521, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (concluding it was not “arbitrary and capricious” to adopt a certain policy in order to “avoid[ ] raising a non-trivial constitutional question”). And even if the regulations did not raise serious constitutional concerns, the Department finds that eliminating the costs and confusion caused by the mismatch between the statute and the disparate-impact regulations would independently justify the amendment of the regulations.

The Department also has serious policy concerns with the imposition of disparate-impact liability. While the Department expresses its policy concerns with disparate-impact liability independent of Executive Order 14281, that Order sets forth many valid policy concerns with disparate-impact liability. Moreover, the legal concerns identified above have caused uncertainty and confusion for Federal funding recipients as to whether and when they need to comply with the disparate-impact regulations and when they can or must consider race, color, and national origin. As explained above, Sandoval casts substantial doubt on the validity of the disparate-impact regulations that many Federal departments and agencies have promulgated pursuant to Title VI. 532 U.S. at 280-82.

Additionally in practice, and as explained above, disparate-impact liability leads covered entities to engage in racial balancing even as Title VI forbids intentional racial discrimination. This tension tends to create confusion and undermine public confidence in the nation's civil rights laws and in the rule of law itself, as the law seems to both forbid and require the same conduct.

These problems are amplified by the arbitrary nature of the racial and ethnic categories typically used to measure disparate effects, which, by virtue of their arbitrariness, typically lack a meaningful connection to a compelling interest. See, e.g., SFFA, 600 U.S. at 216-17 (explaining that the “[racial] categories” utilized by Harvard and University of North Carolina were “themselves imprecise in many ways” and “the use of these opaque racial categories undermine[d], instead of promote[d], [their] goals”). This confusion undermines the law's ability to teach principles of nondiscrimination. The Department believes that these policy concerns independently justify repealing certain parts of its regulation to cure this confusion, remove the incentive for covered entities to engage in racial balancing, and maintain clarity and public confidence in the nation's civil rights laws.

The Department has considered the view that looking at disparate effects can sometimes be useful in uncovering or deterring subtle intentional discrimination or intentional indifference to unnecessary and arbitrary barriers. But that view's alleged benefits are outweighed by the other issues and factors the Department has considered. And in any event, the concern is mitigated by the fact that eliminating disparate-impact liability does not preclude the use of data on disparate outcomes to help prove intentional discrimination. Indeed, under the Department's Title VI regulations, which the current changes do not alter, “recipients should have available for the department racial and ethnic data showing the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of federally assisted programs.” 29 CFR 31.5(b). Both the Department and private litigants rely on such data as a potential indicator of intentional discrimination. This use of statistical disparity to help establish, as an evidentiary matter, liability for intentional discrimination materially differs from using it to impose liability for an unintentional disparate impact.

The Department also considered alternatives to eliminating the affected provisions altogether. For instance, as an alternative to deleting the text of 29 CFR 31.3(b)(6)(i), the Department considered incorporating the constitutional requirements discussed above directly into this provision. More specifically, the Department considered specifying that any affirmative action taken to overcome the effects of prior identified discrimination by the Federal government on the ground of race, color, or national origin be narrowly tailored to the achievement of that interest. See Adarand Constructors, 515 U.S. 200. But even if that alleviated the Department's constitutional concerns with the affirmative-action requirement, any version of imposing liability for failing to take action to remedy the effects of past discrimination is inconsistent with Title VI's original public meaning. The Department determines that any benefits from requiring affirmative action are outweighed by the Department's legal and policy concerns. And even if possible, developing such a rule would not solve the confusion or rule-of-law concerns expressed above, nor reduce the compliance and litigation costs that covered entities face. The Department believes that the better course is to avoid the complexities, costs, and litigation associated with this alternative, even if eliminating disparate-impact liability would ultimately leave some problems unaddressed and others inadequately addressed.

Overall, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, the Department finds that, regardless of the legality of the Department's disparate-impact regulations, the above summarized policy concerns, when viewed separately or cumulatively, independently justify the repeal of its disparate-impact regulations.

On January 21, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14173. Among other things, the Executive Order revoked Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity).

The Department's Title VI regulations currently include two references to Executive Order 11246. See 29 CFR 31.12(a)(1); 29 CFR 31.3(c)(3). Because these references were rendered obsolete by the revocation of Executive Order 11246, the Department now makes technical edits to delete them.

The Department's current regulations expand the scope of prohibited conduct beyond what Title VI itself prohibits—namely, intentional discrimination. This rule's regulatory changes address concerns regarding the statutory authority supporting the scope of these regulations that the Supreme Court questioned in Sandoval, harmonize the implementing regulations with Title VI, implement changes directed by Executive Order 14281, promote consistent enforcement among private plaintiffs and Federal departments and agencies, and provide much needed clarity to the courts and Federal funding recipients and beneficiaries. For the reasons summarized above, the Department amends the following provisions in its Title VI implementing regulation that explain the particular types of discrimination prohibited. These provisions are located at 29 CFR 31.3. Additionally, as described above, the Department amends 29 CFR 31.12(a)(1) and deletes 29 CFR 31.3(c)(3) to remove now-outdated references to Executive Order 11246.

The table below indicates the exact wording changes. For each section indicated in the left column, the text shown in the middle column is removed and the text shown in the right column is added:

Section 31.3(b)(2) is the general prohibition of unintentional disparate impact. This paragraph expands prohibited conduct from purposeful discrimination to Federal funding recipients “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination.” Because this paragraph's only purpose is to prohibit conduct having an unintentional disparate impact, this rule deletes this paragraph and thus amends the regulations to conform more closely to Title VI. The rule replaces paragraph (b)(2) with a placeholder to maintain the numbering accuracy of previous citations and other references to other parts of this section.

Section 31.3(b)(3) deals with a Federal funding recipient's or applicant's selection of sites or locations of facilities. The paragraph provides that a funding recipient may not make selections with the “purpose or effect” of discriminating, or “with the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of” Title VI or the Department's implementing regulations. The paragraph's two “or effect” references extend its scope to conduct having an unintentional disparate impact, and this rule deletes both “or effect” references to conform paragraph (b)(3) more closely to Title VI.

Section 31.3(b)(6) deals with “affirmative action.” Paragraph (b)(6)(i) requires that a recipient “must take affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination” if, in “administering a program,” the funding “recipient has previously discriminated against persons on the ground of race, color, or national origin.” This provision goes beyond the Equal Protection Clause, which in limited circumstances permits, but does not mandate, the government to take narrowly tailored action to remedy the effects of its identified past discrimination. See, e.g., Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307 (Powell, J.). This provision also does not expressly require narrow tailoring to counter particular past discrimination.

Paragraph (b)(6)(ii) similarly requires affirmative action in programs even in the absence of prior discrimination and consequently could encourage intentional racial classifications, racial preferences, and other race-based actions without the supporting compelling interest and narrow tailoring that the Equal Protection Clause requires. As explained above, Congress intended Title VI to mirror the Equal Protection Clause.

The rule deletes paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) to remove their authorization of conduct not permitted by the Equal Protection Clause.

Section 31.3(c) addresses prohibited discriminatory employment practices. Paragraph (c)(1) prohibits intentionally discriminatory employment practices when a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment. Paragraph (c)(2) extends the prohibition to employment practices of the recipient even where “a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is not to provide employment” if discrimination in the non-funded “employment practices of the recipient or other persons subject to the regulation tends, on the ground of race, color or national origin, to exclude individuals from participation in, to deny them the benefits of, or to subject them to discrimination under any program to which this regulation applies . . . .” This paragraph's prohibition is not limited to intentional discrimination, but rather extends to prohibiting conduct that “tends” to have a discriminatory effect on a program without the primary objective of providing employment.

Moreover, paragraph (c)(2)'s extension to employment practices where the Federal funding's primary objective is not to provide employment conflicts with the statutory limitation found in 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3. That section states that “[n]othing contained in [Title VI] shall be construed to authorize action under [Title VI] by any department or agency with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3; see also Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara Cnty., 480 U.S. 616, 627-28 n.6 (1987) (citing the statutory limitation and noting Congress's intent that Title VI not “impinge” on Title VII, which prohibits discriminatory employment practices). The rule deletes paragraph (c)(2) to amend the regulation so that it more closely adheres to the scope of conduct Congress intended Title VI to prohibit.

Finally, paragraph (c)(3) relates exclusively to Executive Order 11246 and any Executive Order superseding it. Executive Order 11246 was revoked by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025, 90 FR 8633, and no Executive Order was issued to supersede it. The rule deletes paragraph (c)(3) to eliminate the outdated reference to Executive Order 11246. This rule makes no change to the current text of paragraphs (c)(1) except for a technical edit to reflect the removal of paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3).

Section 31.3(d) provides illustrative examples of the scope of the Department's Title VI regulations but does not itself confer any legal rights or obligations on recipients of Federal financial assistance. Several of the program names referenced in § 31.3(d) are no longer in use, either because those programs have been partially or totally subsumed by other statutes or because they have been eliminated altogether. For instance, the Manpower Development and Training Act was superseded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in 1973, and Federal workforce training is currently governed by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014. Similarly, the Area Redevelopment Act does not exist in its original form and was terminated as of August 31, 1965. Though certain programs referenced in § 31.3(d) are currently in effect, the Department has concluded that including only some illustrative examples and not others could cause confusion among recipients of Federal financial assistance with respect to the scope of their obligations under the regulations.

Furthermore, as noted above, the Department amends § 31.3(c)(2)'s extension to employment practices where the Federal funding's primary objective is not to provide employment because it conflicts with the statutory limitation found in 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3. The examples in § 31.3(d)(2) and (d)(3) could implicate practices only covered under § 31.3(c)(2) and thus undermine the Department's conclusion that the scope of these regulations no longer applies to employment practices where the Federal financial assistance does not have employment as its primary purpose.

Because the original purpose of § 31.3(d) was to ensure that “all parties . . . have a clear understanding of the applicability of the regulations,” and retaining only some of its text could have the opposite effect, this rule deletes § 31.3(d) in its entirety.

Section 31.12(a) explains that nothing in the Part 31 regulations “shall be deemed to supersede any of the following,” and paragraph (a)(1) lists “Executive Orders 10925, 11114 and 11246 and regulations issued thereunder.” Executive Order 11246 was revoked by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025, 90 FR 8633. This rule deletes the outdated reference to Executive Order 11246.

The Department has also considered potential legitimate reliance interests on the disparate-impact regulations. For instance, recipients may have invested in training and other measures to comply with the Department's prohibition on disparate-impact discrimination—including in connection with impact analyses, employee skill-building and education, and know-your-rights materials distributed to beneficiaries—on the expectation that this regulatory regime would remain intact. However, any such interests are minimal. Sandoval cast serious doubt on the regulations' viability more than two decades ago. Furthermore, Executive Order 14281 directed all agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability,” including the Department's Title VI regulations. 90 FR 17538. Finally, disparate-impact regulations are not authorized by the best reading of Title VI, as the Supreme Court has affirmed that Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination. No reliance interest can justify the maintenance of unauthorized regulations. With respect to the technical amendments deleting references to Executive Order 11246, there can be no legitimate reliance on authorities that are no longer in force. Accordingly, the Department's legal and policy concerns—whether considered separately or cumulatively—outweigh any minimal reliance interests.

The Department's position is that each of the amendments serves a vital, related, but distinct purpose. The Department also confirms that each of the amendments is intended to operate independently of each other and that the potential invalidity of one amendment should not affect the other amendments. The Department would adopt any of the amendments independently of the invalidity of a separate amendment.

The Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

Title VI concerns non-discrimination conditions on the receipt of Federal financial assistance, and more particularly to the receipt of Federal “[g]rants and loans,” “property,” “personnel” and “[a]ny Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.” 29 CFR 31.2(e); see also 29 CFR 31.6 (requiring funding recipient sign contractual assurance of compliance with Title VI); Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 217-18 (2022) (observing that Congress enacted Title VI “[p]ursuant to its authority to `fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money' ” (internal citation omitted)). Cf. Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefitting from Federal Financial Assistance, 82 FR 46655, 46655 (Oct. 6, 2017) (invoking the section 553(a)(2) exception to amend Title IX regulations to “promote consistency in the enforcement of Title IX for [the Department of Agriculture] financial assistance recipients”); Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, 85 FR 47899 (Aug. 7, 2020) (invoking the exception to repeal Housing and Urban Development rule regarding Federal grantees); Participation by Minority Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Programs, 53 FR 18285 (May 23, 1988) (invoking the exception to expand coverage of Department of Transportation regulation regarding Federal Aviation Administration's airport financial assistance program); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs—Suspension of Guidelines with Respect to Mass Transportation, 46 FR 40687 (Aug. 11, 1981) (invoking the exception to suspend Department of Justice guidelines regarding prohibiting disability discrimination in transportation programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Indeed, invoking 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) is consistent with the Office for Management and Budget's (OMB) definition for “Federal financial assistance” under 2 CFR 200.1, which defines “Federal financial assistance” according to the same categories as the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). All the forms of Federal financial assistance set forth under 2 CFR 200.1 that are subject to this regulation [29 CFR part 31] would fall under the “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” exception. Thus, the Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

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 is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this rule was submitted to OIRA for review.

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.

As explained in the preamble, the regulatory modifications this rule makes are necessary to address concerns regarding the authority supporting the scope of the Department's Title VI regulation that the Supreme Court raised in Sandoval, harmonize the implementing regulation with Title VI, promote consistency in enforcement among private plaintiffs and Federal departments and agencies, as well as provide much needed clarity to the courts and Federal funding recipients and beneficiaries. In essence, this rule conforms the Department's regulation to existing statutory law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. It also deletes certain outdated references to program names no longer in use and to now-revoked Executive Order 11246.

Data limitations make the costs and benefits of the rule difficult to quantify. Although it does not represent the monetary impact of the rule, the Department of Labor issued approximately 11,193 separate awards totaling approximately $65.9 billion from FY 2020-FY 2024. 2 In FY 2025 alone, the Department issued approximately 6,033 separate awards totaling $11.5 billion. The Department conducted approximately 212 Title VI-related investigations and compliance reviews regarding these funds and their recipients from FY 2020 through FY 2024. 3 This rule will allow the Department to direct its resources towards addressing allegations of intentional discrimination and managing investigations and resolutions efficiently.

The Department estimated that the number of affected entities ( i.e., the recipients of Federal financial assistance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that are expected to be impacted by this rule is potentially up to 15,000 based on data showing that the Department issued approximately 11,193 separate awards over the five-year period from FY2020 through FY2024. Some entities have received multiple disparate awards, and new entities are expected to receive disparate awards in the future as well. As such, the Department conservatively assumes that the number of affected entities could be as high as 15,000 for the purpose of estimating rule familiarization costs.

The Department anticipates that the bulk of the workload under this final rule will be performed by employees in occupations similar to the one associated with the following Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code: SOC 11-3121 (Human Resources Managers). The Department used the wage rate of Human Resources Managers as a proxy for the wage rate of Equal Opportunity Officers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), the mean hourly wage rate for Human Resources Managers in May 2024 was $77.15. 4 For this analysis, the Department used a fringe benefits rate of 46 percent and an overhead rate of 17 percent, resulting in a fully loaded hourly compensation rate for Human Resources Managers of $125.75 [= $77.15 + ($77.15 × 0.46) + ($77.15 × 0.17)].

Rule familiarization costs represent direct costs to the recipients of Federal financial assistance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to read and familiarize themselves with the provisions of this final rule. The Department calculated this cost by multiplying the number of recipients of financial assistance by the estimated time to review the rule and by the hourly compensation of a Human Resources Manager. The Department estimates that rule familiarization will take an average of 1 hour by a Human Resources Manager who is paid a fully loaded wage of $125.75. Therefore, the one-time rule familiarization cost for the recipients of financial assistance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is estimated to be $1,886,250 (= 15,000 recipients × 1 hour × $125.75 per hour).

The Department is unable to quantify how funding recipients will respond to the regulatory changes. We anticipate this action will result in greater flexibility and lower compliance costs for recipients.

This final rule to eliminate disparate-impact liability under the Department's Title VI regulations is expected to generate cost savings and operational efficiencies for Federal funding recipients primarily by narrowing the scope of prohibited conduct to intentional discrimination. By rescinding provisions that previously prohibited practices with an unintentional disparate impact, the rule reduces legal ambiguity and the need for extensive preventative compliance efforts. Disparate-impact guidelines promulgated in the Title VII context illustrate the kinds of steps recipients might take to avoid disparate-impact liability, including ongoing recordkeeping, adverse-impact monitoring, validation studies, and review of alternatives, frequently involving legal consultation and statistical analysis to ensure that facially neutral policies would not inadvertently trigger liability. 5 Removing the relevant provisions will allow organizations to focus their compliance resources on preventing intentional discrimination, which is more clearly defined and easier to avoid.

Relatedly, this final rule also meaningfully decreases investigation-related costs. Again, as other disparate-impact regulations illustrate, avoiding disparate-impact liability can be a complex and costly affair, potentially involving, among other things, internal disparate-impact analyses to assess whether policies such as hiring criteria, program-eligibility rules, or resource-allocation decisions might yield statistically uneven outcomes across protected groups. 6 Because disparate-impact liability could arise even in the absence of complaints, organizations were incentivized to proactively audit their operations, sometimes repeatedly, to mitigate risk. Eliminating this requirement reduces the need for such ongoing internal investigations and the infrastructure that supports them.

Compliance costs are likewise expected to decline. These compliance costs could include, e.g., developing and detailing compliance programs specifically aimed at avoiding disparate impacts, including revising standard operating procedures, and modifying selection criteria or program rules to achieve more balanced outcomes. 7 In some cases, entities may have felt compelled to adopt race-conscious measures or engage in racial balancing to avoid enforcement actions even though doing so was legally prohibited. This introduced additional legal complexity and operational challenges. The final rule removes the regulatory pressure to engage in these practices, allowing organizations to streamline compliance programs and reduce expenditures on training, policy redesign, and external advisory services.

Another benefit is increased regulatory clarity and predictability. Disparate-impact standards often lack clear thresholds, making it difficult for recipients to determine in advance whether a given policy is compliant. This uncertainty can lead to overcompliance—where organizations expend resources to mitigate hypothetical risks—or undercompliance due to a misunderstanding of obligations. By focusing solely on intentional discrimination, the rule provides a clearer, more objective standard, enabling recipients to allocate resources more efficiently and make decisions with greater confidence. This clarity can also improve program delivery by reducing delays associated with legal review and compliance checks.

Finally, the regulatory changes are expected to yield broader institutional benefits, including improved allocation of public and private resources. Funds that would have been spent on compliance infrastructure or statistical monitoring can instead be redirected toward core programmatic activities, such as workforce development, training services, or community outreach. For smaller recipients, particularly those that may lack in-house legal or compliance departments, the reduction in regulatory burden can be especially significant. These changes are expected to lower barriers to participation in Federally funded programs and enhance overall program accessibility and effectiveness.

In sum, by eliminating disparate-impact liability, the final rule reduces the need for extensive internal investigations and complex compliance systems. It advances a more straightforward standard centered on intentional discrimination, thereby generating tangible cost savings and operational efficiencies for recipients of Federal funding.

The Department recognizes that a funding recipient may receive Federal funds from sources other than the Department. Because of E.O. 14281 and DOJ's recent amendments to its own Title VI regulations, however, the Department expects that other Federal departments and agencies will similarly revise their Title VI regulations. Importantly, pursuant to Executive Order 12250, “[t]he Attorney General shall coordinate the implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies of . . . Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ).” 45 FR 72995, 72995 (Nov. 2, 1980). Accordingly, DOJ acts as the lead Federal agency responsible for defining the nature and scope of Title VI's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

Regardless, the Department does not envision that this rule will appreciably increase administrative or compliance costs for funding recipients who must also adhere to the regulations of another department or agency. This deregulatory action does not create any new obligations for funding recipients. On the contrary, by eliminating disparate-impact liability from the regulation, it eliminates a source of regulatory confusion, narrows the conduct prohibited, and thus lessens the costs of compliance and potential liability. Moreover, recipients who receive funds for the same program or activity from more than one Federal entity already enter into separate contractual assurances with each funding entity, see, e.g., 29 CFR 31.6. These contractual assurances already impose varying requirements that each Federal funding source deems necessary. Funding recipients will continue to be held to the most stringent contractual assurance and regulation.

Based on the analysis of the practical qualitative costs and benefits noted above, the Department believes that this rule is consistent with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, including the requirements that, to the extent permitted by law, the Department adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and choose a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits. See 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821.

Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. 90 FR 9065, 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of the Order requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” Id. This rule eliminates unnecessary regulation by revising the Department's current Title VI regulations, which extend prohibited conduct to include conduct having an unintentional disparate impact and thus expand the scope of those regulations to a broader range of conduct than the statute prohibits. Accordingly, the Department expects this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to “explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to” each element of those offenses. 90 FR 20363, 20363 (May 9, 2025). This rule does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

This rule will not have a substantial, direct effect on the relationship between the national government and the states, on distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, or on states' policymaking discretion. States that choose to receive Federal financial assistance from the Department do so voluntarily and agree to comply with relevant statutory requirements as a condition of receiving such funding. This rule does not subject states or any other funding recipients or beneficiaries to new obligations. This rule amends and clarifies existing regulations that are required by statute. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, 43257-58 (Aug. 4, 1999), the Department has determined that these amendments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to specify provisions in clear language. See 61 FR 4729, 4731-32 (Feb. 5, 1996). Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, id. at 4731, nothing in this proposed or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this proposed rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.

Pursuant to section 1-202 of Executive Order 12250, DOJ has the responsibility to “review . . . proposed rules . . . of the Executive agencies” implementing nondiscrimination statutes such as Title VI in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent.” Additionally, section 1-101 of Executive Order 12250 delegated the President's responsibility to approve Title VI regulations to the Attorney General. See 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. DOJ has reviewed and approved this rule.

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 the 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. This rule does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA because, for the reasons described above, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). See Or. Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the RFA does not apply when an agency validly invokes an exception to the public comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553). Further, the Department, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed these regulations and certifies that the rule's changes will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in large part because these regulatory changes do not impose any new substantive obligations on Federal funding recipients. The rule amends and clarifies existing regulations that are required by Title VI. The rule merely harmonizes the scope of the regulations to conform with the scope of Title VI, which does not prohibit conduct having an unintentional disparate impact. All Federal funding recipients have been bound by the existing standards that will remain in place after this rule since their initial promulgation.

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. The UMRA also, however, excludes from its coverage any proposed or final Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” 2 U.S.C. 1503(2). Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the UMRA.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 29 CFR part 31 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.902 for the Annual Bayview Mackinac Race from 10 a.m. through 3 p.m. on July 18, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safe control of vessel movements in the vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating public and commercial shipping. Our regulation in § 100.902(a) specifies the location of the regulated area for the Annual Bayview Mackinac Race. During the enforcement period, no vessel may enter the regulated area without prior approval from the Coast Guard's designated Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics. Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and when so directed by that officer. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.” Vessels permitted to transit the regulated area will operate at no wake speed and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he or she may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1301 for the Seattle Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane Race from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. each day from July 30, 2026 through August 2, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 4-day event. The regulation for this event specifies the location of the regulated area for the Seattle Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane Race in § 100.1301(b), as encompassing portions of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington. The regulated area is divided into two zones. The zones are separated by a line perpendicular from the I-90 Bridge to the northwest corner of the East log boom and a line extending from the southeast corner of the East log boom to the southeast corner of the hydroplane racecourse and then to the northerly tip of Ohlers Island in Andrews Bay. The western zone is designated Zone I, the eastern zone, Zone II. (Refer to NOAA Chart 18447).

The Coast Guard will maintain a patrol consisting of Coast Guard vessels, assisted by Auxiliary Coast Guard vessels in Zone II. The Coast Guard patrol of this area is under the direction of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (Patrol Commander). The Patrol Commander is empowered to control the movement of vessels on the racecourse and in the adjoining waters during the periods this regulation is in effect. The Patrol Commander may be assisted by other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Only authorized vessels may be allowed to enter Zone I during the hours this regulation is in effect. Vessels in the vicinity of Zone I shall maneuver and anchor as directed by Coast Guard Officers or Petty Officers.

During the times in which the regulation is in effect, swimming, wading, or otherwise entering the water in Zone I by any person is prohibited while hydroplane boats are on the racecourse. At other times in Zone I, any person entering the water from the shoreline shall remain west of the swim line, denoted by buoys, and any person entering the water from the log boom shall remain within ten (10) feet of the log boom.

During the times in which the regulation is in effect, any person swimming or otherwise entering the water in Zone II shall remain within ten (10) feet of a vessel.

During the times this regulation is in effect, rafting to a log boom will be limited to groups of three (3) vessels.

During the times this regulation is in effect, up to six (6) vessels may raft together in Zone II if none of the vessels are secured to a log boom.

During the times this regulation is in effect, only vessels authorized by the Patrol Commander, other law enforcement agencies, or event sponsors shall be permitted to tow other watercraft of inflatable devices.

Vessels proceeding in either Zone I or Zone II during the hours this regulation is in effect shall do so only at speeds which will create minimum wake, seven (7) miles per hour or less. This maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

Upon completion of the daily racing activities, all vessels leaving either Zone I or Zone II shall proceed at speeds of seven (7) miles per hour or less. The maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels controlling the areas under the direction of the Patrol Commander shall serve as signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with lawful orders of the patrol vessel; failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as official Seafair event craft.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via marine information broadcasts, and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from 1230 W Lakeshore Drive on Kelleys Island, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 375-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 18, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Western Lake Erie within a 375-yard radius of 1230 W Lakeshore Drive on Kelleys Island, OH. 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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from Sandusky Bay within a 200-yard radius of a barge in the vicinity of 870 Crosstree Lane in Sandusky, OH. The barge will be in position: 41°26′45″ N, 082°40′050″ W. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 200-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 18, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 3, 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 July 3, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Sandusky Bay within a 200-yard radius of a barge in the vicinity of 870 Crosstree Lane in Sandusky, OH. The barge will be in position: 41°26′45″ N, 082°40′050″ W. 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulated navigation area (RNA) in 33 CFR 165.1341 immediately before and after Seafair events from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. daily from July 30, 2026 through August 2, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 4-day event. Seafair will be having several events sporadically throughout the day. Before and after these events, the Coast Guard will be enforcing the RNA to protect the public from the potential hazards of excessive vessel traffic associated with these events. The location of the RNA, specified in § 165.1341(a), encompasses portions of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1341(c), all vessels and persons transiting the regulated navigation area must proceed at a speed which creates minimum wake, 7 miles per hour or less, unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of the enforcement period via marine information broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched in Lakeside, OH, from the Lakeside Association Dock and also from a fireworks barge at position: 41°32.962′ N, 082°45.056′ W. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 350-yard radius of each 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 zones.

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 these fireworks events on May 20, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 two safety zones on July 4, 2026. The first safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 350-yard radius of a fireworks site on Lakeside Association Dock in Lakeside, OH. The second safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 350-yard radius of a fireworks barge at position: 41°32.962′ N, 082°45.056′ W, in Lakeside, OH. 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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the pier at Berth 46 in the Port of Los Angeles, CA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 600-foot 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 did not receive final details for this event with sufficient notice prior to when this safety zone must be established on July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment, to solicit comments. 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 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in San Pedro Bay within a 600-foot radius of a point on a pier at Berth 46, Port of Los Angeles. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from 1314 Mirheath Drive in Huron, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 150-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 18, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 5, 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 July 5, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Western Lake Erie within a 150-yard radius of 1314 Mirheath Drive in Huron, OH. 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1 to § 165.1191, Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual Fireworks Events, for events occurring in the month of July as listed. Specific locations for each safety zone are listed in the published regulation, Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.1191.

During the enforcement period, as reflected in 33 CFR 165.1191, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local agencies.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from two barges on Bayfront Park in Miami, FL from 11:10 p.m. on July 4, 2026, through 12:10 a.m. on July 5, 2026. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector Miami (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 250-yard radius of the fireworks display.

On June 1, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Bayfront Park 4th of July Fireworks Display, Intercoastal Waterway, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL. 1 In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display.

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 fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

As stated above, during the comment period that ended on June 16, 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 11:10 p.m. on July 4, 2026, through 12:10 a.m. on July 5, 2026. The safety zone covers all navigable water within 250 yards of the fireworks barges. 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 analysis 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 minutes. 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.

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 vicinity of Newport Beach, CA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 1,000-foot 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 did not receive final details for this event with sufficient notice prior to when this safety zone must be established on July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment, to solicit comments. 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 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the San Pedro Channel within a 1,000-foot radius of a barge offshore of Newport Beach, CA. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility. These regulations will be enforced on specific dates and times for each location as listed below. The safety zones include all waters of Puget Sound Washington, extending to a 450 yard radius from the launch sites listed below. Each safety zone will be enforced only during its designated period:

The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones. While the safety zone is activated, all non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or their designated representative, as set forth in 33 CFR 165.1332(d). The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

The Coast Guard will issue advanced notification of enforcement of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks regulated area, for the locations described in Table 1 to § 165.1123, Item No. 3 of that section from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, Item No. 3 in Table 1 to § 165.1123, identifies the regulated areas for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks event which encompasses a portion of Glorietta Bay. Under the provisions of § 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Patrol Commander, or his or her designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Patrol Commander or his or her designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge in Sandusky Bay in the vicinity of 6904 E Sunview Drive in Lakeside, OH. The barge will be in position: 41°30.339′ N, 082°48.094′ W. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 150-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 18, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 3, 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 July 3, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Sandusky Bay within a 150-yard radius of a barge in the vicinity of 6904 E Sunview Drive in Lakeside, OH. The barge will be in position: 41°30.339′ N, 082°48.094′ W. 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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the beach at Sombrero Beach Park with the fallout zone extending into Hawks Channel over the entrance to Sister Creek. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Key West has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 200-yards of the Sombrero Beach shoreline. 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 received final confirmation of the details of this event too late to engage with the public comment process, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 from 9:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200-yards from the shoreline of Sombrero Beach in Marathon, FL. 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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge in Isthmus Cove, Santa Catalina Island. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 1,000-foot 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 did not receive final details for this event with sufficient notice prior to when this safety zone must be established on July 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment, to solicit comments. 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 July 3, 2026 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Isthmus Cove within a 1,000-foot radius of a fireworks barge. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 for the annual Seafair Air Show Performance from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. each day from July 30, 2026 through August 2, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 4-day event. The location of the safety zone for the annual Seafair Air Show Performance is specified in § 165.1319(b), encompassing a portion of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington. During the enforcement periods as reflected in § 165.1319(c), no person may enter or remain in the zone except support vessels and support personnel, vessels registered with the event organizer, or other vessels authorized by the COTP or their designated representative(s). Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP or their designated representative(s).

The COTP may be assisted by other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of the enforcement period via marine information broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the shore on the Monongahela River near Fairmont, WV. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a half mile 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 12, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 127 to 127.5 on the Monongahela River. 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks regulated area, for the locations described in Table 1 to § 165.1123, Item No. 5 of that section from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, Item No. 5 in Table 1 to § 165.1123, identifies the regulated areas for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks event which encompasses multiple portions of San Diego Bay. Under the provisions of § 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from two barges in San Pedro Bay, offshore of Long Beach, CA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 1,000-foot radius of the fireworks barges.

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 did not receive final details for this event until June 4, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 July 4, 2026 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in San Pedro Bay within a 1,000-foot radius of two fireworks barges offshore of Long Beach, CA. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP.

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:

The Coast Guard previously established a permanent security zone for the Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor at 33 CFR 165.809 (67 FR 64044, October 17, 2002). This regulation used the old Corpus Christi Inner Harbor Bridge (U.S. Hwy 181) as a point of reference in the security zone location description. This bridge is currently being dismantled and removed, and has been replaced by a new U.S. Hwy 181 bridge at a location approximately 450 yards west of the original bridge location. Because of this change, the reference to the Inner Harbor Bridge is no longer appropriate as it does not cover the full extent of the Inner Harbor. Therefore, the Coast Guard is revising 33 CFR 165.809 by replacing the reference to the Inner Harbor Bridge with Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates that are at the approximate position of the old bridge location. The COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the security zone.

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 unnecessary. This rule makes a technical change to the description of an existing, permanent security zone, codified at 33 CFR 165.809. This security zone was initially created following issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (67 FR 31750, May 10, 2002), and the Coast Guard received and considered public comment when publishing the Final Rule cited in the paragraph above. This rule does not change the size, location, or regulations related to the security zone. It merely replaces a geographical reference—a bridge that has since been demolished—with GPS coordinates that correspond to the bridge's prior location. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Coast Guard to again receive and considered public comments.

This rule modifies an existing security zone regulation at 33 CFR 165.809. The text for paragraph (a) of the regulation, Location, is revised to replace a reference to the Inner Harbor Bridge with GPS coordinates. The new location description states that the security zone includes all waters of the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor from a line across the entrance connecting positions 27°48′47.64″ N, 97°23′41.15″ W and 27°48′42.96″ N, 97°23′44.09″ W, into and including the Viola Turning Basin. This rule also corrects a typographical error in the spelling of the word “authority” in paragraph (c) of the regulatory text. This rule makes no other changes to the existing regulation.

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 security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration is not required because this regulation only makes technical changes, and does not change the size of an existing safety zone.

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

The Coast Guard has an established annual safety zone on the Kanawha River on July 4th for fireworks displays. This safety zone is codified under 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, line 7. The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge on the Kanawha River near the Capitol Building in Charleston, WV. However, due to the America 250th anniversary celebration, a larger safety zone than normal is required. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 350 feet of the fireworks display. Potential hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. Therefore, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 on the Kanawha River from mile marker (MM) 57.5-MM 60.5 to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an overwater fireworks display.

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 May 26, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 4, 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 from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the Kanawha River within the following mile markers: 57.5 to 60.5. 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:

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated the Philadelphia area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 1 See 74 FR 58775 (November 13, 2009) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 81.308. New Castle County, Delaware was included in the Philadelphia nonattainment area.

On December 12, 2012, the State of Delaware submitted to the EPA a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the New Castle County portion of the Philadelphia Area. The EPA redesignated the New Castle County portion of the Philadelphia Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and approved the maintenance plan for the first 10-year maintenance period into the Delaware SIP. 2

On April 15, 2024, DNREC, on behalf of the State of Delaware, submitted an LMP to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS compliance for the New Castle County portion of the Philadelphia Area through 2034. On November 20, 2025 (90 FR 52290), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware, proposing approval of the LMP because the State made a showing, consistent with the EPA's Guidance on the Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas and PM 2.5 Maintenance Areas (PM 2.5 LMP Guidance), that the area's PM 2.5 concentrations are well below the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, have been historically stable, and that it has met all other maintenance plan requirements. 3

Additionally, in the November 20, 2025 action, the EPA initiated the adequacy process and proposed that the LMP demonstrated that it is unreasonable to expect that this area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a violation of the NAAQS to occur, per the EPA's transportation conformity regulations. 4 The adequacy process is set forth in the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(f).

The EPA is approving the plan because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A. As a general matter, the LMP relies on the same control measures and contingency provisions to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS during the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period as the maintenance plan submitted by DNREC for the first 10-year period.

Further explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revision, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the NPRM (90 FR 52290). The November 20, 2025 NPRM also includes additional detail about the adequacy process and the EPA's assessment of the adequacy of Delaware's submission. A summary of the comments received, as well as the EPA's responses, are in section II of this preamble.

The EPA's November 20, 2025 NPRM (90 FR 52290) opened a public comment period, which closed on December 22, 2025. The EPA received comments from one commenter. All comments received have been placed in the docket for this action.

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

Comment 1: The commenter asks the EPA to include the PM 2.5 LMP Guidance in the docket and explain how CAA section 175A is satisfied under the guidance. Additionally, the commenter requests that if the guidance is being used as a binding norm, the EPA should consider a notice-and-comment rulemaking as treating guidance as binding could bypass the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements.

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with this comment. The PM 2.5 LMP Guidance was included in the docket at the time of NPRM publication. Additionally, section 175A of the CAA defines the general framework of a maintenance plan. The LMP is a tool that allows certain nonattainment and maintenance areas to provide for maintenance under CAA section 175A based on an analysis of current and historical air quality data, rather than modeling or emissions projections. Moderate PM 2.5 nonattainment areas or existing PM 2.5 maintenance areas meeting the criteria in the PM 2.5 LMP Guidance may demonstrate maintenance for purposes of CAA section 175A using the method described in the PM 2.5 LMP Guidance and the NPRM for this rule.

Importantly, the PM 2.5 LMP Guidance as binding nor bypassing APA requirements. To the extent that it builds upon previous EPA guidance, such guidance does not impose legally binding requirements either.

Comment 2: The commenter urges the EPA to ensure transparency and public accessibility when incorporating by reference. They stress compliance with 1 CFR part 51 by identifying the LMP documents by title, date, and version, and making them freely available to the public.

Response 2: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it did not comply with 1 CFR part 51. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, all the requested documentation was provided at the time of proposal. See docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0205. Through this rule, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 52.420(e) by adding the entry “2006 24-hour PM 2.5 Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Area” to the table. It simply adds the LMP to 40 CFR 52.420(e), EPA-approved non-regulatory and quasi-regulatory material. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the preamble for more information).

Comment 3: The commenter claimed that the EPA did not comply with multiple statutory requirements and Executive Order 12866. First, the commenter claims that the EPA did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) as the Limited Maintenance Plan commits the State to requirements for periodic verification of continued attainment, reporting of ambient monitoring data, and the submission of emissions inventories. The commenter states that once approved into the SIP, these are federally enforceable duties to submit information to a Federal agency. The commenter argues that as a result, the EPA must explain why this action is exempt from the PRA or identify an approved Information Collection Request or take steps to obtain one. Second, the commenter claims that the EPA did not comply with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), as the EPA's conclusory statement that the action does not impose Federal mandates is inadequate. The commenter indicates that the LMP and its contingency measures can impose federally mandated duties on the state, which by extension may lead to impacts on local jurisdictions. The commenter references potential costs associated with implementing contingency measures. Third, the commenter claims that the EPA did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA), as it does not explain why the LMP does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the commenter indicates that the LMP's contingency measures, once federally approved, may trigger the adoption and implementation of measures by small governmental jurisdictions. It states that the EPA should either provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or provide a reasoned, evidence-based certification. Lastly, the commenter claims that the EPA did not comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 as it appears to treat the action as not significant, and thus not subject to OMB review, but due to the multi-state metropolitan area covered by the LMP, OMB review would aid interagency coordination and transparency.

Response 3: The EPA disagrees with the commenter with respect to its compliance with each statute and E.O. 12866. Regarding the PRA, it does not apply to this action. The PRA generally provides that every Federal agency must obtain OMB approval before using identical questions to collect information from 10 or more persons. See 44 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3502(3); 3507. The EPA is not conducting nor sponsoring the collection of information from 10 or more persons. The EPA is merely approving Delaware's Limited Maintenance Plan to ensure continued compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. It is approving State choices as meeting the Clean Air Act. The approval of the LMP does not impose any additional regulatory requirements, beyond those required by State law. The EPA has complied with the PRA by certifying in the rule that the PRA does not apply because this action does not involve an information collection burden as defined by the Act. 5

With regard to the UMRA, the EPA disagrees with the commenter. As stated above, it merely approves Delaware's LMP and thus Delaware's choices as meeting Clean Air Act requirements. This action does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by State law. In the context of the UMRA, it therefore does not impose any Federal mandate on Delaware as that term is defined in the Act. 2 U.S.C. 1555 (“Notwithstanding section 1502 of this title, for purposes of this subchapter [2 U.S.C. 1551 et seq. ] the term “Federal mandate” means any provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments including a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”). Accordingly, the EPA has complied with the UMRA by making its own determination that this rule will not result in expenditures of $100M or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, and therefore the Agency does not need to complete a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532.

Specific to the RFA and SBREFA, the EPA disagrees with the commenter. These statutes are inapplicable to this rule because the EPA has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory analysis provisions of the RFA are only triggered by a threshold determination by the Agency that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA has considered the approval of the LMP in the context of the RFA and SBREFA. As previously noted, this action merely approves Delaware's LMP and thus Delaware's choices as meeting Clean Air Act requirements. This action does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by State law. The EPA's approval of the LMP does not establish any new regulatory requirement for any entity. Accordingly, as the EPA has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, sections 603 and 604 of the RFA do not apply to this rule. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Lastly, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions regarding Executive Order 12866. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12866 by determining that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. Again, the EPA is approving Delaware's LMP and as a result Delaware's choices as meeting Clean Air Act requirements. This action does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by State law. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866. The EPA did not consult with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as it is not required for this action.

In accordance with the CAA and for the reasons set forth in the NPRM, the EPA is finalizing approval of Delaware's second 10-year LMP for the New Castle County portion of the Philadelphia area for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's review of the air quality data for the area indicates that it continues to show attainment well below the level of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and meet all the LMP qualifying criteria set forth in the PM 2.5 LMP Guidance, consistent with CAA section 175A. The EPA finds the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 LMP for the New Castle County portion of the Philadelphia area to be sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in its respective area over the second 10-year maintenance period, through 2034, and thereby satisfy the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). The EPA finds the LMP adequate for transportation conformity purposes because it demonstrates that it would be unreasonable to expect that the area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a PM 2.5 NAAQS violation to occur, as required by 40 CFR 93.109(e). The EPA is approving this second maintenance plan as a revision to the Delaware SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 31, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 17, 2025, proposal (90 FR 51247). In that document we proposed approving identified portions of revisions to the Oklahoma SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee between 2002 and 2025 to update the Oklahoma NSR permit program and make general updates to the Oklahoma SIP. We received comments on our proposal. Our responses to the comments follow.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that the EPA withdraw any final action until it either (a) prepares and dockets an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action or (b) supplements the record with a reasoned factual basis supporting a certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including data specific to Oklahoma NSR applicability and permitting costs.

Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. The regulatory analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are only triggered by a threshold determination by the Agency that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely approves Oklahoma's choices for implementing the air permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those required by State law. Because the Agency has certified this rule will not have a significant economic impact, sections 603 and 604 of the RFA do not apply to this rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that the EPA prepare and docket an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) statement or, at a minimum, a non-conclusory analysis explaining why this action does not impose a “Federal private sector mandate” or meet the expenditure threshold and why UMRA section 202 does not apply, given that EPA's approval renders the NSR requirements federally enforceable on private parties.

Response: The EPA disagrees that this action triggers any obligation to prepare and docket an UMRA statement. The UMRA requirements are triggered if the direct cost of all Federal private sector mandates will exceed $100 million annually. This action merely approves the State of Oklahoma's choices of revisions as meeting Clean Air Act requirements. This action does not impose any Federal private sector mandate on Oklahoma as that term is defined in 2 U.S.C. 658.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that EPA identify the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number(s) for any information collection requirements (ICR) implicated by the approved NSR program ( e.g., permit applications, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, public notice submissions), and explain whether the SIP revisions increase or otherwise alter the burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). If the burden changes, submit the necessary ICR revision to OMB.

Response: The PRA generally provides that every Federal agency must obtain OMB approval before using identical questions to collect information from 10 or more persons. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(2); 3507. The EPA is not conducting nor sponsoring the collection of information from 10 or more persons. The EPA approves the revisions to the Oklahoma permitting programs and general SIP updates, thereby approving State choices as meeting the Clean Air Act. The EPA has complied with the PRA by certifying that the PRA does not apply to this action. This approval does not impose any additional requirements beyond those required by State law. No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that EPA confirm it is not invoking the Administrative Procedure Act's good cause exceptions to shorten the effective date or bypass ordinary notice-and-comment, or else provide a specific, record-supported good cause showing.

Response: The EPA's November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), proposed rulemaking included a 30-day public comment period which closed on December 17, 2025. In this action, we are finalizing our November 17, 2025, proposed rulemaking. The EPA did not invoke or rely on the good cause exceptions at Administrative Procedure Act Section 553(b). No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that the EPA provide a side-by-side of the SIP-approved NSR text and the proposed replacement, with a plain-language explanation of practical impacts on applicability, exemptions, monitoring/recordkeeping, and public notice.

Response: Section II of the November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247 at 51249), preamble states “the accompanying Technical Support Document for this action includes a detailed analysis of the submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP which are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.” The November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), proposed rulemaking included instructions on how to access the rulemaking docket on www.regulations.gov. The rulemaking docket includes our Technical Support Document, which provides a side-by-side comparison of the existing SIP requirements and the proposed revisions, the EPA's evaluation of each proposed revision and the EPA's justification for approval. The Technical Support Document was available in the rulemaking docket for the entirety of the 30-day public comment period. No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Comment: Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requests that the EPA extend the comment period at least 30 days after the EPA dockets the supplemental RFA/UMRA/PRA materials.

Response: The EPA published a proposed rule on November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), in the Federal Register proposing action on Oklahoma's SIP submissions. This proposed rulemaking included significant detail in the preamble regarding the nature of the proposed action and the EPA's basis for approving the Oklahoma submissions under the Clean Air Act. The proposed rulemaking provided a 30-day comment period for the public to submit data, views, or arguments regarding the EPA's proposed action. As demonstrated by the responses to comments in this document, the EPA has considered all relevant comments received on its proposal. The EPA has no obligation to extend the comment period because no supplemental materials have been added to the docket. No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Comment: During a discussion on December 5, 2025, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) provided the following requests for clarification and typographical errors for the EPA's consideration:  1

1. The discussion at 90 FR 51249 providing the general overview of the Oklahoma tiering system could be misinterpreted to indicate that all Tier I applications require web public notice (90 FR 51247, November 17, 2025). The Tier I web notice only applies to specific air quality permit applications as indicated elsewhere in the preamble rather than broadly to all Tier I applications.

2. There is a typographical error in the submittal date for the reasonable possibility in recordkeeping rulemaking. See 90 FR 51247 at 90 FR 51250, “On January 24, 2023, Oklahoma submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-8-36.2 adopted on June 21, 2002, effective September 15, 2022.” (emphasis added)

3. The overview description of the general permitting program at 90 FR 51249, incorrectly states that general permits apply to facilities between 40 TPY and 100 TPY in an industry group for which a general permit has been issued (90 FR 51247, November 17, 2025). The ODEQ clarified that the general permit does not have a lower TPY limit.

4. The ODEQ requests that the EPA update the description of permit exempt overview at 90 FR 51255 to more closely reflect the rule language and avoid any misinterpretation (90 FR 51247, November 17, 2025). Suggested edits would be:

A permit exempt facility cannot be subject to any major source permitting requirement under OAC 252:100-8, any work practice standard, equipment standard, or emission standard under either (a) New Source Performance Standards in 40 CFR part 60, or (b) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants at 40 CFR part 63.

Response: The EPA appreciates the clarifications and typographical corrections to the November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), proposed rulemaking identified by the ODEQ. We agree that each clarification and typographical correction of the proposed rulemaking preamble is appropriate and instruct the public to read the November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), preamble with these clarifications and corrections. No changes have been made to this final rule because of these comments.

Comment: The Quapaw Nation requested clarification on how the EPA expects the State of Oklahoma to implement the SIP in certain areas of Indian Country pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”). Specifically, the Quapaw Nation requested clarification on the EPA's expectations for the State with respect to engaging the Quapaw Nation on issues that may affect the Nation's members or resources.

Response: As explained in section III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country in the November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), proposed rulemaking and again in this final action, on May 12, 2025, the EPA approved the State of Oklahoma's request under section 10211(a) of SAFETEA to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs—including the State's SIP—in certain areas of Indian country. This means the ODEQ will implement the SIP-approved requirements for the Indian country lands included in the SAFETEA approval that are located within the Quapaw Nation reservation. Neither the May 12, 2025, SAFETEA decision, nor the approval of the State's SIP under the CAA, requires the State to engage with affected Tribes. However, although not required by the EPA's approvals, consistent with longstanding Agency policy, the EPA encourages Tribes and States to coordinate on environmental matters of mutual concern and believes such coordination may be particularly useful in this case, where the State is administering a program in Indian country. Thus, the EPA encourages the Quapaw Nation and other interested Tribes to coordinate with the State on issues relating to implementation of the SIP. The Nation specifically raised permitting as an example where State/Tribal engagement would be useful. The EPA notes that because the Nation has CAA Treatment as a State (TAS) approval under sections 126 and 505(a)(2) of the CAA, the State is required to comply with affected State status notifications to neighboring States, which includes the Nation. No changes have been made to our final rule because of this comment.

Comment: The Quapaw Nation does not support, and requests that the EPA disapprove, the expansion of the “permit exempt facility” categories for minor new source review permitting under OAC 252:100-7-1.1 and OAC 252:100-7-2. The Quapaw Nation states that Oklahoma should “be imposing more stringent permitting requirements rather than expanding exemptions, even for minor contributors to air pollution.”

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. As stated in the November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247), proposed rulemaking, “State agencies have discretion to determine the scope of the State's minor NSR program, provided that the program continues to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.” See 90 FR 51247 at 90 FR 51255. The EPA provided our evaluation of the Oklahoma permit exempt program, including the technical justification provided by the ODEQ regarding the impact of the permit exempt program on air quality. No changes have been made to our final rule because of this comment.

Comment: The Quapaw Nation does not support, and requests that the EPA disapprove, the revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 7 and 8 that would allow permit applicants to begin construction prior to receiving the construction permit. The Quapaw Nation expressed concern “that allowing a project to move forward up to this stage of construction, after significant resources are expended but before a requisite permit is granted, could create unnecessary pressure on the permit decision-makers that would not otherwise be present.”

Response: The EPA appreciates the concern presented by the commenter but disagrees that the provisions for allowing construction prior to permit issuance will create unnecessary pressure on the permit decision-makers. The November 17, 2025 (90 FR 51247 at 90 FR 51254 through 51255), proposed rulemaking provides our analysis of the provisions for construction prior to minor NSR permit issuance and demonstrates consistency with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations. The SIP-approved language at OAC 252:100-7-2(b)(5) and OAC 252:100-8-4(a)(1)(D) expressly provides that the Oklahoma DEQ retains the authority to deny the permit application without consideration of and regardless of any investment made by the permit applicant prior to permit issuance. No changes have been made to the final rule because of this comment.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (“SAFETEA”), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the extent that such approval was necessary for the State to administer a program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 2

The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).

The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. 3 The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).

As explained above, the EPA is approving revisions to the Oklahoma air permitting program which will apply statewide in Oklahoma. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with the EPA's SAFETEA approval, these SIP revisions will apply to areas of Indian country as follows: (1) pursuant to the SAFETEA approval, the SIP revisions will apply to all Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above; and (2) pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP revisions will also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities that are located outside of any Indian reservation over which there has been no demonstration of Tribal authority.

We are approving under section 110 of the CAA, revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that update the Oklahoma NSR programs to maintain consistency with Federal requirements and revise the incorporation by reference dates for Federal requirements. We have determined that the following revisions were developed in accordance with the CAA and the EPA's regulations, policy, and guidance for SIP development and NSR permitting. The EPA approves the following as revisions to the Oklahoma SIP:

• Removal of Regulations 1.4.1(a)-(c) and 1.4.2(a)-(d), (f), and (g) adopted on March 30, 1994, submitted May 16, 1994.

• Revisions to OAC 252:4-7-13, Notices, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-4-7-32, Air quality applications—Tier I, adopted on March 25, 2003, effective June 1, 2003, and submitted to the EPA on May 24, 2018.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-4-7-32, Air quality applications—Tier I, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-4-7-33, Air quality applications—Tier II, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Repeal of OAC 252:4, Appendix C—Permitting Process Summary, adopted on June 11, 2001.

• New OAC 252:4, Appendix C—Permitting Process Summary, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-2, Statutory definitions, adopted on June 25, 2020, effective September 15, 2020, and submitted to the EPA on February 9, 2021.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3, Definitions, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-3, Definitions, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-1-4, Units, abbreviations and acronyms, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3, Incorporation by reference, adopted on May 31, 2023, effective September 15, 2023, and submitted to the EPA on January 16, 2024.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3, Incorporation by reference, adopted on June 21, 2024, effective September 16, 2024, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Repeal of OAC 252:100, Appendix Q—Incorporation by reference, adopted on September 15, 2022.

• New OAC 252:100, Appendix Q—Incorporation by reference, adopted on June 21, 2024, effective September 16, 2024, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-1.1, Definitions, adopted on May 1, 2009, effective July 1, 2009, and submitted to the EPA on July 27, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on May 1, 2003, effective June 12, 2003, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on April 28, 2004, effective June 11, 2004, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on March 27, 2007, effective June 15, 2007, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on June 9, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on June 18, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-1.1, Definitions, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on April 28, 2004, effective June 11, 2004, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on March 27, 2008, effective July 1, 2008, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on June 9, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on June 18, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-2, Requirement for permits for minor facilities, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on March 28, 2002, effective June 1, 2002, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on April 28, 2004, effective June 11, 2004, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on March 27, 2008, effective July 1, 2008, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on May 1, 2012, effective July 1, 2012, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-15, Construction permit, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-18, Operating permit, adopted on April 28, 2004, effective June 11, 2004, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-18, Operating permit, adopted on March 27, 2008, effective July 1, 2008, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-18, Operating permit, adopted on May 1, 2012, effective July 1, 2012, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-18, Operating permit, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-60, Permit by rule, adopted on June 19, 2024, effective September 12, 2014, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-60.6, Emergency engine facilities, adopted on June 9, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-7-60.7, Gasoline dispensing facilities and gasoline dispensing facilities with emergency engines, adopted on June 18, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, and submitted to the EPA on September 9, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-1.1, Definitions, adopted on March 27, 2008, effective July 1, 2008, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on March 25, 2003, effective June 1, 2003, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective on June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on April 28, 2006, effective June 15, 2006, and submitted to the EPA on July 16, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on March 24, 2009, effective on July 1, 2009, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on May 3, 2011, effective on July 1, 2011, and submitted to the EPA on February 6, 2012.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on March 29, 2012, effective on July 1, 2012, and submitted to the EPA on January 18, 2013.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on June 13, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, and submitted to the EPA on January 8, 2018.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-2, Definitions, adopted on March 1, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-4, Requirements for construction and operating permits, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-4, Requirements for construction and operating permits, adopted on March 24, 2009, effective July 1, 2009, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-4, Requirements for construction and operating permits, adopted on March 29, 2012, effective July 1, 2012, and submitted to the EPA on January 18, 2013.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-4, Requirements for construction and operating permits, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-4, Requirements for construction and operating permits, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-5, Permit applications, adopted on March 25, 2003, effective June 1, 2003, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-5, Permit applications, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-6, Permit content, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-6.1, General permits, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-7, Permit issuance, adopted on March 30, 2005, effective June 15, 2005, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-7.2, Administrative permit amendments and permit modifications, adopted on March 25, 2003, effective June 1, 2003, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-7.2, Administrative permit amendments and permit modifications, adopted on June 15, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-8, Permit review by EPA and affected states, adopted on March 28, 2002, effective June 1, 2002, and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2010.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-8, Permit review by EPA and affected states, adopted on June 11, 2021, effective September 15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on September 13, 2022.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-36.1, Public participation, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on January 24, 2023.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-8-36.2, Source obligation, adopted on June 21, 2022, effective September 15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on January 24, 2023.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-23-3(a), Applicability, general requirements, adopted on June 21, 2024, effective September 16, 2024, and submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-35-1, Purpose, adopted on June 21, 2024, effective September 16, 2024, submitted to the EPA on May 30, 2025.

• Definitions of “Air contaminants,” “Air pollution,” “Council,” “Director,” and “Person” at 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.) 2-5-104.

• Definitions of “Department,” “Executive Director,” and “Person” at 27A 2-1-102.

The EPA finds that the provisions in OAC 252:4-7-1, 4-7-2, 4-7-3, 4-7-4, 4-7-5, 4-7-6, 4-7-7, 4-7-8, 4-7-9, 4-7-10, 4-7-11, 4-7-12, 4-7-13, 4-7-14, 4-7-15, 4-7-16, 4-7-17, 4-7-18, 4-7-19, and 4-7-31 are applicable to the entirety of the Oklahoma air permit program and the amendatory language table at 40 CFR 52.1920(c) will be modified to reflect this finding and remove the comments from the Explanation column.

The EPA is removing OAC 252:100-5-2.2 from the Oklahoma SIP at 40 CFR 52.1920(c) because the CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) fee requirement has been superseded by the approved Oklahoma part 70 program.

The EPA is removing definitions of “affected source,” “affected unit,” paragraph (E) of “applicable requirement,” “designated representative,” “responsible official,” “small unit,” and “unit” from OAC 252:100-8-2, OAC 252:100-8-4(b)(9), OAC 252:100-8-6(a)(5), and OAC 252:100-8-6.3 from the Oklahoma SIP at 40 CFR 52.1920(c) because these provisions pertain solely to Acid Rain program requirements that are implemented through the approved Oklahoma part 70 program.

The EPA is updating the amendatory language table at 40 CFR 52.1920(c) to correct the citation for OAC 252:100-7-60.1, Cotton gins, and correct the State effective dates for OAC 252:100-5-1, OAC 252:100-8-1, OAC 252:100-8-1.2, OAC 252:100-8-1.3, OAC 252:100-8-1.4, OAC 252:100-8-1.5, OAC 252:100-8-3, OAC 252:100-8-6.2, OAC 252:100-8-7.3, OAC 252:100-8-7.4, OAC 252:100-8-7.5, OAC 252:100-8-30, OAC 252:100-8-37, OAC 252:100-8-38, OAC 252:100-8-50, OAC 252:100-8-53, OAC 252:100-8-54.1, OAC 252:100-8-55, OAC 252:100-8-56.

The EPA is also taking ministerial action to correct an error in our final rule published on January 26, 2026 (91 FR 3046), effective February 25, 2026. In this rule, the EPA finalized our approval of all the revisions to the Open Burning provisions OAC 252:100-13 submitted on November 22, 2024. We inadvertently excluded inclusion of OAC 252:100-13-8.1 from the amendatory instructions for 40 CFR 52.1920(c). We are correcting this omission in this final approval.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions to the Oklahoma regulations for air permitting as described in section IV of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov a (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final action of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This approval of revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that that update the Oklahoma regulations for air permitting will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has Tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments because no actions will be required of Tribal governments. This action will also not preempt Tribal law as no Oklahoma Tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or related Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA offered consultation to Tribal governments that may be affected by this action and provided information about this action. The EPA received no requests for Tribal consultation on the proposed rule.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 31, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1974, as amended, hereafter referred to as the “Act,” 34 U.S.C. 11201 et seq. 34 U.S.C. 11202 specifically authorizes rulemaking.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Program, authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (34 U.S.C. 11201 et seq. ), authorizes HHS to provide grants to public and nonprofit private entities to deliver services to runaway and homeless youth and youth at risk of homelessness. The RHY program includes the Basic Center Program, the Transitional Living Program (including the Maternity Group Home Program), and the Street Outreach Program, which together support emergency shelter, transitional housing, outreach, counseling, and comprehensive supportive services to promote youth safety, well-being, and long-term stability. The RHY program also funds a national communications system, grants for training and technical assistance, and grants for research, evaluation, training, and service projects. HHS has issued regulations for the RHY Program at 45 CFR part 1351.

HHS initially published regulations for the RHY Program on November 20, 1978. Office of Human Development Services, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 43 FR 55634 (Nov. 20, 1978) (codified at 45 CFR pt. 1351). The regulations were most recently amended on December 20, 2016 at Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030. The most recent revisions added program performance standards and provided additional updates to reflect changes in the RHY Act made through the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-378). See Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93030 (Dec. 20, 2016). We are now rescinding several sections of 45 CFR part 1351 to clarify program requirements, reduce unnecessary administrative burden, and better align the regulations with current statutory authority and language, while maintaining program operations and effective management of grant funds.

This final rule rescinds multiple RHY Program regulation sections that can be delineated into two categories: those that are duplicative and those that are unnecessary because they are better suited for a different format.

The duplicative regulation sections are those that carry no legal weight because their requirements are listed elsewhere in applicable law, such as in statute. Duplicative regulations impose no new obligations and offer no new guidance because the authority and requirements are pulled directly from other statutes and regulations. In many cases, the language in the regulation is identical to the language in the RHY Act.

Several of the regulation sections are better suited to a different format, such as a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). These sections either include summaries of program goals or objectives that do not impose any requirements beyond the language in the authorizing statute or they include information generally found in grant documents such as NOFOs. In some cases, the sections merely direct grant applicants and recipients to follow instructions in NOFOs and provide no additional information. These sections are being removed to allow them to be published in the more appropriate format.

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

The purpose of this section is to clarify ACF's intent with respect to the severability of the provisions of this NPRM. As explained above, ACF is removing sections of the RHY regulations because we determined that doing so would make the regulations clearer, less burdensome, and more accessible to the public. To the extent that any portion of the removals are declared invalid by a court, ACF intends for all other provisions of this final rule to remain in effect to the greatest extent possible to ensure that the RHY regulations remain as concise and accessible as possible. The changes address a variety of issues relevant to the Family and Youth Services Bureau. None of the provisions contained herein are central to an overall intent of the proposed rule, nor are any provisions being removed in this final rule dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.

ACF published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on April 6, 2026, (91 FR 17235) proposing revisions to 45 CFR part 1351. ACF provided a 30-day comment period during which interested parties could submit comments in writing electronically through Regulations.gov or via email to the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary.

During the 30-day comment period, ACF received 918 comments from individuals and organizations including students and clergy; human services, educational, and medical professionals; national, state and local runaway and homeless youth focused advocacy organizations, research and policy organizations; and individual provider organizations. All comments received were posted on www.regulations.gov.

Of the 918 submissions received, there were 537 unique comments and 381 are duplicates. Additionally, of the 537 unique comments received, 506 of the comments raise the same concerns about the NPRM with minor distinguishing details describing commenters' personal experiences.. Comments were received from national organizations, advocating on behalf of runaway and homeless youth and RHY service providers.

At the conclusion of the public comment period, ACF analyzed the content of the comments to inform the development of this final rule. To support the analysis of public comments, ACF staff used a large language model, a type of artificial intelligence (AI), as a tool to conduct an initial scan of comment content, sentiment, and language. The AI output was thoroughly analyzed and refined by FYSB program subject matter experts. All comments were reviewed by content experts to determine each commenter's support, opposition, or suggestions concerning the policies proposed in the NPRM.

Public comments reflected a range of perspectives, with some commenters expressing general support for the proposed changes and the majority opposing the proposed rescissions. All responsive comments informed our consideration of the final rule.

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

A couple comments expressed overall support for the proposed changes in the NPRM but did not discuss specific provisions or make any suggestions for change. Several comments expressed opposition to the proposed changes but made no specific suggestions for change. We address the general concerns raised in those comments in this section. Comments addressing specific sections of the regulation proposed for removal are discussed in the section-by-section analysis later in this final rule. Several commenters expressed concern that removing the regulation sections discussed in the NPRM could weaken consistency of RHY program requirements and limits stakeholders' ability to hold the agency accountable for enforcing consistent standards. Commenters raising this issue were primarily advocacy organizations supporting runaway and homeless youth providers and youth at risk of homelessness or who are experiencing homelessness. While we acknowledge commenters' concerns, we do not agree that the proposed rescissions will create inconsistencies in program requirements or enforcement. Most of the regulation sections slated for removal either impose no requirements or merely list program requirements already articulated in the RHY statute at 34 U.S.C. 11201 et seq. or other in federal regulations. See, e.g., 45 CFR 1351.10 (summarizing the RHY program purpose but including no program requirements); 1351.11 (restating program eligibility requirements listed at Sections 11211(a)(1), 11222, and 11261(a) of the RHY Act). Where regulatory language differs from statute, such distinctions may be included in NOFOs without creating inconsistencies in program requirements or limiting enforcement. Grant application reviewers are fully trained on new provisions that may be added to NOFOs, and applicants are encouraged to contact RHY program staff listed in the NOFO with any questions about NOFO content. NOFOs are publicly available and may be easily accessed by any stakeholders seeking to better understand RHY program requirements. Importantly, RHY program-specific performance standards, the basis for most enforcement actions, remain intact. See 45 CFR 1351.30 through 32. ACF declines to make any changes to the proposed rescissions based on commenter concerns about consistency.

Many commenters, primarily representing advocacy organizations, also raised general concerns that the proposed section removals will weaken RHY program clarity and transparency. We acknowledge these concerns but disagree. Removing repetitive sections of the regulation and sections that are better suited for NOFOs makes the remaining regulation sections clearer and easier to follow. RHY stakeholders will no longer need to parse out minor distinctions between statute and regulation to understand program requirements because the RHY regulation will be limited to requirements that are not articulated elsewhere and that carry legal weight rather than, for example, directing grant applicants to follow instructions in the funding opportunity announcement (NOFO) to apply for RHY funding. See 45 CFR 1351.17. ACF will therefore decline to make any changes to the proposed removals based on commenter concerns about clarity or transparency.

Most individual commenters, as well the advocacy organizations that opposed the NPRM, argued that the changes will reduce protections for vulnerable youth, particularly youth who identify as “LGBTQ.” Many of these commenters emphasized negative consequences associated with “conversion therapy” and protecting youth identifying as “LGBTQ” from harm. Commenters raised concerns that the proposed recissions will discourage such youth from seeking RHY-funded services. While most of these comments do not cite a specific section of the RHY regulations, we recognize that these sentiments likely respond to ACF's proposal to remove 45 CFR 1351.16 from regulation. 45 CFR 1351.16(b) prohibits grant recipients from using RHY funds for “any treatment or referral to treatment that aims to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression,” a practice commonly referred to as conversion therapy. We will address general comments about protections for these individuals in this section and provide a more detailed analysis of concerns about removing § 1351.16(b) in in the section-by-section discussion.

ACF maintains that the proposed removals will have no impact on protections for vulnerable youth, including youth who identify as “LGBTQ.” ACF does not discriminate against any individual or group based on any Federally protected classification, including in the administration of the RHY Program. Services are provided to all eligible youth consistent with applicable Federal civil rights laws and program requirements.

Nothing in this rule alters or limits existing nondiscrimination protections or the obligation of recipients to provide safe and appropriate services to all youth served under the program. ACF remains committed to serving all eligible youth per statutory requirements, including youth who are at risk for trafficking, exploitation, and housing instability. We disagree that the proposed rescissions will discourage youth participation. RHY programs, including the Basic Center Program and the Transitional Living Program, must include outreach efforts in accordance with the RHY Act. See 34 U.S.C. 11212(b)(6) (Basic Center Program), 34 U.S.C. 11222(a)(8). ACF will continue to support RHY grant recipients to enhance outreach efforts through guidance and technical assistance in partnership with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity Building Center (RHYTTAC).

Because the proposed recissions do not weaken protections for vulnerable youth or discourage eligible youth from participating in RHY-funded programming, ACF declines to make any changes to the NPRM based on these commenter concerns.

HHS received the following comments about changes proposed to specific subparts of the regulation. Below, HHS identifies each subpart, summarizes the comments, and responds to them accordingly.

This section is proposed for removal because it is unnecessary. This section explains the general purpose of RHY Program grants but provides no instructions to grant applicants or recipients, nor does it impose any new obligations. Thus, this section is not needed in regulation and would better serve grant applicants and recipients if it were moved into the opening of a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and described elsewhere in sub-regulatory guidance.

Comment: HHS received six comments, all of which were from advocacy organizations, opposing the removal of § 1351.10 arguing that the section provides foundational regulatory direction on the purpose of RHY grants, the youth population served, and key service expectations that should not be shifted into annual NOFOs. Commenters argued that § 1351.10 helps anchor the program by identifying core approaches such as Positive Youth Development, services tailored to youth needs, and connections to education and employment, and they argue that removing it could weaken consistency, reduce legal clarity, and erode explicit protections for youth facing barriers to safe services.

Response: While we recognize the value in providing “foundational regulatory direction” for RHY grants, we maintain that this section of the RHY regulation may be removed without impact. As explained above, this section provides no clarifying instructions to grant applicants or recipients, nor does it impose any new obligations. Its removal from regulation cannot jeopardize “explicit protections” for youth because this section does not create any new protections. As recipients of Federal Financial Assistance (FFA), all RHY grant recipients must ensure that the programs they administer do not discriminate on the basis of a participant protected characteristics, including the participant's race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or disability. See 45 CFR 200.300. These protections are enshrined elsewhere in Federal statute and regulation and this section does not affect their applicability.

This section discusses eligibility for RHY Program grants. We are removing it from RHY regulations because it generally duplicates statutory language. This section is not needed in regulation because the statute that authorizes this section (Sections 11211(a)(1), 11222, and 11261(a) of the RHY Act) is already prescriptive in terms of eligibility for grant funds and the regulatory language does not provide additional clarification.

Comment: HHS received three comments addressing removal of § 1351.11 from the RHY regulations. One commenter supported the removal of this section because it appears duplicative and adds little clarity. The other two comments, opposed removal, arguing the regulation is still needed because it clarifies who may apply for RHY grants and preserves the program's boundary with the juvenile justice system. The opposing comments say that the RHY statute does not clearly articulate applicant eligibility, so the regulation confirms that public agencies, private nonprofits, and coordinated networks can participate, while juvenile justice systems cannot; they also warn that removing the section could create confusion for existing grantees, including faith-based organizations.

Response: ACF acknowledges the importance of ensuring that grant applicants and recipients understand eligibility requirements but disagrees that removing this section will cause confusion. This section of the RHY regulations was most recently updated to more closely align with statutory requirements rather than to add new content not found in statute. See Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93041 (Dec. 20, 2016) (“[W]e proposed changes to this section to confirm the regulatory language to the current statute.”). While the prohibition against awarding RHY grants to entities within the juvenile justice system is not explicitly included in the RHY statute, the statute does, as commenters note, make clear that the intent of the RHY program is to develop an “effective system of care . . . outside the welfare system and the law enforcement system.” 34 U.S.C. 11201(4). Furthermore, ACF ensures that each fiscal year NOFO clearly defines who eligible applicants are and, when appropriate, cites specific eligibility criteria provided in RHY Act. Consulting NOFOs, as all grant applicants and recipients must do to receive funding, will also assist faith-based organizations to understand their eligibility. All RHY NOFOs include specific language clarifying that faith-based organizations that otherwise meet eligibility requirements may apply for funding. Referring applicants and grant recipients to all eligibility requirements and restrictions in one place, such as the NOFO, will reduce administrative burden for prospective awardees and will avoid, rather than cause confusion.

This section discusses which applicants receive priority for the RHY Program grant awards. We are removing this section from regulation because it is largely duplicative of statutory text from the RHY Act. In most cases, the language used in this regulation section is identical to the language describing grant eligibility requirements in the statute. See 34 U.S.C. 11213(b) (priority requirements for the Basic Center Program); 34 U.S.C. 11222(b) (priority requirements for the Transitional Living Program); 34 U.S.C. 11261(b) (priority requirements for the Street Outreach Program); 34 U.S.C. 11231 (priority requirements for the national communications system) 34 U.S.C. 11243(b) (priority requirements for research, evaluation, demonstration and service projects).

Where the regulatory language has modified statutory language slightly, such as at 45 CFR 1351.12(d) (expanding the statutory requirement for the national communications grant to prioritize applicants with experience providing telephonic services to runaway and homeless youth to prioritize applicants who have experience providing “electronic communication services”), distinctions can be explained via NOFO. NOFOs can likewise appropriately articulate 45 CFR 1351.12(f), which requires the Secretary to incorporate program performance standards listed at 45 CFR 1351.30 through 32 into grantmaking, monitoring, and evaluation. This subsection already states that NOFOs will include such content.

Comment: HHS received three comments addressing the removal of § 1351.12. One commenter supported removal and agreed that the regulation section does not add new information or clarity to the statutory requirements concerning applicant priorities. The other two commenters, which were organizations representing a collection of stakeholders, argued that certain subsections add meaningful clarification that should be retained, especially language allowing flexibility on preferred Basic Center Program (BCP) award amounts, broadening priority for the national communications system beyond telephone services to include internet, mobile, and other technology-driven services, and preserving the regulatory requirement to incorporate performance standards into NOFOs, monitoring, and evaluation. A commenter also expressed concern that the phrase “or such figure as Congress may specify” would no longer appear in regulation following the requirement that ACF prioritize applicants requesting $200,000 or less in funding.

Response: As explained above, most of the language in this section “mirrors the statutory language exactly.” Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93041 (Dec. 20, 2016). ACF disagrees that the minor distinctions between statutory and regulatory language concerning priorities justify retaining this section of the RHY regulation. ACF has already incorporated the regulatory language that differs from statute at 45 CFR 1351.12(d) and (f) into NOFOs. The NOFO supporting the National Communication System has been revised to ensure services meet modern communication technologies to include adding text and chat functionality, which were not envisioned when the RHY Act was first introduced. ACF recognizes The RHY Performance Standards remain enshrined in regulation and grant recipients must agree to adhere to the Performance Standards to accept RHY funds. Additionally, removing the phrase “or such figure as Congress may specify” has no impact on the statutory requirement to prioritize applicants seeking $200,000 or less; Congress always has authority to modify statutory requirements, and removing this section from regulation allows ACF to respond more efficiently if Congress does raise the amount specified in the RHY Act. For these reasons, we decline to make any changes to the proposal to remove this section from regulation. §  1351.13 What are the Federal and non-Federal match requirements under a Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant?

This section discusses match requirements for RHY Program grants. We are removing this section from the RHY regulation because it duplicates statutory match requirements almost exactly. See 34 U.S.C. 11274. This section does not assist the public to better understand the statutory match requirement and therefore serves no purpose.

Comment: HHS received one comment supporting removal of § 1351.13 but no specific rationale was provided.

Response: Both the RHY statute and annual NOFOs effectively communicate that the federal share of each funded project is 90 percent of the total project cost, and the remaining 10 percent must be met by the grant recipient.

This section discusses the grant period for RHY Program grants. We are removing this section because it is unnecessary. Information about grant periods already appears in NOFOs and is better suited there. Furthermore, this Section is ambiguous because it states, “generally the grant will initially be for one year.” Corresponding language in NOFOs is therefore already necessary to inform grant applicants and recipients about the specific period of their grants. NOFO language communicates that grants are awarded as a three year period of performance with three distinct one-year budget periods.

Comments: ACF received three comments opposing the removal of § 1351.14 arguing that the section still serves an important operational purpose by giving stable regulatory direction for NOFO development and grantee expectations, even when NOFOs vary from year to year. The commenters emphasize subsection (b), which details the duration of grants, arguing that it adds useful guidance on continuation awards by making clear that multi-year grants should be reviewed annually for satisfactory performance, essential for outcomes, accountability, and responsible use of limited RHY funds.

Response: ACF agrees that providing clear information about grant duration is important but declines to make any changes to our proposal to remove this section from regulation. RHY NOFOs provide sufficient clarity about project periods, deeming this section unnecessary. Additionally, we do not anticipate that removal of this section will have any impact on grant recipient performance or accountability. ACF ensures responsible use of RHY Program funds by utilizing a robust monitoring process that includes desk and onsite reviews of grant recipients' compliance with program requirements and performance standards. RHY grant recipients are also required to submit client-level and performance data through established reporting processes, including quarterly Runaway and Homeless Youth—Homeless Management Information System (RHY-HMIS) uploads, Performance Progress Reports (PPRs), and other required reporting. Information gathered through monitoring and data reporting may be used in decisions about future RHY funding opportunities. Applicants are expected to look to NOFOs for relevant grant terms, and centralizing requirements in one place will reduce the administrative burden on applicants.

This section discusses allowable costs for RHY Program grants. We are removing this section because grant terms and conditions, including allowable expenditures of a grant, are best suited for NOFOs and other grant documents and in most cases, already appear in those documents. Including them in regulation is unnecessary.

Comment: We received four comments, all of which came from advocacy organizations, specific to § 1351.15. The commenters opposed removal and argued that the section should remain in regulation because it gives stable guidance on allowable costs, including support for staff training, and helps providers plan, budget, and maintain consistent services across grant cycles. Commenters said that this clarity is especially important for smaller and community-based RHY grant recipients that rely on regulatory language for fiscal decision-making, staff onboarding, compliance, and audit defense, and they raise concerns that moving cost rules only into NOFOs could create confusion, inconsistency, and service instability from year to year.

Response: ACF acknowledges commenter sentiment about the importance of providing clear, consistent guidance to grant recipients, particularly small, community-based grant recipients, about allowable program costs. We do not agree, however, that removing this section of the RHY regulation will negatively impact grant recipient access to such information. Grant terms and conditions, including allowable expenditures of a grant, are already included in NOFOs and other grant documents. Grant recipients will already be looking to NOFOs for relevant terms, and to win future awards, are incentivized to use awarded funds in the most efficient manner. In addition, grant recipients must meet the terms and conditions of their Federal award.

Furthermore, while § 1351.15 includes several examples of allowable costs for RHY programs, the list is not exhaustive. Rather, all Federal grant recipients are bound by cost principles outlined in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, which require all allowable costs to be necessary, reasonable, and allocable the grant award. See 2 CFR 200.403-405. Retaining § 1351.15 in regulation would still require RHY grant recipients to determine whether unlisted costs meet these Federal cost allocation standards, so its removal does not impose a burden on grant recipients or create additional confusion. For these reasons, we will proceed with removing this section from RHY regulations.

This section discusses unallowable costs for RHY Program grants. As with 45 CFR 1351.15, we are removing this section because grant terms and conditions, including lists of unallowable expenditures of a grant, are best suited for NOFOs and other grant documents. NOFOs already include lists of unallowable expenses, including those listed in this section.

This section is also duplicative in part. 45 CFR 1351.1 already prohibits the activities described in 45 CFR 1351.16(b) under the definitions of “counseling services” and “health care services,” there is no need to include the same expense prohibition repeatedly in the RHY regulations.

Comments: Most of the comments that we received on the NPRM either directly or indirectly raised concerns about removing § 1351.16 from regulation, particularly § 1351.16(b). Seven advocacy organizations opposed removal of this section. These commenters expressed general concerns about removing regulatory guidance on unallowable costs, asserting that the section provides stable, practical guidance on allowable and unallowable costs that grant recipients—especially smaller community-based organizations—use for budgeting, compliance, training, and audits. One commenter reasoned that ACF's decision to include a limitation on using RHY funds for constructing or operating existing facilities that are used “partially or incidentally” for RHY services in the 2016 Final Rule was because grant applicants had proposed inappropriate budgets due to unclear NOFOs, so retaining this section in regulation was necessary to preserve clarity.

As discussed above, most commenters opposed removing § 1351.16(b), arguing that this subsection's explicit prohibition on efforts to change a young person's “sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” is a critical youth safety protection that should not be weakened or left to NOFO language alone. Many commenter contend that including this prohibition in the definition section of the RHY regulation (45 CFR 1351.1) is insufficient, because the funding prohibition included in the definition of “counseling services” may not fully cover harmful conduct by non-clinical staff., Commenters expressed concern that removing § 1351.16 could create confusion, increase compliance risk, and discourage vulnerable youth, particularly those identifying as “LGBTQ,” from seeking services. Some commenters also viewed removal of this subsection as an endorsement of conversion therapy, or “a treatment that aims to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

Response: We recognize that our proposal to remove § 1351.16 from RHY regulations raises concerns for some commenters. Nonetheless, we disagree that removing this section will create instability for grant applicants and recipients or that it will erode protections for vulnerable youth. We offer the following explanations for our decision to proceed with removal.

First, as with § 1351.15, grant terms and conditions, including unallowable expenditures of a grant, are already included in NOFOs and other grant documents. Grant applicants and recipients must rely on NOFOs to understand the terms of their grant, and providing clear, detailed information about allowable and unallowable expenses in NOFOs is the best way to ensure that grant applicants and recipients receive all relevant information. While commenters pointed to earlier unclear NOFOs as the 2016 RHY Final Rule's justification for including limitations on using capital and operating costs for facilities only partially or incidentally used for RHY programs, the Final Rule draws no such conclusion. See Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93042-43 (Dec. 20, 2016). Rather, the Final Rule states that ACF has “seen proposed project budgets that include disproportionate allocations of facility-wide or overhead costs to Runaway and Homeless Youth projects that use only a small proportion of the facility.” Id. We maintain that NOFOs are the most appropriate place to explain limitations on capital and operating costs with RHY funds. Additionally, ACF has since undergone significant efforts in recent years to ensure that NOFOs are simple, clear, and accessible to grant applicants. See 89 FR 30046. Even if funding opportunity announcements were insufficient to provide applicants with clear funding guidance when the 2016 Final Rule was published, ACF's updated efforts to streamline NOFOs will ensure that grant applicants and recipients receive a clear explanation of allowable and unallowable expenses without the need to include this information in regulation.

Further, as with § 1351.15, the list of unallowable expenses in § 1351.16 is not exhaustive; the section lists only two examples of unallowable expenses under the RHY program. Yet, all Federal grant recipients are bound by cost principles outlined in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, which includes a long list of specific unallowable costs not referenced in the RHY regulations. Grant recipients must still confirm that all costs are allowable under Part 200, Subpart E, so § 1351.16's presence in the RHY regulations creates, rather than reduces burden for grant recipients.

We next address commenter concerns about removing § 1351.16(b) from RHY regulations and the impact that such removal would have on vulnerable youth, including those who identify as “LGBTQ.” § 1351.16(b) was added to the RHY regulations in the 2016 Final Rule based on one commenter's request to specifically prohibit conversion therapy. ACF responded that “[w]e are not aware of any instance where any RHY grantee has used `conversion therapy' or `reparative therapy' to aim to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. However, we agree it would be wholly inappropriate for this to take place and are amending this final rule to explicitly exclude, by definition, conversion therapy from allowable services and health care services. Additionally, we have revised the final rule by adding a new § 1351.16(b) . . . .” Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93045 (Dec. 20, 2016).

As explained in the 2016 Final Rule, § 1351.16(b) is not the only place in regulation that a prohibition on using RHY funds for conversion therapy appears. Both the definition of “counseling services” and the definition of “health care services” explicitly prohibit “any treatment or referral to treatment that aims to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” See 45 CFR 1351.1. The prohibition against using RHY funds remains enshrined in regulation. Removing § 1351.16(b) therefore cannot and should not be viewed as an endorsement of conversion therapy, nor will it weaken protections for vulnerable youth. ACF remains unaware of any instance when RHY funds have been used for conversion therapy, and we maintain that the prohibitions in § 1351.1, which include referrals for such services, are sufficient to prevent grant recipients from using RHY funds for this purpose even when non-clinical staff are involved.

This section discusses the process of applying for RHY Program grants. This section is removed as it is unnecessary; it merely directs grant applicants to follow the instructions in the NOFO (references in regulation as “funding opportunity announcements”) without further detail or clarification.

Comments: ACF received one comment opposed to the removal of § 1351.17 arguing that removal will lead to the destabilization of services and confusion related to requirements. The comment raised concerns that annual changes in NOFO content could be confusing for programs applying to and receiving RHY grants.

Response: We acknowledge the commenter's concerns but disagree that removing this section from the RHY regulations will cause any confusion or destabilization. § 1351.17 provides no substantive guidance and instructs applicants to “follow instructions included in the funding opportunity announcement, which describe procedures for receipt and review of applications.” The section directs applicants to follow the NOFO, which they are already obligated to do. Because NOFOs are issued on an annual basis and may vary from year to year, applicants are expected to review the instructions for preparing an application and the specific requirements set forth in the NOFO applicable to the relevant fiscal year when preparing their submissions. We will proceed with removing this section from the RHY regulations.

This section is removed because it is duplicative. The section restates a list of Federal regulations applicable to RHY grant recipients and subrecipients without explanation of why each regulation is flagged yet excludes other Federal regulations that apply to all grant recipients and subrecipients. See Runaway and Homeless Youth, 81 FR 93030, 93044-45 (Dec. 20, 2016) (“This new list does not attempt to list all of the Federal laws and regulations . . . that pertain to organizations that may be grant awardees.”). The listed regulations apply to RHY grant recipients and subrecipients (and in many cases, all HHS or Federal agency grant recipients and subrecipients) regardless of whether they are included in the RHY regulations, and the arbitrary nature by which the listed regulations were selected for inclusion demonstrates further that this section serves no purpose.

Comment: ACF received two comments regarding the removal of § 1351.20, one supporting removal and one opposing removal. The supporting commenter agreed that the protections detailed in the list of government-wide and HHS-wide regulations can be found elsewhere. A national advocacy organization opposed removal of this section because it contended that § 1351.20 serves as a centralized reminder of RHY grant recipients' civil rights and nondiscrimination responsibilities. The commenter argued that deleting this section could reduce clarity on legal obligations applicants and signal less emphasis on civil rights compliance even if the underlying legal obligations still remain. The opposing commenter expressed concern that removing this regulation would threaten civil rights entirely without regulation to create enforcement.

Response: We agree that grant applicants and recipients must clearly understand their legal obligations but disagree that removing this section will make such obligations more difficult to understand. All Federal grant recipients, including RHY grant recipients, are required to adhere to all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements regardless of whether they are expressly stated in the program regulation. See 2 CFR 200.300. Applicable civil rights laws are also incorporated in all ACF NOFOs and in the ACF Standard Terms and Conditions, incorporated into Notices of Awards for all ACF discretionary grant recipients, including all RHY grant recipients. See ACF Standard Terms and Conditions, https://acf.gov/grants/manage-grant/grant-award/award-terms. As such, we will remove § 1351.20 from regulation.

This section discusses requirements for the Basic Center Program (BCP). This section is removed because it is unnecessary. Grant requirements are better suited for NOFOs or other grant documents, such as supplemental terms and conditions. Further, this section already directs grant applicants and recipients to the NOFO (referred to as the “funding opportunity announcement”) for additional requirements, making any guidance provided by the regulation incomplete. See 45 CFR 1351.24(f).

Comment: ACF received eight comments, all from advocacy organizations, opposing the removal of § 1351.24 arguing that it sets the core, legally enforceable baseline for BCP operations and should not be shifted into NOFOs that may change from year to year. Commenters noted that § 1351.24 provides stable program requirements for crisis response and service quality, including 24/7 intake and shelter access, trauma-informed practice, services for youth and families both inside and outside the shelter setting, and prompt family reunification efforts; they argued that removing it could create confusion, inconsistency, and weaker accountability for grant recipients across funding cycles. One commenter expressed concerns that moving the requirements in § 1351.24 to NOFOs could result in future administrations eliminating the service requirements and expectations.

Response: We agree with commenters that clear program requirements are necessary for grant recipients to effectively carry out the BCP and other RHY grant programs, but we disagree that regulation is the best place for these requirements and, as such, decline to change our proposal to remove this section from RHY regulations. The requirements articulated in § 1351.24 are rooted in the RHY statute, so they will not become, as one commenter contends, “entirely discretionary” if they are moved to the BCP NOFO. The RHY Act requires BCP grant recipients to “develop adequate plans for contacting the parents or other relatives of the youth and ensuring the safe return of the youth according to the best interests of the youth, for contacting local government officials pursuant to informal arrangements established with such officials by the runaway and homeless youth center and for providing for other appropriate alternative living arrangements.” 34 U.S.C. 11212(b)(3). The Act also requires BCP grant recipients to “develop an adequate plan for providing counseling and aftercare services to such youth, for encouraging the involvement of their parents or legal guardians in counseling, and for ensuring, as possible, that aftercare services will be provided to those youth who are returned beyond the State in which the runaway and homeless youth center is located.” 34 U.S.C. 11212(b)(5). The requirements in § 1351.24 provide more detail than the statutory mandates but may be appropriately moved to NOFOs. Because the requirements are closely tied to the statute, commenter concerns that future administrations may fundamentally change them once they are moved to NOFOs are unfounded. Additionally, centralizing requirements in the NOFO reduces the burden for applicants, who must already review NOFOs in the regular course of applying for grants, to fulfill both best practice and grant requirements.

This section discusses additional requirements for the Transitional Living Program (TLP) and Maternity Group Home (MGH) grant. This section is removed because it is unnecessary. Grant requirements are better suited for NOFOs or other grant documents, such as supplemental terms and conditions. Further, this section already directs grant applicants and recipients to the NOFO (referred to as the “funding opportunity announcement”) for additional requirements, making any guidance provided by the regulation incomplete. See 45 CFR 1351.25(b).

Comment: ACF received eight comments, all from legal and advocacy organizations, opposing the removal of § 1351.25 arguing that it provides an essential regulatory floor for TLP and MGH requirements. As with comments concerning § 1351.24, commenters asserted that removing these requirements from regulation and shifting them to NOFOs would create instability, confusion, and uneven expectations across funding cycles, while weakening the consistent minimum standards that RHY grant recipients rely on for service delivery, compliance, and partnership coordination. Several of the commenters stated that TLP requirements should remain explicit because they define the core model of care for youth, including supportive services tied to long-term stability, and that consolidation would blur important distinctions between RHY program types.

Response: We acknowledge commenter concerns about the importance of the requirements in this section and recognize the necessity of providing consistent, comprehensive guidance for TLP and MGH grant implementation. Nonetheless, we disagree that moving these requirements to NOFOs will create instability, inconsistency, or otherwise weaken RHY grant requirements and intend to remove this section of regulation. Like the BCP requirements in § 1351.24, the TLP and MGH requirements listed in this section expand on requirements in the RHY Act. See 34 U.S.C. 11222(a). The differences between the statutory and regulatory requirements are minimal enough that NOFOs are an appropriate mechanism for providing the additional details currently available in § 1351.25. ACF maintains that such grant requirements are better suited for NOFOs or other grant documents than regulations. Additionally, centralizing requirements in one location, such as the NOFO, reduces the burden for applicants to fulfill both best practice and grant requirement.

This section discusses requirements for Street Outreach Program (SOP). This section is removed because it is unnecessary. Grant requirements are better suited for NOFOs or other grant documents, such as supplemental terms and conditions. Further, this Section already directs grant applicants and recipients to the NOFO (referred to as the “funding opportunity announcement”) for additional requirements, making any guidance provided by the regulation incomplete. See 45 CFR 1351.27(c).

Comment: Eight commenters, all of which were advocacy or legal organizations, oppose removal and describe the section as an important regulatory anchor for the SOP. Commenters argue that it clarifies the distinct purpose of the SOP in relation to other RHY programs, keeps core duties explicit, such as helping youth leave the streets, make safer choices, build trust, and connect to shelter and services, and preserves a consistent minimum standard that should not be left solely to changing NOFO language. Several of these commenters also argue that removing § 1351.27 could create inconsistent expectations across funding cycles and weaken accountability for serving vulnerable youth. One commenter, a national advocacy organization representing several stakeholders, noted that the requirements listed in § 1351.27 are not listed in the RHY Act.

Response: We recognize the importance of distinguishing the SOP from other RHY grant programs and the necessity of listing core duties for the program, but we disagree that removing § 1351.27 from the RHY regulations will have the negative impact that the commenters contemplate. We will proceed with removing this section from the RHY regulations. As with §§ 1351.24 and 1351.25, ACF maintains that grant requirements are better suited for NOFOs or other grant documents, such as supplemental terms and conditions. ACF can still ensure that grant applicants and recipients recognize SOP's unique role in the RHY Program if its program requirements are listed in NOFOs rather than in regulation, and, while NOFOs may change annually, we do not believe commenter concerns that program requirements will become unstable as a result is justified.

The statutory authorization for the SOP is less specific than the authorization for the BCP, TLP, and MGH programs. 34 U.S.C. 11261, which authorizes the SOP, does not include detail for the kinds of services that grant recipients must provide beyond a directive to provide “street-based services to runaway and homeless, and street youth, who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being subjected to, sexual abuse, prostitution, sexual exploitation, severe forms of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 7102(9) of Title 22), or sex trafficking (as defined in section 7102(10) of Title 22).” Yet, while § 1351.27 provides more detail about what the required “street-based services” must include, such as “services designed to assist clients in leaving the streets, making healthy choices, and building trusted relationships,” the regulation section still leaves significant ambiguity about the nature of such services and how those services should be delivered. Including the requirements listed in § 1351.27 in NOFOs instead of regulation will therefore not weaken RHY program requirements or jeopardize the standards of the SOP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects over that threshold must also seek input from State, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when regulations have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.” Similarly, ACF's Tribal Consultation Policy says that consultation is triggered for any legislative proposal, new rule adoption, or other policy change that significantly affects Tribes, meaning there exists a reasonable presumption that it has or may have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, on the amount or duration of ACF program funding, on the delivery of ACF programs or services to one or more Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, ACF amends 45 CFR part 1351 as follows: