The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Public Law 95-521, as amended, mandates public financial disclosure reports for a range of officials in all three branches of government and for candidates for Federal office. It requires financial disclosure reports to be filed by employees who are “in a position in the executive branch which is excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character.” 5 U.S.C. 13103(f)(5). This provision further prescribes that the Director of OGE may, by regulation, exclude from the application of this paragraph any individual, or group of individuals, who are in such positions, but only in cases in which the Director determines such exclusion “would not affect adversely the integrity of the Government or the public's confidence in the integrity of the Government.” Id.

Historically, the only category of Federal employees that were “excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character” were Schedule C employees, who are political appointees expected to resign at the conclusion of a Presidential term. However, E.O. 14171, “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce,” 90 FR 8625 (Jan. 31, 2025), ordered the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to initiate a rulemaking to prepare for the transfer of positions into Schedule Policy/Career. That Executive Order contemplated a new excepted service schedule for career employees in a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating position” who would be exempted from Chapter 75 adverse action proceedings in order to ensure their competence and effectiveness in fulfilling the President's agenda. It further ordered OPM to work with agencies to compile lists of positions that should be placed into Schedule Policy/Career.

On February 6, 2026, OPM published a final rule, “Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service,” 91 FR 5580, effective March 9, 2026. 1 The final rule amended OPM's regulations to implement Schedule Policy/Career, including by adding 5 CFR 213.3601. Under that section, as authorized by the President, agencies may make appointments to career positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character that are not in the Senior Executive Service, and positions filled under that authority are excepted from the competitive service and constitute Schedule Policy/Career.

In its rulemaking, OPM stated that “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” are not terms of art that apply exclusively to political appointees, but rather terms that refer to distinct, sometimes overlapping, categories of occupational positions. 2 In addition, these terms bear their ordinary language meanings and refer to positions that determine, make, or advocate for Government policy, or that are confidential in nature. Because section 13103(f)(5) specifies that a public financial disclosure report must be filed by employees who are “excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character,” an employee in a position placed into Schedule Policy/Career because the position's duties are of a “confidential” or “policymaking” character would be required by statute to file unless the position is excluded from filing by the OGE Director.

Executive Order 14410 of June 3, 2026, “Implementing Schedule Policy/Career in the Excepted Service,” 91 FR 34893 (June 10, 2026), effectuated the initial transfer of positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Section 5 of E.O. 14410 determined that the positions set forth in the Appendix to that order have a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character and placed those positions in Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service. E.O. 14410 also required agency heads, within 7 days of the date of the order, to notify officers or employees encumbering those positions of their placement in Schedule Policy/Career and to conform agency records and practices to reflect the changes made by the order. OPM subsequently advised agencies that employees encumbering positions listed in the Appendix became Schedule Policy/Career employees as of the date of E.O. 14410 and that agencies should process an SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, with an effective date of June 3, 2026, to transition each employee into Schedule Policy/Career.

E.O. 14410 placed approximately 7,600 positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Per OPM, the large majority of employees encumbering those positions are Federal employees who were not previously required to file a public financial disclosure report. Financial disclosure reporting serves important transparency and conflicts-of-interest identification purposes for certain senior career employees. However, the action of moving positions into Schedule Policy/Career in and of itself should not serve as a determination that the employees encumbering those positions are now at risk of having new conflicts of interest. The duties of these employees do not change upon their transfer to Schedule Policy/Career. Moreover, there is currently no evidence that continuing to exempt  3 this group of employees from public filing requirements when their positions are placed into Schedule Policy/Career would create new risks of conflicts of interest, misuses of positions, other improprieties, or the appearance thereof, as the duties of these employees will not substantially change upon their transfer to Schedule Policy/Career. Accordingly, the Acting Director of OGE has found that this action would not adversely affect the integrity of the Government or the public's confidence in the integrity of the Government.

In addition, financial disclosure reporting creates an administrative burden for both the filing employees and the agency ethics officials responsible for reviewing those filings. There are over 27,000 public financial disclosure filers in the Executive branch. Based on data provided by agencies, OPM estimates that about 16 percent of employees being moved to Schedule Policy/Career are currently public filers. Applying that estimate to the 7,600 positions placed in Schedule Policy/Career by E.O. 14410, OPM has advised OGE that approximately 6,400 employees encumbering positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career do not currently file public financial disclosure reports. Thus, absent this regulatory change, the number of public filers would increase significantly and would create an administrative burden in time and work for both these new filers and the agency ethics officials responsible for reviewing those filings. The administrative burden created by this increase in filers is not justified when the positions and employees encumbering them are otherwise unchanged.

While OGE has existing exclusions to section 13103(f)(5) filing, found at § 2634.203, those exclusions would apply to relatively few Schedule Policy/Career employees. Employees in positions at or below the GS-13 grade level may be excluded from filing a public financial disclosure report if the designated agency ethics official (DAEO) finds that they “do not have a substantial policymaking role with respect to agency programs,” and employees at the GS-14 and GS-15 grade levels may be excluded on a case-by-case basis by the Director if their positions have “no policy-making role with regard to agency programs.” Neither exclusion is appropriate for most Schedule Policy/Career positions because many such positions will have a policy-making role with regard to agency programs. 4 Accordingly, a new exclusion is required to maintain an unchanged and consistent filing status for employees whose only basis for public filing would be the placement of their positions into Schedule Policy/Career.

The baseline presumption is that employees whose positions were moved to Schedule Policy/Career from the competitive service or other excepted service schedules and who are not currently required to file any type of financial disclosure report will continue to not be required to file such a report under this new regulation. “n. However, those Schedule Policy/Career employees who currently file a public financial disclosure report or a confidential financial disclosure report pursuant to § 2634.904 will continue to do so. Consequently, OGE is excluding from the public filing requirements those Schedule Policy/Career positions for which the only basis for public filing is their position being in Schedule Policy/Career. The Acting Director of OGE does not find that the integrity of the Government, or the public's confidence in the integrity of the Government, will be adversely impacted by employees maintaining their current filing status.

The President and OPM have determined that Schedule Policy/Career is necessary to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the Executive branch. OPM's final Schedule Policy/Career rule established the regulatory framework for the new excepted service schedule, and E.O. 14410 placed 7,600 positions into Schedule Policy/Career. However, requiring all employees encumbering positions placed into Schedule Policy/Career by E.O. 14410 to file public financial disclosure reports is not necessary to maintain the integrity of Government. Most employees whose positions were placed into Schedule Policy/Career by E.O. 14410 do not currently file public financial disclosure reports, and the act of reclassifying these positions on its own would not give rise to additional risk of conflicts of interest, misuses of position, other improprieties, or the appearance thereof. This rule is therefore needed to preserve the pre-existing filing status of employees whose positions and duties have not otherwise changed. Notably, Schedule Policy/Career employees who are otherwise required to file public financial disclosure reports for reasons outside the scope of 5 U.S.C. 13103(f)(5) will still be required to file those reports.

The primary impact of the current rule will be to preserve the filing status of existing employees. Absent this regulatory change, the placement of positions into Schedule Policy/Career by Executive Order 14410 would create a new class of public filers numbering in the thousands. These employees are currently serving in the same positions they will be under Schedule Policy/Career and have not previously been required to file public reports under the Ethics in Government Act. Since the duties of these employees will not change upon their transfer to Schedule Policy/Career, the action of placing their positions into Schedule Policy/Career should not serve as a determination that these employees have new conflicts-of-interest risks.

OGE estimates that the costs of implementing this rule will be comparatively minimal. Agency ethics officials will have to review the incumbents of positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career to determine whether the financial reporting status of the employees encumbering these positions has been altered by this rule. Because ethics officials are required to undertake this analysis for existing employees under the status quo, OGE estimates an average of at most one hour of additional labor to review each Schedule Policy/Career position encumbered by an employee who currently does not file, for a total of no more than approximately 6,400 hours of labor. A reasonable estimate for the average yearly pay rate for ethics officials, in the Washington, DC locality pay area, would be the Fiscal Year 2026 GS 13, Step 5 rate of $138,024 per ethics official, corresponding to an hourly rate of $66.14. OGE assumes the total value of labor to be 200 percent of the hourly wage rate, for an hourly cost of $132.28. OGE thus estimates implementation costs of approximately $0.85 million. After reevaluating the filing status for the initial cohort of Schedule Policy/Career employees, there would presumably be no additional costs for newly appointed Schedule Policy/Career employees beyond the ethics analyses which would still be required without this regulatory change.

OGE anticipates that this rule will avoid significant costs associated with an increased number of filers of ethics reports. OGE estimates that compliance with reporting requirements requires approximately 10 hours of labor per filer. Applying OPM's estimate that approximately 16% of employees being moved to Schedule Policy/Career are currently public filers to the 7,600 positions placed in Schedule Policy/Career by Executive Order 14410, OPM estimates that approximately 6,400 Schedule Policy/Career employees would become new public filers absent this rule, for a total of approximately 64,000 hours of labor for the initial cohort of would-be Schedule Policy/Career filers. OPM advised OGE that, in its experience, the review and processing of a public financial disclosure form will take agency ethics officials approximately five hours per filer for most filers, for a total of approximately 32,000 hours. 5 Because, per OPM, Schedule Policy/Career employees are expected to be concentrated in higher GS-scale positions and because attorneys and others working in agency ethics offices are generally experienced attorneys in higher GS-scale brackets, a reasonable estimate for the yearly rate, in the Washington, DC locality pay area, would be the GS 15-1 rate of $169,279 per filer and the GS 13-5 rate of $138,024 per ethics official, corresponding to hourly rates of $81.11 and $66.14, respectively. OGE assumes the total value of labor to be 200 percent of the hourly wage rate, for an hourly cost of $162.22 and $132.28. OGE thus estimates cost savings from preparing and processing the initial wave of Schedule Policy/Career disclosures to be approximately $14.6 million. While this number would taper off following the initial processing of disclosures for all Schedule Policy/Career employees, Schedule Policy/Career employees would generally be replaced by other employees who would need to file disclosure forms. At a conservative estimate that one in fifteen employees would be separated and replaced per year, this would lead to approximately $1.0 million in additional annual savings.

Further, OGE would avoid the increased costs required to support the thousands of additional filers beyond the more than 26,000 filers currently in OGE's electronic public financial disclosure filing system, Integrity. The rule eliminates any additional costs related to housing, authentication and IT labor required to support a large number of new filers.

OGE's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which allows an agency to forgo notice-and-comment requirements “when the Agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

OGE finds good cause to forgo the notice-and-comment process because following those procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). E.O. 14410 placed 7,600 positions into Schedule Policy/Career effective June 3, 2026. Section 5 of E.O. 14410 required agency heads, within 7 days of the date of the order, to notify officers or employees encumbering those positions of their placement in Schedule Policy/Career and to conform agency records and practices to reflect the changes made by the order. OPM subsequently advised agencies that employees encumbering positions listed in the Appendix to E.O. 14410 became Schedule Policy/Career employees as of the date of the order and that agencies should process SF-50s effective June 3, 2026.

Under current OGE regulations, Schedule Policy/Career employees who are required to file public financial disclosure reports by reason of 5 U.S.C. 13103(f)(5) would need to file public financial disclosure reports “[w]ithin 30 days of assuming” a Schedule Policy/Career position. 5 CFR 2634.201(b)(1). Were this rule promulgated using standard notice-and-comment procedures, employees whose positions were placed into Schedule Policy/Career by E.O. 14410 would have to go through the significant administrative burden of preparing financial disclosure reports while agency ethics officials would have to review those reports and while OGE is soliciting public comments on whether there is even a need for those employees to comply with that requirement. This would represent a significant expenditure of government resources for minimal public benefit. The purpose of this rule is therefore to avoid a significant increase in the number of public financial disclosure filers and thereby preserve the status quo filing obligations under the Ethics in Government Act for existing employees whose positions and duties have not changed. In other words, the purpose of this action is to maintain a current policy that would otherwise inadvertently change as an unintended consequence of E.O. 14410's placement of positions into Schedule Policy/Career.

Although OGE has advised agencies that DAEOs may grant temporary filing extensions under § 2634.201(g), those extensions are temporary, require agency-by-agency action, and do not resolve the underlying legal uncertainty created by E.O. 14410's placement of positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Immediate regulatory action is therefore necessary to provide uniform government-wide treatment before temporary extensions expire and to avoid unnecessary preparation and review of reports that may not ultimately be required.

Despite this rule going into effect without prior public comment, OGE is providing an opportunity for comment on this rule. OGE will review and respond to any comments received, including by making changes to this rule, if appropriate. Thus, the net effect of this rule, even if OGE revises the rule following public comment, would be to delay the filing of financial disclosures for employees whose only basis for public filing is their placement in Schedule Policy/Career while OGE evaluates the policy reflected by this rule.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule is not subject to the requirement that a rule be published at least 30 days prior to its effective date. Section 553(d)(1) provides that the 30-day delayed effective date does not apply to “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” The purpose of this rule is to grant an exclusion for Schedule Policy/Career employees from the requirement to file public financial disclosures under 5 U.S.C. 13103(f)(5) when the only basis for public filing is the placement of their positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Because E.O. 14410 placed 7,600 positions into Schedule Policy/Career effective June 3, 2026, this rule grants an exclusion from, and relieves, a newly triggered requirement to file. A delayed effective date is therefore unnecessary. As discussed, an immediate effective date will preserve the status quo as OGE evaluates the policy reflected by this rule in light of public comment.

OGE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it concerns only the internal personnel management of the Federal Government.

OGE has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. While this rulemaking does not reach that threshold, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is “significant” under section 3 of Executive Order 12866. The primary benefit of this regulation will be the preservation of the filing status of existing employees whose positions were placed into Schedule Policy/Career by E.O. 14410, compared to a baseline of OPM's final Schedule Policy/Career rule and E.O. 14410 taking effect without this regulatory change.

This rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), and provides annual cost savings. Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by the Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” As explained further in sections II(C) and II(D), above, in the first year, OGE estimates implementation costs of approximately $0.85 million and initial cost savings of approximately $14.6 million, for total annual net cost savings of approximately $13.7 million. Thereafter, OGE estimates total annual cost savings of approximately $1.0 million, plus any separately estimated savings associated with reduced support burdens for Integrity. As such, this action aligns with E.O. 14192, which promotes prudent financial management and alleviates unnecessary regulatory burdens.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as it concerns only the internal management of the Executive Branch. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, OGE certifies that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 1996).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may 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, updated annually for inflation. The threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking does not include a Federal mandate that might result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $206 million.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OGE amends 5 CFR part 2634 as follows:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2476 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2026-2476. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415-3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin ADAMS Public Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2026-2476 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 10 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM FW Cask System design. The NRC is using the direct final rule procedure to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing (CoC) that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on October 6, 2026. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by August 24, 2026, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on March 28, 2011 (76 FR 17019), that approved the HI-STORM FW System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as CoC No. 1032.

On March 1, 2024, Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1032. Holtec International supplemented its request on the following dates: September 16, 2024, December 12, 2024, February 28, 2025, July 28, 2025, September 11, 2025, and January 30, 2026. Amendment No. 10 revises the CoC to:

• Introduce the HI-STORM FW Extended Configuration. This version of the HI-STORM FW system is an anchored configuration that allows storage of two multi-purpose canisters (MPCs) stored vertically within a specially designed system of two storage overpacks.

• Incorporation of a methodology to develop site-specific loading patterns in Chapter 4 of the HI-STORM FW final safety analysis report (FSAR) and inclusion of higher maximum per canister and per cell limits for those patterns.

• Incorporation of the “Topical Report on the Radiological Fuel Qualification Methodology for Dry Storage Systems,” Holtec Report HI-2210161-A. Related details and requirements are specified in the new Appendix B to Chapter 5 of the FSAR.

• Reduce MPC-44 minimum cooling time from 3 years to 1 year, and MPC-37P minimum cooling time from 1.6 years to 1 year.

• Revise the FSAR methodology for HI-TRAC VW missile penetration to allow site-specific analysis to take credit for the HI-TRAC VW water jacket shell.

• Minor editorial change to the CoC and providing a clarification to AppendixB of the CoC by updating the MPC-89 maximum fuel assembly length in Table 2.1-1 to 181.5 inches, which includes configurations involving a damaged fuel canister or a damaged fuel isolator.

The changes to the aforementioned documents are identified with revisions bars in the margin of each document.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 10 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC staff determined that the amended HI-STORM FW cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into HI-STORM FW casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1032.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the HI-STORM FW Cask System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment. This environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact can be tracked with identification number NEPA ID EAXX-429-00-000-1778667092.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM FW listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1032.

This direct final rule amends the CoC for Holtec International HI-STORM FW design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 10 revises the CoC for the HI-STORM FW dry storage system to incorporate several enhancements. These changes include the introduction of the HI-STORM FW Extended Configuration, an anchored design that accommodates two multi-purpose canisters stored vertically within specially engineered overpacks; adoption of a methodology for developing site-specific loading patterns with higher allowable per-canister and per-cell heat-load limits; incorporation of a radiological fuel-qualification methodology, including associated analytical requirements; reduction of minimum cooling-time requirements for certain multi-purpose canister models based on updated evaluations; and refinement of the missile-impact analysis methodology to allow site-specific credit for the HI-TRAC VW water-jacket shell. The amendment also includes a minor editorial clarification. Collectively, these revisions update the HI-STORM FW CoC and Final Safety Analysis Report consistent with Holtec's requested changes.

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 10 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

Holtec International HI-STORM FW is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 10 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 10 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM FW in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 10 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1032 would result in no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind System, CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 10,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec Internation. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33121), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the HI-STORM FW System by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On March 1, 2024, and as supplemental on September 16, 2024, December 12, 2024, February 28, 2025, July 28, 2025, September 11, 2025, and January 30, 2026, Holtec International submitted a request to amend the HI-STORM FW System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 10 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM FW under the changes described in Amendment No. 10 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 10 previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and technical specifications.

Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW was initiated by Holtec International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 10 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 10. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM FW, and the current Amendment No. 7 continues to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 10, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1032 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2026-2476. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2026-2476); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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 regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This IFR revises the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) and is organized into three sections: I—Addition of Sound Suppressors to the EAR; II—Revision to the License Exception for Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (In-Country) (TMP); and III—Revision to the Entry Clearance Requirements for Temporary Imports.

Section I describes the EAR revisions and addition to the Commerce Control List (CCL) for certain sound suppressors that are being removed from the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR 121.1) pursuant to the State IFR. Section II describes the revisions to License Exception TMP to authorize certain exports and reexports of firearms and related commodities when used as tools of trade. Section III describes the revision of § 758.10 that clarifies which items subject to the EAR are available to be temporarily imported into the United States for subsequent export under the EAR in § 758.10(a).

Please note that citations to the EAR in this preamble will be to section number only ( i.e., § 758.10); citations to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) in this preamble will be to title 22 of the CFR and the section number ( i.e., 22 CFR 121.1).

On January 23, 2020, BIS published the final rule, Control of Firearms, Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML) (85 FR 4136; effective date: March 9, 2020) (BIS 2020 Rule) alongside a complementary State final rule, International Traffic in Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List Categories I, II, and III (85 FR 3819; effective date: March 9, 2020) (State 2020 Rule). These rules revised the CCL in the EAR and Categories I, II, and III of the USML in the ITAR, respectively, to transfer jurisdiction over the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of certain firearms and related items from State to Commerce as of March 9, 2020. Additionally, while BIS did not impose license requirements on temporary imports, effective that date, BIS has maintained entry clearance requirements for certain items, e.g., certain firearms and related items. See section III of this IFR. These items are classified under 0x5zz Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs). Notably, at that time, State retained jurisdiction over sound suppressors, including those used with the non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms and shotguns transferred to Commerce jurisdiction.

This IFR publishes alongside the complementary State IFR implementing State's removal of certain sound suppressors for firearms and shotguns from the USML under the ITAR. As specified in this IFR, the sound suppressors removed from the USML by the State IFR will be controlled on the CCL and enumerated under new item paragraph 0A501.f in ECCN 0A501 and item paragraph 0A502.f in ECCN 0A502. Items controlled under ECCN 0A501.f are sound suppressors capable of being used with rifles controlled under ECCNs 0A501 or 0A506, pistols controlled under ECCNs 0A501 or 0A507, or certain sound suppressors capable of being used interchangeably with any combination of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Sound suppressors that are for exclusive use with shotguns controlled under ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508 are enumerated under ECCN 0A502.f. To facilitate readability and aid in the identification of controlled items, BIS has also moved the items formerly identified in the header of ECCN 0A502 into item paragraphs within the ECCN as described in section I.F of this preamble.

BIS will require an authorization to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) sound suppressors that are being added to the CCL, including releases of related technology and software controlled on the CCL, to foreign persons in the United States or abroad. Nothing in this IFR prohibits or otherwise limits persons in the United States from acquiring sound suppressors of any type; BIS is not responsible for regulating the sale or acquisition of these items within the United States.

License applications for these items will be reviewed to determine whether the proposed export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States based upon their respective ECCN reasons for control and intended destination and end user. BIS, working with State, will ensure that appropriate regulatory oversight continues to be exercised over exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country), as well as temporary imports (in the form of certain entry clearance requirements), of these sound suppressors.

The changes described in section I of this preamble are expected to result in an increase of 200 license applications received annually by BIS, along with the availability of license exceptions or eligibility for license-free export, reexport, or transfer to or within certain destinations under the EAR.

The reasons for control for sound suppressors controlled under ECCNs 0A501.f and 0A502.f are the same reasons for control applicable to the firearms with which they are used; likewise, license exceptions available for other firearms parts, components, accessories, and attachments will be available for sound suppressors. The reasons for control for the sound suppressors being controlled under ECCN 0A501.f will be national security (NS Column 1 or NS1), regional stability (RS Column 1 or RS1), firearms convention (FC Column 1 or FC1), United Nations embargo (UN), and antiterrorism (AT Column 1 or AT1). The reasons for control for sound suppressors being controlled under ECCN 0A502.f will be FC1, UN, AT1, and a new RS control under paragraphs 742.6(a)(14) and (b)(15), which will allow these commodities to be exported or reexported to certain allied and partner countries without a license.

Paragraph (b)(1)(i) of § 742.6 (Regional stability) provides the licensing policy applicable to all items under ECCN 0A501. This policy will also apply to 0A501.f through an RS1 control imposed by this IFR. New RS paragraphs 742.6(a)(14) and (b)(15) will specify the licensing requirements and licensing policy applicable to items controlled under ECCN 0A502.f. This revision to § 742.6 is outlined in section I.E of this preamble. Applications for sound suppressors will generally be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to all destinations to determine whether the transaction is contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.

Additionally, BIS controls the export and reexport of select categories of items to countries subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes (see § 746.1). A license is required to export or reexport items identified in part 774 as having a UN reason for control to countries identified in paragraph (b)(2) of § 746.1. To the extent consistent with United States national security and foreign policy interests, BIS will not approve applications for such licenses if the authorization would be contrary to the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolution.

BIS maintains a uniform licensing structure for the export of firearms and related items to all Organization of American States (OAS) member countries (see § 742.17 of the EAR). Items subject to these controls are identified by FC1 in the control(s) table of the applicable ECCNs. This IFR applies reason for control FC1 to ECCNs 0A501.f and 0A502.f. Additionally, the support documentation licensing requirements already specified in the EAR, consistent with the OAS requirement to provide an import certificate issued by the importing country, will apply to ECCNs 0A501.f and 0A502.f.

Finally, sound suppressors under ECCNs 0A501.f and 0A502.f will also be controlled for anti-terrorism reasons (AT1) (see 15 CFR part 742).

Under ECCNs 0A501 and 0A502, this IFR adds paragraphs 0A501.f and 0A502.f to the LVS eligibility for the $500 amount if the ultimate destination is Canada.

License Exception BAG, § 740.14, allows United States citizens and permanent resident aliens leaving the United States temporarily to take firearms for personal use while abroad. Within this provision, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” controlled under ECCN 0A501 are permitted to be exported under paragraph 740.14(e)(3). Sound suppressors added to the CCL by this IFR are eligible for License Exception BAG as a “part,” “component,” “accessory” or “attachment” for a firearm controlled under their specified ECCN.

Additionally, this IFR also revises paragraph 740.14(e)(1) to add “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” controlled under ECCN 0A502 as items available to be exported under the provisions of License Exception BAG, thereby correcting the inadvertent omission of shotgun “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments.”

As described in section II of this IFR, BIS revises License Exception TMP to allow for firearms, as well as related “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) as a tool of trade. Sound suppressors qualify for this license exception as a “part,” “component,” “accessory,” or “attachment” of the specified firearms so long as the other requirements of revised § 740.9 are fulfilled and the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is not restricted under one of the general restrictions under § 740.2.

This IFR revises § 742.6 by adding paragraph (a)(14), which provides a policy for sound suppressors for exclusive use with commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A502 and 0A508 enumerated under paragraph 0A502.f. Paragraph 742.6(a)(14) specifies a license is required for the export or reexport of the commodities controlled under ECCN 0A502.f to all destinations other than North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states, Australia, Austria, India, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, South Korea, or Switzerland. (see NATO membership listing in § 772.1 of the EAR).

Paragraph 742.6(b)(15) specifies the licensing review policy for paragraph 742.6(a)(14). A license is required to export or reexport to all destinations not listed in paragraph 742.6(a)(14). Applications for commodities described in paragraph 742.6(a)(14) will be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 742.6(b)(1)(i), which is generally a case-by-case basis to determine whether the transaction is contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests pursuant to paragraph 742.6(b)(15). However, applications for exports or reexports of commodities in paragraph 742.6(a)(14) will also be reviewed under the other license review policies pursuant to paragraph 742.6(b)(1)(i) when applicable.

Section 740.14 is revised by adding ‘ “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” ' to paragraph (e)(1) after the word `over.' In § 740.14, paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (e)(1)(iv), respectively. Additionally, paragraph 740.14(e)(1)(iv) is revised to read as follows: `The commodities must be for the person's exclusive use for legitimate hunting or lawful sporting purposes, scientific purposes, or personal protection, and not for resale or other transfer of ownership or control. Accordingly, except as provided in (e)(2) of this section, shotguns, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” may not be exported permanently under this License Exception. All shotguns, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” controlled under ECCN 0A502, and 0A508 and unused shotgun shells must be returned to the United States. Note that since certain countries may require an Import Certificate or a U.S. export license before allowing the import of a shotgun, you should determine the import requirements of your country of destination in advance.' Finally, paragraph 740.14(e)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows: ` “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” exported pursuant to this paragraph (e)(1) must be of a kind and limited to quantities that are reasonable for the activities described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section or that are necessary for routine maintenance of the firearms being exported.'

Section 742.6 is revised by adding paragraph (a)(14) with the following text: ` RS requirement for ECCN 0A502.f. A license is required for the export or reexport of commodities specified in ECCN 0A502.f to all destinations other than North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states, Australia, Austria, India, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, South Korea, or Switzerland.'

Additionally, § 742.6 is revised by adding paragraph (b)(15) to describe the license review policy for paragraph (a)(14). Applications for exports or reexports of items described in paragraph (a)(14) of this section will be reviewed pursuant to the license review policy of paragraph 742.6(b)(1)(i).

ECCN 0A501 is revised by adding `.f' to the $500 amount for LVS if the ultimate destination is Canada under the List Based License Exceptions section. ECCN 0A501 is further revised by adding `.f' to the Special Conditions for STA. In the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled, this IFR adds new Related Controls paragraphs `(9) See .f of this entry for silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors capable of being used with commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A502, 0A506, 0A507, and 0A508' and `(10) See ECCN 0A502.f for silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for exclusive use with commodities controlled under ECCN 0A502 or 0A508' in numerical order. Related control (1) is revised to indicate a broad cross-reference of USML Category I commodities. ECCN 0A501 is further revised by adding a new “items” paragraph .f to control `silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for use with a commodity controlled by paragraph .a or .b of this entry or ECCNs 0A506 or 0A507.' A new Note 6 to 0A501.f is added to ECCN 0A501 with the text ` Silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors controlled by this paragraph 0A501.f are those capable of being used with commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A506, or 0A507, or those capable of being used with commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A506, or 0A507 as well as commodities controlled under ECCN 0A502 or 0A508. For silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for exclusive use with a commodity controlled by ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508, see ECCN 0A502.f.' Former Notes 6 through 9 are redesignated as Notes 7 through 10, respectively. Finally, this IFR redesignates paragraphs .g through .w as reserved in ECCN 0A501.

ECCN 0A502 is revised by this IFR so that the heading reads as follows: `0A502 Shotguns (except 0A508 semi-automatic shotguns) and related commodities (except semi-automatic related commodities enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 0A509 for ECCN 0A508) as follows (see List of Items controlled).' In the License Requirements section for ECCN 0A502, the control table is revised by adding a new RS row that states: `RS applies to paragraph .f' under the Control(s) column and `See § 742.6(a)(14) and (b)(15) of the EAR' under the Country Chart column. Additionally, the crime control (CC) row of the control table is revised under the control(s) column to read: `CC applies to shotguns with a barrel length less than 24 in. (60.96 cm) and paragraphs .c, .d, and .e controlled by this entry regardless of end user.' In ECCN 0A502 under the List Based License Exceptions section, LVS is revised to read: `$500 for 0A502.c, and .d' and `$500 for 0A502.c, .d, .e, and .f if the ultimate destination is Canada.' Additionally, this IFR adds a new Related Controls paragraph that reads as follows: `(6) See 0A501.f for silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors with the capability of being used with all commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A502, 0A506, 0A507, and 0A508.' in the List of Items Controlled section in numerical order. Also, related control (1) is revised to indicate a broad cross-reference of USML Category I commodities.

Additionally, in ECCN 0A502, new item paragraphs .a through .f are added, and the text `The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading' after `Items' is removed. Paragraph .a is added with the text `Non-automatic and non-semi automatic centerfire (non-rimfire) shotguns.' Paragraph .b is added with the text `Non-automatic and non-semi automatic rimfire shotguns.' Paragraph .c is added with the text `Complete trigger mechanisms for a commodity controlled by paragraph .a or .b of this entry, ECCN 0A508, or USML Category I (unless otherwise enumerated or elsewhere specified on the USML).' Paragraph .d is added with the text `Magazines and magazine extension tubes for a commodity controlled by paragraph .a or .b of this entry or controlled by ECCN 0A508.' Paragraph .e is added with the text ` “Complete breech mechanisms” for a commodity controlled by paragraph .a or .b of this entry.' Note 1 to paragraph 0A502.e is added after paragraph 0A502.e with the text ` Frames (receivers) “specially designed” for semi-automatic shotguns are controlled under ECCN 0A509.d.' Paragraph .f is added with the text `Silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for exclusive use with a commodity controlled by ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508.' Note 2 to 0A502 is added after paragraph .f with the following text: ` ECCN 0A502 does not control equipment used to slaughter domestic animals or used exclusively to treat or tranquilize animals; or arms designed solely for signal, flare, or saluting use.' Finally, former Note 1 to 0A502 is redesignated as Note 3 to 0A502.

ECCNs 0A506 and 0A507 are revised by this IFR by adding a new Related Controls paragraph `(9) See 0A501.f for silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors capable of being used with commodities controlled under ECCNs 0A506 and 0A507 in the List of Items Controlled section in numerical order. Additionally, related control (1) is revised in ECCNs 0A506 and 0A507 to indicate a broad cross-reference of USML Category I commodities.

ECCN 0A508 is revised by this IFR by adding a new Related Controls paragraph `(5) See 0A502.f for silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for exclusive use with a commodity controlled under ECCNs 0A502 and 0A508' in the List of Items Controlled section in numerical order. Finally, related control (1) is revised to indicate a broad cross-reference of USML Category I commodities.

Section 740.9 of the EAR (License Exception TMP) authorizes various temporary exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR. In this IFR, BIS revises § 740.9 to allow firearms and related items to be temporarily exported or reexported when used as tools of trade. This expansion is described under paragraph (a)(2) of § 740.9, as revised by this IFR.

BIS regularly approves licenses for the use of a firearm as a tool of trade in a wide range of contexts, such as for security contractors working at a U.S. embassy, the protection of shipping vessels and crews from piracy, and armored vehicle guards who cross the U.S. border daily for work. These types of activities are consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. However, prior to this IFR, the EAR did not have a provision authorizing, under a license exception, a company-owned firearm to be used by an employee to perform work duties when those duties resulted in the export or reexport of the firearm.

License Exception BAG, prior to this IFR, allowed for personally-owned firearms to be exported or reexported as a tool of trade, provided the requirements under paragraphs 740.10(b)(4) and (e) are met, and no restrictions under § 740.2 apply. This policy resulted in a situation where an employee could use a personal firearm as part of their employment duties, that resulted in an export of that firearm, under License Exception BAG; however, an employee who used a company-owned firearm in the performance of the same employment duties could not use a license exception, such as License Exception TMP (thereby requiring an export license).

To address this disparate treatment, the revisions to § 740.9 will allow certain firearms used as a tool of trade to be exported or reexported without a license, provided the export or reexport meets all of the applicable terms and conditions of the tools of trade provisions of License Exception TMP and is not restricted under § 740.2. These revisions are consistent with BIS's commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on the American people and the U.S. Government.

A provision is added to License Exception TMP under paragraph 740.9(a)(2) that specifies the following quantity limits on exports or reexports as tools of trade: no more than three firearms controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A506, and 0A507 and shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or over controlled under ECCNs 0A502 and 0A508; “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A502, or 0A509; commodities controlled under ECCN 0A504; and no more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition controlled under ECCN 0A505.a, .b, and .c.

The commodities exported or reexported under the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) in § 740.9 must be for legitimate business purposes. Additionally, these commodities are prohibited from resale or other transfer of ownership or control by this provision. These commodities may not be exported or reexported permanently under this license exception. The owner of the commodity or the owner's employee must maintain “effective control” of the commodity. All commodities utilizing this license exception must ultimately be returned to the United States or the country of reexport.

Please be aware that certain countries may require an Import Certificate or a U.S. export license before allowing the import of a firearm; you should determine the import requirements of the country of destination before utilizing License Exception TMP for a tool of trade. Also, travelers leaving the United States temporarily are required to declare the firearms, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” “attachments,” and ammunition being exported under the provisions of this license exception to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer prior to departure from the United States and present such items to a CBP officer for inspection, confirming that the authority for the export is License Exception TMP and that the exporter has complied with its terms.

The changes described in section IV of this preamble are expected to result in a decrease of 40 license applications received annually by BIS.

This IFR revises § 740.9 by adding the text `paragraph (a)(2) of this section (“ Firearms and firearms-related commodities used as tools of trade” ),' to the fifth sentence of paragraph (a).

The heading of paragraph 740.9(a)(1) is revised by adding `(apart from firearms and firearms-related commodities)' after `Tools of trade.' The first sentence of paragraph 740.9(a)(1) is revised by adding the words `temporary' before and `abroad' after the word `use.' The sentence `Firearms and firearms-related commodities used as tools of trade are specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.' is added after the fifth sentence of paragraph 740.9(a)(1).

Paragraph 740.9(a)(2) is revised to read ` Firearms and firearms-related commodities used as tools of trade'. This paragraph (a)(2) authorizes the export or reexport for temporary use abroad of firearms controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A506, and 0A507; shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or over controlled under ECCNs 0A502 and 0A508; “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” or “attachments” controlled under ECCNs 0A501, 0A502, or 0A509; commodities controlled under ECCN 0A504; and ammunition controlled under ECCN 0A505.a, .b, and .c made only to destinations other than Country Group E:1, subject to the following limitations.

Paragraph 740.9(a)(2)(i) is added to specify that no more than three firearms and no more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition may be exported or reexported as tools of trade.

Paragraph 740.9(a)(2)(ii) is added with text to specify that “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” in ECCNs 0A501, 0A502, 0A509 or commodities controlled under 0A504 exported or reexport must be of a kind and limited to quantities that are reasonable for legitimate business purposes described in this section or that are necessary for routine use or maintenance of the commodities being exported.

Paragraph 740.9(a)(2)(iii) is added to specify that legitimate business purposes include personal protection, or the protection of property or individuals, and that the commodities described in this paragraph may not be for resale or other transfer of ownership or control. The commodity must remain under the “effective control” of its owner or an employee of the owner of the commodity. All commodities described in paragraph 740.9(a)(2) must be returned to the United States or the country from which the reexport originates. Paragraph 740.9(a)(2)(iii) also notes that since certain countries may require an Import Certificate or a U.S. export license before allowing the import of a firearm, you should determine the import requirements of the country of destination in advance.

Finally, paragraph 740.9(a)(2)(iv) is added to specify that travelers leaving the United States temporarily are required to declare the firearms, “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” “attachments,” and ammunition being exported under License Exception TMP to a CBP officer prior to departure from the United States and present such items to the CBP officer for inspection, confirming that the authority for the export is License Exception TMP and that the exporter has complied with its terms.

Under § 758.10 (Entry clearance requirements for temporary imports), paragraph (a) specifies the temporary import entry clearance requirements for importers of certain firearms subject to the EAR that are on the United States Munitions Import List (USMIL) (27 CFR 447.21). These entry clearance requirements are used by BIS to identify transactions that constitute temporary imports under the EAR that would otherwise constitute permanent imports that would have to be authorized under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authorities. Prior to this IFR, these entry clearance requirements under the EAR applied to certain firearms but also applied (and continue to apply) to any item that is both on the CCL (hence subject to the EAR) and listed on the USMIL. This IFR makes regulatory changes to reflect this scope by broadening the applicability of this section to include all items listed on both the CCL and USMIL.

Specifically, prior to this IFR, paragraph 758.10(a) listed end-item firearms in ECCNs 0A501.a or .b, 0A506 or 0A507, or shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches controlled in ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508. However, the cross-over between items that are subject to the EAR on the CCL and the USMIL includes additional 0x5zz items, such as 0A501.x “specially designed” “components” for firearms and certain “600 series” items. Prior to this IFR, the EAR was silent on whether temporary importers could rely on § 758.10 for the temporary import of these 0x5zz items and certain “600 series” items. The lack of an express reference created an unnecessary regulatory burden on temporary importers because the intent of § 758.10 was to preserve the distinction that had existed prior to March 2020 between State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), and the ATF for temporary imports authorized under DDTC authorities and permanent imports authorized under ATF authorities.

Through the regulatory change made by this IFR, BIS is making explicit longstanding guidance that it developed, in consultation with ATF, and had been providing informally, that temporary importers could follow the temporary imports entry clearance requirements in § 758.10 to facilitate the temporary import of these additional 0x5zz and “600 series” items subject to the EAR that are also on the USMIL. Temporary importers told BIS that they thought that following these requirements was helpful to head off any potential questions from CBP or ATF regarding why these additional 0x5zz or “600 series” items were being temporarily imported into the United States under the EAR for subsequent export under the EAR.

This IFR expands the items scope of § 758.10 (Entry clearance requirements for temporary imports) by revising paragraph (a), which is necessary due to the fact that the crossover between the CCL and USMIL is not limited to end-item firearms that are in ECCNs 0A501.a or .b, 0A506 or 0A507, or shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches controlled in ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508. This regulatory crossover includes additional 0x5zz items, such as the sound suppressors added to 0A501.f and 0A502.f, as well as certain 0A501.x “specially designed” “components” for firearms and certain “600 series” items.

While these revisions to paragraph 758.10(a) expand the scope of items to allow for a greater number of temporary importers to benefit from these temporary entry clearance requirements, they will result in a slight increase in the burden hours for temporary importers and exporters because of the documentation that needs to be provided to CBP at the time of temporary import and export of these items. However, these revisions reduce the overall regulatory burden on temporary importers by explicitly stating that these items can be imported by complying with BIS's entry clearance requirements without the need for a separate ATF permit.

In this IFR, § 758.10 is revised by replacing the word `firearms' in paragraphs (a), (a)(1), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iii) with the term “items” as defined in § 772.1 of the EAR. In § 758.10, paragraph (a) is further revised by replacing the text `ECCNs 0A501.a or .b, 0A506 or 0A507, or shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches controlled in ECCNs 0A502 or 0A508' with the text `0x5zz ECCNs, or in certain “600 series” ECCNs' to the second sentence of the paragraph.

For the changes being made in this IFR, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on July 23, 2026, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR), provided the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is completed no later than on August 24, 2026.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. ECRA, as amended, provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this IFR. In particular, and as noted elsewhere, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, Section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, the establishment of a list of controlled items; the prohibition of unauthorized exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country); the requirement of licenses or other authorizations for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of controlled items; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in an IFR without prior notice and comment.

1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits ( e.g., potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This interim final rule is considered a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 14192 because it is being issued with respect to a national security function of the United States, per section 5(a) of E.O. 14192.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections under control numbers 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application;” 0694-0096, “Five Year Records Retention Period;” 0694-0122, “Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement 0694-0137, “License Exceptions and Exclusions;” and 0607-0152, “Automated Export System (AES) Program.”

For OMB control number 0694-0088, Simple Network Application Process and Multipurpose Application Form. BIS expects an annual increase of approximately 160 licenses, resulting in an increase of 80 burden hours per year for this collection with an estimated cost increase of $3,040.

For OMB control number 0694-0137, License Exceptions and Exclusions, BIS expects a slight decrease in 5 burden hours per year for this collection with an estimated cost decrease of $190 related to the revision to § 740.9 for items allowed under tools of trade for firearms and related commodities.

Changes impacting OMB control numbers 0694-0096, 0694-0122, and 0607-0152 Five Year Records Retention Period, Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement, and Automated Export System (AES) Program respectively, are not expected to result in a change in burden hours.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, BIS amends 15 CFR parts 740, 742, 758, and 774 as follows:

Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (E.O. 14192) states the policy of the executive branch “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” 90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025; signed Jan. 31, 2025. In accordance with E.O. 14192, the Commission is reviewing its regulations to reduce regulatory burdens and costs and has identified several obsolete or unnecessary provisions in title 16 of the CFR.

This direct final rule removes 16 CFR part 1401 and subpart D of 16 CFR part 1203 as obsolete. It also removes requirements in parts 1402 and 1406 that require copies of performance and technical documents be provided to the Commission. Removing these outdated provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will streamline title 16 and increase clarity for regulated entities and the public. The Commission notes that the changes to the CFR in this rule will have no impact on safety.

In 1995, the Commission issued an interim mandatory Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets in 16 CFR part 1203 to make certain voluntary standards for bicycle helmets interim mandatory standards pursuant to direction in the Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994 (the Act). 60 FR 15231 (Mar. 23, 1995); 15 U.S.C. 6004(a). The interim mandatory standard for bicycle helmets covers bicycle helmets manufactured from March 17, 1995, through March 10, 1999. The Act also required the Commission to promulgate a final rule that would review the requirements of the interim bicycle helmet standards and establish a final standard for bicycle helmets based on such requirements. 15 U.S.C. 6004(c). In 1998, the Commission published a final rule, part 1203, Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets, which applies to bicycle helmets manufactured after March 10, 1999. 63 FR 11712 (Mar. 10, 1998). Because this interim standard applies only to products manufactured more than twenty-seven years ago and no longer governs the manufacture of bicycle helmets, Subpart D no longer serves an ongoing regulatory purpose. Accordingly, the Commission is removing subpart D from part 1203 as obsolete. All other requirements in part 1203 remain unchanged.

The Commission has issued several rules under section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2076(e), requiring manufacturers to provide performance and technical data for certain specified consumer products. Three such rules are contained in parts 1401, 1402, and 1406, which are discussed below.

In 1977, the Commission issued a final rule, part 1401, Self Pressurized Consumer Products Containing Chlorofluorocarbons, to provide consumers considering purchasing self-pressurized consumer products (mainly aerosol products) containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with the following statement: “WARNING—Contains a chlorofluorocarbon that may harm the public health and environment by reducing ozone in the upper atmosphere.” 42 FR 42780 (Aug. 24, 1977). The rule also contained a reporting requirement requiring manufacturers to submit performance and technical data to the Commission regarding products subject to the requirements of part 1401. 16 CFR 1401.4. The rule went into effect on February 20, 1978. The Commission issued this rule because CFCs pose a risk of depletion of the ozone in the stratosphere and the rule states that the purpose of the rule is to enable consumers to make a conscious choice of whether to use consumer products that contain CFC propellants. 16 CFR 1401.2.

In 1984, the Commission revoked the reporting requirement for manufacturers to submit performance and technical data to the Commission regarding products subject to part 1401, because in the six years since the rule went into effect, most of the self-pressurized products subject to the reporting requirements no longer contained CFCs because of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban on those substances. 49 FR 28693 (July 16, 1984). The remaining requirements in part 1401 were not affected by the revocation of the reporting requirements.

CFCs have been regulated by the EPA for decades (Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671 et seq . and 40 CFR part 82; specifically, §§ 82.4, 82.64, and 82.66) and are largely phased out globally under the international treaty the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Part 1401 was adopted principally to advance environmental policy objectives by informing consumers about the environmental consequences of CFC propellants rather than to address a product-specific safety hazard associated with the use of the product itself. Since the rule's adoption, Congress and EPA have established a comprehensive regulatory framework governing chlorofluorocarbons, resulting in the virtual elimination of the consumer products to which part 1401 applied. Accordingly, the Commission is removing the disclosure requirements under part 1401 from the CFR, which no longer serves its original purpose and is now obsolete.

In 1978, the Commission issued a final rule establishing part 1402, CB Base Station Antennas, TV Antennas, and Supporting Structures, to address a significant number of electrocutions that occurred when consumers contacted overhead powerlines with CB base station and outside TV antennas while installing or removing these antennas. 43 FR 28932 (June 29, 1978). Part 1402 requires manufacturers, including importers, to provide performance and technical data in the form of warnings and instructions to consumers with these antennas and their supporting structures so that consumers can be made aware of the hazards involved and of safe ways to install or remove these antennas. Part 1402 also requires manufacturers, including importers of CB base station antennas, TV antennas, and antenna supporting structures, to provide to the Commission samples of the labels, warning statements, and instructions that will be provided to the consumer. 16 CFR 1402.4(b).

In 1983, the Commission issued a final rule establishing part 1406, Coal and Wood Burning Appliances, to address fire hazards associated with inadequate information provided to consumers with these appliances regarding improper installation of appliances, insufficient clearances between the appliances and combustibles, and improper operation of the appliance. 48 FR 21898 (May 16, 1983). Part 1406 requires performance and technical data in the form of warnings and instructions to be furnished to consumers along with written notice on the appliance regarding the installation and use of coal and wood burning appliances. Part 1406 also requires manufacturers, including importers, of coal and wood burning appliances, to provide to the Commission samples of labels, warning statements, and instructions that will be provided to the consumer along with specified rationales stating how manufactures calculated minimum necessary clearance distances to combustibles. 16 CFR 1406.5.

Parts 1402 and 1406 required manufacturers, including importers, to submit performance and technical data, either for antennas and supporting structures or for coal and wood burning appliances respectively, directly to the Commission to facilitate the agency assessing compliance with those rules. However, since the adoption of parts 1402 and 1406, advances in electronic communications, information availability, and the Commission's existing statutory authorities have substantially changed how the agency obtains information needed to assess compliance. When appropriate, the Commission may obtain labels, warnings, instructions, and other supporting materials directly from manufacturers and importers pursuant to its existing authorities, including section 16(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b). Maintaining a requirement that every manufacturer routinely submit those materials to the Commission is therefore no longer necessary to carry out the purposes of these regulations and imposes unnecessary administrative burdens on regulated entities and the agency alike. Accordingly, the Commission is removing the submission requirements in 16 CFR 1402.4(b) and 1406.5. All substantive requirements in parts 1402 and 1406 requiring the provision of warnings, instructions, and other performance and technical information to consumers remain unchanged.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that part 1401 no longer serves its original purpose because the products to which it applied have been effectively eliminated from commerce through the comprehensive regulatory framework governing chlorofluorocarbons. Accordingly, part 1401 is obsolete and no longer necessary to protect the public from unreasonable risk of injury associated with those products and should be removed from the CFR.

The Commission further finds that the submission requirements contained in sections 1402.4(b) and 1406.5 are no longer necessary to protect the public from unreasonable risk of injury associated with those products. Those provisions were adopted to facilitate the Commission's review of manufacturer compliance, but advances in information availability and the Commission's existing statutory authorities now provide more efficient means of obtaining the same information when needed. The removal of these Commission submission requirements does not affect the substantive obligations of manufacturers and importers to provide required warnings, instructions, and other performance and technical information to consumers.

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to provide notice of a rule and an opportunity for public comment, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. 553(b)(B). The Commission has determined that part 1401 and the above-described provisions in parts 1203, 1402, and 1406, no longer serve the public interest because they are obsolete or otherwise unnecessary. Applying the “good cause” standard discussed above, the Commission concludes that prior notice and comment are unnecessary before repealing the rule and rules provisions in this direct final rule.

In Recommendation 2024-6, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorses direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comments. See 89 FR 106406 (Dec. 30, 2024). ACUS recommends that agencies use the direct final rule process when they act under the “unnecessary” prong of the good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 89 FR 106406, 106409. Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule, because CPSC does not expect any significant adverse comments.

Unless CPSC receives a significant adverse comment within 30 days of this notification, the rule will become effective on September 21, 2026. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, “including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach,” or where the commenter explains why the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. Id. at 106409. If the Commission receives a significant adverse comment, the Commission will withdraw any portion of this direct final rule related to such a comment. Depending on the comment and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

Subpart D in 16 CFR part 1203 contains several standards incorporated by reference approved by the Office of the Federal Register. 16 CFR 1203.53. Because subpart D is being removed from 16 CFR part 1203, CPSC removes the following standards that have been approved for incorporation by reference in subpart D of 16 CFR part 1203:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) generally requires agencies to review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 601-612. As discussed in section III.A of this preamble regarding the Direct Final Rule Process, the Commission has determined that notice and the opportunity to comment are unnecessary for this rule. Therefore, the RFA does not apply.

This direct final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) is not required. Parts 1401 and 1402 were promulgated before passage of the PRA in 1980 and thus those information collections are not subject to the requirements of the PRA. Regarding part 1406, coal and wood burning appliances (OMB Control number 3041-0040), the agency will assess whether the burden assessment for that rule should be revised in the next scheduled update.

The Commission's regulations provide for a categorical exclusion from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule does not qualify as a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 2(f) of E.O. 12866. To comply with the CRA, CPSC will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.

Unless the Commission receives a significant adverse comment by August 24, 2026, the rule will become effective on September 21, 2026. In Recommendation 2024-6, ACUS recommends, absent exceptional circumstances for providing a different effective date, the agency should provide that a direct final rule will take effect at least 30 days after the close of the comment period if the agency receives no significant adverse comments. An agency that does not publish a confirmation notice should consider providing an effective date greater than 30 days after the close of the comment period if the agency believes it is necessary to ensure that it has adequate time to withdraw the rule in the event it receives significant adverse comments. See 89 FR 106409. The 60 day effective date for the direct final rule is consistent with ACUS Recommendation 2024-6.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Consumer Product Safety Commission amends 16 CFR as follows:

In the Federal Register of September 17, 2025 (90 FR 44786), we issued a proposal to repeal the color additive regulation that allows for the use of Orange B for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages. We stated that based on certification data, it appears that Orange B is no longer used for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages and has not been certified for use as a color additive in food marketed in the United States since 1978. We tentatively concluded that this color additive regulation is outdated and unnecessary because the authorized use of Orange B appears to have been abandoned.

The proposal gave interested parties until October 17, 2025, to submit comments on the proposed order. This order finalizes the action described in the proposed order.

President Trump has directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations (Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025)). Independently, Secretary Kennedy has expressed support for deregulatory initiatives across all HHS components to focus on the core mission to Make America Healthy Again (see “Request for Information (RFI): Ensuring Lawful Regulation and Unleashing Innovation to Make America Healthy Again” (90 FR 20478, May 14, 2025)). Removing the color additive regulation for Orange B, which we conclude is no longer used for its authorized use in food in the United States, is consistent with these directives. It is also consistent with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), which requires agencies to periodically conduct retrospective analyses of existing regulations to identify those “that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them,” accordingly.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes us to regulate “color additives” (see section 721(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(b))). The FD&C Act defines “color additive,” in relevant part, as a material which is a dye, pigment, or other substance made by a process of synthesis or similar artifice, or extracted, isolated, or otherwise derived, with or without intermediate or final change of identity, from a vegetable, animal, mineral, or other source, and that when added or applied to a food, drug, or cosmetic, or to the human body or any part thereof, is capable (alone or through reaction with another substance) of imparting color (see section 201(t) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(t))). Color additives used in or on a food, drug, cosmetic, or certain medical devices are deemed unsafe and prohibited except to the extent that we approve their use through issuance of a regulation and, when subject to certification, are batch certified, unless an exemption applies (see section 721(a) and (c) of the FD&C Act).

Sections 701(e), (f), and (g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e), (f), and (g)) apply to the issuance, amendment, or repeal of color additive regulations (see section 721(d) of the FD&C Act). Section 701(e) of the FD&C Act provides that any action for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a color additive regulation may be initiated by a proposal made by the Secretary or by a petition of any interested persons. It further requires that FDA publish such a proposal, provide an opportunity for interested persons to present their views, and then by order act upon such proposal.

FDA may issue a regulation listing a color additive for use in or on food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics only if it determines that the additive is suitable and safe for such use (see section 721(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act). The regulation that permits the use of a color additive includes appropriate limitations and requirements for its safe use and specifies whether certification is required (see section 721(a)(1), (c) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 71.20). (For additional information on certification of color additives, see Color Certification FAQs, available at: https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-certification/color-certification-faqs ).

FDA determines the need for batch certification based on whether the color additive composition needs to be controlled to protect the public health (see 21 CFR 71.20(b)). Some color additives, in their uncertified forms, might contain impurities at levels that pose a health concern. When batch certification is required for a color additive, the color additive must be batch certified by FDA. If it is not batch certified, it is deemed unsafe under the relevant adulteration provision, for example, under section 402(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(c)) for food (see section 721(a)(1) of the FD&C Act). To receive certification for a color additive, a request must be filed with FDA, along with a batch sample. FDA assesses the information in the request and analyzes whether the batch sample conforms to the applicable identity and specifications stated in the listing regulation for the color additive. If FDA finds that the batch sample meets the applicable requirements for composition and purity stated in the listing regulation, FDA will issue a certificate indicating the lot number for the batch and stating that the batch is certified (see 21 CFR 80.21, 80.31).

Under § 74.250 (21 CFR 74.250), Orange B is authorized for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages, subject to certain specifications, restrictions, labeling requirements, and certification. It is not authorized for other uses as a color additive. The regulation also specifies that all batches of Orange B must be certified in accordance with our regulations in 21 CFR part 80. Our records indicate that Orange B was last batch certified in 1978, and that FDA has not received any requests to batch certify Orange B since that time (Ref. 1  1 ). Because Orange B may not be used as a color additive in food in the United States without a certification, we conclude that the authorized use of Orange B has been abandoned and that the color additive listing for Orange B in § 74.250 is outdated and unnecessary.

FDA received 16 comments in response to the proposed order. All but one of the comments supported revoking the color additive listing for Orange B in § 74.250. None of the comments claimed or provided evidence that Orange B is still in use as a color additive for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages or that there are any remaining certified batches.

In this section, we summarize and respond to relevant portions of the comments. We have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different comments. We have grouped similar comments together under the same number, and, in some cases, we have separated different issues discussed in the same comment and designated them as distinct comments for purposes of our responses. The number assigned to each comment is for organizational purposes only and does not signify the comment's value, importance, or the order in which it was submitted.

(Comment 1) Several comments supported the proposed action to repeal the color additive regulation that allows for the use of Orange B because the regulation is outdated or unnecessary.

(Response 1) We agree that the color additive listing for Orange B in § 74.250 is outdated and unnecessary. Our records indicate that Orange B was last batch certified in 1978, and that FDA has not received any requests to batch certify Orange B since that time (Ref. 1). Because Orange B may not be used as a color additive in food in the United States without a certification, we conclude that the authorized use of Orange B has been abandoned and that the color additive listing for Orange B in § 74.250 is outdated and unnecessary.

(Comment 2) A few comments thought that Orange B and color additives are considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and indicated that FDA should remove Orange B from being considered GRAS and similarly reevaluate other color additives that are considered GRAS.

(Response 2) These comments incorrectly assert that Orange B and color additives are considered GRAS. We clarify that color additives, including Orange B, cannot be GRAS because there is no GRAS provision for color additives. See sections 201(s) and 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s) and 348); see also 21 CFR 170.3 and 170.30 (explaining eligibility for classification as GRAS). Therefore, the color additive Orange B is not considered GRAS.

(Comment 3) Several comments expressed concerns that synthetic color additives used in foods such as Orange B, could be associated with health risks, and one comment questioned whether Orange B had fallen out of use as a result of health implications.

(Response 3) The proposed order provided information about the history of § 74.250 (Ref. 1). As that information indicated, by the late 1970s, there were some evaluations by the one manufacturer of Orange B, as well as others, of potential health implications associated with Orange B, which led to discontinuation of its production. Consistent with that, as explained in the proposed order, our records indicate that Orange B was last batch certified in 1978, and that FDA has not received any requests to batch certify Orange B since that time. The safety of synthetic color additives used in foods, generally, is beyond the scope of this action.

Based on our review of the batch certification data for Orange B, comments, and other relevant information, we have determined that the authorized use of Orange B has been abandoned, and we conclude that this color additive regulation is outdated and unnecessary. FDA is revoking the authorization for this substance as a color additive to no longer provide for the use of Orange B for coloring the casings or surfaces of frankfurters and sausages. Therefore, we are amending 21 CFR part 74 as set forth in this document. We consider this action also to be partially responsive to the Center for Science in the Public Interest's 2008 citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0349), which requested, in part, that FDA revoke the color additive approval of Orange B.

In accordance with 21 CFR 80.32(h), all certificates for existing batches and portions of batches of Orange B will cease to be effective for use in food on the effective date for the removal of § 74.250, and any lots of Orange B will be regarded as uncertified after that date. The use of Orange B in any food after its certificate ceases to be effective will result in such food being adulterated.

We previously considered the environmental effects of this order, as stated in the proposed order (90 FR 44786, September 17, 2025). We stated that we had determined under, 21 CFR 25.32(m), that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.

This order contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

This order is effective as shown in the DATES section, except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections under sections 701(e)(2) and 721(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2) and 379e(d)). If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register .

The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES ) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. Although FDA verified the website addresses in this document, please note that websites are subject to change over time.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 74 is amended as follows:

The Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR; 22 CFR parts 120 through 130) to, among other things, regulate the export, reexport, retransfer, and temporary import of the defense articles and defense services identified on the USML at 22 CFR 121.1. Items not subject to the ITAR or to the exclusive licensing jurisdiction of any other department or agency of the U.S. Government are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774, which includes the Commerce Control List (CCL) in supplement no. 1 to part 774). The EAR is administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce. This rule does not modify the list of defense articles and defense services controlled for purposes of permanent import by the Attorney General, as enumerated on the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL) at 27 CFR 447.21.

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778), the authority from which the ITAR is derived, requires periodic review to determine what articles and services, if any, no longer warrant designation on the USML at ITAR § 121.1. In maintaining the USML, DDTC's Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy (DTCP) identifies articles and services for review for removal from or addition to the USML, or clarification on how they are described on the USML, through a variety of methods, including public feedback and interagency consultations, commodity jurisdiction reviews, advisory opinions, and technology monitoring. The Department maintains the USML such that it comprises those defense articles or defense services that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage or, in the case of weapons, have an inherently military function. The Department, informed by consultations with its interagency partners, determined the articles this rule removes from the USML no longer meet this standard.

On April 9, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14268, “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability.” This action directed the Department to review the USML to ensure that its scope of control focused “solely on our most sensitive and sophisticated technologies.” As part of this review, the Department has determined that silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors for non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which are currently described in USML Category I(e), no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. Accordingly, the Department is removing these items from the USML and making conforming changes. This change will take effect 120 days after the publication of this rule. The Department requests public comments on this scheduled change by August 24, 2026.

The Department previously considered removing silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors from the USML in 2020. At that time, multiple commenters argued that such articles should no longer be described on the USML given their wide availability, including from foreign sources. The Department acknowledged this availability but determined their military utility continued to necessitate their inclusion on the USML because of their ability to obscure the location of weapons fire, limiting an adversary's ability to counter-attack.

In its current review of the USML, the Department took those prior factors into account and reassessed them. It also supplemented those considerations with the facts that competitive sport shooting organizations include disciplines for target shooting with suppressed rifles, and sound suppressors have recently been endorsed by at least one related non-profit medical organization as “an effective method of reducing the risk of hearing loss” related to firearm usage. That endorsement was based on a 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control, which identified sound suppressors as “[t]he only potentially effective noise control method to reduce noise exposure from gunfire.”

The Department continues to assess that silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors specially designed for fully automatic firearms provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. Such items have design properties that enable them to enhance the utility of fully automatic firearms ( e.g., increased heat dissipation to handle multiple rounds) and, given the inherent military nature of those weapons, have limited non-military use cases. Consequently, the Department is retaining those items on the USML.

However, the Department now assesses that firearm silencers, mufflers, and suppressors, other than those specially designed for fully automatic firearms, no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage based on the sum of the following factors: growing global adoption of firearm suppressors for civil uses; the reported benefits associated with reduced firearms noise; the existence of numerous foreign manufacturers of such items; and the Department's assessment that barriers to acquiring the instructions, materials, and skills to effectively manufacture these items have become appreciably lower. Additionally, there are negligible serious reliance interests to consider from regulated U.S. persons, wherein the changes made by this rule would cause serious harm to interests based on their reliance on existing regulations. Further, any reliance interests would, nevertheless, be outweighed by the Department's policy considerations, and by the fact that U.S. industry will benefit by having more access to foreign markets alongside foreign competitors. Consequently, the Department is removing firearm silencers, mufflers, and suppressors for non-automatic or semiautomatic firearms from the USML. When the Department removes these items from the USML, they will remain subject to U.S. export controls under the jurisdiction of the EAR and will be described on the CCL under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 0A501.f and 0A502.f. Controlling these items for export under the EAR will still serve the United States' foreign policy and national security interests. The Department is therefore implementing this change with this rule, while delaying its effective date for 120 days, to afford time to solicit public views on the matter.

Include the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (1400-AG11) or agency name and docket number on all submissions related to this rule. Submission of comments to www.regulations.gov is preferred. Commenters are cautioned not to include proprietary, export-controlled, or other sensitive information that they are not comfortable making public in their comments. If such information would provide useful insight to the comment, (1) assemble that information in a separate document with proprietary markings; (2) include “Proprietary supplement on file with: [provide POC]” as the first line in the body of the email submission; (3) submit the public portion of the comment via email; and (4) call DDTC at (202) 663-1282 to coordinate submission of the proprietary supplement.

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. Furthermore, this action is exempt from the judicial review provisions of the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(1), as 22 U.S.C. 2778(h) precludes judicial review of designations of items on the U.S. Munitions List, which necessarily includes de-designations or removals.

Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, the rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule does not meet the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. After review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action.”

In addition to the direction in Executive Order 14268, this rule was undertaken pursuant to a statutory directive to periodically review the items on the USML. The Department generally determines which items warrant addition to, or removal from, the USML by assessing whether each provides a critical military or intelligence advantage based on national security and foreign policy considerations. Because the costs and benefits of changing what is controlled focus on the effect or utility of the item or service, rather than its market prevalence or economic value, quantitative analyses cannot be usefully estimated and are not available, particularly since the global prevalence of the item or service are not known. Qualitatively, because this change will result in the removal of silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors from the USML, which will reduce regulatory requirements and obligations, the Department assesses the costs associated with this rule will be outweighed by the benefits.

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

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

This rule is exempt from Executive Order 14192 as it is a regulation issued with respect to a foreign affairs or national security function of the United States.

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR part 121, the United States Munitions List, as follows:

On May 15, 2026, an organization notified the Coast Guard that from 7:30 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on August 2, 2026, they will sponsor a triathlon event with paddle and swim portion in Lake Erie near Fairport Harbor, OH. The Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Lake Metroparks for a Marine Event Permit to host a 500-meter swim and a 1-kilometer paddle race for a portion of the triathlon. The event will include approximately 350 participants.

The Captain of the Port Sector Eastern Great Lakes (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim and paddling portion of the triathlon include the possibility that participants swimming or paddling within approaches to local public and private boat facilities might collide with or otherwise interfere with boaters near those facilities. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on May 15, 2026, but we must establish this SLR by August 02, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

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

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on August 2, 2026. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters within 50 yards of the on-water portion of the triathlon. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that a fireworks display will be launched from a point on land and displayed over Lake St. Clair in New Baltimore, MI. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display are a safety concern for anyone within a 420-foot radius of the launch point Therefore, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 15, 2026, we must establish this safety zone by July 30, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

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

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 30, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake St. Clair within a 420-foot radius of a fireworks site at Brandenburg Park in Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP or their designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.932 for the Swim Across America event from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Saturday August 8, 2026. The regulation for the safety zone, Ohio Street Beach Swim Course, Lake Michigan, Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL in § 165.932, specifies the location of the safety zone for this event.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan or their designated representative.

This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The COTP Lake Michigan may be reached by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at (833) 900-2247. An on-scene designated representative may be reached via VHF-FM Channel 16.

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from land bordering Lake Erie near Avon Lake, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 280-foot radius of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 30, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by August 1, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

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

This rule establishes a safety zone on August 1, 2026 from 9:00 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 280-foot radius from the following point: 41°30′15.8″ N, 82°3′39.1″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

The Department rescinds the Guidelines, currently appearing in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100, as well as cross-references to the Guidelines appearing in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104 and Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106. The Guidelines purport to explain the civil rights responsibilities of Federal funding recipients who offer or administer vocational education programs with respect to nine issue areas: (1) administrative requirements (section IV.O.); (2) recruitment, admissions, and counseling (sections IV.A., K., N., L., and sections V.A. through V.E.); (3) physical accessibility (section IV.N.3); (4) comparable facilities (section IV.D.); (5) services for students with disabilities (sections IV.N. and VI.A.); (6) financial assistance (section VI.B.); (7) work-study, cooperative programs, and job placement (section VII); (8) housing (section VI.C.); and (9) employment (sections VIII.A. through VIII.F.).

Additionally, section II.B. of the Guidelines imposes a proactive compliance structure upon State education agencies that applies only to career and technical education (CTE) or vocational education programs; no parallel proactive compliance structure exists in any other context in civil rights enforcement. This compliance structure requires 68 State education agencies to (1) collect and analyze civil rights information and data; (2) conduct periodic compliance reviews; (3) provide technical assistance upon request; and (4) periodically report method of administration (MOA) activities and findings to the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Practically, this means that the State education agencies must conduct compliance reviews of a subset of their subrecipients (those that operate CTE programs) each year, detail and issue their findings of noncompliance to the subrecipients, and negotiate voluntary compliance plans with the subrecipients to address the State agency's findings. State education agencies then submit biennial reports of these activities to OCR. Although the Department has supplemented the Guidelines with additional guidance in the decades since, culminating in updated procedures issued jointly by OCR and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education in 2020 that provided State agencies with greater flexibility, the proactive compliance structure, developed to address noncompliance in the 1970s, remains fully in place.

OCR allots considerable staff resources to providing feedback on how State agencies can improve their compliance with the Guidelines by reviewing and responding to biennial reports submitted by State agencies, and providing technical assistance. The Department also conducts an annual week-long training conference for State officials responsible for complying with the Guidelines. The Department has determined that this proactive compliance structure, which applies only to vocational education programs, is no longer necessary given current information and data on CTE programs, and that any benefits from its continued implementation are not justified by its cost and burden on State and local education agencies and postsecondary institutions. The Department is unaware of any recent information demonstrating that recipients administering or operating CTE programs are more likely than other recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department to be out of compliance with civil rights laws and departmental regulations. Furthermore, any civil rights violations occurring in CTE programs can be addressed in the same manner as those arising in the non-CTE context by the Department's vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws through OCR's complaint resolution process and its own proactive enforcement tools, including by initiating compliance reviews and directed investigations.

The Department also issues this action rescinding the Guidelines in furtherance of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025). That Order acknowledges that regulations and other rules, memoranda, guidance documents, and administrative policy statements impose costs and inefficiencies on individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities, and therefore directs agencies to look for opportunities to eliminate regulatory burdens to offset the costs of existing regulations. The Department would rescind the Guidelines even in the absence of Executive Order 14192 because: (1) oversight of the proactive compliance structure mandated by the Guidelines imposes considerable burdens on recipients without current appreciable benefit; (2) enforcement of the Guidelines consumes considerable Department staff resources without current appreciable benefit; and (3) the additional reasons articulated below support rescission.

With the rescission of the Guidelines, State education agencies and subrecipients will still be responsible for compliance with Federal civil rights laws, including ensuring equal access to CTE programs. However, neither the Department nor recipients who offer or oversee CTE programs will continue to be saddled with the proactive compliance requirements imposed by the Guidelines, particularly those in section II.B.

The Guidelines resulted from litigation based on allegations that HEW failed to properly administer and enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. See 44 FR 17162 (Mar. 21, 1979); Adams v. Richardson, 356 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1973), aff'd as modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ( en banc ) ( per curiam ); see also Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (D.D.C. 1972). The Adams plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that HEW knew or should have known that it was funding segregated vocational education programs in a manner that was “symptomatic of a general failure by HEW to exercise its Title VI jurisdiction with respect to State Departments of Education which approve and administer programs of Federal financial assistance.”  1

In 1977, the district court issued a consent order directing HEW to develop and implement specific procedures to ensure civil rights compliance in vocational education programs, which stated in pertinent part:

Order at 27, ¶ 38(b), Adams v. Califano, No. 70-cv-3095 (D.D.C. 1977) (consent order). In response, HEW proposed such criteria and procedures on December 19, 1978, at 43 FR 59105, and finalized them as the Guidelines on March 21, 1979, at 44 FR 17162. The Department codified the Guidelines the following year as Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100 and cross-referenced in Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104 and Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106.

The Adams litigation was subsequently dismissed in its entirety for being “constitutionally impermissible.” Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 906 F.2d 742, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Ginsburg, J.), aff'g on other grounds sub nom. Adams v. Bennett, 675 F. Supp. 668, 670, 681 (D.D.C. 1987). The D.C. Circuit described the litigation as “seek[ing] across-the-board continuing federal court supervision of the process by which the agencies ensure compliance with . . . antidiscrimination mandates.” Id. at 748. It held that no cause of action authorized the litigation in the first place and that the plaintiffs had no means of obtaining the relief they desired. Citing Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), and Council of and for the Blind v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ( en banc ), the D.C. Circuit concluded that none of the laws the plaintiffs invoked authorized “a broad-gauged right of action directly against the federal government officers charged with monitoring and enforcing funding recipients' compliance with discrimination proscriptions.” Cavazos, 906 F.2d at 747. It thus affirmed the district court's dismissal, finally terminating the litigation in 1990. Id. at 744, 747, 752 (“[W]e hold that the generalized action plaintiffs pursue against federal executive agencies lacks the requisite green light from the legislative branch.”).

The final Guidelines were published by HEW in the Federal Register on March 21, 1979. 44 FR 17162. The Guidelines purported to “explain the civil rights responsibilities of recipients of federal funds offering or administering vocational education programs” and charged the relevant State education agencies overseeing CTE programs with monitoring subrecipients through a new proactive compliance structure. Id. Those requirements, described in section II.B. of the Guidelines, mandated State agencies to prevent, identify, and remedy unlawful discrimination in CTE programs by (1) collecting and analyzing information and data; (2) conducting periodic compliance reviews; (3) providing technical assistance; and (4) periodically reporting agency activities and findings to the Department. Section II.C. directed State agencies to submit “methods of administration and related procedures” for complying with the Guidelines “[w]ithin one year from the publication of these Guidelines in final form.” Id. at 17165 (emphasis added). The 1979 Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines stated that the Guidelines were “a result of injunctive orders entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in [the Adams litigation,]” due to HEW's finding of “evidence of continuing unlawful discrimination in vocational education programs.” Id. at 17162.

In describing this evidence, the 1979 notice presented two categories. First, it cited enrollment data from HEW's Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education for 1976 and 1977 showing that “male and female students are concentrated in programs traditionally identified as intended for them.” Id. For example, female students comprised 78.8 percent of enrollment in health occupations programs and 84.7 percent of enrollment in occupational home economics, while male students comprised 87.3 percent of enrollment in trade and industrial programs and 88.7 percent of enrollment in vocational agriculture. Id. at 17162-63.

Second, the notice cited compliance reviews conducted by OCR from 1973 to 1978 that “consistently found civil rights violations in vocational schools,” including: (1) eligibility requirements such as geographic residence or admissions tests that denied opportunities on the basis of race, national origin, and “handicap”; (2) assignment of “handicapped students” to separate, inaccessible facilities; (3) continued operation of vocational schools as “essentially segregated facilities”; (4) denial of equal opportunity to national origin minorities with limited English proficiency; (5) failure to protect against discrimination in employer placement; and (6) assignment of faculty and staff “on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and handicap.” Id. at 17162-63. The 1979 notice acknowledged, however, that “[i]n recent years, vocational education administrators have addressed unlawful discrimination in their programs.” Id. at 17163.

The Department does not contend that discrimination in CTE programs has been eradicated. The Department's OCR continues to receive and investigate complaints alleging discrimination on the bases of race, sex, national origin, and disability in education programs, including in CTE programs. But the Department has seen no recent evidence indicating that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability is more prevalent in CTE programs than in other education programs or activities administered by recipients more broadly. 2 The Department remains committed to vigorous enforcement of the civil rights statutes within its jurisdiction, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (same with respect to sex), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (same with respect to disability).

Governing law has gone through considerable changes since the Guidelines were promulgated in 1979. First, the Guidelines were promulgated as a direct result of “across-the-board continuing federal court supervision of the process by which the agencies ensure compliance with . . . antidiscrimination mandates.” Cavazos, 906 F.2d at 748. Such monitoring was foreclosed by Cannon and Council of and for the Blind. Id. at 747. As the D.C. Circuit explained, “the message of Cannon was that no private right of action should be inferred from federal legislation[,] absent a showing of approbation from the lawmaking branch” and that “Congress wished to ward off suits against the government of the very kind plaintiffs now press.” Id. Similarly, Council of and for the Blind made clear that because private “suits directly against discriminating entities were adequate to redress injuries[,] . . . the APA did not provide a discrete claim for relief against the federal monitoring agency.” Id. at 748. This holding reflects two important principles: (1) Congress trusted Federal agencies, including the Department, to enforce Title VI using their own reasoned judgment, rather than by implementing the dictates of Federal courts; and (2) “Congress considered private suits to end discrimination not merely adequate but in fact the proper means for individuals to enforce Title VI” to the extent that they are unsatisfied with Federal enforcement. Id. at 751. In its exercise of discretion, the Department no longer believes that the Guidelines are an effective or efficient vehicle to achieve the goals of Title VI.

Second, subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, most notably Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) ( SFFA ), Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131(2026), have materially altered the legal landscape relevant to the Guidelines. In Sandoval, the Court held that private plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to enforce the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) disparate-impact regulations. 532 U.S. at 285-87. Although the Court had previously found a private cause of action to enforce Title VI's bar on intentional discrimination, id. at 279-80, that holding did not permit private suit to enforce regulations that “forbid conduct that [Title VI] permits.” Id. at 285. While Sandoval “assume[d],” without deciding, that DOJ's regulations were valid, it explained that they are in “considerable tension” with the Supreme Court's Title VI precedents and the text of the statute itself. Id. at 281-82, 284-85; see also id. at 286 n.6 (“[Title VI] permits the very behavior that the regulations forbid.”).

SFFA and Callais make clear that the use of race, color, or national origin to assign benefits and burdens is presumptively unconstitutional. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 206 (“`[The] guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.'”); id. at 223 (“ `[O]utright racial balancing' is `patently unconstitutional.' ”); Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152 (noting that Court precedent identified just two compelling interests that justified racial discrimination, declining to add to that list). While the Court has permitted racial discrimination to remedy the effects of “specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute,” that corrective discrimination must be narrowly tailored to achieving that end. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 207; Callais, 146 S. Ct. at 1152.

Finally, Loper Bright held that “statutes . . . have a single, best meaning” that is “fixed at the time of enactment” and that courts interpreting those statutes must employ that single, best meaning. 603 U.S. at 400.

In light of these decisions, the Department has considerable concerns about the continuing validity of many provisions in the Guidelines, which are intended to eliminate race-, sex-, and disability-based disparities that may occur in CTE programs, without inquiry into the cause of such disparities. It is unclear whether any such disparities result from intentional discrimination or, alternatively, the informed decisions of students who may choose to enroll in one program or another for any number of reasons. The Guidelines do not differentiate. The Guidelines look to data and operate under the presumption that any data discrepancies are the result of discrimination, thus constituting a civil rights violation. The Constitution directs otherwise. Given these concerns, the Department finds that it is preferable to rescind the Guidelines rather than to continue to enforce them despite their questionable vitality under the Constitution. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) (“[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”). The Department additionally finds that attempting to modify the Guidelines by excising from them each provision that raises constitutional questions would leave the Guidelines incoherent, unhelpful, and otherwise flawed for other reasons discussed herein.

Third, rescinding the Guidelines does not reduce or limit the nondiscrimination obligations applicable to recipients enforced by the Department under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., as implemented by 34 CFR parts 100, 104, and 106 respectively. Those regulations remain fully in effect and continue to provide the operative legal framework for all departmental compliance and enforcement activities.

In the 1970s, there was widespread discrimination on the basis of race in CTE programs. Indeed, the 1979 Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines referenced “evidence of continuing unlawful discrimination in vocational education programs” and documented recurring civil rights violations in vocational schools that HEW's Office for Civil Rights had identified in compliance reviews conducted between 1973 and 1978. 44 FR at 17162-63. The notice expressly acknowledges that it was apparent to HEW “that many vocational education administrators engage in unlawfully discriminatory practices.” Id. at 17162. Similarly, the Adams court noted that ten southern States were “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI.” Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. at 637-38. When HEW requested desegregation plans from the ten States, five of them submitted “unacceptable” plans, 3 and the other five failed to respond at all. 4 Id. Regarding vocational programs in particular, HEW did not have demographic data for many of the recipients subject to the litigation. Id. at 639. In Louisiana, the only State for which HEW provided the court statistics regarding students and faculty in vocational schools, those statistics showed “seven [vocational] schools as overwhelmingly black and 25 [vocational] schools as overwhelmingly white.” Id. It was against this backdrop that the Adams court ordered HEW to issue the Guidelines.

One of the problems facing the Adams court was a dearth of adequate data. Indeed, the Federal Register notice acknowledged the absence of adequate data to enable the court to fully assess the extent of segregation: “Current information on the enrollment of handicapped and minority students in specific vocational programs is not available.” 44 FR at 17163.

Almost 50 years later, the data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and other sources demonstrate that the significant race disparities in CTE participation that existed in the 1970s, at the onset of the Adams litigation, no longer exist. For example, Table H259 of NCES's CTE statistics from 2019 demonstrates near-parity in the percentage of public high school graduates of each race earning CTE credits. 5

That parity persists regardless of the extent to which students commit to CTE programming. For example, NCES reports the following for students who earned multiple CTE credits:  6

Further, as of 2024, four-year graduation rates from secondary CTE programs are above 94 percent, regardless of racial classification. 7 For example, 96.57 percent of black CTE concentrators graduated within 4 years. 8

When comparing NCES data with U.S. Census Bureau data for the same period, it is apparent that minority students are slightly overrepresented in postsecondary CTE programming. Combining decennial census data for 2020 with NCES data on the racial composition of the cohort of approximately 6.7 million sub-baccalaureate occupational education students in the 2015-16 school year reveals the following:  9

The Department does not mean to suggest that overrepresentation of minorities in CTE programs is a goal that the Department can seek to achieve or even that any particular percentage of minorities in CTE programs is the “right” number. To the contrary, “[o]utright racial balancing is patently unconstitutional.” SFFA, 600 U.S. at 223 (cleaned up). The point is simply that the factual conditions that inspired the Guidelines half a century ago are no longer present.

With regard to sex, the principal problem that the Guidelines sought to address was somewhat different. The Federal Register notice promulgating the Guidelines noted that males and females self-segregate into particular programs, such as females in health and home economics and males in trade and industrial programs. 44 FR at 17162-63. OCR has seen no evidence indicating that statistical discrepancies in male and female enrollment in particular areas are the result of sex discrimination. It is just as likely that men and women choose different fields because men and women prefer different fields. And to the extent this is a lingering effect of historical discrimination (the Department has seen no evidence indicating that it is), OCR's existing enforcement structure is more than adequate to address the problem. Thus, to the extent that the Guidelines were promulgated to address intentional sex discrimination, the Department finds that the Guidelines are no longer necessary.

Finally, regarding disability, the 1979 Federal Register promulgating the Guidelines articulated concerns that students with disabilities were being discriminated against in various ways in CTE programs, although it did not provide specific data documenting the nature or extent of those concerns. Id. at 17163. It appears that discrimination against students with disabilities in CTE programs has significantly diminished since the 1970s, due in large part to subsequent changes in the law guaranteeing accommodations for students with disabilities and in compliance with and enforcement of those laws (across all education programs, not just CTE programs). For example, participation by students with disabilities in secondary CTE programming has reached near parity. In the 2022-23 school year, 14.79 percent of secondary CTE participants were students with disabilities, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 10 According to NCES, in the same school year, roughly the same percentage—15 percent—of students ages 3 to 21 years received special education and/or related services under IDEA. 11 This is a strong indication that students with disabilities are well represented in secondary CTE programs. 12 Further, the Department has seen no evidence indicating that program access to CTE programs for students with disabilities is a particular problem necessitating the special requirements imposed by the Guidelines. To the extent that students with disabilities are denied equal access to or face other forms of discrimination in CTE programs, OCR's existing enforcement structure is more than sufficient to address any allegations of discrimination and correct noncompliance.

The Department thus concludes that the concerns that motivated promulgation of the Guidelines to combat discrimination based on race, sex, and disability in CTE programs no longer justify the continued existence of the Guidelines or the special rules they impose on recipients administering CTE programs.

State education agencies and their subrecipients subject to the Guidelines face a very significant economic burden under the Guidelines. Data submitted to OCR by 68 State education agencies  13 for school years ending 2023 and 2024 reveal that together they devote at least 54 full time equivalent (FTE) employees to ensure State compliance with the Guidelines. That data is incomplete because five State education agencies failed to report FTE data, and the Department accordingly estimates that the actual total is nearly 60 FTE employees. This suggests that the Guidelines force States to repurpose approximately 60 employees who could have been utilized to oversee State education programs to improve student outcomes and success.

Subrecipients likewise bear a considerable burden for their compliance with the Guidelines. According to the Texas Education Agency, local educational agencies in Texas required to comply with the Guidelines must compile and submit documentation to the State; host an on-site review by State officials that includes staff and student interviews, document review, and accessibility walkthroughs of every campus operating CTE programs; review and respond to a Letter of Findings by the State, within the timeframe set by the State; and develop and implement a potentially multi-year compliance plan. 14 To offer one specific example in the postsecondary context, Valencia College in Orlando, Florida—widely recognized as one of the premier CTE postsecondary institutions in the country, 15 with a total enrollment of 75,346 students in school year 2024-25 and with over 150 degree and certificate programs—reports to the Department that it dedicates approximately 100 hours of staff time for a compliance review under the Guidelines. Those expenses and the underlying reporting obligations exist in addition to, and are potentially duplicative of, other Federal and State oversight and legal obligations.

The overall costs incurred by the Department due to its oversight of the Guidelines are difficult to quantify because the Department does not track the portion of its enforcement, oversight, and technical assistance activities that relate specifically to the Guidelines. However, OCR has recently employed approximately 2 FTE employees to oversee implementation, enforcement, data collection, and provision of technical assistance under the Guidelines. Although that number has changed over the years, the Department continues to employ full-time staff to provide oversight of the program, interact regularly with State agencies, provide technical assistance, run an annual week-long training conference for State officials responsible for complying with the Guidelines, review and respond to reports submitted pursuant to the Guidelines, and help direct enforcement of the Guidelines. The Guidelines pose a notable financial burden on the Department, and as explained at length throughout this rule, this financial burden is not justified by the Guidelines' proactive compliance structure.

Through this action, the Department will free up assets to better enable State education agencies and their subrecipients to further their missions, and the Department will be able to more effectively utilize taxpayer dollars for the enforcement of Federal civil rights laws utilizing the Department's existing complaint resolution and proactive enforcement processes, conducting those activities more efficiently.

OCR enforces civil rights laws that protect millions of students attending or seeking to attend our Nation's educational institutions from unlawful discrimination on several bases, including race, sex, and disability. The majority of OCR's enforcement obligations each year consist of investigating and resolving the large number of complaints filed by individuals. Any person who believes that there has been a violation of the civil rights laws enforced by OCR may file a complaint. The individual or organization filing the complaint does not need to be directly impacted by the alleged discrimination. Upon receiving a complaint, OCR's primary objective is to investigate allegations of discrimination promptly, determine whether a civil rights violation has occurred, and, where a violation is established, remedy the violation by requiring recipients to take corrective action including making substantive changes to address civil rights violations and compliance concerns. 16

OCR is permitted by regulation to initiate “periodic compliance reviews” to assess the practices of recipients to determine whether they comply with the antidiscrimination laws enforced by OCR. 34 CFR 100.7(a). Although these regulations afford OCR broad discretion to determine the substantive issues for investigation and the number and frequency of the investigations, OCR also has the authority to initiate directed investigations when information indicates a possible failure to comply with the civil rights laws and regulations, the matter warrants attention, and the compliance concern is not otherwise being addressed through OCR's complaint, compliance review, or technical assistance activities. These “proactive” investigations enable OCR to respond to and correct civil rights violations in schools.

Both the complaint process and OCR's proactive investigatory processes apply to CTE programs no differently than to any other educational program operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department. Both the complaint process and OCR's proactive investigatory processes are available to any student or employee participating in a CTE program and any recipient that administers or operates a CTE program must comply with Federal civil rights laws. These processes exist independent of the Guidelines and are not impacted by the rescission of the Guidelines. OCR's enforcement structure is more than adequate to enable OCR to enforce Federal civil rights law—and ensure compliance—in CTE programs.

In developing this action, the Department considered the alternative approach of revising the Guidelines selectively to remove from them those provisions that the Department finds most problematic, duplicative, burdensome, or outdated. For the reasons explained below, the Department finds that no amount of careful editing could have satisfied the Department's legal and policy concerns while leaving intact any sort of coherent framework akin to the Guidelines in their current form.

Any revision to the Guidelines would likely need to preserve the existing monitoring and reporting requirements to the limited extent those requirements are not redundant with Federal statutory requirements. But to avoid wasting the resources of both OCR and the State agencies that are required to perform proactive monitoring, compliance, and reporting functions, the monitoring and reporting requirements that are in fact redundant with Federal statutes would have to be removed. The Guidelines would thus have to be written around those Federal statutes. Doing so would create a dizzying maze of exceptions that, as a practical matter, would lead risk-averse State agencies to continue to follow the practices required by the Guidelines (even after doing so was unnecessary), thereby preserving much of the burden that the Department seeks to eliminate. Many reporting State agencies likely would have found it easier to submit data to OCR than to decipher the hypothetical revised Guidelines to determine whether the information at issue fits within one of the exceptions. Accordingly, as a functional matter, eliminating redundant monitoring and reporting burdens on State agencies requires the full rescission of the Guidelines. And to the extent that any State agencies might have desired to navigate this complex web, their efforts to do so likely would have imposed significant additional burdens on OCR because OCR would have needed to provide technical assistance—both proactively, in advance of any problem, and in response to specific problems as they arise—to help those State agencies comply with a very confusing set of rules. Moreover, State agencies likely would have made mistakes in attempting to comply, which would have necessitated additional enforcement action by OCR to address unintentional technical violations of an overly complex set of rules setting the parameters of the reporting and monitoring requirements. But imposing all of these additional burdens—on recipients and OCR alike—runs directly counter to the objective of simplifying regulatory burdens in this area.

The reporting and monitoring requirements are only part of the problem. The Guidelines also impose various nondiscrimination requirements. OCR has examined those sections and has determined that all of them either (1) mirror the Department's existing civil rights regulations, particularly including 34 CFR 100.3, 100.5, 104.4, 104.11-104.14, 104.21, 104.34, 104.38, 104.42-104.46, 106.21-106.23, 106.31-106.37, 106.51, and 106.53, or (2) differ slightly from the Department's existing civil rights regulations but not in a manner that is reasonably likely to prevent additional discrimination, further improve compliance with civil rights laws, or better remedy violations of civil rights laws. That is not particularly surprising because, if the Guidelines materially expanded a recipient's substantive obligations beyond those provided by statute or regulation, they likely would have been illegal and unenforceable as being inconsistent with the laws and regulations OCR enforces.

Because the Guidelines' substantive nondiscrimination requirements largely repeat the regulations and add nothing of significance, they serve no material purpose. Editing them such that they might have added something of value, without expanding them well beyond OCR's statutory and regulatory authority, is likely impossible and, in the Department's view, a waste of time. Any such innovations that the Department might want to add to the Guidelines belong in the regulatory text, not an appendix to the regulations.

The Department has considered the reliance interests that may have developed during the nearly five decades the Guidelines have been in effect and has weighed those interests against the regulatory objectives achieved by rescission of the Guidelines. The Department is aware that many State educational agencies employ full time staff to facilitate their compliance with the Guidelines. The Department is also aware that the Guidelines were (1) enacted because CTE programs were previously segregated and therefore inaccessible to all students, and (2) because there were serious problems with discrimination in CTE programs. The Department concludes that these and other reliance interests do not outweigh the policy concerns supporting rescission.

State agencies relieved of the excessive burdens imposed on them by the Guidelines will have more resources available to them to conduct their principal function: administering educational programs that improve student outcomes and success. Freeing up those resources is a substantial benefit to students and outweighs whatever reliance interest recipients may have in maintaining their existing programs. Further, to the extent that States find value in the data they create in response to the monitoring and reporting requirements imposed by the Guidelines, nothing here prevents them from continuing to seek that data under their own authority or State law. Indeed, most States have already integrated their functions under the Guidelines into their own CTE compliance activities.

As to any reliance interests related to any purported positive impact that the Guidelines may have made in the past, the Department notes that the problem that the Guidelines were created to solve has been largely addressed and that the Department's existing enforcement structure, supported by the Department's regulation at 34 CFR 100.6(b) (requiring recipients to maintain civil rights compliance data and provide it to the Department on request), is more than sufficient to address any allegations of discrimination occurring in CTE programs. And, in any event, this is a run-of-the-mill policy concern, not a cognizable reliance interest, because those nonrecipients who might have benefited from future enforcement of the Guidelines, by definition, have not entered any relationship with a recipient in reliance on the Department's enforcement of the Guidelines.

The Department rescinds the Guidelines and the two places they are cross-referenced, as follows:

1. Remove the full text of Appendix B to 34 CFR part 100;

2. Remove the full text of Appendix B to 34 CFR part 104; and

3. Remove the full text of Appendix A to 34 CFR part 106.

No other portions of 34 CFR parts 100, 104, or 106 are impacted by this action.

The Department issues this action without prior public notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), which excludes from section 553's notice-and-comment requirements matters relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This action relates to the nondiscrimination provisions of an appendix to the Title VI regulations that impose conditions on receiving Federal financial assistance, and public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts constitute such assistance under both Title VI and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Department's Title VI regulation defines financial assistance to include “grants and loans of federal funds,” “property,” “interests in property,” “personnel,” and “any federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.” 34 CFR 100.13(f). Similar definitions of Federal financial assistance are codified at 34 CFR 104.3 (under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 34 CFR 106.2 (under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972). Recipients are required, as a condition on the approval of any request for Federal financial assistance and the subsequent extension of any Federal financial assistance, to provide the Department with an “assurance” of “compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to [Title VI].” 34 CFR 100.4; see Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 217-18 (2022) (observing that Congress enacted Title VI “[p]ursuant to its authority to `fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money'” (internal citation omitted)); see also 34 CFR 104.5 (requiring a similar assurance under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); 34 CFR 106.4 (requiring a similar assurance under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972).

Section 553(a)(2) exempts from notice-and-comment rulemaking matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” The Department has carefully reviewed those broad categories of exempt matters together with the definitions of Federal financial assistance at 34 CFR 100.13(f), 34 CFR 104.3, and 34 CFR 106.2, the specific assurances required by 34 CFR 100.4, 34 CFR 104.5, and 34 CFR 106.4, and the types of Federal financial assistance provided by the Department. Based on this review, the Department has concluded that all of the types of Federal financial assistance provided by the Department that are implicated in this final rule are within the categories of exempt activities listed in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). This final rule is thus exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Similarly, the Department's reliance on 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) is consistent with the definition of Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) in 2 CFR 200.1, which defines such assistance with the same categories as the APA's exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). With potentially limited exceptions not applicable to the Department, all the forms of Federal financial assistance set forth in 2 CFR 200.1 that the Department administers would fall under the “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” exception.

Courts have found that rules related to these forms of financial assistance are exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. See, e.g., Cal. Dep't of Educ. v. Bennett, 849 F.2d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a Department rule concerning the return of Federal funds used for improper purposes did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Snow, 561 F.2d 227, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (holding that a Federal Highway Administration rule governing the issuance of Federal funding for highways was exempt from notice-and-comment procedures); Texas v. Becerra, 577 F. Supp. 3d 527, 547 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (“The APA specifically exempts matters relating to `grants,' and Head Start is a federal grant program”).

This action relates to the public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts that constitute Federal financial assistance because it eliminates various compliance requirements that are imposed as a condition on the receipt of that assistance. The “relates to” standard is a broad one, easily satisfied by this action. See Cummings, 596 U.S. at 217-18 (observing that Congress enacted Title VI “[p]ursuant to its authority to `fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money'” (citation omitted)). As one court explained, “Section 553(a)(2) cuts a wide swath” and “a broad domain is preserved for its operation.” Humana of S.C., Inc. v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1070, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “[T]o the extent that any one of the enumerated categories is clearly and directly involved in the regulatory effort at issue, the Act's procedural compulsions are suspended.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This action is therefore exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Cf. Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial Assistance, 82 FR 46655. 46655-56 (Oct. 6, 2017) (invoking exception to amend Title IX regulations to “promote consistency in the enforcement of Title IX for [Department of Agriculture] financial assistance recipients”); Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, 85 FR 47899, 47904 (Aug. 7, 2020) (invoking exception to repeal Housing and Urban Development rule regarding Federal grantees); Participation by Minority Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Programs, 53 FR 18285, 18286 (May 23, 1988) (invoking exception to expand coverage of Department of Transportation regulation regarding Federal Aviation Administration's airport financial assistance program); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs—Suspension of Guidelines With Respect to Mass Transportation, 46 FR 40687, 40688 (Aug. 11, 1981) (invoking exception to suspend DOJ guidelines regarding prohibiting disability discrimination in transportation programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Thus, the Department issues this action without prior public notice and comment, under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Further, because the exception in section 553(a)(2) applies to section 553 as a whole, the Department issues this action without the delayed effective date typically required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

E.O. 12250 delegates to the Attorney General the President's function of approving rules, regulations, and orders of general applicability under section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Justice has reviewed and approved this rule.

Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies to consider both the quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits of a rule and to adopt a regulation only if the rule justifies its costs. This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, as well as with Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), which supplements and explicitly affirms the principles of Executive Order 12866. Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13563 states that agencies may consider qualitative values that are either difficult or impossible to quantify, while Section 3 directs agencies to harmonize their regulations to simplify their burden and to avoid inconsistent and overlapping requirements. As discussed above, the Guidelines no longer justify their costs and include requirements that overlap with those already found in the Department's civil rights regulations.

The overall costs incurred by the Department due to its oversight of the Guidelines are difficult to quantify, as the Department does not track the portion of its enforcement, oversight, and technical assistance activities that relate specifically to the Guidelines. Nor is it able to quantify recipients' current compliance costs with the Guidelines. However, as noted above, the Department most recently employed 2 FTE staff and estimates that the States together employ approximately 60 FTE staff dedicated to the administration of the Guidelines. The Guidelines impose additional substantial burdens on subrecipients that are likewise difficult to quantify.

This deregulatory action should decrease the amount of staffing resources the States, subrecipients, and the Department must allocate to compliance with an outdated regime that is no longer necessary and is unique in civil rights enforcement. The Department has determined that this action, while not an “economically significant” action in terms of imposing costs on the economy and society, is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.

Executive Order 14192, 90 FR 9065, establishes a regulatory budget process for agencies and requires them to offset new regulatory burdens or costs. This action is expected to be a deregulatory action; it will not increase the total incremental cost of the Department's regulations but is likely to decrease it. By rescinding the Guidelines, the Department is removing a substantial compliance burden on State education agencies and their subrecipients, thereby eliminating an overly burdensome and unnecessary regulation. Accordingly, the Department expects this action to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), ensures that Federal regulations preempt State and local laws and rules only when Congress expressly authorizes or gives an agency clear authority to do so. This action will not have a substantial direct effect on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, on distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, or on States' policymaking discretion. State and local recipients of Federal funding voluntarily comply with civil rights laws and the Department regulations implementing them as a condition of receiving the funding. This action does not subject recipients to new obligations. As a result, and in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that these amendments to the Department's regulations do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement as outlined in section 6(c)(2).

This action meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), to specify provisions in clear language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this action or any previous administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing directly relating to the Guidelines is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.

Executive Order 14294, 90 FR 20363 (May 14, 2025), requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This action does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294's requirements.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies must consider whether a rule will create additional burdens related to recordkeeping, paperwork, or information collection. This action will not impose any additional burdens or requirements in these respects. To the contrary, it will reduce paperwork burdens on State education agencies that will no longer have to submit biennial reports to the Department under section II.B. of the Guidelines.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required “to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking” prior to issuing the final rule. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). Because this action is being issued without a prior proposal, on the grounds set forth above, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA. Further, even if the RFA were applicable here, the Department would find that rescinding the Guidelines will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rescission does not impose any new substantive obligations on Federal funding recipients. It simply amends existing text appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations by removing burdens on State education agencies and other recipients. All Federal funding recipients remain bound by the Department's regulations that are already in place.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare assessments of any rule that would result in the annual expenditure of more than $100 million by State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. UMRA does not apply because 2 U.S.C. 1503(2) excludes any Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” This action is therefore not subject to UMRA.

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

For the reasons discussed in this action, the Secretary of Education amends parts 100, 104, and 106 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

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

The EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP, 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-5.220 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer,” submitted to the EPA on March 7, 2019. The purpose of the State regulation is to restrict volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the St. Louis metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. Missouri's rule revisions are detailed in the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, published on April 23, 2026 (91 FR 21751). The EPA finds that these revisions meet the requirements of the CAA and do not impact the State's ability to attain or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 document (TSD) included in 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 August 1, 2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a public hearing on September 27, 2018. The State of Missouri received twenty-nine (29) comments from seven sources during the comment period on 10 CSR 10-5.220. The EPA provided three comments. In response to the EPA's comments, Missouri provided additional clarification by submitting supplemental information to the EPA on August 1, 2019. Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on some of the public comments made, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. The revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened April 23, 2026, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on May 26, 2026 (91 FR 21751). During this period, the EPA received one anonymous comment opposing the proposed action, available in the docket for this rulemaking. The commenter expressed a general objection to revising or removing fossil fuel regulations, citing global economic and environmental damage. The comment is broad and lacks specific information directly relevant to the proposed changes in this action. The scope of this rulemaking action is strictly dictated by the statutory limits of section 110 of the CAA. The EPA has determined that these changes meet the requirements of the CAA and will not adversely impact air quality or interfere with the State's ability to maintain the NAAQS.

The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's revisions 10 CSR 10-5.220 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading, and Transfer.” This final action approves these amendments as part of the SIP. The EPA has determined that these changes meet the requirements of the CAA and will not adversely impact air quality or interfere with the State's ability to maintain the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.220 discussed in section I. of this preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The purpose of the State regulation is to restrict VOC emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the St. Louis metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. 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 SIP, 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 EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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 (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 21, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On November 20, 2025 (90 FR 52316), the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed approval of minor changes to Maine's operating permit program at 06-096 CMR Chapter 140, “Part 70 Air Emission License Regulation,” to make minor changes that are considered clarifications, correct grammar, codify longstanding practices, and make other necessary changes for the state to utilize an expected future electronic application system. The revisions include regulatory provisions allowing the public comment period on a draft permit to run concurrently with the EPA's review of a proposed permit. The EPA is not taking action on the removal of the emergency affirmative defense provisions in Section 2(AA) of Chapter 140 at this time. The EPA intends to address Maine Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) request to approve the revisions removing the emergency affirmative defense provisions in a subsequent action. The formal operating permit program revisions were submitted by Maine on July 29, 2024. The EPA is approving the following revisions to Maine's existing EPA-approved CAA Title V operating permit program:

• Removing inappropriate references to New Source Review permitting. New Source Review is addressed by Maine DEP's Chapter 115;

• Allowing applications to be signed electronically provided the signature complies with the requirements of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting, 40 CFR part 3;

• Allowing public notices of intent to file and draft availability to be published on the Maine DEP website in lieu of publication in a print newspaper;

• Allowing Maine DEP to keep records for public inspection electronically rather than requiring a paper copy at the Augusta, Maine, office;

• Adding further information regarding the applicability of Section 502(b)(10); and

• Requiring transfer applications to be completed within 60 days as is required by the underlying federal regulation.

Maine DEP also codified the following revisions to align the rule with longstanding practices. The EPA is approving these changes into their EPA-approved CAA Title V operating permit program:

• Clarifying that Maine DEP, and not the applicant, will provide draft licenses to affected states when appropriate;

• Removing the requirement for applicants to submit redlined versions of previous applications when applying for a license renewal;

• Specifying that EPA's review period on a draft license may run concurrently with the public comment period provided the State does not receive comments that cause it to make substantive changes to the draft license; and

• Clarifying that portable engines not used to power process equipment are considered insignificant activities.

Other specific requirements and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

The NPRM provided a 30-day public comment period which concluded on December 22, 2025. EPA received one comment in response to the NPRM, which was adverse in nature to EPA's proposed approval of the action. The EPA provides a summary of the comment and the EPA's response to the comment below.

Comment 1a: The commenter stated, “Title V operating permit programs are not part of SIPs and are approved under CAA section 502(d) and 40 CFR 70.4-70.12, not under CAA section 110. The EPA's longstanding practice is to approve a state's Title V program in 40 CFR part 70, appendix A, and to approve SIP rules in 40 CFR part 52. Title V permits do not establish new emission limitations required under section 110(a)(2)(A); rather, they collect and make enforceable preexisting applicable requirements.” The commenter further states that, “Incorporating Chapter 140 into the SIP would conflate two distinct statutory programs and could create confusion about the applicable approval, revision, and enforcement processes ( e.g., 40 CFR 70.8 the EPA review of individual permits, Title V petition process under section 505(b)(2), and program deficiency correction under section 502(i)). The commenter concludes by stating, “If EPA's intent is to approve revisions to Maine's Title V program, the action should be recast and noticed under Title V authority with corresponding codification in 40 CFR part 70, appendix A. If, instead, EPA intends to approve only discrete SIP-relevant elements, the notice must specify, line-by-line, which subsections of Chapter 140 are being approved for SIP purposes and which are excluded as Title V-only provisions. The notice, as published, does not provide that clarity.”

Response 1a: The EPA disagrees with the commenter because the premise of the comment, i.e., that the EPA proposed this action as a CAA section 110 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, is incorrect. This action is not a SIP revision. As described in the summary, background and purpose, and proposed action sections of the NPRM, the EPA proposed the approval of a CAA Title V operating permit program revision submitted by the State of Maine in accordance with the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d) and 40 CFR 70.4. Maine's program approvals are listed in 40 CFR part 70, Appendix A and will be amended via this final rule to codify the revisions to the state's operating permit program. The commenter's claims are not applicable to the NRPM, as this action is not a SIP revision. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

Comment 1b: The commenter stated that, “The notice lacks an adequate section 110(l) noninterference analysis and fails to provide sufficient notice for meaningful comment. CAA section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. If EPA is approving Chapter 140 into the SIP—or replacing previously approved licensing provisions—EPA must demonstrate non-interference. The notice does not contain a section 110(l) analysis or any data showing that the change does not relax monitoring, reporting, or enforceability of existing SIP emission limits. For example, Chapter 140 includes permit shield provisions, streamlining of overlapping requirements, and procedures for administrative and minor permit changes. When mistakenly approved into the SIP, such provisions could affect enforceability of underlying SIP limits. Without a targeted 110(l) analysis keyed to the exact text being federalized, the public lacks the information necessary to assess non-interference. The Administrative Procedure Act requires sufficient detail in the notice to permit meaningful comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). By failing to: (a) identify the precise subsections being incorporated; (b) explain the statutory basis (110 vs. 502); and (c) provide a section 110(l) analysis, the notice does not provide adequate notice and rationale.” The commenter requests that the EPA provide a CAA section 110(l) analysis or withdraw the SIP action and process Maine's Chapter 140 under Title V.

Response 1b: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The NRPM proposed to approve revisions to Maine's operating permit program under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. The commenter's claims are not applicable, as this action is not a SIP revision and not subject to CAA section 110. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

Comment 1c: The commenter stated that, “Paperwork Reduction Act implications are unaddressed if Chapter 140 is federalized. Chapter 140 contains monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance certification requirements applicable to sources. If EPA incorporates these provisions into the SIP, those information collection requirements become federally enforceable obligations `sponsored' by EPA within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 5 CFR 1320.3(d). EPA's SIP preambles often assert that PRA does not apply because SIP approvals impose no additional requirements beyond state law. That general statement does not resolve the PRA issue where the agency is incorporating by reference and federalizing detailed third-party disclosure and recordkeeping obligations for hundreds of facilities. In analogous contexts, EPA obtains OMB control numbers for monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and certification requirements incorporated by reference in federal rules. The notice does not identify any OMB control number covering Chapter 140's information collection elements, nor does it provide an estimate of burden or demonstrate that any existing ICR encompasses these state-imposed, but now federally enforceable, requirements.” The commenter requests that the EPA “either (a) avoid incorporating into the SIP the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, certification sections of Chapter 140; or (b) identify the applicable OMB control number and provide the required PRA analysis and burden estimate before final action.”

Response 1c: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The NRPM proposed to approve revisions to Maine's operating permit program under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. The commenter's claims are not applicable, as this action is not a SIP revision. Additionally, the EPA has complied with the PRA by certifying that the PRA does not apply to this rule because the action does not involve an information collection burden as defined by the Act. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

Comment 1d: The commenter stated that the “Incorporation-by-reference (IBR) and material availability are deficient. Under 1 CFR part 51 and OFR rules, when EPA incorporates state rules by reference, the agency must identify with specificity the exact version/date, ensure the material is reasonably available, and avoid ambiguous `dynamic' incorporations ( e.g., `as amended' references to federal rules). SIP IBR sections must provide locations where the public can inspect the incorporated material. Chapter 140 typically cross-references federal regulations (40 CFR parts 70, 60, 61, 63) and state forms, instructions, and guidance documents governing application content and public notice. The notice does not describe how these cross-referenced materials are made reasonably available as part of the IBR package, nor does it carve out dynamically incorporated or non-regulatory materials ( e.g., application forms) that cannot be IBR'd without violating OFR requirements. Without a complete IBR description and public availability statement for each incorporated provision and without excluding dynamic cross-references the incorporation is defective.” The commenter request that the EPA “revise the IBR section to: (a) enumerate the specific subsections of Chapter 140 being incorporated with effective dates; (b) exclude dynamic cross-references and non-regulatory materials, or provide static versions and access details; and (c) identify where the public may inspect the materials at EPA and the State consistent with 1 CFR 51.5.”

Response 1d: The EPA disagrees that revisions to Incorporation by Reference (IBR) are warranted. The commenter's concerns relate to SIP IBR requirements, but this is not a SIP action. The NRPM proposed to approve revisions to Maine's operating permit program under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. Therefore, the EPA is not making any changes in response to this comment.

Comment 1e: The commenter states that “EPA routinely certifies that SIP approvals do not directly regulate small entities. If, however, EPA federalizes Chapter 140's Title V program, the action would directly impose federal obligations on small public entities that operate covered sources ( e.g., municipal utilities, landfills, wastewater treatment plants). EPA should revisit its certification or clarify that Chapter 140 is not being federalized into the SIP.”

Response 1e: The NRPM proposed to approve revisions to Maine's operating permit program under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. This action is not a SIP revision. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

Comment 1f: The commenter states, “Incorporating Chapter 140 into the SIP could be construed as imposing enforceable duties on local governments that own affected sources. EPA should either confirm that Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) does not apply because the action is processed under Title V (program approval) or provide a brief UMRA assessment if proceeding as a SIP action.”

Response 1f: The NRPM proposed to approve revisions to Maine's operating permit program under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. This action is not a SIP revision. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

The EPA is approving the above revisions to Maine's operating permit program at Chapter 140, “Part 70 Air Emission License Regulation,” except those in section 2(AA) related to affirmative defense, which the EPA intends to address at a later date.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve Title V operating permit program revisions that comply with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Thus, in reviewing revisions, 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 subject to an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . 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 21, 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 Environmental Protection Agency amends part 70 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department) rescinds the Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs (Guidelines), codified as Appendix B to 45 CFR part 80, and removes the conforming cross-references in Appendix B to 45 CFR part 84 and Appendix A to 45 CFR part 86. The Guidelines were originally developed by the Department's predecessor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 1979, in response to district court orders originally arising from litigation concerning HEW's administration and enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. See 44 FR 17162 (citing Adams v. Califano, No. 3095-70 (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 1977) (consent order)); see also Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (D.D.C. 1972). The Guidelines were intended to address nondiscrimination in vocational education programs and established a proactive compliance framework ( i.e., “methods of administration” (MOA) program) for State agency recipients responsible for administering those programs. 44 FR at 17164-65.

Title III of the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, Public Law 96-88, 93 Stat. 668 (Oct. 17, 1979), transferred HEW's education functions, including the administration of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 and other education-related functions of HEW's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), to the new U.S. Department of Education (ED). See Public Law 96-88, sec. 301, 93 Stat. at 677 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 3441); id. sec. 203, 93 Stat. at 673 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 3413) (establishing ED's OCR). Section 509 of the Act redesignated HEW as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Id. sec. 509, 93 Stat. at 695 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 3508). The Act's transfer and redesignation provisions took effect on May 4, 1980. Id. sec. 601, 93 Stat. at 696; Exec. Order No. 12212, 45 FR 29557 (May 5, 1980).

This statutory structure explains why the HEW-era Guidelines remained in HHS's regulations after the 1980 reorganization. Section 509(b) of the Department of Education Organization Act provides that references to HEW in any law, rule, regulation, directive, or other official paper in force on May 4, 1980, are deemed references to HHS, except to the extent that the reference is to a function or office transferred to ED. 20 U.S.C. 3508(b). The Guidelines remained codified in HHS's regulations as legacy HEW-era text, but the Federal vocational-education functions and associated MOA compliance framework to which the Guidelines were principally directed transferred to ED and, appropriately, are administered exclusively by the ED OCR. HHS therefore rescinds the Guidelines to align the CFR with HHS's current statutory and operational responsibilities.

HHS's operative nondiscrimination requirements applicable to recipients are set forth in its implementing regulations at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86, promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., respectively. Those regulations remain in effect and are unchanged by this action. Rescission of the Guidelines removes obsolete, unused material from HHS's regulations and does not alter any HHS funding recipient's substantive civil rights obligations.

The Department issues this action in furtherance of Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), which directs agencies to identify and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Department would rescind the Guidelines even absent E.O. 14192 because the Guidelines do not serve an operational function at HHS, their continued presence in the CFR creates regulatory confusion, and HHS's applicable civil rights regulations at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86 provide a fully adequate and effective legal framework for Federal civil rights compliance and enforcement in health and human services.

The Guidelines are codified as Appendix B to 45 CFR part 80. They were drafted as a set of detailed, program-specific criteria explaining nondiscrimination obligations in vocational education programs and were intended to generally supplement applicable civil rights regulations. See 44 FR 17162. The Guidelines address, among other areas: (i) administrative requirements and assurances; (ii) access to and admission to vocational programs; (iii) counseling and prevocational programs; (iv) comparable facilities and physical accessibility; (v) services and program modifications for students with disabilities; (vi) financial assistance to students; (vii) work-study, cooperative vocational education programs, apprentice training, and job placement; (viii) housing; and (ix) employment of faculty and staff. See id. at 17162-75.

In addition to those substantive provisions, the Guidelines established a proactive compliance framework, the MOA program, directed at State agency recipients responsible for administering vocational education programs. Id. at 17163-64 (section II.B). That framework requires State agencies to: (1) collect and analyze civil rights data and information; (2) conduct periodic compliance reviews of subrecipients operating vocational education programs; (3) provide technical assistance to subrecipients upon request; and (4) periodically report MOA activities and findings to OCR. Id. Section II.C of the Guidelines directed State agencies to submit “methods of administration and related procedures” for complying with the Guidelines “within one year from the publication of these Guidelines in final form.” Id. at 17165. Although the Guidelines were developed through notice and comment and placed in the CFR, they were framed as guidance explaining how certain civil rights requirements applied in the vocational education context, rather than as stand-alone regulatory text establishing enforceable legal requirements. See id. at 17162. For HHS, the relevant point is not whether the Guidelines had operational effect during the HEW-era, but that HHS does not now administer the MOA framework contemplated by the Guidelines.

The Guidelines resulted from litigation concerning HEW's administration and enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. See 44 FR at 17162 (citing Adams v. Califano ); Adams v. Richardson, 356 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1973), aff'd as modified, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (D.D.C. 1972). The Adams litigation, originally filed on October 19, 1970, challenged HEW's alleged failure to administer and enforce Title VI against educational institutions receiving Federal financial assistance. See Adams, 351 F. Supp. at 637.

The Adams court found that HEW had concluded ten states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia) were “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI.” Id. at 637-38. HEW requested desegregation plans from those ten states. Id. Five states (Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia) submitted plans that HEW found “unacceptable.” Id. at 638. The remaining five states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Florida) failed to respond. Id. HEW continued to disburse Federal financial assistance to those states without taking enforcement action. Id. at 637-38.

With respect to vocational education programs specifically, HEW lacked student-enrollment and faculty data by race for many of the recipients subject to the litigation, did not have a comprehensive Title VI enforcement program prior to the lawsuit, and, after the suit was filed, had not scheduled any on-site reviews of segregated vocational schools in the South. See Adams v. Richardson, 356 F. Supp. at 94-95. The Adams litigation continued, resulting in several injunctive orders and eventually a consent order, entered December 29, 1977, which applied beyond the States originally involved. See 43 FR 7048, 7049 (Feb. 17, 1978) (describing some of the history of the Adams litigation). The consent order directed HEW to develop and implement specific procedures to ensure civil rights compliance in vocational education programs. Order at 27, ¶ 38(b), Adams v. Califano, No. 3095-70 (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 1977) (consent order). The court ordered, in pertinent part:

Id. In response to that order, HEW proposed Guidelines at 43 FR 59105 (Dec. 19, 1978) and issued them for publication in the Federal Register on March 21, 1979. 44 FR 17162. The 1979 Federal Register preamble stated that the Guidelines were “a result of injunctive orders entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in [the Adams litigation]” and reflected HEW's finding of “evidence of continuing unlawful discrimination in vocational education programs.” Id. The Guidelines were codified in the CFR and cross-referenced in HEW's implementing regulations for Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504.

In August 1982, the government defendants (no longer HEW) moved to vacate the 1977 consent order, and when that motion was denied, they appealed. See Adams v. Bennett, 675 F. Supp. 668, 673-74 (D.D.C. 1987) (describing the procedural history of the litigation). On appeal, the court vacated the denial but remanded the case for consideration of standing in light of Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). See Adams, 675 F. Supp. at 670 (citing Women's Equity Action League v. Bell, 743 F.2d 42, 43, 44 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). On remand, the district court held that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that continued judicial oversight of the agencies' Title VI enforcement would intrude on Executive branch functions and conflict with separation-of-powers principles. Id. at 676-80. On appeal of that order, the D.C. Circuit reversed the standing dismissal, holding that plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue and directed further briefing on the remaining statutory and merits questions. Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 879 F.2d 880, 885-88 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Ginsburg, J.).

On further briefing, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs lacked a legally authorized cause of action to obtain “across-the-board continuing Federal court supervision of the process by which the agencies ensure compliance with the antidiscrimination mandates” that they sought. Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 906 F.2d 742, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Ginsburg, J.). The court emphasized that the “generalized action . . . against Federal executive agencies” that plaintiffs pursued lacked “the requisite green light from the legislative branch.” Id. at 748-52. The court's 1990 decision essentially terminated the Adams litigation; no petition for certiorari was granted, and no further substantive proceedings ensued.

The Guidelines were promulgated by HEW at a time when HEW administered both education and health and human services functions under a single departmental structure. That unified structure changed fundamentally in 1980. In 1979, as noted, Congress enacted the Department of Education Organization Act, which established the U.S. Department of Education as a separate Executive department and transferred to it specified HEW education functions, including administration of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, together with the education-related civil rights responsibilities of HEW OCR. Id., sec. 301, 93 Stat. at 677. HEW was simultaneously redesignated as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Id. sec. 509. And the U.S. Department of Education opened on May 4, 1980. See 45 FR at 29557.

With that reorganization, administration of the Federal vocational education program structure that gave rise to the Guidelines, and administration of the MOA civil rights compliance framework that the Guidelines established for State vocational education agencies, transferred to ED. ED OCR assumed operational responsibility for the MOA program, and HHS's OCR ceased administering that framework. HHS retained the Guidelines' text in its regulations for continuity but has not administered the Guidelines' proactive MOA compliance structure since the 1980 reorganization.

The MOA program has been administered by ED OCR in the intervening four and a half decades. See ED OCR and OCTAE Program Memorandum, Updated Procedures for Preparing the Methods of Administration (MOA) Described in the Vocational/Career and Technical Education Guidelines (Feb. 6, 2020) (superseding the original Memorandum of Procedures issued by the Office of the Secretary, HEW, in July 1979, and all subsequent guidance). 1 HHS does not receive MOA biennial reports from State agencies under the Guidelines, does not conduct the associated MOA training conferences, and does not provide the associated MOA technical assistance. As explained in section II.D of this rule, HHS OCR instead enforces civil rights compliance through its civil rights regulatory requirements and case-specific tools under 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86, including complaint investigations, compliance reviews, and voluntary resolution mechanisms.

Rescinding the Guidelines does not reduce or limit HHS's enforceable nondiscrimination obligations applicable to HHS recipients under Title VI, Section 504, or Title IX, as implemented respectively by 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86. Those regulations remain fully in effect and continue to provide the operative legal framework for all HHS civil rights compliance and enforcement activities under the relevant statutes.

HHS OCR retains the full enforcement architecture provided by its operative civil-rights regulations: it may initiate periodic compliance reviews under 45 CFR 80.7(a), investigate complaints under 45 CFR 80.7(b), and take enforcement action (including, under appropriate circumstances, proceedings to suspend or terminate Federal financial assistance) under 45 CFR 80.8. See also 45 CFR 84.98 (incorporating 45 CFR 80.6 through 80.10 and 45 CFR part 81 for Section 504 enforcement); 45 CFR 86.71 (incorporating 45 CFR 80.6 through 80.11 and 45 CFR part 81 for Title IX enforcement). These proactive and reactive enforcement tools exist independently of the Guidelines and will continue to be available in their full scope following its rescission. To the extent that any vocational education program currently receives funds, directly or indirectly, from HHS, these enforcement tools are sufficient for HHS OCR to ensure compliance with applicable civil rights laws. Recipients of HHS financial assistance also remain subject to other applicable Federal and State nondiscrimination requirements. Accordingly, rescission of the Guidelines does not impair HHS OCR's ability to enforce applicable civil rights requirements in any HHS-funded program or activity, including any program or activity involving vocational education.

The Department considered alternatives to full rescission of the Guidelines, including revising to reflect current program structures, or retaining with additional language clarifying its non-operational status at HHS. Revision of the Guidelines would require extensive substantive rewrites that would, in effect, replace HEW-era program-specific guidance with new program-specific guidance. Because HHS does not administer a vocational education oversight structure analogous to the one contemplated by the Guidelines, revised guidance purporting to address such a structure would have no operational function at HHS. Such a revision would also risk creating confusion about HHS's legal and administrative role in vocational education programs. Additionally, to the extent that portions of the Guidelines overlap with obligations already reflected in HHS's operative regulatory requirements, retaining those provisions in an appendix would unnecessarily duplicate rather than clarify the operative law.

Similarly, retaining the Guidelines with clarifying language would leave lengthy, substantively obsolete program-specific material in the CFR. Even with clarifying language, the risk that recipients would misread the Guidelines as imposing HHS-administered obligations would persist. That approach would perpetuate the risk of recipient confusion while providing no corresponding enforcement benefit. The Department therefore determines that full rescission is the most administratively sound approach consistent with the goal of regulatory clarity. Full rescission removes obsolete appendix material while preserving, unchanged, the operative statutory and regulatory requirements that govern HHS recipients.

The Department has considered whether any reliance interests counsel against rescission of the Guidelines. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30-33 (2020) (holding that an agency is required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns); Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016) (“an agency must be cognizant. . . [of] `serious reliance interests'” (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009))); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43 (1983). The Department concludes that reliance interests are limited and do not outweigh the regulatory clarity benefits of rescission, for the following reasons.

First, HHS has not administered Appendix B's MOA framework since the 1980 reorganization. Second, rescission does not alter any HHS funding recipient's substantive nondiscrimination obligations under Title VI, Section 504, or Title IX, at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86. HHS OCR's full complement of enforcement tools, see 45 CFR 80.7; 45 CFR 84.98; 45 CFR 86.71, remains fully available. Accordingly, any cognizable reliance interests are outweighed by the Department's interest in removing legacy HEW-era appendix material that no longer corresponds to an HHS-administered compliance framework, while leaving intact the statutes, regulations, assurances, compliance information requirements, complaint investigation procedures, compliance review authority, voluntary resolution mechanisms, and enforcement procedures that govern HHS recipients.

This final rule amends title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

(1) Removes Appendix B to 45 CFR part 80 in its entirety;

(2) Removes Appendix B to 45 CFR part 84 (which cross-references Appendix B to part 80); and

(3) Removes Appendix A to 45 CFR part 86 (which cross-references Appendix B to part 80).

No other provisions of 45 CFR parts 80, 84, or 86 are affected by this action.

The Department issues this final rule without prior public notice and comment or a delayed effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). The Department's rescission of the Richardson waiver on March 3, 2025 ( Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act, 90 FR 11029) restores the Department's discretion to invoke 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) in accordance with its terms. Specifically, this action rescinds the program-specific Guidelines and associated cross-references relating to Federal civil rights compliance conditions applicable to programs receiving HHS Federal financial assistance, including any recipients that offer or administer vocational education programs or activities.

Federal financial assistance disbursed under programs subject to Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 is provided subject to assurances of compliance that have long been analogized to contracts. See, e.g., Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 219-20 (2022) (explaining that Title VI and related Spending Clause statutes “operate[ ] based on consent” in “what amounts essentially to a contract between the government and the recipient of funds” (quoting Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 286 (1998))). Although the Department does not rely on this analogy as an independent basis for the 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) exemption, it reinforces that the regulatory framework being amended “relates to . . . grants [and] contracts” within the plain language of that provision.

The Department's definition of “Federal financial assistance” for purposes of Title VI is set forth at 45 CFR 80.13(f), which includes five categories of assistance: (1) grants and loans of Federal funds; (2) the grant or donation of Federal property and interests in property; (3) the detail of Federal personnel; (4) the sale and lease of, and the permission to use Federal property or any interest in such property without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient, or in recognition of the public interest to be served by such sale or lease to the recipient; and (5) any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance. See also 45 CFR 80.4 (requiring funding recipients to sign a contractual assurance of compliance with Title VI as a condition of receiving such assistance).

Each of those five categories falls within or relates to the scope of the 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) exception. First, the reference in 45 CFR 80.13(f)(1) to “grants and loans of Federal funds” is directly covered by the APA exception for matters “relating to . . . loans [and] grants.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Second, the grant or donation of Federal property and interests in property under 45 CFR 80.13(f)(2) is covered by the exception for matters “relating to . . . public property [or] grants.” Id. Third, the detail of Federal personnel under 45 CFR 80.13(f)(3) is covered by the exception for matters “relating to agency management or personnel”; furthermore, the detailing of Federal personnel occurs within the context of, or in lieu of, funds disbursed under grants, which are independently covered by the exception. Id. Fourth, the sale, lease, and permission to use Federal property under 45 CFR 80.13(f)(4) is encompassed by the exception for matters “relating to . . . public property.” Id. Fifth, “any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract having as one of its purposes the provision of assistance” under 45 CFR 80.13(f)(5) falls within the exception for matters “relating to . . . contracts.” Id. This action relates to the conditions imposed on the receipt of all such forms of Federal financial assistance from HHS and, therefore, satisfies the exception. See Humana of S.C., Inc. v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1070, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“[E]ven construed narrowly, Section 553(a)(2) cuts a wide swath through the safeguards generally imposed on agency action.” (footnotes omitted)).

It is worth noting that the original HEW Title VI regulations were finalized in December 1964 without prior notice and comment. See Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 29 FR 16298 (Dec. 4, 1964). That original rulemaking, which established the foundational structure of the civil rights compliance conditions now codified in 45 CFR part 80, was conducted without notice and comment on the same grounds that support this action. In 1964 and 1966, numerous other Federal agencies similarly published their implementing Title VI regulations without notice and comment. See, e.g., 29 FR 16274 (U.S. Department of Agriculture); 29 FR 16287 (General Services Administration); 29 FR 16280 (Housing and Home Finance Agency); 29 FR 16293 (U.S. Department of Interior); 29 FR 16284 (U.S. Department of Labor); 29 FR 16305 (National Science Foundation); 31 FR 10265 (U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)). Those contemporaneous agency decisions to invoke the exception to issue the foundational Title VI funding-conditions regulations confirm that the 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) exception applies with full force to an action rescinding program-specific supplemental guidance relating to those same funding conditions.

Other federal agencies have similarly invoked the 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) exception in analogous circumstances. See, e.g., Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial Assistance, 82 FR 46655, 46655-56 (Oct. 6, 2017) (invoking the exception to amend Title IX regulations to “promote consistency in the enforcement of Title IX for [U.S. Department of Agriculture] financial assistance recipients”); Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, 85 FR 47899, 47904 (Aug. 7, 2020) (invoking the exception to repeal a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule regarding Federal grantees); Participation by Minority Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Programs, 53 FR 18285, 18286 (May 23, 1988) (invoking the exception to expand coverage of a U.S. Department of Transportation regulation regarding Federal Aviation Administration airport financial assistance programs); Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs—Suspension of Guidelines With Respect to Mass Transportation, 46 FR 40687, 40688 (Aug. 11, 1981) (invoking the exception to suspend DOJ guidelines prohibiting disability discrimination in transportation programs receiving Federal financial assistance). HHS itself has asserted that the exemption applies to its grants, even before rescinding the Richardson waiver. See Texas v. Becerra, 577 F. Supp. 3d 527, 547 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (acknowledging that “[t]he APA specifically exempts matters relating to `grants,' and Head Start is a federal grant program,” but requiring compliance with APA procedures in light of the not-yet-rescinded Richardson waiver).

Invoking 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) is also consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definition of “Federal financial assistance” under 2 CFR 200.1, which includes many of the same categories as the APA exception. With potentially limited exceptions not applicable to HHS, all the forms of Federal financial assistance set forth in 2 CFR 200.1 that HHS administers would fall within the “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). It is also consistent with the current policy of HHS, which rescinded its prior voluntary practice of applying notice-and-comment procedures to rules otherwise exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

Finally, because 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) applies to section 553 as a whole, the section 5 U.S.C. 553(d) delayed-effective-date requirement does not apply.

E.O. 12250, 45 FR 72995 (Nov. 4, 1980), directs the Attorney General to coordinate the implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies of the nondiscrimination provisions of: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794; and (d) any other provision of federal statutory law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, religion, or sex in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. This action rescinds program-specific Guidelines relating to all three of the statutes expressly enumerated in E.O. 12250 (Title VI, Section 504, and Title IX) as implemented by 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86, respectively. The U.S. Department of Justice has reviewed and approved this action consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12250.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735, 51738 (Oct. 4, 1993), but it is not an “economically significant” action within the meaning of section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by OMB.

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12866 section 1(b), 58 FR at 51735, and in accordance with E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, section 1(b), 76 FR 3821, 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), which supplements and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866. These EOs direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, where regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821. E.O. 13563 further recognizes that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify. 76 FR at 3821.

Data limitations make the costs and benefits of this action difficult to quantify with precision. HHS has not identified current HHS-recipient compliance costs specifically attributable to the Guidelines, and the Department does not maintain data that would allow it to isolate, across its full portfolio of Federal financial assistance, any awards, recipients, program activities, or compliance actions that might be affected by this rescission. Notwithstanding these data limitations, the Department has concluded that rescission is consistent with the principles of EOs 12866 and 13563. As explained in the preamble, the Guidelines serve no current operational function at HHS; HHS has not administered the Guidelines' proactive MOA compliance framework since the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 transferred administration of Federal vocational education programs and the associated civil rights compliance structure to ED. The Guidelines' continued codification in the CFR alongside HHS's operative civil rights regulations at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86 creates a risk that funding recipients will misunderstand HHS's actual enforceable requirements, without providing any corresponding regulatory benefit. This deregulatory action does not alter any rights of individuals protected by Federal civil rights laws, does not create any new obligations for recipients, and removes a source of potential regulatory confusion. The Department therefore concludes that the benefits of this action ( e.g., increased regulatory clarity, elimination of obsolete material from the CFR, and reduced risk of recipient confusion) justify its costs, which are minimal. See 58 FR at 51735; 76 FR at 3821.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), directs agencies to maintain regulatory budgets by identifying existing regulations for repeal in connection with the promulgation of new regulations, and to pursue deregulatory actions to offset the costs of existing regulations. Id. Because this action is deregulatory, rather than the promulgation of a new regulation imposing new obligations, the offsetting requirement of E.O. 14192 section 3(c) does not apply. This rescission is itself a deregulatory action that advances the E.O.'s purpose of reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. By rescinding appendix material that HHS does not administer and that serves no current operational function, the Department expects this action to reduce total incremental regulatory cost, consistent with the deregulatory objectives of E.O. 14192, by eliminating unnecessary regulatory text and associated confusion.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), which require agencies to specify regulatory provisions in clear language and to minimize litigation. Id. at 4730-32. Consistent with section 7 of the E.O., id. at 4731, nothing in this action or any previous administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guidance, or writing directly relating to the Guidelines is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.

E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, 90 FR 20363 (May 14, 2025), requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. Id. at 20363. This rule does not create any criminal regulatory offense and therefore does not implicate the requirements of E.O. 14294.

This rule does not have substantial federalism implications within the meaning of E.O. 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). It does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, does not preempt State law, and does not otherwise have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. See id. at 43258. States that choose to receive Federal financial assistance from HHS do so voluntarily and agree to comply with relevant statutory requirements as a condition of receiving such funding. See 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1; 29 U.S.C. 794; 20 U.S.C. 1682. This action does not subject States or any other funding recipients to new obligations; it removes obsolete, unused program-specific Guidelines from the CFR. The Department has therefore determined, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 13132, that these amendments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement as outlined in section 6(c)(2). 64 FR at 43258.

This rule does not have substantial tribal implications within the meaning of E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000). It does not have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. See id. at 67252.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action because, as described in Part IV.A, the Department is invoking the Administrative Procedure Act exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) for matters relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Accordingly, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553, and the analytical requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a); Or. Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the RFA does not apply when an agency validly invokes an exception to the notice-and-comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553).

In addition, the Department, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action imposes no new substantive obligations on any recipient of Federal financial assistance from HHS, including any small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions that receive HHS financial assistance. All recipients of HHS financial assistance remain bound by the civil rights regulations at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86.

This rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It imposes no new recordkeeping, reporting, or information collection burdens. To the contrary, this rescission eliminates any residual ambiguity that the Guidelines might be read to impose on HHS funding recipients beyond those required by HHS's operative civil rights regulations at 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., requires agencies to prepare analytical statements before adopting rules that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in such expenditures. In addition, UMRA expressly excludes from its coverage any proposed or final Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” 2 U.S.C. 1503(2). Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of UMRA.

The rescission of the Guidelines constitutes a “rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The Department will submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General as required by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. This action is deregulatory and does not impose additional compliance costs, reporting obligations, or any other new requirements on HHS funding recipients.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 86 as follows: