Table of Contents I. Background II. Section-by-Section Analysis III. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 14192 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under Executive Order 13175 H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 L. Congressional Notification IV. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy I. Background

The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend the Department's Financial Assistance Regulations at 2 CFR part 910. Specifically, DOE is amending part 910 to prescribe responsibilities, requirements, and procedures for non-Federal entities to identify, evaluate, resolve, and report conflicts of interest, conflicts of commitment, and organizational conflicts of interest in Federal financial assistance applications and awards, as those terms are defined in this final rule.

This final rule implements Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies regarding the establishment of conflict of interest (COI) policies for Federal awards by codifying existing DOE policy, consistent with National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33)  1 and the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-167; August 9, 2022).

DOE is required to establish COI policies for Federal awards pursuant to 2 CFR 200.112, which specifies a non-Federal entity recipient or sub-recipient of a Federal financial assistance award must disclose in writing any potential COI to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy.

On December 20, 2021, DOE issued an interim COI policy  2 addressing COI and organizational conflicts of interest. The interim COI policy has been incorporated in and made enforceable through the Special Terms and Conditions for DOE financial assistance awards. The standards established in the interim COI policy provide a reasonable expectation that the design, conduct, and reporting of projects funded wholly or in part under DOE financial assistance awards ( e.g., a grant, cooperative agreement, or technology investment agreement) will be free from bias resulting from COI or conflict of commitment (COC). 3 To minimize the implementation burden on non-Federal entities, the interim COI policy largely aligned with the long-standing COI regulations established by the Public Health Service (PHS) at 42 CFR part 50, subpart F, which are applicable to research and development entities that include R&D funded by Public Health Service grants or cooperative agreements.

On June 18, 2024, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to codify in regulation the interim COI policy, COC requirements, and organizational conflict of interest requirements. See 89 FR 51460 (June 2024 NOPR). Comments were received from the following:

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase in this final rule provides the location of the item in the public record. 4

The requirements adopted in this final rule are codified in subpart C to 2 CFR part 910 (Subpart C). The requirements regarding COI, COC, and organizational conflicts of interest (OCI)  5 generally apply to non-Federal entities applying and receiving financial assistance awards from DOE as described in 2 CFR 910.122. Subpart C will not be applicable to applicants to or recipients of financial assistance under the programs of the DOE Office of Indian Energy, given that office's statutory mission to maximize the development and deployment of energy solutions for the benefit of American Indians and Alaska Natives; the unique sovereign status of Tribes; the practical limitations such regulations would present Tribes serving their communities, which in certain instances are small and remote; and consideration of traditional Tribal practices.

DOE program offices may tailor as appropriate the COI, COC, and OCI provisions for individuals applying for or receiving a DOE financial assistance award in their individual capacity. Upon the effective date of this final rule, the regulations at 2 CFR part 910, subpart C will supersede the interim COI policy, FAL No. 2022-02.

DOE is amending chapter IX of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations to add subpart C. Subpart C provides the general requirement for applicants for and recipients of Federal financial assistance from DOE to maintain a COI and COC policy; definitions relevant to the COI and COC policy requirements; and for the disclosure of certain COI, COC, and OCI, by applicants and recipients. Beginning October 1, 2024, updates to several parts of the OMB Guidance for Grants and Agreements (now called the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance) located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations went into effect. See 89 FR 30046; April 22, 2024. In the June 2024 NOPR, DOE stated that it would consider conforming changes to the regulations proposed in the June 2024 NOPR based on the finalized OMB guidance once effective, as appropriate. See 89 FR 51460, 51461. This final rule uses terminology and citations consistent with the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.

Generally, commenters supported the codification of COI requirements in regulation to ensure the integrity of projects funded by DOE financial assistance, and stated that precise definitions, clear reporting, investigation, and transparency rules serve only to improve the financial assistance process. (UC, No. 6 at 1; Clean Future, No. 1 at 1; Purdue, No. 20 at 1)

Certain commenters expressed concern that parts of the proposed rule were duplicative and redundant in the face of existing, similar Federal requirements. (UC No. 6 at 1-3; AAU et al., No. 3  6 at 1, 4-5; Purdue, No. 20 at 2; UW-Madison, No. 10 at 1) Commenters requested DOE adopt the interim COI policy with modifications to align it with the PHS standards established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) already adopted by some organizations. ( Id. ) Commenters claimed that complying with DOE's proposed rule would be unreasonably burdensome, and asserted DOE's proposal was inconsistent with other Agency rules contrary to broader goals of Federal alignment of COI policy. ( Id. )

UC and AAU et al. requested a one-year lead time to allow institutions sufficient time to update their policies, stated insufficient lead time would make compliance impractical, and the one-year lead time provided by PHS when establishing its COI regulations. (UC, No. 6 at 8; AAU et al., No. 3 at 8)

The regulations adopted in this final rule generally codify DOE's existing requirements applicable to DOE's financial assistance awards since 2022. See FAL No. 2022-02. Additionally, the final rule establishes requirements substantively similar to PHS. Given that this final rule largely reflects existing requirements, the regulations adopted in this final rule are effective 30 days following publication in the Federal Register .

As discussed in the following sections, DOE is adopting the COI, COC, and OCI requirements generally as proposed. The final rule codifies and replaces the interim COI policy, which avoids duplication of requirements. The final rule aligns with the COI, COC, and OCI requirements currently applicable to recipients of DOE financial assistance awards, and provides additional details related to the mitigation and reporting of conflicts. Additionally, the adopted COI, COC, and OCI regulations are based on and do not conflict with the PHS requirements. This final rule aligns with the objectives of Executive Order 14303, “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” specifically for science to be conducted without conflicts of interest. ( See 90 FR 22601; May 23, 2025).

New 2 CFR part 910, subpart C as adopted in this final rule consists of §§ 910.200 through 910.270 and appendix A as set forth below:

In the June 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed definitions applicable to the new subpart C. Specifically, DOE proposed to define conflict of commitment (COC), conflict of interest (COI), covered individual, financial interest, other support, principal investigator (PI), project, and significant financial interest. See 89 FR 51460, 51464-51466. For the reasons provided in the June 2024 NOPR and provided in the following paragraphs, DOE is adopting the definitions as proposed in the June 2024 NOPR with certain changes as discussed in this section.

AAU et al. requested DOE remove examples from the regulatory definition of conflict of commitment, recommending that examples be reserved for guidance to allow more practical implementation. (AAU et al., No. 3, at 5-6) AAU et al. also requested DOE delete reference to certain examples ( i.e., obligations to improperly share information with, or to withhold information from, an employer or DOE). ( Id. at 6) AAU et al. further requested DOE remove references to pending employment from the definition of conflict of commitment, asserting it is practically impossible for institutions to identify or mitigate COCs in this area, as researchers do not typically share plans to seek other employment with their current employers. ( Id. )

DOE is maintaining the examples in the conflict of commitment definition as proposed. Inclusion of examples in the regulatory text facilitates compliance and avoids the need to consult multiple sources. Obligations to improperly share or withhold information present significant risks to the integrity of DOE funded projects and therefore merit inclusion as an example. The regulations adopted in this final rule specify the criteria required of COC policies adopted by a non-Federal entity. Included in the criteria is a requirement for each covered individual who is participating in a DOE Federal financial assistance award update disclosures on an annual basis and as soon as any new actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC arises. To the extent pending employment results in an actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC, a covered individual would be obligated to report the COI or COC to the non-Federal entity. Accordingly, DOE is including a reference to pending employment in definition of conflict or commitment and is adopting the definition of that term as proposed.

DOE proposed conflict of interest to mean a situation in which a covered individual or the spouse or a child of the covered individual has a significant financial interest or financial relationship, whether with a domestic or foreign entity, that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, reporting or funding of a project or other Federal financial assistance award-related activities. See 89 FR 51460, 51465. Examples of situations that may give rise to a COI include, but are not limited to, holding an Executive position, director position, or equity over a certain dollar amount in a company that stands to benefit from Federal financial assistance award-related activities, receiving financial compensation in the form of consulting payments or payment for services from a company that stands to benefit from Federal financial assistance award-related activities, or intellectual property rights or royalties from such rights whose value may be affected by the outcome of Federal financial assistance award-related activities. Id.

Commenters objected to the proposed definition of COI, asserting that it does not align with the PHS definition. (UC, No. 6 at 3, 7; AAU et al., No. 3 at 6) UC and AAU et al. stated that such inconsistency would require costly realignment of institutional policies. Commenters also recommended removing examples from the regulatory text and placing them in guidance to allow flexibility for real-world circumstances. ( Id. )

The definition of COI as proposed in the June 2024 NOPR is substantively the same as the PHS term, which is defined as a significant financial interest that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, or reporting of PHS-funded research. See 42 CFR 50.603. Both the DOE proposed definitions and the PHS definitions specify which individuals' interests must be considered ( e.g., the spouse or a child of the covered individual in addition to the covered individual)—DOE in the proposed definition of conflict of interest and PHS in the definition of significant financial interest definition.

DOE is maintaining the examples in the definition of conflict of interest. Including examples in the regulations avoids the need for applicants and recipients to consult additional documents when determining the applicability of the requirements.

For the reasons provided in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the definition of conflict of interest as proposed in the June 2024 NOPR.

In the June 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed covered individual to mean any individual, regardless of title or position, who: (1) Contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the development or execution ( e.g., purpose, design, conduct, or reporting) of a project funded by DOE or proposed for funding by DOE; and, (2) Is designated as a covered individual by DOE. See 89 FR 51460, 51465. DOE proposed specifically designating any principal investigator (PI), project director (PD), co-principal investigator (Co-PI), co-project director (Co-PD), or project manager; and any individual (including an individual at the masters or baccalaureate level) that contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the development or execution of a subject project that is listed by the non-Federal entity in the application for Federal financial assistance, approved budget, progress report, or any other report submitted to DOE by the non-Federal entity regarding the subject project. Id.

Several commenters urged narrowing the definition of covered individual to focus on individuals with significant influence over project design or execution. (UC, No. 6 at 4, 7-8; Washington University, No. 11, 1-2; AAU et al., No. 3, at 7-8; UW-Madison, No. 10 at 1). Commenters asserted that including all participants, regardless of role, creates unnecessary administrative burden. ( Id. )

Under the proposed definition, a covered individual would be an individual with significant influence over project design or execution. To clarify further that the covered individual definition requires project level control, DOE is defining covered individual as an individual who contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the development or execution of the scope of work of a project. The adopted definition also specifies DOE designation applies to individuals for whom a current and pending support disclosure and/or biosketch/resume is submitted with an application for financial assistance. Submission of these forms indicates an individual has sufficient involvement to warrant inclusion as a covered individual.

As adopted in this final rule, covered individual means any individual, regardless of title or position, who: (1) Contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the development or execution of the scope of work of a project funded by DOE or proposed for funding by DOE; and, (2) is designated as a covered individual by DOE. Additionally, the final rule designates as covered individuals any principal investigator (PI), project director (PD), co-principal investigator (Co-PI), co-project director (Co-PD), project manager, and any individual regardless of title that is functionally performing as a PI, PD, Co-PI, Co-PD, or project manager; and persons designated in the applicable Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) or terms and conditions of the Federal financial assistance award. Submission of a current and pending support disclosure and/or biosketch/resume for a particular person serves as an acknowledgement that DOE designates that person as a covered individual.

The adopted definition remains consistent with consideration of an individual's responsibilities in the PHS definition of investigator, which covers individuals responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of research funded by PHS. See, 42 CFR 50.603. Additionally, the definition adopted in this final rule is consistent with the use of covered individual under the implementation of NPSM-33 and reflects applicants and recipients of DOE funding may use different titles and terminology than those under PHS funding. The adopted definition also provides DOE flexibility to designate additional individuals depending on the sensitivity of a project and potential research security concerns.

The prime applicant is responsible for assessing the applicability of the covered individual definition against each person listed on an application for financial assistance from DOE. Further, the prime applicant is responsible for identifying any such individual to DOE for designation as a covered individual, if not already designated by DOE as described above.

Regarding the definition of significant financial interest, commenters recommended a de minimis disclosure threshold of $5,000 for certain categories ( e.g., intellectual property interests, reimbursed travel), noting that requiring disclosure of smaller amounts diverts resources from higher risk oversight. (UC, No. 6 at 4-5, 7; Washington University, No. 11 at 2; AAU et al., No. 3 at 10)

As explained by HHS when establishing a comparable definition of significant financial interest, requiring the disclosure of the value of travel reimbursements could be difficult, particularly in the case of sponsored travel, which is paid on behalf of the covered individual and not reimbursed by the covered individual, so that the exact monetary value may not be readily available. See 76 FR 53256, 53265 (September 26, 2011). HHS identified similar difficulties in determining the precise value of intellectual property interests. Id.

Because of the difficulty in determining the monetary value of sponsored travel and intellectual property interests, a de minimis threshold would risk creating uncertainty when determining compliance. Moreover, applying a de minimis threshold could potentially lead to additional burden in determining whether the threshold is exceeded ( e.g., covered individuals would need to obtain estimates or appraisals to determine whether a significant financial interest existed).

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE adopts the definition of significant financial interest as proposed and consistent with the definition established by HHS.

The proposed definition of significant financial interest includes consideration of other support, for which DOE separately proposed a definition. DOE proposed other support to mean all resources made available to a covered individual in support of and/or related to all of their professional research (including basic and fundamental research), development, demonstration, and/or deployment efforts, including resources provided directly to the covered individual rather than through the research organization, and regardless of whether or not they have monetary value ( e.g., even if the support received is only in-kind, such as office/laboratory space, equipment, supplies, or employees). See 89 FR 51460, 51465. The proposed definition further provided the term includes resource and/or financial support from all foreign and domestic entities, including but not limited to, gifts provided with terms or conditions, financial support for laboratory personnel, and participation of student and visiting researchers and visiting scholars supported by other sources of funding. Id.

AAU et al. opposed inclusion of a definition for other support, describing it as redundant and a source of compliance uncertainty. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 8) DOE proposed a definition of other support recognizing certain resources made available to a covered individual may not readily be characterized as current or pending support, and that such support has the potential to create a conflict. There may be instances in which support could be characterized as either other support or as current and pending support. This potential overlap does not impact the reporting required by a covered individual as reporting does not require further categorization of a significant financial interest.

DOE is adopting language to clarify other support includes gifts provided without terms or conditions. This clarification is consistent with what is required to be reported under the Current and Pending Financial Assistance Letter 2022-04. Accordingly, DOE is establishing a definition for other support as proposed.

Section 910.210 establishes the applicability of the COI and COC policy and reporting requirements in new subpart C as proposed. In general, the requirements are applicable to non-Federal entities that are applicants to or recipients of a DOE Federal financial assistance award.

Washington University recommended removing the proposed provision allowing the requirements to be tailored for individuals receiving financial assistance. Washington University, No. 11 at 3. Washington University stated that permitting such tailoring would defeat the purpose of a unifying set of requirements and significantly increase the administrative burden on institutions to comply with varying application of the same regulation. ( Id. )

DOE clarifies that the tailoring provision at § 910.210(a)(2) applies to individuals applying for or receiving financial assistance in their individual capacity. DOE would not tailor the requirements of this subpart when the non-Federal entity is a university or research facility.

Reserved.

As proposed in the June 2024 NOPR, § 910.230 would require non-Federal entities that are applicants to or recipients of DOE Federal financial assistance to establish and maintain written and enforced policies addressing actual, apparent, and potential COI and COC. See 89 FR 51460, 51466-51467. Proposed § 910.230 would also establish requirements COI and COC policy requirements for subrecipients. Under the proposed regulations, COI and COC policies would be required to mandate certain reporting by covered individuals to the non-Federal entity, as well as required training.

Per the June 2024 NOPR, any non-Federal entity that is an applicant to or recipient of a DOE Federal financial assistance award must maintain a written and enforced policy addressing actual, apparent, and potential COI and COC, both foreign and domestic.

Washington University commented inclusion of “actual, apparent, or potential” does not align with, nor is included in, the definition of a COI, and that inclusion of the terms creates ambiguity in what institutions should identify as a COI or COC. (Washington University, No. 11 at 4.) AAU et al. recommended deletion of the term “apparent” from the phrase “actual, apparent, or potential” COI in proposed § 910.230(a), stating that absent a precise regulatory definition use of the term risks uncertainty and redundancy. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 9)

“Actual, apparent, or potential” describe the relevant types of COIs and COCs. An actual COI occurs when a significant financial interest or financial relationship exists that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, reporting or funding of a project or other Federal financial assistance award-related activities. A potential COI occurs when there is the possibility such a significant or financial relationship will arise in the future ( e.g., when an individual applies for employment). Under FAL 2022-02, apparent conflicts are included in the definition of potential conflicts. However, an apparent conflict may be distinct from a potential conflict. An apparent conflict occurs when a conflict may appear to exist to a reasonable outside observer even if there is no actual or potential conflict. To clarify the distinction between an apparent conflict and a potential conflict, DOE proposed to separately specify the terms. Use of apparent and potential are consistent with the common understanding of those terms and regulatory definitions are not necessary. DOE is adopting the use of “actual, potential, and apparent” as proposed.

Commenters recommended removing the COC policy requirements, asserting that institutions cannot reasonably monitor individual commitments. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 10; Washington University, No. 11 at 4) Washington University stated that requirements extending a recipient's COC policy to a subrecipient are impractical as they would require the recipient institution to have knowledge of both external commitments and the institutional obligations of each covered individual for a subrecipient. (Washington University, No. 11 at 4) AAU et al. commented COC concerns are already addressed though FAL 2022-02 and the common disclosure forms contain an individual certification statement that each senior/key person must complete regarding current and pending support. (AAU et al., No. 3)

The proposed regulations would require a subrecipient to certify it has COI and COC policies that comply with the DOE regulations, or if a subrecipient cannot provide such certification, the subrecipient's covered individuals would be subject to the COI and COC policy of the recipient. Under either option, a covered individual would be required to report an actual, apparent, and potential COC to the subrecipient or recipient comparable to the requirement to reporting required for a COI. An implemented COC policy and COI policy both rely on the reporting of the covered individuals. As proposed, applicability of the COI and COC policies to a subrecipient must be established in a written agreement between the recipient and subrecipient. Such a written agreement would establish the reporting, timing, and compliance obligations of the subrecipient to the recipient.

Common forms and use of tools such as digital persistent identifiers provide means for tracking and demonstrating compliance, but in and of themselves, do not establish a transparent requirement and process for ensuring any such conflicts are identified and appropriately mitigated. As noted, adoption of this final rule will supersede FAL 2022-02.

Codifying the requirements for COI and COC upholds NSPM-33 through clearly articulated requirements and processes for appropriate disclosure of information related to both COIs and COCs. Effective implementation across recipients and subrecipients of DOE financial assistance will make it more difficult for individuals to conceal materially important support, obligations, conflicts of interest, and/or relationships that, when concealed, could lead to DOE making inadequately informed funding decisions. Effective implementation will also make it easier for recipients to identify and address noncompliance in a timely and fair manner. For these reasons, DOE is adopting the COC provisions in 2 CFR 200.201 as proposed.

DOE proposed covered individuals update required disclosures to the non-Federal entity on an annual basis and as soon as any new actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC arises. See 89 FR 51460, 51466. AAU et al. and UC requested aligning the timing of ongoing reporting requirements with existing PHS rules and inclusion of a clear compliance timeline, noting that the proposed rule would increase administrative burden. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 9; UC No. 6 at 8-9) Strikland requested DOE define “as soon as.” (Strikland, No. 2 at 1) AAU et al. and UC requested specifying a 30-day period to report new conflicts, stating that a defined time would provide more regulatory certainty and be better understood by researchers. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 9; UC No. 6 at 8-9)

DOE is generally adopting the reporting criteria as proposed. The reporting criteria reflects DOE's general requirement that applicants for financial assistance as well as recipients comply with the COI and COC policies and generally align with the requirements applicable under FAL 2022-02. DOE acknowledges that requiring reporting “as soon as possible” is less certain than specifying a timeframe. To reduce this uncertainty, the final rule specifies that a new COI or COC must be reported as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 days, after it arises.

DOE proposed requiring COI and COC policies to mandate each covered individual to complete COI and COC training prior to engaging in projects funded under a DOE Federal financial assistance award and complete refresher training least every two years. See 89 FR 51460, 51466. Commenters recommended increasing required training intervals to four years to align with PHS regulations and minimize administrative impact. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 10; Purdue, No. 20 at 2-3; Washington University, No. 11 at 3)

DOE is adopting the training frequency as proposed. Covered individuals are required to update their disclosures annually and periodically as COIs and COCs arise. Training more frequently than every four years helps ensure the annual and periodic updates are completed correctly and completely. The two-year training cycle reflects the focus on increased training under the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 and NPSM-33. Further, the final rule does not prohibit non-federal entities from aligning the two-year cycle with longer training cycles as may be adopted by other agencies. Additionally, the research security training developed for compliance with CHIPs and Science Act of 2022  7 addresses COIs and COCs and therefore could be relied upon to meet this requirement.

As proposed, § 910.240 would establish requirements for non-Federal entities to report to DOE certain identified COIs and COCs and mitigation measures. See 89 FR 51460, 51467. In general, proposed § 910.240(a) would require applicants and recipients of DOE financial assistance to disclose to DOE any actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC if such conflict cannot be eliminated or appropriately managed or reduced in accordance with the non-Federal entity's policy. In addition, the proposed subsection would require disclosure of any actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC involving any foreign governments, their instrumentalities, or any other entities owned, funded, or otherwise controlled by a foreign government, as well as any measures the entity has taken to eliminate or, where appropriate, manage or reduce the COI or COC.

UC requested removal of the reference to 2 CFR 200.112, stating that the referenced CFR section is limited to conflicts that might arise when a non-federal entity expends funds under a Federal award, such as decisions about subrecipient selection or procurement, and the reference may lead to confusion. (UC, No. 6 at 9).

The language of 2 CFR 200.112 is not as narrow as suggested by UC. That section requires Federal agencies to establish COI policies for Federal awards and a recipient or subrecipient to disclose in writing any potential COI to the Federal agency in accordance with the established Federal agency policies. 2 CFR 200.112. Reference to section 2 CFR 200.112 explicitly identifies the requirements in proposed 2 CFR 910.240 as DOE's implementation of the regulatory direction in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance at 2 CFR part 200. DOE is including the reference to 2 CFR 200.112 in the adopted § 910.240.

Commenters opposed requiring COI and COC reporting as part of an application for DOE financial assistance stating the costs of such reviews would be unreasonable, absent assurance of award. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 10; UC, No. 6 at 6-7; Washington University, No. 11 at 5) Commenters further stated that it would be overly burdensome to require reviews prior to submission as such reporting would require institutions to complete reviews, identify potential conflicts, and design and implement management plans for projects that may not be funded, and that there is not sufficient time between receipt of completed proposals from investigators, and submission deadlines. ( Id. )

Under the proposed reporting requirements, individuals that would qualify as covered individuals under a funding opportunity would be required to identify any actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC were the non-Federal entity awarded financial assistance under that opportunity. See 89 FR 51460, 51467. As a result of annual COI and COC reporting and periodic training, it is expected that individuals participating in an application for financial assistance will be able to readily ascertain whether an award would create an actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC. DOE recognizes that changes may occur after application. However, in evaluating potential selections for award, it is crucial for DOE to be aware of possible COIs and COCs that would arise under the award and that could not be mitigated. For example, identifying a COI or COC that cannot be mitigated for the primary investigator listed on an application weighs into DOE's evaluation of the personnel on a proposed project. Identifying such COIs and COCs as part of the application process will facilitate submission of applications that are more representative of a project were it awarded. Additionally, as part of DOE's on-going research security responsibilities it is crucial to be aware of possible COIs and COCs involving any foreign governments, their instrumentalities, or any other entities owned, funded, or otherwise controlled by a foreign government, were DOE to award the applicant project. Identification of COIs and COCs that cannot be mitigated and COIs and COCs related to foreign governments at the application process reduces the likelihood of selected projects not proceeding to award because of such conflicts. DOE is adopting the reporting requirements applicable to applicants and recipients as proposed.

UC recommended limiting the reporting of COIs and COCs related to foreign governments “if known” and “where appropriate,” and stated it can be complicated to determine if an entity is connected to a foreign government as the information may not be publicly available or accessible. (UC, No. 6 at 9)

DOE is not adopting language as suggested by UC. If a covered individual is listed on an application for or participating in a project receiving DOE financial assistance, it is incumbent on the individual have a reasonable understanding of whom that individual is conducting business and exercise due diligence to determine whether such interest presents an actual, apparent, or potential COI or COC.

Washington University asserted that the proposed rule required four different reporting scenarios, (unmanageable COI/COC, all foreign COI/COC, all COI/COC as required by the funding opportunity, and all COI/COC per the terms and conditions of an award) and that the multiple reporting matrices overcomplicates reporting by requiring award specific reporting requirements and increases the risk for failure to report. (Washington University, No. 11 at 4; see also AAU et al., No. 3 at 10) AAU et al. recommended removal of the “case-specific” reporting requirements and instead adoption of a uniform reporting requirement that aligns with the PHS standards. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 12)

As explained, the proposed rule would require reporting of all COIs and COCs that are unmanageable and all COIs and COCs related to foreign governments. Based on the sensitivity of the funded subject area or an awarded project, DOE proposed that reporting of additional conflicts could be required. It is not uncommon for DOE to specify tailored application and award requirements in order to address concerns and/or circumstances specific to a funding opportunity or an award. Any such tailored reporting requirements would be explicitly delineated in the relevant notice of funding opportunity or award, as may be applicable. DOE strives for consistency across Federal agencies to the extent such consistency is consistent with DOE's mission and responsibilities. DOE is adopting the provisions which provide DOE flexibility that make application/award specific modifications to the COI and COC reporting requirements commensurate with sensitives and risks particular to a funding opportunity or award, as proposed.

Proposed § 910.240(d) provided that in addition to the annual COI/COC report, DOE may require a non-Federal entity to routinely, or upon request, submit all or some covered individuals' disclosures. See 89 FR 51460, 51467. AAU et al. objected to routine reporting requirements in addition to the annual reporting, stating mandating disclosures “routinely” would make it extremely difficult for institutions to establish and maintain efficient processes for collecting and reviewing disclosures and making required reports. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 12)

Proposed § 910.240(d) addresses instances in which reporting more than on an annual basis may be necessary. Such instances, as specified in the proposed regulation: as part of monitoring the non-Federal entity's compliance with this subpart; bankruptcy of the non-Federal entity; other legal winding down of the non-Federal entity; acquisition of the non-Federal entity by a foreign entity, where “acquisition” includes a foreign entity obtaining a controlling interest in the non-Federal entity; or as otherwise set forth in 2 CFR part 200 and this part. As illustrated by the specified circumstances, routine submission of covered individuals' disclosures would be required in circumstances that may warrant a heightened degree of oversight. DOE does not anticipate such routine reporting to be typical. DOE is establishing § 910.240(d) as proposed.

Proposed § 200.240(e) provided if a non-Federal entity becomes aware that a covered individual failed to comply with the non-Federal entity's COI and COC policy or a management plan, the non-Federal entity must promptly notify DOE in writing of the failure to comply and of the corrective action taken or to be taken. See 89 FR 51460, 51467.

AAU et al. requested a non-Federal entity be provided 60 days to report such failures, stating 60 days would provide time to take any necessary corrective action and would align with the NASA and PHS requirements, and FAL 2022-02. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 12)

DOE is not adopting a 60-day period for reporting non-compliance as suggested by AAU et al. DOE notes that FAL 2022-02 establishes a requirement to “promptly” report noncompliance. See FAL 2022-02, Remedies. Receiving prompt notification allows DOE to take corrective action in a timely manner. DOE also notes that the proposal would not require the non-Federal entity to have taken corrective action prior to reporting, explicitly stating that report may include corrective action the non-Federal entity will take.

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting § 910.240, Reporting conflicts of interest (COIs) and conflicts of commitment (COCs), as proposed.

Consistent with 2 CFR 200.318, DOE proposed requirements regarding non-Federal entities with a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization that is not a state government, local government, or Indian tribe, the non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) as that term is defined in 2 CFR 200.318(c)(2). See 89 FR 51460, 51467. DOE notes that in the context of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the head of an agency or their designee may waive the organizational conflicts of interest requirement by determining that its application in a particular situation would not be in the Government's interest. 48 CFR 9.503.

DOE is adopting § 910.250 as proposed.

DOE proposed reporting requirements relevant to any potential or actual OCI to DOE. See 89 FR 51460, 51467. Proposed section 910.260 would establish the timing and content required of such reports. As proposed, non-Federal entities would be required to report any potential or actual OCI within five business days of learning of the conflict. Washington University recommended extending reporting timelines from five days to 60 days to align with PHS standards and reduce administrative burden. (Washington University, No. 11 at 5-6).

Identifying and mitigating OCIs is necessary to ensure the integrity of procurement activities under a Federally funded award. A failure or delay in identifying an OCI can make mitigation more difficult and risks costs associated with the subject procurement being unallowable, which can increase the administrative burden and costs to recipients when addressing identified OCIs. As proposed, the non-Federal entity would not be required to have implemented mitigation measures prior to reporting. The recipient would be required to report plans to avoid, eliminate, or mitigate the OCI. Timely reporting of an OCI allows DOE to coordinate and undertake necessary measures. DOE recognizes that five business days may not be sufficient time for a non-Federal entity to report an OCI. DOE is adopting a 15-day period for reporting consistent with historical practice for the terms and conditions of DOE awards.

DOE is adopting § 910.260 as proposed, but with a 15-day period required for reporting.

Proposed § 910.270 would specify actions DOE may take if a non-Federal entity fails to disclose a COI or COC or fails to sufficiently manage or mitigate such a conflict. See 89 FR 51460, 51467-51468. Proposed section 910.270 would also specify the remedies for failure to disclose an OCI. See 89 FR 51460, 51468.

AAU et al. expressed concern with language requiring a disclosure or mitigation to “ensure the integrity of the DOE-supported project” and “protect the government's interests,” asserting that the meaning of these terms is not defined and not readily ascertainable by non-Federal entities. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 13-14) Similarly, AAU et al. expressed concern with DOE's evaluation of whether a COI or COC would “adversely impact the project.” (AAU et al., No. 3 at 14)

In exercising appropriate stewardship over Federal funding, DOE has the responsibility of ensuring funding is spent in a manner consistent with the Department's programmatic objectives, that safeguards the security of federally funded projects, and that maintains the integrity of science produced using Federal funds. Recipients of Federal funds accept such funding subject to Federal oversight. As proposed, § 910.270(a) specifies the actions DOE may take in response to a failure to disclose or adequately manage, or mitigate a COI or COC, including providing the non-Federal entity an opportunity to take additional action.

AAU et al. further requested limiting § 910.270 to procurement activities as opposed to “procurement or transaction” activities as proposed. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 14)

Non-Federal entities may undertake transactions to acquire goods and services similar to procurement transactions, but that rely on different mechanisms and/or authorities. These other transactions have the potential to raise OCI concerns in the same manner as procurement transactions. DOE is clarifying the applicability of § 910.270 extends to such other transactions.

To provide for the appropriate exercise of Federal stewardship over federally funded projects, DOE is adopting § 910.270 as proposed, but clarifying its applicability to other transactions similar to procurement transactions.

AAU et al. and Washington University requested replacing appendix certification statements with institution-specific attestation statements to reduce administrative burden. (AAU et al., No. 3 at 10; Washington University, No. 11 at 3)

DOE is adopting the specific certification statement as proposed. Appendix A provides uniform language that avoids the need for non-Federal entities to separately develop statements and ensures the legal enforceability of such statements.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fee or profit or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE has determined that this final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

DOE has examined this rulemaking and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. The final rule will not impose additional costs to applicants and recipients of financial assistance. The regulations codify and streamline the Department's policies and requirements currently addressed through financial assistance letters, notice of funding opportunity announcements, and award terms and conditions. Moreover, the rule streamlines the financial assistance process by facilitating the use of common forms and improve consistency in the disclosure requirements across Federal agencies, consistent with NSPM-33. DOE did not estimate the cost savings of this final rule.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the United States Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or if it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” (67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's website at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

DOE has reviewed this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth below.

The final rule is applicable to non-Federal entities that are applicants to or recipients of financial assistance awards from the Department. Non-Federal entities, including small entities, are currently subject to the Department's interim policies implementing the conflicts provisions at 2 CFR 200.112 and the requirements regarding OCI at 2 CFR 200.318(c). This final rule codifies the existing policies applicable to financial assistance awards from the Department. Additionally, the applicable DOE program office may tailor as appropriate the COI, COC, and OCI provisions for individuals that are applicants to or recipients of a DOE financial assistance award.

Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. DOE will transmit a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, appendix A.1) (PRA), DOE reviewed this rule and determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein. DOE's financial assistance reporting and recordkeeping burdens have been approved under OMB Control No. 1910-0400.

DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) (NEPA). Specifically, DOE determined that this rule is covered under the categorical exclusion found in DOE's NEPA regulations at paragraph A6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021.

Categorical exclusion A6 applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Additionally, DOE has preliminarily determined that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's NEPA regulations at paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to a rulemaking that amends an existing rule or regulation and that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order requires agencies to have an accountability process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined the rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) on “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that has “Tribal” implications and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. DOE has determined that the final rule would not have such effects and concludes that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf . This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rulemaking or policy that may affect family well-being. This rulemaking will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA, of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order, (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use. This rule is not a significant energy action. Moreover, it will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 10, 2026, by Derek Passarelli, Director of the Golden Field Office and Senior Procurement Executive, and William J. Quigley, Deputy Associate Administrator for Office of Partnership and Acquisition Services and Senior Procurement Executive, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE/NNSA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.

For reasons set out in the preamble, DOE amends chapter IX of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

The FAA invites you to submit any written data, views, or arguments about this notice. Comments should identify the consensus standard number and be sent to an address listed under ADDRESSES . The FAA will forward all comments received on or before the closing date to the ASTM F37 Committee on Light-Sport Aircraft for consideration, who may change the standard in light of the comments received. The FAA will address all comments received during its recurring review of the consensus standards and participation in the consensus standards revision process.

Under the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995  2 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” effective January 27, 2016, the FAA participates in the development of consensus standards for use as a means of carrying out its policy objectives where appropriate.

Consistent with the “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft” final rule (69 FR44772, July 27, 2004) and the “Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013”, 3 the FAA has been working with industry and other stakeholders through the ASTM F37 Committee on Light-Sport Aircraft (hereafter F37) to develop consensus standards as an MOC in certificating airplanes, gliders, powered-parachutes, weight-shift control, and lighter-than-air under §§ 21.190 and 21.191(i)(2) since 2004.

The Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) final rule (90 FR 35034), published on July 24, 2025, anticipated that beginning on July 24, 2026, new consensus standards would need to be developed as the MOC to the design, production, and airworthiness requirements of part 22 subpart B, including the performance expansions and new classes of aircraft allowed by this rule. With FAA participation, F37 has worked to publish a new framework of standards that could serve as MOCs to the changes provided by the MOSAIC final rule. In addition to the previously addressed categories of aircraft, these new standards also expand the applicability to new categories of aircraft such as gyroplane and powered-lift.

As stated in the MOSAIC final rule, the FAA would publish a notice of availability (NOA) of those consensus standards in the Federal Register when the Administrator accepts the consensus standards as an acceptable MOC. The FAA reviewed the published ASTM consensus standards developed by F37 as the basis for an MOC to §§ 21.190, 21.191(k), 21.193(h), and each section of part 22 subpart B except § 22.175. The Administrator accepts ASTM F3815-26a, F3836-26, F3840-26, and F3841-26 as an MOC for the requirements of §§ 21.190, 21.191(k), 21.193(h), and part 22 subpart B.

Consensus standards that have been FAA-accepted prior to the July 24, 2026, effective date of part 22 will:

• Still apply to:

• Not apply to:

Aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft or kit aircraft for the experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft on or after July 24, 2026, must comply with part 22 and consensus standards that have been accepted by the FAA as an MOC to part 22.

F37 has structured their light-sport category aircraft consensus standards under an integration and functional standard framework. F37 has developed integration standards for specific categories of light-sport category aircraft ( e.g., airplane, glider, powered lift, and gyroplane). These integration standards identify a package of functional standards that are applicable to the specific light-sport category of aircraft addressed by that integration standard and that are intended to work together as a whole. Each underlying functional standard covers a specific topic such as structures, landing gear, propellers, engines, etc. Many functional standards are applicable to more than one category of light-sport aircraft and will be identified in multiple integration standards whereas other functional standards are only applicable to a specific light-sport category of aircraft and will only be identified in the integration standard applicable to that category. For each light-sport category of aircraft, a tailored integration standard identifies which functional standards are required to be the MOC to part 22 and certain portions of part 21.

The FAA accepts ASTM integration standards F3815-26a, F3836-26, F3840-26, and F3841-26 as an MOC for the airworthiness requirements of §§ 21.190, 21.191(k), 21.193(h), and part 22 subpart B, with the footnotes identified in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7. This acceptance includes only the version of the functional standards referenced in the MOC summary tables in those integration standards. 4 If an underlying functional standard is revised, that standard is not accepted by the FAA until it is identified in a new revision of the integration standard that is accepted by the FAA. For ease of use, Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 provide a side-by-side view, linking the applicable §§ 21.190, 21.191(k), 21.193(h), and part 22 subpart B regulations to the respective ASTM integration standard.

This is a guidance document. Its content is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied upon by the Department as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty. Conformity with the guidance document is voluntary only, and nonconformity will not affect rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations.

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 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 amends Class D and Class E airspace in New Bedford, MA.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-4819 in the Federal Register (91 FR 24760; May 7, 2026), proposing to amend Class D and Class E airspace in New Bedford, MA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register , the FAA discovered that there was a typographical error in “The Proposal” section of the NPRM preamble. The bearing from the airport for the extension to the Class D airspace was listed as 318° but should have been 308° as correctly listed in the proposed airspace legal description in “The Amendment” section of the NPRM. This change represents only a ministerial correction of a typographical error in the preamble. As mentioned, the correct bearing was provided in the proposed legal description of the NPRM. Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that recirculating the NPRM for public notice and comment is unnecessary.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 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 latest 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 modifying Class D and Class E airspace over New Bedford, MA. A review of the current airspace revealed that the New Bedford, MA Class D airspace did not properly contain IFR operations on the northwest side of the airport. Specifically, arrivals on the RNAV Runway 14 approach and departures to the northwest were not properly contained. This action adds an extension to the Class D airspace within 1.8 miles each side of the 308° bearing from the New Bedford Regional Airport extending from the 4-mile radius of the airport to 4.7 miles northwest of the airport.

This action also updates the airport name in both the New Bedford Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions from “New Bedford Municipal Airport” to “New Bedford Regional Airport.” This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the New Bedford Regional Airport in both the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions, specifically, from (lat. 41°40′35″ N, long. 70°57′28″ W) to (lat. 41°40′36″ N long. 70°57′28″ W), which is one second of latitude. This action also updates the verbiage in the Class D airspace legal description from “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA guidance.

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). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Section 706 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognizes a State or a political subdivision of a State that has a State or local law prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination, and that authorizes a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such unlawful practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect to the practice. The Commission's procedural regulations at 29 CFR part 1601, subpart G set forth the criteria for formal designation of such State or local authorities as “FEP agencies.” The procedural regulations at subsections 1601.74 and 1601.80 include lists of the FEP agencies recognized by the Commission.

To more efficiently and effectively provide the public with access to a listing of current FEP agencies, the EEOC is removing the lists of FEP agencies currently found in subpart G of its procedural regulations and instead will publish these lists on its public website at https://www.eeoc.gov/fair-employment-practices-agencies-fepas-and-dual-filing . The lists will be updated at least annually.

This final rule also includes a small clarifying change to the text of subsection 1601.70(d), which makes reference to a State FEP agency, a local FEP agency, or “both.” A revision is made to account for circumstances where there may be more than one local agency in a State in addition to a State agency.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a rulemaking can be exempt from prior notice and comment if the agency finds good cause “that notice and public procedure thereon are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The absence of this rule, or significant delay in its promulgation, is unnecessary and would delay informing the public in the most accessible way of current information, thus making it contrary to the public interest. Listing the FEP agencies on the EEOC's public website, which is visited regularly by charging parties, respondents, stakeholders, and the public, is the easiest and quickest way to disseminate this information to the public. This method allows the EEOC to more easily keep the lists up to date, and to ensure that the public has the most accurate information possible regarding what State and local entities are FEP agencies. It additionally saves taxpayer money otherwise spent on publication in the Federal Register simply to update the lists of FEP agencies, when that information can be provided more quickly, in a more accessible format, in a location that is more likely to be consulted by the public.

Because the EEOC is merely changing the location where the lists are published—an administrative rather than substantive change—there is “good cause” under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for this final rule to become effective without prior notice and comment. The change to subsection 1601.70 is likewise not a substantive change, as it has no impact on FEP agency procedures, but more clearly describes the existing procedures where a State houses multiple local FEP agencies. For the same reasons, there is good cause to provide for an immediate effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Commission has complied with the principles in section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Executive Order.

This final rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only requires a regulatory flexibility analysis when the APA requires notice and comment procedures, or the agency otherwise issues such a notice. As stated above, notice and comment procedures are neither required nor being used for this rule. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

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

This regulation does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1601 as follows:

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (89 FR 85892-85895) on October 29, 2024. Comments were accepted until December 30, 2024. The Department received five public comments. Commenters were generally supportive of the rule and the program; two commenters raised questions and concerns regarding the implementation of the CATCH Program Records system, including victim eligibility, the assurance of accurate records, and the selection of Privacy Act exemptions.

With respect to victim eligibility, eligibility criteria are established by sexual assault prevention and response policy rather than this Privacy Act rulemaking. Regarding the assurance of the accuracy of information, the CATCH Program Records system records information voluntarily submitted by victims. Because the system is intended to generate investigative leads rather than serve as an evidentiary database, determinations of accuracy and credibility are made through established investigative and adjudicative processes.

Concerning Privacy Act exemptions, DoD notes that the exemptions are consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974 and are necessary to preserve the integrity of the system by preventing subjects of reports from accessing or altering information in ways that could compromise ongoing investigative efforts.

After careful consideration of all comments, DoD has determined that the existing eligibility criteria, safeguards, and exemptions adequately address the concerns raised. Accordingly, no changes to the final rule text are required.

This final rule adds to the DoD's Privacy Act exemptions for Department-wide systems of records found in 32 CFR 310.13(e)(16). Note: When the proposed rule was published, the intended location of the exemption rule was 32 CFR 310.13(e)(15); because an exemption rule for a different SORN has since been added to that location, this final rule will now be codified at 32 CFR 310.13(e)(16).

In finalizing this rule, DoD exempts portions of this system of records titled, “CATCH a Serial Offender Program Records,” DoD-0024 from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. This system of records covers DoD's maintenance of records used to collect and compare sexual assault reports for the purpose of identifying alleged serial sexual assault offenders. These records will consist of information voluntarily submitted into the CATCH system by eligible victims who elect to participate in the CATCH program and provide information about an alleged adult sexual assault incident, without identifying such victims, through established CATCH processes.

The Privacy Act allows Federal agencies to exempt eligible records in a system of records from certain provisions of the Act, including those that provide individuals with a right to request access to and amendment of their own records. If an agency intends to exempt a particular system of records, it must first go through the rulemaking process pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)-(3), (c), and (e). The DoD is amending 32 CFR part 310 to add a new Privacy Act exemption rule for the DoD-0024, CATCH a Serial Offender Program Records, system of records. The DoD is adding an exemption for this system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) to prevent the harms articulated in this rule from occurring. The DoD is claiming an exemption from several provisions of the Privacy Act, including various access, amendment, disclosure of accounting, and certain recordkeeping and notice requirements, to avoid, among other harms, frustrating the underlying purposes for which the information was gathered.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 14192, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. DoD will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule may take effect no earlier than 60 calendar days after Congress receives the rule report or the rule is published in the Federal Register , whichever is later. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates may result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rulemaking will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or Tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

The Director of Administration and Management has certified that this rulemaking is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the DoD. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require DoD to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) was enacted to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals; small businesses; educational and nonprofit institutions; Federal contractors; State, local and Tribal governments; and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government. The Act requires agencies obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before using identical questions to collect information from ten or more persons. This rulemaking does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements on the public.

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

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

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the Dutch Shoe Regatta regulated area from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on July 17, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, § 100.1101, line 4, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Dutch Shoe Regatta which encompasses portions of the San Diego Bay. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.1101(b), 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.

In addition to this notification 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.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.911, Table 1, Event 7, for the St. Clair River Classic Power Boat Race from 11 a.m. through 7 p.m. on July 25, 2026, and from 10 a.m. through 7 p.m. on July 26, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for safe control of vessel movements in the vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating public. Our regulation in § 100.911, Table 1, Event 7, specifies the location of the regulated area for the St. Clair River Classic Power Boat 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 notification 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.

On August 16, 2024, the EPA took final action to disapprove portions of the Pennsylvania SIP revisions submitted on August 13, 2018 that, among other things, certified the Commonwealth had satisfied its VOC CTG RACT obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 1 The EPA's August 16, 2024 final disapproval (August 2024 disapproval) started a sanctions clock under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31. The two-to-one new source emissions offset sanctions took effect on March 16, 2026 (18 months following the September 16, 2024 effective date of the August 2024 disapproval), while highway funding sanctions will take effect on September 16, 2026, unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in the August 2024 disapproval.

On May 10, 2023, January 20, 2026, February 17, 2026 and April 10, 2026, PADEP submitted SIP revisions to address the deficiencies identified in the August 2024 disapproval. In the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register , the EPA is concurrently proposing to approve these SIP revisions. There, the EPA proposes to find that Pennsylvania's current SIP-approved regulations, newly submitted regulations for certain CTG categories, and incorporated limits from permits for four facilities meet the Commonwealth's VOC CTG RACT Requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The proposed determination is based on the EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's SIP revisions, including supplemental technical support provided by the EPA. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing that these SIP revisions address the deficiencies identified in the EPA's August 2024 disapproval with respect to 2008 ozone VOC CTG RACT requirements, which started the sanctions clock for offset and highway sanctions in Pennsylvania.

The EPA is making an IFD to stay the application of the offset sanctions and defer the application of the highway sanctions associated with the EPA's August 2024 disapproval of certain VOC CTG RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for Pennsylvania. This determination is based on the EPA's concurrent proposal (referenced above) to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revisions regarding VOC CTG RACT for the 2008 (and 2015) ozone NAAQS, which resolve the deficiencies that triggered sanctions under section 179 of the CAA.

Based on the EPA's proposed approval that determines that the aforementioned Pennsylvania VOC CTG RACT SIP revisions address the deficiencies identified in the August 2024 disapproval and are likely approvable, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. This interim final determination is consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  2 for Federal agency rulemaking. Generally, under the APA, agency rulemaking affecting the rights of individuals must comply with certain minimum procedural requirements, including publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and providing an opportunity for the public to submit written comments on the proposal, before the rulemaking can have final effect. The EPA will not be providing an opportunity for public comment before those deferrals or stays are effective. However, the EPA will provide an opportunity to comment on the proposed approval that is the basis for this IFD and will provide an opportunity, after the fact, for the public to comment on the IFD. Thus, an opportunity for comment will be provided before any sanctions clock is permanently stopped or any already applied sanctions are permanently lifted. In the context of the proposed approval, and with respect to the interim final rule, the public would have an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the EPA's interim final determination that the State had corrected the deficiencies and on whether the State should remain subject to sanctions, even though the deferral or stay is already effective.

Section 553(b)(4)(B) of the APA provides that the notice and opportunity for comment requirements do not apply when the Agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the EPA believes it would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest to have to propose and provide an opportunity to comment before any relief is provided from the effect of sanctions. The EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's SIP submissions addressing the August 2024 disapproval and, through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the SIP submissions correct the deficiencies that were the basis for the disapproval action that started the sanctions clock. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to apply sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to stay the application of the offset sanctions and defer the application of the highway funding sanctions while we complete our rulemaking process on the approvability of Pennsylvania's SIP revisions intended to address the VOC CTG RACT requirements for the 2008 (and 2015) ozone NAAQS.

Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) of the APA, the EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp .v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. Because this rule relieves a restriction, the EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

As noted in this document, in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register , the EPA has proposed to find that Pennsylvania's SIP Revisions submitted on May 10, 2023, January 20, 2026, February 17, 2026 and April 10, 2026 address the deficiencies identified by the EPA in its August 2024 disapproval. In accordance with 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(ii), when a State has submitted a revised plan to correct the deficiency, and the EPA proposes to approve the plan and issues an IFD that the revised plan corrects the deficiency after 18 months but before 24 months from the beginning of the sanctions clock, application of the new source emission offset sanction shall be stayed and application of the highway sanction shall be deferred. However, if issues are raised during the public comment period of the proposed plan approval which cannot be addressed and the revised plan is ultimately disapproved, the new source offset sanction shall reapply immediately and the highway sanction shall apply immediately on the date of the final disapproval if that date is more than six months after the date the offset sanctions became effective. In Pennsylvania, the offset sanction was imposed on March 16, 2026, and the highway sanction, if not deferred, would be imposed on September 16, 2026.

This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it 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 action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action stays and defers application of sanctions and imposes no new requirements. In addition, this action does not 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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 September 14, 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).)

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

On March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719), the EPA proposed approval of six rules and a limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

The EPA had finalized this action on July 3, 2023 (88 FR 42621). Table 1 of this preamble lists the rules in the current SIP with the dates they were adopted or amended by the AVAQMD, submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the governor's designee for California SIP submittals, and approved by the EPA.

CARB submitted the rules that are listed in table 2 of this preamble to replace the EPA-approved rules currently in the SIP as listed in table 1 of this preamble. CARB also intended the submitted rules to: satisfy the minor NSR and nonattainment NSR (NNSR) requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the Act; satisfy the EPA's implementing regulations at title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51; and resolve deficiencies identified in our July 3, 2023 final NSR action (“2023 NSR Action”)  1 that included a limited disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, as amended on July 20, 2021.

In our March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719) proposed action, we proposed approval of CARB's January 7, 2025 submittal of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309 as authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We determined that these submitted rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements in part D of the Act (including sections 172, 173, 182(c)(6), and 182(d)), and in the relevant provisions of sections 110(a)(2) and 302(z) of the Act, as well as 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165, and 51.307, and they address the deficiencies previously identified by the EPA. 2 On the same day, we also made an interim final determination (IFD) (90 FR 13702, March 26, 2025) that the submittal from CARB corrected the SIP deficiencies we identified in the 2023 NSR Action, allowing us to stay the application of the offset sanction and to defer the application of the highway sanction resulting from that action.

In our March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719) proposed action, we also proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1314 as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, 3 because although the version of AVAQMD Rule 1314 that CARB submitted on January 7, 2025, fulfilled most of the relevant CAA requirements and strengthened the SIP, it did not include the reasonable possibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (7). We determined that this was a deficiency that the AVAQMD could resolve by including the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (7) in Rule 1314.

Following the EPA's March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719) proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1314, on October 16, 2025, CARB submitted to the EPA an amended Rule 1314 (hereafter referred to as the “October 2025 submittal”). 4 Locally amended Rule 1314 supersedes the version of Rule 1314 that CARB submitted to the EPA on January 7, 2025. In our March 23, 2026 proposal, we proposed approval of Rule 1314 as submitted in the October 2025 submittal as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We simultaneously withdrew our proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1314 from the March 2025 Proposed Action (91 FR 13797, March 23, 2026).

The EPA's March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719), and March 23, 2026 proposed actions each provided a 30-day public comment period, as did the March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13702) IFD. The public comment periods for the March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719) proposed action and IFD began on the date of their publication in the Federal Register and closed on April 25, 2025. During this period, the EPA received one comment letter from an anonymous commenter concerning the IFD (Comment 1). The public comment period for the March 23, 2026 proposed action began on March 23, 2026, its date of publication in the Federal Register , and closed on April 22, 2026. During this period, the EPA received one comment letter from an anonymous commenter (Comment 2).

Comment 1: The commenter expressed concern with the EPA's use of an interim final rule to delay sanctions before giving the public any chance to provide input or react. The commenter wrote that clean air is a human right, which is something that should not be taken lightly because it affects everybody and delaying action without public input seems unstable. The commenter also questioned AVAQMD Rule 1314's limited approval, stating that the limited approval begs the question of whether or not the alterations are enough to meet Federal standards. The commenter wrote that if the issues from 2023 are not fully addressed, pausing sanctions would be the wrong decision. The commenter concluded by encouraging the EPA to follow through with a more transparent and just final review that includes meaningful public feedback and a readiness to reinstate sanctions if the rules fall short during final review.

Response to Comment 1: EPA acted consistently with notice and comment requirements in publishing the March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13719), IFD, which stayed and deferred offset and highway sanctions, respectively, in the AVAQMD. As we explained in section II, “EPA Evaluation and Action” of the IFD, we preliminarily determined that the State corrected the deficiencies we identified in the 2023 NSR Action and relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. 5 In delaying sanctions, the IFD invoked the Administrative Procedure Act good cause exception, which allows Federal agencies to bypass standard notice-and-comment procedures under certain circumstances including bypassing public notice and comment before an action takes effect. However, the IFD stated that we were providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date of the March 26, 2025 IFD. The IFD also stated that we would consider any comments received in deciding the appropriateness of such determination. As discussed in the IFD, the IFD itself stayed the offset sanction and deferred the highway sanction. 6 It did not terminate those sanctions—the sanctions would not be terminated until the effective date of a final full approval. 7

As we explained in the IFD, we believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of that action was impracticable and contrary to the public interest. 8 When we proposed action on March 26, 2025, we had reviewed the State's submittal and found that it was more likely than not that the State had corrected the deficiencies that were the basis for the limited disapproval in the 2023 NSR Action that started the sanctions clocks. 9 Therefore, we stated that it was not in the public interest to apply sanctions. 10 We did not receive any comments from the public to change our understanding that the submitted rules satisfy CAA requirements and resolve the deficiencies we identified in the 2023 NSR Action.

The commenter's statement that they “question Rule 1314's limited approval which begs the question if the alterations are enough to meet Federal standards” may be based on the commenter's misunderstanding of the substance of the rulemaking, which the EPA can clarify here. In the March 26, 2025 rulemaking, the EPA proposed that the rules CARB submitted as part of the January 7, 2025 submittal package resolved the deficiencies the EPA identified in the 2023 NSR Action. Separately, the EPA identified a deficiency in Rule 1314. The deficiency we identified and explained in the March 26, 2025 rulemaking was unrelated to the deficiencies that were the basis for the disapproval in the 2023 NSR Action. That deficiency would not affect the sanctions clocks associated with the 2023 NSR Action. 11 Thus, there is nothing that changes our understanding that the District's rules satisfy the CAA requirements.

As the EPA explained in our 1994 rulemaking on the sequence of sanctions for findings made pursuant to section 179 of the CAA, we believe that it is consistent with CAA section 179 to treat proposed full approvals following disapprovals as the basis for deferring or staying the application of sanctions, while not permanently stopping the sanctions clock or permanently lifting sanctions. 12 Here, the District fixed all of the deficiencies that the EPA identified in the 2023 NSR Action. The proposed full approval then forms the basis for the EPA to issue an IFD, which the EPA publishes in a separate action in the Federal Register , as we did here. 13 As we explained in 1994, we believe this approach is consistent with the requirements of Administrative Procedures Act section 553 because the opportunity for comment is provided before any sanctions clock is permanently stopped, while in the meantime enabling the EPA to pause sanctions that would unnecessarily risk potential disruption in government programs and the marketplace after EPA has determined it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the deficiency. 14

For the reasons described here, the EPA's position is that the March 26, 2025 IFD provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the stay of the offset sanction and deferral of the highway sanction, which the EPA correctly paused on the basis that the State more likely than not had corrected the deficiencies that were the reason for the sanctions. No comments were submitted that changed our understanding.

Comment 2: The commenter stated that they did not understand the summary of the EPA's proposed action.

Response to Comment 2: The EPA summary was meant to provide an overview of the proposed action and how it will impact the AVAQMD portion of the California SIP.

The comment letters can be found in the docket for this action and are accessible at www.regulations.gov.

None of the submitted comments change our assessment of the submitted rules as described in our proposed actions. Although we initially proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1314, the District amended Rule 1314 on July 15, 2025. CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA on October 16, 2025, which superseded the January 1, 2025 submittal of that rule.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted versions of Rules 1301, 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, 1309 and 1314 into the California SIP. The December 30, 2024 version of Rules 1301, 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309 will replace the previously approved versions of rules 1301, 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309 in the SIP. New Rule 1314, locally amended on July 15, 2025, will also be incorporated into the SIP.

This approval resolves all deficiencies that formed the basis for our previous limited disapprovals in the 2023 NSR Action of Rules 1301, 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309. As a result of this action, the sanctions that were stayed and deferred in our March 26, 2025 IFD are now terminated, and a Federal implementation plan to resolve the deficiency is no longer required under section 110(c) of the Act.

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 the AVAQMD rules described in table 2 of this preamble. These rules implement the District's NSR permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution under part D of title I of the CAA. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 State program;

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator for 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).)

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

The EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program received on July 26, 2024. All revisions were completed due to an administrative process required by Executive Order 10 (E.O.-10), issued by the Iowa Governor in January 2023. The revisions are to section 567—Iowa Air Quality Regulations. The EPA is finalizing the following revisions to the SIP-approved chapters:

Chapter 20—SCOPE OF TITLEmndash;DEFINITIONS is rescinded.

Chapter 21—COMPLIANCE is retitled COMPLIANCE, EXCESS EMISSIONS, AND MEASUREMENT OF EMISSIONS. Revisions to this chapter include the removal of the Emission Reduction Program language; adoption by reference of federal language; incorporation of rules from the now-removed Chapters 24, 25, 26, and 29; removal of numerous definitions; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 22—CONTROLLING POLLUTION—PERMITS is retitled CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION—CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. Revisions to SIP-approved text include the removal of the VOP Program; incorporation of rules from the now-removed Chapters 20 and 28; language relocation; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 23-EMISSION STANDARDS is retitled AIR EMISSION STANDARDS. Revisions to this chapter include removal of redundant language; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 24-EXCESS EMISSIONS is retitled OPERATING PERMITS. Revisions to SIP-approved sections are administrative in nature and include updated citations and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 25—MEASUREMENT OF EMISSIONS is rescinded.

Chapter 26—PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION EMERGENCY EPISODES is rescinded.

Chapter 28—AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS is rescinded.

Chapter 29—QUALIFICATIONS IN VISUAL DETERMINATION OF THE OPACITY OF EMISSIONS is rescinded.

Chapter 31—NONATTAINMENT AREAS is retitled NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW. Revisions to this chapter include the removal of language referencing nonattainment areas, because Iowa no longer has any areas designated nonattainment prior to May 18, 1998; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 33—SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES—PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) OF AIR QUALITY is retitled CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES—PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORIATION (PSD). Revisions to this chapter include numerous adoptions by reference of federal language, removal of redundant language, updated citations, and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

The EPA is finalizing the following revisions to the Title V Operating Permit Program:

Chapter 22—CONTROLLING POLLUTION—PERMITS is retitled CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION—CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. Revisions include language relocation, updated citations, and minor revisions to grammar and wording. Additionally, numerous definitions from IAC 567—22.1 and IAC 567—22.10(1) are retained in the Title V Operating Permit Program.

Chapter 23—EMISSION STANDARDS is retitled AIR EMISSION STANDARDS. The EPA is finalizing approval of Iowa's request to incorporate the definitions at IAC 567—23.1(4) into the Title V Operating Permit Program. The terms were previously approved into the Title V Operating Permit Program but were relocated to IAC 567—23.1(4).

Chapter 24—EXCESS EMISSIONS is retitled OPERATING PERMITS. Revisions to this chapter include removal of the (VOP) Program language; numerous adoptions by reference of federal language; removal of redundant language and of provisions requiring that copies of Title V operating permit applications be submitted to EPA Region 7; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.

Chapter 30—FEES is retained. Revisions to this chapter include addition of clarifying language, removal of redundant language, and updated citations.

The revisions to the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program are described in more detail in the proposed rulemaking located in this docket.

Additionally, the EPA is finalizing removal of IAC 567—Chapter 27, IAC 567—22.1(3)“b”(8), IAC 567-23.1(1), and IAC 567-25.1(12) from the Iowa SIP under the authority of CAA 110(k)(6). The EPA determined these provisions were approved into the Iowa SIP in error because they are not required by the CAA for implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS. The full text of the rule revisions as well as the EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support documents (TSDs) which are part of this docket.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27, 2023, to January 30, 2024, and received no comments. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSDs which are part of this docket, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened March 26, 2026, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on April 27, 2026 (91 FR 14658). During this period, the EPA received four comments. One anonymous comment was overall supportive of this action, and one citizen comment was blank. The EPA acknowledges the blank submission.

The EPA is responding to the anonymous supportive comment and the two additional citizen comments. Summaries of these comments and the EPA's responses are provided below. All comments are available for review in the docket for this action.

Comment 1: Commenter 1 states that, although the proposal is framed as administrative cleanup (reorganization, elimination of certain chapters, elimination of the voluntary operating permit program, and correction of prior incorporation errors), administrative restructuring is not neutral. The commenter requests that the EPA critically evaluate and transparently disclose the practical effects of the revisions on how requirements are applied, understood, and enforced, rather than treating them as purely ministerial changes.

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the EPA did not critically evaluate and transparently disclose the practical effects of the revisions. The EPA notes that the commenter provides broad high-level observations and recommendations and does not cite or engage with the docket materials, including the EPA's technical support documents that describe the EPA's evaluation of the revisions to the Iowa SIP that it proposes to approve. The EPA summarizes and responds to the commenter's significant comments below, identified as Comments 1A through 1D.

Comment 1A: The commenter stated the EPA should demonstrate that removal of chapters and the VOP program did not result in reduced compliance obligations or enforceability; less rigorous oversight; or the loss of regulatory tools without replacement. Absent this clarity, the commenter views the removals as subtraction rather than streamlining.

Response 1A: The EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that the removal of certain chapters and the voluntary operating permit program constitutes a subtraction of protections in Iowa's SIP. The docket for this rulemaking includes a state provided crosswalk, titled “EO10_AQB_Rules_Crosswalk_06192024” and each TSD includes a redline/strikeout showing how provisions were reorganized and where functions are retained or relocated. The EPA reviewed these materials and determined that all substantive SIP requirements remain legally enforceable and that the restructuring does not change emission limits, compliance obligations, or enforceability.

This comment also referenced the removal of the VOP program language. The full technical analysis of the removal of the VOP program language is in the TSD titled “(3) IA-194_TSD_Chapters 23, 24,” and includes references to other state regulations that provide similar mechanisms to the VOP program. As detailed in the TSD and the Voluntary Operating Permit Background and Summary document in the docket, Iowa's VOP program was discontinued by the State in 2015 after Iowa determined that its construction permitting program could provide federally enforceable synthetic minor limits. The VOP program is not required under the Title V Operating Permit Program or section 110 of the CAA. Discontinuation of the State's VOP program does not change federal applicability thresholds or permitting obligations under New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), or title V, does not alter any source's status, and does not void any existing federally enforceable permit conditions where limiting conditions are needed ( e.g., to establish synthetic minor status). Under IAC 567-Chapter 22, a source seeking to limit potential to emit below major thresholds remains subject to PSD until it receives a construction permit that caps the project below PSD thresholds, and IAC 567-22.3(6) authorizes IDNR to limit hazardous air pollutant (HAP) potential to emit below major source thresholds. Prior to removing the VOP rules from the Iowa Administrative Code, IDNR either modified existing construction permits or issued new construction permits for VOP facilities, as needed, to establish the same federally enforceable operational limits and maintain synthetic minor status in lieu of a VOP permit.

The EPA finds that Iowa's Chapter 22 construction permit rules provide adequate authority to establish and enforce synthetic minor limits for criteria pollutants and HAPs; accordingly, removal of the VOP regulations does not reduce the scope or enforceability of applicable requirements, does not shift any facilities into less rigorous oversight pathways, and does not retire necessary regulatory tools. Therefore, the EPA concludes that these changes are streamlining measures that do not reduce the scope or enforceability of applicable requirements and satisfy CAA section 110(l).

Comment 1B: While generally supportive of the EPA's correction of past incorporation errors, the commenter requested the EPA clearly distinguish between true clerical or technical corrections as well as changes that alter the legal status, applicability, or enforceability of provisions, in relation to the CAA 110(k)(6) error corrections. If a provision previously treated as enforceable is no longer incorporated, the commenter asserts this is a substantive regulatory change that should be identified and justified.

Response 1B: The EPA disagrees with commenter's assertion that it did not fully evaluate the impact of its proposed CAA 110(k)(6) error corrections, and notes that the commenter does not identify a specific concern with the EPA's proposed error corrections. The EPA thoroughly reviewed each amendment, and each analysis distinguishes between clerical and technical corrections for each revision. Additionally, the EPA provided a technical analysis of each CAA 110(k)(6) error correction. The full analysis of IAC 567-Chapter 27 can be found in the TSD titled “(1) IA-194_TSD_Chapters 21, 27, 31, 33.” The full analysis of IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8) and IAC 567-25.1(12) can be found in the TSD titled “(2) IA-194_TSD_Chapters 22, 30.” The full analysis of IAC-23.1(1) can be found in the TSD titled “(3) IA-194_TSD_Chapters 23, 24.”

In the TSDs, the EPA identifies discrete prior approvals that were mistaken because they were administrative or not related to CAA section 110 criteria pollutant programs. Examples include: (1) removing Chapter 27 (Local Program Acceptance) from the SIP because it is administrative and not required for NAAQS implementation or enforcement; (2) removing IAC 567-23.1(1) from the SIP because it pertains to New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants references (CAA sections 111 and 112) requirements and cites non-SIP regulations, thus it should not have been approved into the SIP; (3) removing IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8) (case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT)) and IAC 567-22.7(2)“f” (a continuous emissions monitoring requirement tied to an alternative emission control program not approved into the SIP) because they concern hazardous air pollutants or non-enforceable SIP constructs and therefore were erroneously included in the SIP.

Across the TSDs, the EPA emphasizes that CAA section 110(k)(6) corrections are limited to addressing prior errors, such as approval of state-only or administrative provisions, cross-reference problems, or content outside the scope of CAA section 110, and are not used to make discretionary policy changes or to relax federally enforceable requirements. The EPA documents that each correction maintains the SIP's stringency and does not diminish monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, or enforcement obligations, and therefore does not decrease the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality.

Comment 1C: The commenter acknowledges that there are usability improvements that can be gained for the regulated community in the consolidation of rules, but that this can hinder the public's ability to track obligations and violations. The commenter requested that the EPA ensure that the revised structure does not obscure regulatory requirements and that enforcement pathways remain clear and accessible, not buried in reorganized frameworks.

Response 1C: The EPA acknowledges that regulations should be clear and traceable for both regulated entities and the public, and concludes that the proposed revisions to the Iowa SIP preserve both. The docket includes a state provided crosswalk, titled “EO10_AQB_Rules_Crosswalk_06192024,” and each TSD includes a redline/strikeout which shows how provisions were reorganized and where functions are retained or relocated. The TSDs also describe that the revisions streamline duplicative text and consolidate 14 chapters into 8 without reducing stringency, and they list differences between the previously approved SIP and the updated chapters, thereby functioning as a crosswalk to where prior requirements now reside and indicate what was removed. The EPA verified that cross-references were updated and requirements remain accessible. As demonstrated by the EPA's analysis in the TSDs, the EPA finds the revisions do not obscure regulatory requirements, preserve public-facing traceability, and maintain clear, accessible enforcement pathways.

Comment 1D: The commenter stated that EPA should explicitly analyze and disclose the net effect of these revisions, not just their individual justifications. The commenter also stated that the EPA should affirm, in plain terms, that no emission limits are relaxed; that monitoring, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms are not weakened; and that the revisions do not introduce compliance gaps or delays in enforcement. The commenter further states that if the EPA cannot make these assurances, that it should reconsider its approval.

Response 1D: The EPA agrees that evaluating cumulative effects is important, and, as documented across the TSDs, concludes that the revisions maintain overall stringency, and enforceability without creating compliance gaps. The EPA thoroughly analyzed each revision in this rulemaking and concluded in the proposed rulemaking (91 FR 14658) that these revisions do not decrease the stringency of the Iowa SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The four TSDs for this rulemaking clearly demonstrate and state in plain terms that no emission limitations were relaxed; compliance and enforcement mechanisms were not weakened; and that the revisions do not introduce compliance gaps or delays in enforcement. The EPA has determined that each revision is administrative or clarifying and does not change any emission limit, compliance obligation, or enforcement mechanism without equivalent replacement, as applicable. Furthermore, as documented in the TSDs, the EPA has demonstrated that its CAA section 110(k)(6) error corrections and the proposed revisions to the Iowa SIP streamline organization while preserving federally enforceable requirements and oversight consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the EPA finds that reconsideration of its proposed approval is unwarranted.

Comment 2: The commenter stated that removing the case-by-case MACT provisions from the Iowa SIP as a CAA section 110(k)(6) error correction could weaken federal oversight of HAP limits, make enforcement of HAPs more difficult, and create regulatory gaps that may affect public health through exposure to HAPs. The commenter encouraged the EPA to reconsider the removal of the case-by-case MACT provisions from the Iowa SIP.

Response 2: The EPA disagrees that removing case-by-case MACT provisions from the Iowa SIP weakens federal oversight of hazardous air pollutants. This action corrects a prior SIP inclusion error and does not remove or relax any HAP emission limits or alter federal or state enforcement authorities.

The EPA provided a thorough technical analysis of the removal of the case-by-case MACT determination language in the TSD titled “(2) IA-194_TSD_Chapters 22, 30.” As explained in the TSD, because case-by-case MACT determinations involve HAPs and not criteria pollutants, they are not a requirement of CAA section 110 and are therefore not a required component of SIPs. Case-by-case MACT determinations are implemented and enforced under Clean Air Act section 112 (including sections 112(g) and 112(j) and 40 CFR part 63). The EPA generally does not approve HAP-only requirements into SIPs; when states adopt procedures to implement CAA section 112(g)/(j), the EPA approves them under section 112(l), and resulting MACT limits are federally enforceable through construction permits and Title V operating permits. The State of Iowa's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart B in IAC 567-Chapter 23.1(4) provides it with adequate authority to conduct case-by-case MACT determinations. As a result, case-by-case MACT requirements applicable to sources in Iowa will continue to apply and be federally enforceable under section 112 and associated permits, ensuring no regulatory gaps in air toxics oversight. Therefore, no changes have been made in response to this comment.

Comment 3: A commenter expresses overall support for the proposed approval, stating that the revisions appear to reorganize, update, and clean up the rules without reducing protections. The commenter agrees with removal of provisions that were erroneously included in the SIP, provided that doing so does not weaken air quality protections. The commenter also requests that the EPA continue to monitor implementation to ensure that the removal of older programs does not create problems in permitting or pollution monitoring.

Response 3: The EPA appreciates the commenter's support for the proposed action. Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA may approve SIP revisions only if they meet all applicable CAA requirements, and, consistent with CAA section 110(l), the EPA may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement; where relevant, CAA section 193 also prohibits relaxation of certain pre-1990 nonattainment measures absent equivalent or greater emissions reductions. Consistent with the EPA's statutory and regulatory authorities, the EPA's approval of these revisions is based on a determination, explained in this action, that the revisions do not relax emissions limits or weaken monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, compliance certification, or enforcement mechanisms, and that corrections do not reduce federally enforceable protections. The EPA will continue to exercise its oversight authorities to ensure that implementation of Iowa's SIP and title V program remains consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is taking final action to amend the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program by approving the State's request to revise section 567, Title II-Iowa Air Quality Regulations. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing multiple CAA 110(k)(6) error corrections.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in section I. of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of section 567, Title II of the Iowa Air Quality Administrative Regulations:

• Chapter 21—Compliance, Excess Emissions, and Measurement of Emissions, which provides provisions for air quality compliance, excess emissions, and measurement of emissions;

• Chapter 22—Controlling Air Pollution, which provides provisions for air quality construction permitting as well as applicable air quality definitions;

• Chapter 23—Air Emission Standards, which provides provisions for air emission standards as well as applicable air quality definitions;

• Chapter 24—Operating Permits, which includes provisions for Title V Operating Permits, Acid Rain Permits, and Small Source Operating Permits;

• Chapter 30—Fees, which defines specific air quality fees owed by air contaminant sources;

• Chapter 31—Nonattainment New Source Review, which provisions for the preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new or modified major sources of air pollutants in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and

• Chapter 33—Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources-Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), which provides provisions for the preconstruction permitting program applicable to new or modified major stationary sources of air pollutants.

The state effective date of these rules is June 19, 2024. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (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 the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

Also, in this document, the EPA is finalizing removal of rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the Iowa SIP. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is removing IAC 567—Chapter 27, IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8), IAC 567-23.1(1), and IAC 567-25.1(12) discussed in section I of this preamble and as set forth below in the revision to 40 CFR part 52.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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 (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

The EPA is approving the attainment plan for the Canton Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and the comprehensive Pb emissions inventory submitted by Ohio EPA on September 19, 2024. Additionally, the EPA is determining that the Canton Nonattainment Area has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is approving Ohio's April 25, 2025, maintenance plan for continued attainment. With these approvals, the EPA is also acting in accordance with Ohio's request to redesignate the Canton Nonattainment Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

The EPA is taking these actions in accordance with the CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 172 in determining whether the State met all requirements applicable to the Canton Nonattainment Area under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 110(a)(2)(I), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(l), 172(c)(3), 175A, 191, and 192(a), and the Agency's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 Pb NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, 40 CFR part 51, subparts F and G, and 40 CFR part 58.

On April 10, 2023, the EPA redesignated portions of the Canton-Stark County, Ohio area from an unclassifiable/attainment area to a nonattainment area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3). 2 The redesignation was based on ambient air quality monitoring from a source-oriented monitor near the Republic Steel-Canton Plant, which manufactured leaded steel products at the time, that resulted in a 2019-2021 design value that exceeded the 2008 Pb NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m  3 ). 3 The Canton Nonattainment Area includes the Republic Steel-Canton Plant site and encompasses the portions of Stark County that are bounded on the north by State Route OH-153 (12th Street NE; Mahoning Road), on the east by Broadway Avenue, on the south by State Route OH-172 (Tuscarawas Street E; Lincoln Street E), and the west by State Route OH-43-Northbound (Cherry Avenue NE).

On September 10, 2023, the parent company of Republic Steel, Grupo Simec, announced the permanent closure of the Republic Steel-Canton Plant, and all associated air permits were terminated effective July 26, 2024. By the end of 2024, ambient air monitoring demonstrated that airborne Pb levels had declined to 0.00 μg/m  3 and that the three-year design value for 2022-2024 for the Canton Nonattainment Area had achieved 0.15 μg/m  3 , thereby meeting the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

The redesignation of the Canton, Ohio area from unclassifiable/attainment to nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS imposed certain planning requirements on the State of Ohio to reduce Pb concentrations within this area. 4 On September 19, 2024, Ohio submitted a revision to its SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the Canton Nonattainment Area, which was comprised of an attainment plan with ambient air monitoring data, emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, and contingency measures. Then, on April 25, 2025, Ohio provided the first 10-year maintenance plan for keeping the Canton Nonattainment Area in attainment and submitted a request to the EPA to redesignate the Canton Nonattainment Area to attainment.

On March 27, 2026, the EPA proposed to approve Ohio's September 19, 2024, attainment plan and comprehensive Pb emissions inventory for the Canton Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Based on complete, quality-assured ambient air monitoring data for 2022-2024, the EPA also proposed to determine that the Canton Area had attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS and to approve Ohio's April 25, 2025, maintenance plan for continued attainment. With these elements of Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) in place, EPA proposed to act in accordance with Ohio's request to redesignate the area to attainment. 5 In taking these separate, but related, actions, we note that the EPA has previously determined that approval actions on SIP elements for a nonattainment area and the associated redesignation may occur simultaneously. 6 7

An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of Ohio's submittals, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval and redesignation were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking  8 and the Agency's December 11, 2025, Technical Support Document, which are included in the dockets for this rulemaking, and will not be fully restated here.

In that proposal, based on complete, quality-assured ambient air monitoring data, we proposed to find that the area had achieved a design value of 0.15 μg/m  3 for the most recent three-year period 2022-2024, thereby meeting the 2008 Pb NAAQS of 0.15 μg/m  3 . While the EPA proposed to determine that the Canton Nonattainment Area had monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, we noted that this, in and of itself, did not constitute a redesignation to attainment. We identified the five criteria for redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment found in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and addressed how Ohio's submittals effectively met each of the criteria:

(i) the Administrator determines that the area has attained the NAAQS;

(ii) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);

(iii) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;

(iv) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and

(v) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under CAA section 110 and part D of CAA title 1. 9

The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on May 11, 2026. During the comment period, the EPA received two comment letters that were supportive of the Agency's proposed actions. All comments received are included in the dockets for this rulemaking.

The EPA is approving all of Ohio's required SIP elements herein simultaneously in conjunction with acting in accordance with Ohio's request to redesignate the Canton Nonattainment Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA is taking the following separate, but related, actions:

1. Approving Ohio's September 19, 2024, Canton Pb SIP Revision as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 110(a)(2)(I), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(l), 172, 191, and 192(a) and 40 CFR 51 subparts F and G.

2. Determining that the Canton Nonattainment Area is attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

3. Approving Ohio's comprehensive Pb emissions inventory for the Canton Nonattainment Area as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).

4. Approving Ohio's 2025 Canton Pb Maintenance Plan as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 175A.

5. Determining that Ohio's 2024 Canton Pb SIP Revision as well as Ohio's 2025 Canton Pb Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request have met the applicable requirements for the EPA to redesignate the Canton Nonattainment Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

6. Acting in accordance with Ohio's April 25, 2025, Canton Pb Redesignation Request and redesignating the Canton Nonattainment Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) through (v).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 CAA.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 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, title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

The EPA is correcting the Final NSPS Rule, New Source Performance Standards Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines and Stationary Gas Turbines, which was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 1910 on January 15, 2026. Following publication of this document, the EPA identified inadvertent technical and typographical errors in the regulatory text of new 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60, subpart KKKKa (“Subpart KKKKa”), as well as regulatory text amended by the Final NSPS Rule in existing 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKKK and GG (“Subpart KKKK” and “Subpart GG,” respectively).

With this action, the EPA is correcting the following errors in FR Document Number (FR Doc) 2026-00677 and appearing at 91 FR 1910 in the Federal Register of January 15, 2026:

• At 91 FR 1975, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG. Final NSPS Rule instruction 3 amended § 60.330 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (c) through (e). The EPA corrects the regulatory text in paragraph (e) to read as being applicable to a “gas turbine” instead of a “combustion turbine.” The EPA is making this correction for consistency with Subpart GG, which applies to the stationary gas turbines source category.

• At 91 FR 1978, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 9 amended § 60.4305 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding paragraphs (c) through (e). The EPA corrects the regulatory text in paragraph (e) to read as being applicable to “combustion turbines” instead of “stationary gas turbines.” The EPA is making this correction for consistency with Subpart KKKK, which applies to the stationary combustion turbines source category. In addition, the EPA removes the word “stationary” from the same phrase in paragraph (e) because turbines subject to title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are not stationary sources.

• At 91 FR 1979, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 14 added § 60.4331. In § 60.4331 paragraphs (a) through (e), the EPA listed the requirements for operating a stationary temporary combustion turbine. The EPA corrects paragraph (a) to add the phrases “owners or operators of” and “may elect to be a temporary combustion turbine and” in the first sentence. These additions are necessary to clarify that the stationary temporary combustion turbine subcategory is optional for qualifying combustion turbines. Furthermore, the EPA adds the phrase “as an alternative to the otherwise applicable emission standards and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart” to the end of paragraph (a) to clarify that only those that elect to own or operate a stationary temporary combustion turbine must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. As conforming edits, the EPA deletes the phrases “you may operate,” “so long as you,” and “all of” from paragraph (a). In paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraph (d), the EPA deletes the phrase “Unless you elect to demonstrate compliance through the otherwise applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart” because this notice adds that phrase to paragraph (a). The EPA adds the word “combustion” before “turbine” in the first sentence of paragraph (e)(1) for consistency.

• At 91 FR 1982, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 23 amended § 60.4380 by revising paragraph (b)(3). The EPA corrects the regulatory text in paragraph (b)(3) to reflect the use of an arithmetic average to determine the applicable nitrogen oxide (NO X ) standard for averaging periods during which multiple NO X emission standards apply. The Final NSPS Rule inadvertently incorporated regulatory text from Subpart KKKKa that specified the use of a heat input weighted average.

• At 91 FR 1982, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 24 amended § 60.4395 by revising the introductory text. The EPA corrects the heading of this section to read “When must I submit my reports?” instead of “What must I submit my reports?”

• At 91 FR 1984, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 28 amended § 60.4420 by adding and revising certain definitions. The EPA is making an editorial change to the last sentence of the “stationary combustion turbine” definition. The EPA adds the word “combustion” before the word “turbine” for consistency and moves the phrase “all related requirements” to before the phrase “promulgated pursuant to title II of the Clean Air Act” for grammatical correctness.

• At 91 FR 1985, table 1, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 29 amended Table 1 to Subpart KKKK of Part 60—Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits for New Stationary Combustion Turbines. In the second column of the table, “Combustion turbine heat input at peak load (HHV),” the EPA amended the threshold for the subcategories of “Turbines located north of the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 degrees north), turbines operating at less than 75 percent of peak load, modified and reconstructed offshore turbines, and turbines operating at temperatures less than 0 °F.” Specifically, the EPA amended the size threshold for these subcategories by including a heat input-based threshold of 300 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/h) in addition to the existing 30 megawatts (MW) output-based threshold. The EPA is making a technical correction to revert to the 30 MW output-based threshold in Subpart KKKKa. As a conforming edit and for consistency across the subparts, the EPA revises table 1 of Subpart KKKK by reverting to the previous output-based threshold of 30 MW alone for these subcategories of turbines. Because the EPA retained the 30 MW metric as part of the size threshold in Subpart KKKK in the Final NSPS Rule, this change in Subpart KKKK has no practical effect. All combustion turbines with outputs greater than 30 MW also have base load ratings of greater than 300 MMBtu/h, so the added 300 MMBtu/h metric had no applicability implications.

• At 91 FR 1985, table 1, first column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 29 amended Table 1 to Subpart KKKK of Part 60—Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits for New Stationary Combustion Turbines. In the last row of the table, the EPA added a subcategory for “Combustion turbines bypassing the heat recovery unit.” The EPA adds the phrase “firing natural gas” to the first column of this row. The EPA is making this correction for consistency with the previous applicable emission standards for units firing non-natural gas fuels in Subpart KKKK. The EPA restores those previous emission standards in Subpart KKKK by clarifying that this subcategory's NO X emission standard applies only to units firing natural gas.

• At 91 FR 1985, table 1, first column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK. Final NSPS Rule instruction 29 amended Table 1 to Subpart KKKK of Part 60—Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits for New Stationary Combustion Turbines. The EPA corrects an omission from the table and lists subcategories for stationary temporary combustion turbines firing natural gas and firing fuels other than natural gas. These additional rows at the end of the table include the associated NO X emission standards for these subcategories, consistent with the discussion in the preamble at 91 FR 1925. The Final NSPS Rule inadvertently omitted these rows.

• At 91 FR 1986, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4310a paragraph (d), the EPA identified “stationary gas turbines” as not being subject to this subpart if they are subject to title II of the CAA. The EPA corrects paragraph (d) to read as being applicable to “combustion turbines” instead of “stationary gas turbines.” The EPA is making this correction for consistency with Subpart KKKKa, which applies to the stationary combustion turbines source category. In addition, the EPA removes the word “stationary” from the same phrase in paragraph (d) because turbines subject to title II of the CAA are not stationary sources.

• At 91 FR 1987, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4331a paragraphs (a) through (e), the EPA listed the requirements for operating a stationary temporary combustion turbine. The EPA corrects paragraph (a) to add the phrases “owners or operators of” and “may elect to be a temporary combustion turbine and” in the first sentence. This addition is necessary to clarify that the stationary temporary combustion turbine subcategory is optional for qualifying combustion turbines. Furthermore, the EPA adds the phrase “as an alternative to the otherwise applicable emission standards and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart” to the end of paragraph (a) to clarify that only those that elect to own or operate a stationary temporary combustion turbine must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. As conforming edits, the EPA deletes the phrases “you may operate,” “so long as you,” and “all of” from paragraph (a). In paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraph (d), the EPA deletes the phrase “Unless you elect to demonstrate compliance through the otherwise applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart” because this notice adds that phrase to paragraph (a). The EPA adds the word “combustion” before “turbine” in the first sentence of paragraph (e)(1) for consistency.

• At 91 FR 1988, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4333a paragraph (b)(1), the EPA listed the general requirements for complying with the NO X emission standards. In paragraph (b)(1), the EPA corrects the stated interval between performance tests to 14-calendar-months instead of 12-calendar-months. The EPA is making this correction to align performance testing requirements in paragraph (b)(1) with the Agency's response to public comments, which states, “The language in 40 CFR 60.4333a(b) has been updated to be consistent with the 14- and 26-calendar-month testing gaps prescribed in subpart KKKK.”  1

• At 91 FR 1989, first column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4333a paragraph (d)(3), the EPA listed the methods that an owner or operator of a stationary combustion turbine must use to demonstrate compliance with a sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emission standard. The Final NSPS Rule inadvertently omitted a reference to § 60.4372a, which contains the additional acceptable method of using fuel records of the total sulfur content for the combusted fuel to demonstrate compliance. The EPA corrects the last sentence of § 60.4333a paragraph (d)(3) by adding a reference to § 60.4372a to clarify—consistent with the intent of the Final NSPS Rule—that maintaining records is an option for demonstrating compliance with the applicable SO 2 emission standard.

• At 91 FR 1991, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4350a, the EPA listed instructions for determining excess NO X emissions using continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data. In § 60.4350a paragraph (d), the EPA explained the proper procedure for estimating emissions for hours with missing data. The EPA adds the phrase “of this chapter” after “part 75” in the first sentence of paragraph (d) for consistency. In addition, the EPA replaces the phrase “of the hour of” in the second sentence with “of the hourly load value of” after “± 10 percent.” The EPA is making this change to clarify the proper procedure for estimating emissions.

• At 91 FR 1992, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4350a paragraph (f)(1), the EPA provided equation 1 for calculating the hourly average NO X emissions rate, including a list that defines the variables used in the equation. For variable T, the second sentence describes a calculation that “consists of useful thermal output on an annual basis.” The EPA corrects this description to clarify that variable T “consists of useful thermal output on a 12-calendar-month basis” instead of an “annual” basis, which could be confused with calendar-years. The EPA is making this change for consistency with the intent of the Final NSPS Rule, which bases emissions standards on a 12-calendar-month rolling average.

• At 91 FR 1995, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4374a paragraph (g)(2), the EPA provided equation 2 for calculating the hourly average NO X emissions rate, including a list that defines the variables used in the equation. For variable T, the second sentence describes a calculation that “consists of useful thermal output on an annual basis.” The EPA corrects this description to clarify that variable T “consists of useful thermal output on a 12-calendar-month basis” instead of an “annual” basis, which could be confused with calendar-years. The EPA is making this change for consistency with the intent of Final NSPS Rule, which bases emissions standards on a 12-calendar-month rolling average.

• At 91 FR 2000, first column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4400a, the EPA listed instructions for conducting performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the NO X emissions standards without using a NO X CEMS. The EPA corrects paragraph (d) introductory text to specify that owners or operators must conduct the performance test at any load condition within ± 30 percent of 100 percent of the base load rating and may perform testing at the highest achievable load point if they cannot achieve at least 70 percent of the base load rating in practice. The percentages listed in paragraph (d) introductory text of the Final NSPS Rule inadvertently included ± 25 percent and 75 percent from Subpart KKKK. Subpart KKKKa defines “full load” as greater than or equal to 70 percent of the base load rating of the turbine. Therefore, the correct percentages are “± 30 percent” instead of “± 25 percent” and “70 percent” instead of “75 percent.” The EPA makes the same corrections to § 60.4400a paragraph (d)(2).

• At 91 FR 2000, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4405a, the EPA listed instructions for conducting performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the NO X emissions standards using a NO X CEMS. The EPA corrects paragraph (b)(1) to specify that owners or operators must conduct the performance test at a single load level, within ± 30 percent of 100 percent of the base load rating, and owners or operators may perform testing at the highest achievable load point if they cannot achieve at least 70 percent of the base load rating in practice. The percentages listed in paragraph (b)(1) of the Final NSPS Rule inadvertently included ± 25 percent and 75 percent from Subpart KKKK. Subpart KKKKa defines “full load” as greater than or equal to 70 percent of the base load rating of the turbine. Therefore, the correct percentages are “± 30 percent” instead of “± 25 percent” and “70 percent” instead of “75 percent.”

• At 91 FR 2000, third column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4415a paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text, the EPA listed instructions for owners or operators to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the SO 2 emissions standard. The EPA corrects § 60.4415a paragraph (a) to clarify that “you may submit fuel records, . . .” instead of “must submit fuel records,” because using fuel records is not the only acceptable method of demonstrating compliance. Similarly, in § 60.4415a paragraph (b) introductory text, the EPA inadvertently omitted the phrase “and are not using fuel records, you . . .” Accordingly, the EPA corrects the introductory text to read: “If you are an owner or operator of an affected facility complying with the SO 2 emissions standard and are not using fuel records, you must conduct the performance test by measuring the SO 2 emissions in the stationary combustion turbine exhaust gases using the methods in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.”

• At 91 FR 2001, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Subpart KKKKa consisting of sections 60.4300a to 60.4420a. In § 60.4420a, the Final NSPS Rule included definitions that apply to this subpart. The EPA removes the definitions of “annual capacity factor,” “high-utilization source,” and “low-utilization source” because Subpart KKKKa does not use those terms. In addition, the EPA revises the definition of “gross energy output” in paragraph (3) to specify a “12-calendar-month” instead of an “annual” basis, the definition of “stationary combustion turbine” to move “all related requirements” before the phrase “promulgated pursuant to title II of the Clean Air Act” for grammatical correctness, and the definition of “turbine tuning” to clarify that Subpart KKKKa limits turbine tuning to 30 hours per 12-calendar-month period. The use of the phrase “12-calendar-month” instead of the word “annual” in the “gross energy output” and “turbine tuning” definitions is necessary to ensure consistency with the 12-calendar-month basis for emission standards and the intent of the Final NSPS Rule. Furthermore, the EPA adds the definition of “utilization” because that term is relevant for subcategorization purposes.

• At 91 FR 2004, table 1, second column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Table 1 to Subpart KKKKa of Part 60—Nitrogen Oxide Emission Standards for Stationary Combustion Turbines. In the second column of the table, “Combustion turbine base load rated heat input (HHV),” the EPA set a heat-input threshold for the subcategories of turbines “Located north of the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 degrees north), operating at ambient temperatures less than 0 °F (-18 °C), modified or reconstructed offshore turbines, operated during periods of turbine tuning, byproduct-fired turbines, and/or operating at less than 70 percent of the base load rating.” Specifically, the EPA set the threshold for this subcategory as a heat input-based threshold of 300 MMBtu/h. The EPA intended for this threshold in Subpart KKKKa to be equivalent to the output-based threshold of 30 MW in Subpart KKKK. The EPA attempted to align the combustion turbine size subcategories in both subparts with heat input-based thresholds for associated NO X standards for consistency. 2 The EPA did not intend to effectuate a substantive change in the size threshold for these subcategories. 3 However, the EPA is now aware that these two forms of threshold are not equivalent for all combustion turbines in these subcategories that could be subject to Subpart KKKKa, and this change inadvertently substantively altered this threshold, which was not the Agency's intent. 4 Therefore, the EPA corrects this unintended error in table 1 to Subpart KKKKa by reverting to the output-based threshold of 30 MW in Subpart KKKK for these subcategories of turbines in Subpart KKKKa.

• At 91 FR 2004, table 1, first column, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKKa. Final NSPS Rule instruction 30 added Table 1 to Subpart KKKKa of Part 60—Nitrogen Oxide Emission Standards for Stationary Combustion Turbines. To better clarify the NO X emission standards applicable to stationary temporary combustion turbines consistent with the discussion in the preamble, 5 the EPA adds the subcategories of temporary turbines firing natural gas and temporary turbines firing fuels other than natural gas to the end of the table in separate rows. The EPA removes the reference to temporary turbines from the subcategory of “New, firing natural gas, either offshore turbines, turbines bypassing the heat recovery unit, and/or temporary turbines” as a conforming edit and inserts “and/or” before the phrase “turbines bypassing the heat recovery unit.”

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. 6 The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the changes to the rule are minor, noncontroversial in nature, and correct inadvertent typographical and technical errors. These changes align regulatory text with the EPA's expressed intent in the Final NSPS Rule preamble and do not substantively change the requirements of the Final NSPS Rule except to the extent necessary to align the regulatory text with the EPA's intent, which the preamble expressly states. Thus, the corrected regulatory text in this action has already had notice and opportunity for public comment, rendering further notice and opportunity for public comment unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Accordingly, 40 CFR part 60 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

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

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under CAA section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. Section 129 of the CAA is specific to solid waste combustion and requires the EPA to establish the new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for existing sources for each category of solid waste incineration units, which include CISWI units, as addressed in this action. Under CAA section 129, the NSPS and emission guidelines must contain numerical emissions limitations for particulate matter (total and fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. While the NSPS are directly applicable to affected facilities, emission guidelines for existing units are intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to the EPA. Once approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a federal plan. The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. The regulations at 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provide the procedural framework by which the EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state.

However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if a state does not have any existing solid waste incineration units for the relevant emission guidelines, the state shall submit a letter to the EPA certifying that no such units exist within the state ( i.e., a negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan. A negative declaration exempts the state from the provisions of subpart B regarding the submittal of a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan.

On December 1, 2000, the EPA originally promulgated the NSPS and emission guidelines to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. These rulemakings underwent a number of revisions and amendments throughout the 2000s, with the most recent amendments being finalized on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956. Due to significant changes to applicability in the March 21, 2011 CISWI rulemaking, the EPA required states to resubmit state plans for existing source CISWI. See 76 FR 15704 and 78 FR 9112. Existing source CISWI units are those which have commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or were modified no later than August 7, 2013. The emission guidelines for existing source CISWI are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

States subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD (subpart DDDD) must submit a state plan to the EPA that implements the CISWI emission guidelines as per 40 CFR 60.2505. A state with no existing units submits a negative declaration letter in place of a state plan in accordance with 40 CFR 60.2510. The Nebraska Department of Water, Energy, and Environment, formerly the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality at the time of submission, submitted a negative declaration to the EPA on March 26, 2018, certifying that there are no existing sources in the State of Nebraska subject to the requirements of subpart DDDD. On May 21, 2026, the EPA received confirmation from the NDWEE that the 2018 negative declaration is current and that there continues to be no existing sources in the State subject to the requirements of subpart DDDD.

In this final rule, the EPA will amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of the negative declaration letter for the State of Nebraska, certifying that there are no existing CISWI units within its jurisdiction subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA.

If a designated facility is later found within the mentioned jurisdictions after publication of the final action, then the facility will become subject to the requirements of the federal plan for that designated facility, including the compliance schedule. The federal plan will no longer apply if we subsequently receive and approve a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan from the jurisdiction with the overlooked facility.

We are publishing this direct final rule without prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the negative declaration if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Under the CAA, the Administrator has the authority to approve a 111(d) negative declaration in lieu of a state plan that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing 111(d) negative declaration letters, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 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 62 as set forth below:

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 mt (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The baseline quotas for the Harpoon and Reserve categories are 59.2 mt and 38.2 mt, respectively. To date, NMFS has published one action that adjusted the Reserve category quota (91 FR 5855, February 10, 2026). The current adjusted Reserve category quota is 7.4 mt. As described under § 635.27(a)(4), the Harpoon category quota is available from June 1 through November 15 of each year.

Separate from this action, NMFS published a proposed rulemaking that would implement the 2025 ICCAT recommendation (Recommendation 25-05) regarding western BFT management (91 FR 24789, May 7, 2026). Consistent with that recommendation, that proposed rule, would increase the baseline U.S. BFT quota from 1,316.14 mt to 1,509.98 mt and adjust all the subquotas accordingly. In that proposed rule, the Harpoon category baseline quota would increase from 59.2 mt to 67.9 mt and the Reserve category baseline quota would increase from 38.2 mt to 43.8 mt. The comment period on that proposed rule ended on June 8, 2026. Any final rule implementing ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 would likely be effective in mid-2026 or later.

Under § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories after considering the determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(7). This section focuses on the calculations involved in transferring quota currently available from the 2026 Reserve category to the 2026 Harpoon category quota; the consideration of the determination criteria can be found below after this section.

As stated above, the baseline Harpoon category quota and adjusted Reserve category quota are 59.2 mt and 7.4 mt, respectively. Transferring 6.4 mt from the Reserve category to the Harpoon category, results in an adjusted Harpoon category quota of 65.6 mt (59.2 mt + 6.4 mt = 65.6 mt), and an adjusted Reserve category quota of 1 mt (7.4 mt − 6.4 mt = 1 mt). The Harpoon category quota is available for use by Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permitted vessels.

In summary, this transfer results in an adjusted Harpoon quota of 65.6 mt and an adjusted Reserve quota of 1 mt. The Harpoon category fishery will remain open until November 15, 2026, or until the adjusted Harpoon quota is reached, whichever comes first.

NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer (§ 635.27(a)(7)). These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:

Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(7)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by Harpoon category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the Harpoon category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS also considered the catches of the Harpoon category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of the Harpoon category fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ii)), as well as daily landing trends and the availability of BFT on fishing grounds (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ix)). To date, preliminary landings data indicate that the Harpoon category has landed approximately 63.1 mt for the Harpoon category. Without a quota transfer at this time, the Harpoon category would very likely exceed the available quota and NMFS would have to stop BFT fishing activities even though commercial-sized BFT remain available in the areas where Harpoon category permitted vessels operate. A quota transfer at this time provides limited additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota while avoiding exceeding it.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the Harpoon category to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iii)), NMFS considered Harpoon category landings over the last several years and landings to date this year. Landings are highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors. By allowing for the current quota transfer, NMFS anticipates that the Harpoon category quota would be used before the end of the fishing season. Additionally, this quota transfer would allow Harpoon category fishermen to take advantage of the current availability of BFT on the fishing grounds and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the available U.S. BFT quota.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iv)), the ability to account for all 2026 landings and dead discards (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xi)), and the ability to facilitate quota accounting (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xii)). With the exception of 2024, the total U.S. BFT landings in recent years typically have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. When total U.S. BFT landings are above the available U.S. quota, the United States reduces the next year's quota by the overharvest amount (including reducing the various fishing category subquotas by their respective overharvest amounts), as was necessary in 2025 to account for overharvest of the 2024 adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations. NMFS will need to account for 2026 landings and dead discards within the 2026 adjusted U.S. quota, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do so.

NMFS also considered the effects of the transfer on the BFT stock and on accomplishing the objectives of the HMS FMP (§ 635.27(a)(7)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be within established quotas and subquotas, which are implemented consistent with ICCAT recommendations, ATCA, and the objectives of the HMS FMP and amendments. In establishing these quotas and subquotas and associated management measures, ICCAT and NMFS considered the best scientific information available, objectives for stock management and status, and effects on the stock. This quota transfer is in line with the established management measures and stock status determinations. Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available Harpoon category quota without exceeding the annual quota, based on the objectives of the HMS FMP and its amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to allow all permit categories a reasonable opportunity to harvest available BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(x)). Finally, we note that the amount remaining in the Reserve category is sufficient for anticipated exempted fishing and other permitted research needs.

In summary, this transfer results in an adjusted Harpoon quota of 65.6 mt and an adjusted Reserve quota of 1 mt. The Harpoon category fishery will remain open until November 15, 2026, or until the adjusted Harpoon quota is reached, whichever comes first.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required per § 635.27(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov , using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling 888-872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded in 2026 or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas as specified under § 635.27(a)(7). If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/home , for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason adjustments and quota transfers to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the 2026 Harpoon category quota is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings that exceed the Harpoon category quota. Additionally, a delay in implementing this action would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are currently available on the fishing grounds and that might otherwise become unavailable. This action does not raise conservation and management concerns and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. This action does not affect the overall ICCAT-allocated U.S. BFT quota. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2026 allocations were published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7896).

The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfers or combinations would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these three criteria have been met for the transfer approved in this notification.

North Carolina is transferring 12,719 pounds (lb; 5,769 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to Virginia through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by out-of-state permitted vessels under safe harbor agreements. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2026 are: North Carolina, 2,907,006 lb (1,318,596 kg); and Virginia, 2,433,727 lb (1,103,920 kg).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.