Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule via the method and by the deadline stated above. The Department of Justice (“Department”) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from the proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change.

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

Personally identifying information located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. The Department may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of https://www.regulations.gov. To inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an appointment with the agency. Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above for agency contact information.

The Department is issuing this NPRM pursuant to section 103(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(g), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. Under the HSA, the Attorney General retains the authority to “establish such regulations, . . . issue such instructions, review such administrative determinations in immigration proceedings, delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out” the Attorney General's duties under the INA. HSA 1102, 116 Stat. at 2273-74; INA 103(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(2).

Further, the INA explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to prescribe regulations related to Immigration Judges' authority to issue civil money penalties for any contemptuous action or inaction during the course of removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. INA 240(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1).

In 1996, Congress codified Immigration Judges' authority to sanction contemptuous action or inaction by imposing civil money penalties. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 304, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-589; see INA 240(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1). The statute requires, however, that the Attorney General promulgate regulations to define and delineate that statutory authority.

In 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced measures designed to improve the performance of the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). One measure directed EOIR to “draft a new proposed rule that creates a strictly defined and clearly delineated authority to sanction by civil money penalty an action (or inaction) in contempt of an immigration judge's proper exercise of authority.”  1 Attorney General Gonzales announced this measure because “Immigration judges should have the tools necessary to control their courtrooms and to protect the adjudicatory system from fraud and abuse.”  2

Despite Attorney General Gonzales's instruction and Departmental efforts over time, the Department has not published a rulemaking implementing “a strictly defined and clearly delineated authority” for Immigration Judges to impose a civil money penalty as a sanction for contemptuous conduct. The Department has adopted regulations establishing rules of professional conduct for practice before EOIR, see 8 CFR 1003.101-.111, but that disciplinary process is initiated and led by the EOIR disciplinary counsel. See generally 8 CFR 1003.105 (detailing discipline process). Thus, there are no existing mechanisms for Immigration Judges presiding over proceedings to impose sanctions when an individual engages in contemptuous conduct; if an attorney or accredited representative engages in contemptuous conduct, the Immigration Judge is limited to filing a disciplinary complaint in the same manner as members of the general public. See 8 CFR 1003.104(a)(1).

Now, the Department is issuing this NPRM, which, if finalized, would implement the contempt authority provided for Immigration Judges under section 240(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1). The implementation of Immigration Judges' authority to sanction contemptuous conduct by civil money penalty will honor the framework envisioned by Congress for Immigration Judges to control the proceedings before them and help deter detrimental conduct that may affect such proceedings.

The Department proposes to add Subpart H—Civil Money Penalty for Contemptuous Conduct Before an Immigration Judge to Title 8, Chapter V, Part 1003 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Within this subpart, the Department proposes to: (1) explain the purpose and exceptional nature of the civil money penalty; (2) describe individuals who may be ordered to pay a civil money penalty; (3) outline the types of contemptuous conduct that may result in the imposition of a civil money penalty; (4) provide procedural standards for the Immigration Judge, the individual, and the Chief Immigration Judge to follow in the consideration of contempt matters; (5) authorize and provide standards for appeals to the Board; (6) provide guidelines for the payment of civil money penalties, including consequences for failure to pay; and (7) ensure oversight by EOIR management—primarily by the Chief Immigration Judge—of Immigration Judges' use of their contempt authority.

This rule proposes regulations that would allow Immigration Judges to use the contempt authority Congress provided for nearly 30 years ago. See INA 240(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1); 8 CFR 1003.121 (proposed). It continues to be the case that Immigration Judges should have this important tool “to control their courtrooms and to protect the adjudicatory system from fraud and abuse.”  3 Despite Congress's decision to provide contempt authority as a tool for Immigration Judges, the absence of implementing regulations means that Immigration Judges are currently unable to use this contempt authority to aid in efficiently conducting and managing removal proceedings. While the Department's intent to issue regulations to define and delineate the contempt authority is longstanding, 4 it is now imperative to do so to ensure Immigration Judges can exercise contempt authority to efficiently manage removal proceedings. Indeed, EOIR currently has a backlog of over 3.5 million cases. 5 Given the scope of this backlog, it is crucial for Immigration Judges to have every tool available—including the authority to impose civil money penalties—to control the proceedings before them and address and deter conduct that prevents efficient completion of removal proceedings.

Further, in addition to implementing an Immigration Judge's statutory authority, such a measure is consistent with the Administration's goal of combatting fraud and abuse of legal processes, including in the immigration system, which may lead to delays in the adjudication of cases before the agency. 6 Accordingly, if finalized, the proposed rule will help to promote the fair, efficient, and consistent adjudication of immigration proceedings by allowing Immigration Judges to use civil money penalties to deter behavior that delays, disrupts, or obstructs the due course of immigration proceedings. 8 CFR 1003.122(a) (proposed).

The proposed rule defines the three categories of individuals upon whom a civil money penalty may be imposed. See 8 CFR 1003.123(a) (proposed). Specifically, the proposed rule would allow for a civil money penalty to be imposed upon the following individuals directly affiliated with proceedings before the Immigration Court: (1) an attorney (as defined at 8 CFR 1001.1(f)) or representative (as defined at 8 CFR 1001.1(j)) who has filed with the Immigration Court either a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative before the Immigration Court (Form EOIR-28) or a Notice of Entry of Limited Appearance for Document Assistance before the Immigration Court (Form EOIR-61); (2) aliens who are the subject of the proceedings before the Immigration Judge; and (3) witnesses in any court proceedings before the Immigration Judge, 7 other than witnesses who are current employees or contractors of the Federal government acting in their official capacity. Id.

Under the proposed rule, an Immigration Judge would not be able to propose a civil money penalty on any other category of individual, including attorneys acting in their official capacity representing the Federal Government. See 8 CFR 1003.123(b) (“Individuals not subject to civil money penalties.”) (proposed). This exclusion is analogous to the approach of the EOIR disciplinary rules. See 8 CFR 1003.101(b) (excluding practitioners who represent the government from EOIR's authority to impose disciplinary sanctions for attorney misconduct). Importantly, government attorneys who appear in Immigration Court are subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and, if warranted, will be disciplined pursuant to DHS's attorney discipline procedures. See 8 CFR 292.3(i). Moreover, the Department is wary of creating a regulatory structure where one Executive agency may impose money sanctions on individuals engaging in official representation of another Executive agency. See 5 CFR 2635.106(b) (“It is the responsibility of the employing agency to initiate appropriate disciplinary or corrective action in individual cases.”).

For the same reasons, the Department does not propose to apply civil money penalties on witnesses who are current employees or contractors of the Federal government acting in their official capacity. Any otherwise contemptuous conduct made by such Federal employees or contractors in their official capacity is more properly addressed by their employing or contracting agency.

The Department proposes to authorize Immigration Judges to propose a civil money penalty as a sanction only for specified types of contemptuous conduct. See 8 CFR 1003.124 (proposed). Specifically, the only five types of conduct that would be subject to a civil money penalty under the proposed rule are: (1) attorneys' and representatives' repeated failure to appear or to appear on time for scheduled hearings or pre-hearing conferences, including those held via telephone or video conferencing, without good cause; (2) repeated failure to comply with Immigration Judge orders to timely file pleadings, applications, pre-hearing statements, evidentiary submissions, or any other filings, without good cause; (3) disorderly or abusive behavior or language in and around the courtroom and before the Immigration Judge or abusive language in any filing with the Immigration Court; (4) knowingly or recklessly making a false statement of material fact or law, or knowingly or recklessly offering false evidence, and for attorneys and representatives, failing to take appropriate remedial measures after becoming aware of the falsity of previous material statements or evidence; and (5) willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person (including a party to a case or an officer or employee of the Department), concerning any relevant matter relating to a case. 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(1)-(5) (proposed). Both actions and inactions may constitute contemptuous conduct. See 8 CFR 1003.124(b) (proposed).

When determining whether good cause exists for the failure to appear or to appear on time, 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(1) (proposed), or for the failure to comply with filing orders, 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(2) (proposed), the proposed rule would require the adjudicator to consider all relevant information, similar to other uses of the “good cause” standard in immigration proceedings. See, e.g., Dugboe v. Holder, 644 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2011) (applying a multi-factor balancing test when adjudicating a change of venue request under the “good cause” standard); Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405, 406 (A.G. 2018) (applying a “multifactor analysis” when adjudicating a continuance request under the “good cause” standard).

In considering whether an attorney or representative is repeatedly failing to appear or timely appear at hearings, as stated in 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(1) (proposed), likely relevant factors would include, but not be limited to, whether proper notice of the hearing was provided; whether there were technical difficulties if appearing by telephone or videoconferencing; emergency medical or familial issues; or transportation issues beyond normal traffic, such as issues resulting from severe weather, among others. In considering whether an individual is repeatedly failing to timely file documents pursuant to an Immigration Judge's order, as stated in 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(2) (proposed), likely relevant factors would include, but not be limited to, technical difficulties with filing if filing electronically; emergency medical or familial issues; or other similar, external factors that repeatedly prevented the individual from filing documents pursuant to the Immigration Judge's order.

Similarly, the term “repeated failure,” as used in 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(1) and (2) (proposed), is intended to capture persistent and sustained failures that delay, disrupt, or obstruct the adjudicatory process. Immigration Judges would consider the total number of failures, their proximity to each other, the severity of the failures ( e.g., whether the failure is being a few minutes late versus not appearing at all), and the degree of actual prejudice to the conduct of the proceedings, as well as any other relevant factors. The Department expects that, ordinarily, an attorney or representative will not confront these types of external factors on a regular basis such that it would result in repeated inexcusable delays or absences.

Additionally, “disorderly or abusive behavior or language in and around the courtroom and before the Immigration Judge,” as stated in 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed), includes, but is not limited to, behavior or language that impugns the integrity of the court, unfairly maligns the competence or impartiality of the presiding Immigration Judge, is defamatory or slanderous, or inappropriately accosts any individual in the courtroom. 8 See 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed). These types of abusive language in any filing with the Immigration Court also constitute sanctionable conduct. Id.

The fourth type of sanctionable conduct includes knowingly or recklessly making a false statement of material fact or law or offering false evidence. See 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(4) (proposed). Importantly, for attorneys and representatives, failing to take appropriate remedial measures after receiving notice of such falsity, or when the attorney or representative reasonably should have known of the falsity, of either a previous statement of material law or fact or previously offered material evidence, encompasses the same conduct that is sanctionable for practitioners under 8 CFR 1003.102(c). 9 Id.

The last type of sanctionable conduct proposed by the rule includes willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person (including a party to a case or an officer or employee of the Department), concerning any relevant matter relating to a case, and applies to any individual who may be subject to sanctions by civil money penalty. 8 CFR 1003.124(a)(5) (proposed).

Overall, these sanctionable forms of conduct directly interfere with the Immigration Courts' ability to conduct proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. To ensure that the contempt authority works to promote the efficient and fair adjudication of proceedings, the proposed rule specifies that an Immigration Judge will only be able to initiate the proposed civil money penalty process if the Immigration Judge makes a prima facie determination, based on the circumstances of the case, that the charged conduct did, in fact, delay, disrupt, or obstruct the adjudicatory process. 8 CFR 1003.124(a) (proposed).

Like the standards applied in Federal courts, these standards are applicable to conduct that occurs inside or outside of the courtroom. See 18 U.S.C. 401 (authorizing a court to sanction misbehavior that occurs “in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,” for “[m]isbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions,” and for “[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command”); see also Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 833 (1994) (explaining that certain contemptuous conduct occurring outside of the courtroom “impede[s] the court's ability to adjudicate the proceedings before it and thus touch[es] upon the core justification for the contempt power”). In this proposed rule, for example, the disorderly or abusive behavior may occur in the court waiting room, hallway, or at the filing window. Disorderly or abusive language in written filings may also serve as the basis for sanctions.

The Department is also proposing a detailed process for Immigration Judges to follow to impose sanctions for contemptuous conduct by civil money penalty. See 8 CFR 1003.125 (“Required warning before initiating the civil money penalty process.”); 1003.126 (“Initiation of the civil money penalty process.”); and 1003.127 (“Decision by the Chief Immigration Judge or designee.”) (proposed). These proposed procedures ensure that the imposition of a civil money penalty is used as an exceptional tool that should be rarely invoked. See, e.g., Nelson v. Steiner, 279 F.2d 944, 948 (7th Cir. 1960) (“The power to punish for contempt is to be sparingly used . . . .” (citation omitted)).

In general, the proposed rule requires the Immigration Judge to provide the covered individual with a clear and unambiguous warning that a violation has occurred before initiating the civil money penalty process. 8 CFR 1003.125(a) (proposed); cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1) (notice requirement applies). If the covered individual engages in the same misconduct within one year from the date of issuance of the warning, no further warning is required before initiating the civil money penalty process. 8 CFR 1003.125(a), 1003.126(a) (proposed).

Procedurally, the Immigration Judge will provide either an oral or written warning, depending on whether the individual is present before the Immigration Judge when the conduct occurs. 8 CFR 1003.125(b) (proposed). If an oral warning is given, the Immigration Judge must memorialize the warning in writing as soon as practicable. Id. Any written warning or written memorialization of an oral warning will then be served on the individual. Id.

Substantively, the warning must describe the specific conduct; explain why the conduct is sanctionable under the applicable contempt regulations; notify the individual that continuing to engage in the same conduct may result in the initiation of contempt proceedings and the imposition of a civil money penalty; and notify the individual that they may respond to the warning within 10 days of issuance of the warning. 8 CFR 1003.125(c), (d) (proposed).

This warning will ensure that the individual is provided clear and unambiguous notice of their conduct and the potential effects of continuing that conduct. 8 CFR 1003.125(a), (c) (proposed). To achieve this purpose, the Immigration Judge should provide the warning as close in time as reasonably possible to the contemptuous conduct. 8 CFR 1003.125(a)-(b) (proposed). Moreover, the Immigration Judge's warning must detail the specific conduct that has occurred, and a standing order or a generic discussion not tied to the specific conduct at issue does not satisfy the requirement of a warning under this proposed rule. 10 8 CFR 1003.125(c)(1) (proposed).

Once a warning has been issued, an individual may, but is not required to, respond to the Immigration Judge's warning, either on the record orally at the time of the warning or in writing within 10 days of the issuance of the warning. 8 CFR 1003.125(d) (proposed). Such response, if any, will be included in the Record of Proceeding for the relevant case in which the contemptuous conduct occurred, as well as the separate contempt Record of Proceeding if a civil money penalty process is subsequently initiated. 11 Id. Any contemptuous response to a warning may also be sufficient to initiate the civil money penalty process. Id.

If the individual continues to engage in the same contemptuous conduct after the warning is given, the proposed rule requires the Immigration Judge to make a finding on the record—which can be an oral statement on the record or a written statement added to the Record of Proceeding—that such conduct has continued to occur. 8 CFR 1003.125(e) (proposed).

Additionally, the warning would not be limited to the particular proceeding in which the initial contemptuous conduct occurred but, rather, would apply across all future proceedings. 8 CFR 1003.125(a) (proposed). For example, if an Immigration Judge issues a warning to an individual for engaging in contemptuous conduct and that case then changes venue to another Immigration Court, that warning—which will have been made or memorialized in writing and contained within the Record of Proceeding of the underlying case—would still be a valid foundation for the initiation of the civil money penalty process in the new Immigration Court if the individual continues to engage in the same contemptuous conduct that was the subject of the warning. See id. Similarly, as another example, if an individual is warned about the use of abusive language under § 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed) in a specific proceeding, that warning would be effective for any further abusive conduct under § 1003.124(a)(3) (proposed) by that individual in any other proceedings, even proceedings unrelated to the initial one.

Furthermore, under § 1003.125(a) (proposed), the Immigration Judge will not be required to issue a warning where a previous order imposing a civil money penalty had been issued on a covered individual for continuing to engage in the same type of contemptuous conduct. In such instances, the previous order will serve as a warning for the imposition of future civil money penalties if the individual continues to engage in the same conduct within one year of the previous order.

If, after issuing a warning, the Immigration Judge makes a finding of continued contemptuous conduct on the record, the Immigration Judge may initiate the civil money penalty process. See 8 CFR 1003.126(a) (proposed).

Under the proposed rule, the Immigration Judge initiates the civil money penalty process by serving a Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Money Penalty (“CMP Notice”) on the individual. 8 CFR 1003.126(b)(1) (proposed). The CMP Notice may be served on the individual by personal service or mail, and if the individual is a practitioner before EOIR, the CMP Notice may also be served electronically using the practitioner's email address provided through eRegistry. Id. This process must be initiated as soon as practicable after a finding on the record of continued contemptuous conduct, and in no case later than one year after the most recent related warning. 8 CFR 1003.126(a) (proposed).

The CMP Notice must include the following items: (1) the name and address of the individual; (2) a factual description of the conduct in question; (3) the alleged charge or charges of contemptuous conduct; (4) an explanation of how the conduct in question delayed, disrupted, or obstructed the adjudicatory process; (5) a brief description of any warning(s) provided; and (6) the Immigration Judge's proposed civil money penalty amount. 8 CFR 1003.126(b)(2) (proposed).

The CMP Notice will also inform the individual of the procedures for the civil money penalty process. 8 CFR 1003.126(b)(3) (proposed). This will include informing the individual that the matter is being referred to the Chief Immigration Judge for a decision and that he or she has the right to file a response with the Chief Immigration Judge within 30 days of issuance of the CMP Notice; the right to file one motion to extend the time to respond for up to 7 days for good cause; and the right to be represented at the individual's own expense. 8 CFR 1003.126(b)(3)(i)-(iv) (proposed). The individual's response will be required to include the following information: (1) the individual's name; (2) the contempt proceeding case number; (3) the individual's A-number  12 or EOIR identification number (if any);  13 (4) the individual's current physical and email addresses; (5) the individual's position on the charge(s) in the CMP Notice; and (6) any written or documentary evidence that the individual wishes to provide in support of the individual's position. 8 CFR 1003.126(d) (proposed). The CMP Notice, any responses to the CMP Notice, and related filings will be included in the contempt Record of Proceeding. 8 CFR 1003.126(e) (proposed).

The proposed rule's inclusion of this 30-day response period, as well as the earlier warning and CMP Notice requirements, will ensure that the individual is provided notice of the contemptuous behavior and an opportunity to be heard. See generally Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) (explaining that notice and an opportunity to be heard must be “appropriate to the nature of the case”). These contempt proceedings are not “required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing” and, thus, are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements for formal adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554, 556-57. Accord INA 240(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1) (not requiring specific hearing procedures for Immigration Judges' contempt authority). However, the proposed rule comports with general due process principles, which require, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to respond. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. The CMP Notice will ensure that the individual is made aware of the allegations against him or her. The CMP Notice will also inform the individual that he or she has the right to representation at no expense to the government by an attorney or other representative. 8 CFR 1003.126(b)(3)(iv) (proposed).

Additionally, to determine the penalty amount for the CMP Notice, the proposed rule provides a penalty schedule and relevant factors for the Immigration Judge to consider. See 8 CFR 1003.126(c) (proposed).

Lastly, the proposed rule requires all filings by the individual to comply with existing Immigration Court filing procedures. See 8 CFR 1003.126(f) (proposed); see also 8 CFR 1003.31-33 (requiring certain document sizes and English language usage or translation, among other requirements).

Under the proposed rule, decisions on civil money penalties would be made by the Chief Immigration Judge or his or her designee. Jurisdiction vests, including over all motions filed, with the Chief Immigration Judge once the CMP Notice is referred to him or her. 8 CFR 1003.127(a) (proposed). The Chief Immigration Judge may not remand the CMP Notice to the Immigration Judge. 8 CFR 1003.127(b) (proposed).

Once the individual files a response to the CMP Notice, or the 30-day response period expires, the Chief Immigration Judge will then issue a written decision determining whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the individual engaged in contemptuous conduct that delayed, disrupted, or obstructed the adjudicatory process. See 8 CFR 1003.127(b)-(d) (proposed). The Chief Immigration Judge will only be able to issue an order finding the individual in contempt and imposing a civil money penalty if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates: (1) that the person charged is a covered individual against whom a civil money penalty may be imposed; (2) the conduct described in the CMP Notice did in fact occur; (3) the conduct described in the CMP Notice falls within the scope of 8 CFR 1003.124(a) (proposed); and (4) the Immigration Judge properly provided a warning, time to respond to the warning, and the CMP Notice. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(1) (proposed).

In making this decision, the proposed rule limits the ability of the Chief Immigration Judge to engage in additional factfinding by only allowing for the consideration of the contempt Record of Proceeding as described in § 1003.126(e) (proposed). 8 CFR 1003.127(b) (proposed).

If the Chief Immigration Judge determines that these requirements were met, the order is required to specify the civil money penalty amount imposed and provide instructions regarding the payment of the penalty. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(2) (proposed). If, on the other hand, the Chief Immigration Judge determines that the evidence is insufficient to impose a civil money penalty, the Chief Immigration Judge will issue an order dismissing the CMP Notice with prejudice, and no further review is provided. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(3)-(4) (proposed).

The Chief Immigration Judge or the designee must serve a copy of his or her order on the individual or, if represented, the individual's attorney or representative. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(5) (proposed). If the individual is represented by an attorney or representative, the Chief Immigration Judge's order will be served electronically using the email address that the individual's attorney or representative has provided through eRegistry. Id. If the individual is not represented, the Chief Immigration Judge's order may be served on the individual by personal service or mail. Id. If the unrepresented individual is a practitioner before EOIR, service may also be made electronically using the practitioner's email address provided through eRegistry. Id. These methods of service are consistent with general EOIR practice. See 8 CFR 1003.32(b); 8 CFR 1003.37.

The Chief Immigration Judge also may designate a permanent Deputy Chief Immigration Judge to conduct such a review in his or her place, provided that such designee (1) is not the present first-line supervisor of the Immigration Judge who issued the CMP Notice; and (2) is not conducting a review involving an alien who has previously appeared in immigration proceedings before the designee. 8 CFR 1003.127(a) (proposed). If the Chief Immigration Judge is the Immigration Judge who issued the CMP Notice, the EOIR Director will designate a senior adjudicator outside of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to make a decision. Id.

In all cases, the civil money penalty ordered will be based on the penalty schedule included in the proposed rule. See 8 CFR 1003.126(c)(1) (proposed). After considering all relevant factors, the Chief Immigration Judge will be able to issue a penalty of an amount according to the following ranges: $1,000 to $1,500 for a first contempt order; $1,500 to $2,500 for a second contempt order; and $2,500 to $3,500 for any subsequent contempt orders. Id. The Department believes these amounts properly account for the important purposes served by the statutory contempt authority; are sufficient, in combination with other sanctions and procedures that may be available under existing laws and regulations, to deter the types of contemptuous conduct covered in this proposed rule; and are only issuable in the context of the significant procedural protections put into place, including official warnings, a civil penalty process, and administrative appeal availability.

These ranges will also allow the penalty amount to be properly tailored to the conduct in question. Relevant factors to be considered include the number of offenses, the harm resulting from the sanctionable conduct, the remarkable nature of the conduct, and the deterrent effect of the penalty. 8 CFR 1003.126(c)(2) (proposed). In ordering a civil money penalty, the Chief Immigration Judge will not be able to increase the penalty amount stated in the CMP Notice. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(2) (proposed).

The Department considered leaving the civil money penalty amounts to the Immigration Judge's discretion, similar to the discretion afforded to Federal court judges. See generally Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 657 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that, for civil contempt purposes, judges have “broad discretion” to set a penalty to coerce compliance). However, the Department determined that providing a generally applicable penalty schedule will better promote consistency amongst the Immigration Courts.

Separately, the Department notes that, in the future, it will review the penalty amounts for any potential further adjustment, including periodically to account for inflation. Accord Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, sec. 4, as amended, (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) (requiring Federal agencies to adjust statutory penalties for inflation annually to maintain their deterrent effect).

The rule proposes to include an appeal process to provide an additional layer of procedural protection to individuals found in contempt. See 8 CFR 1003.128 (“Appeals.”) (proposed). Following the Chief Immigration Judge's order imposing a civil money penalty, the individual found in contempt will be able to challenge that order by filing an appeal with the Board. Id. The Board will review the Chief Immigration Judge's decision consistent with 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(3), similar to how it reviews decisions of adjudicating officials in disciplinary proceedings involving practitioners or recognized organizations. See 8 CFR 1003.1(b)(13); 8 CFR 1003.106(c). The Chief Immigration Judge's decision dismissing the CMP Notice with prejudice is not subject to appeal. 8 CFR 1003.127(d)(4) (proposed). The Chief Immigration Judge's order becomes a final agency decision unless the individual files a timely notice of appeal. 8 CFR 1003.127(e) (proposed). The appeal is subject to a proposed $675 filing fee, 8 CFR 1103.7(b)(1) (proposed), which is the same amount as the fee currently charged for appeals from a decision of an adjudicating official in a practitioner disciplinary case under section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), as discussed in Section V.C of this preamble. To be timely, the appeal must be filed within 10 days from the date of the order and include the required filing fee or fee waiver form. 8 CFR 1003.128(a) (proposed).

As part of the proposed appeal process, the individual is required to simultaneously serve a copy of the appeal and other related filings on the EOIR General Counsel. 8 CFR 1003.128(a) (proposed). EOIR's General Counsel, or the EOIR disciplinary counsel where so designated, will represent the agency on appeal and will be permitted to submit a brief under the briefing schedule issued by the Board. Id.; 8 CFR 1003.3(c)(1) (proposed). The Board will set a simultaneous briefing schedule with briefs due from both parties within 20 days of the Board order setting the schedule and in no case more than 35 days after the appeal was filed. 8 CFR 1003.3(c)(1) (proposed). Following review, the Board will issue a written decision affirming, modifying, or vacating with prejudice the civil money penalty. See 8 CFR 1003.128(d)(2) (proposed). The Board will not be permitted to set a penalty amount above the amount stated in the CMP Notice or to remand the case for further proceedings. 14 Id. The Board's order will become the final agency decision on the date the order is issued. Id.

The proposed rule includes instructions to EOIR's adjudicators that the contempt authority is an exceptional tool that should be used sparingly. See 8 CFR 1003.122(b) (proposed). The proposed rule also explains that Immigration Judges should attempt to deter or redress contemptuous conduct through other reasonably available means, resorting to the initiation of the civil money penalty process only after other reasonably available means have failed to restore proper courtroom conduct. 8 CFR 1003.122(b) (proposed).

The proposed rule also explains that the contempt authority is independent of other sanctions or procedures. 8 CFR 1003.122(c) (proposed). Those include, but are not limited to, attorney or representative discipline pursuant to subpart G of 8 CFR part 1003; admitting evidence described in a pre-hearing statement as unopposed when evidentiary objections to the pre-hearing statement are required but not timely received, as provided in 8 CFR 1003.21(c); and deeming the opportunity to file an application or document as waived or abandoned, see, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.31(h).

Lastly, the proposed rule explicitly states that contempt authority under proposed subpart H of 8 CFR part 1003, does not apply to subpoena enforcement pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.35(b). 8 CFR 1003.122(d) (proposed).

The proposed rule includes instructions regarding the deadline for paying civil money penalties and the consequences of failing to pay a civil money penalty as ordered. 8 CFR 1003.129 (proposed). An individual found in contempt will be required to pay the penalty within 30 days of the Board's order becoming final. 8 CFR 1003.129(a) (proposed). In other words, if an individual does not file an appeal, the individual will be required to pay the penalty within 30 days of the Chief Immigration Judge's order becoming final, or if an individual files an appeal, within 30 days of the Board's decision affirming or modifying a civil money penalty. 15 Id .

If a practitioner (attorney or accredited representative) fails to timely pay a required civil money penalty, the EOIR disciplinary counsel will move to immediately suspend the practitioner from practice before EOIR. 8 CFR 1003.129(c) (proposed). Upon proof of payment of the penalty, the practitioner will then be able to move to have the suspension set aside. 8 CFR 1003.129(c)(4) (proposed).

The proposed rule specifically instructs the Chief Immigration Judge to maintain oversight over Immigration Judges' use of the civil money penalty authority afforded by section 240(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1), and proposed subpart H of 8 CFR part 1003. See 8 CFR 1003.130 (proposed).

Consistent with preexisting regulatory provisions, Immigration Judges will also receive appropriate training and guidance on the proper use of their authority to sanction by civil money penalty. See, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.0(b)(1)(vii) (establishing that the Director shall have the authority to “[p]rovide for comprehensive, continuing training and support for Board members, immigration judges, and EOIR staff in order to promote the quality and consistency of adjudications”), 1003.9(b)(2). Further, the proposed rule reiterates that an Immigration Judge's exercise of the authority to issue a CMP Notice is subject to the supervision of the Chief Immigration Judge; that the Chief Immigration Judge must conduct periodic reviews of that authority; and that, after consultation with the Director, the Chief Immigration Judge may suspend any Immigration Judge's exercise of that authority for up to 30 days if that Immigration Judge has improperly applied or misused that authority. 8 CFR 1003.130 (proposed). These provisions are consistent with the Chief Immigration Judge's general authority to oversee Immigration Court operations and the authority to make reports and inspections and take corrective action. 8 CFR 1003.9(b)(4). Any such suspension of an Immigration Judge's contempt authority by the Chief Immigration Judge will be conducted through a standing order. 16 8 CFR 1003.130 (proposed).

To ensure further oversight, the proposed rule makes clear that complaints or allegations of misconduct regarding the threat or exercise of authority by an Immigration Judge should be directed to the Immigration Judge's supervisor, EOIR's Judicial Conduct and Professionalism Unit, or the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”). See 8 CFR 1003.109 (proposed). In doing so, the proposed rule revises 8 CFR 1003.109 to make clear that complaints regarding the behavior of EOIR adjudicators, including Immigration Judges, need not be directed solely to OPR and may be directed to the adjudicator's supervisor or to EOIR's Judicial Conduct and Professionalism Unit. Id. This clarification is consistent with longstanding practice;  17 guidance from former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales;  18 and other regulatory authority. 19

“Engag[ing] in contumelious or otherwise obnoxious conduct” is already a ground for practitioner discipline. 8 CFR 1003.102(g). The proposed rule clarifies—consistent with the Department's previous statements regarding contempt proceedings and practitioner discipline  20 —that contumelious conduct includes conduct for which a civil money penalty has been assessed under proposed subpart H of 8 CFR part 1003. 8 CFR 1003.102(g) (proposed). The rule also proposes to add a ground for practitioner discipline for repeatedly failing to pay any ordered civil money penalty to promote compliance with such orders. 8 CFR 1003.102(x) (proposed).

The provisions of the proposed rule would apply only to conduct in the Immigration Courts on or after the effective date of the final rule.

The Department has reviewed this proposed regulation in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). As proposed, this rule regulates attorneys and accredited representatives, which qualify as “small entities” under the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(4), (6). However, the Department has determined that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated in the proposed rule, the imposition of a civil money penalty is intended to be an extraordinary sanction that is used infrequently in response to misconduct occurring before an Immigration Judge.

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

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that the proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed regulation has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review. The Department certifies that the proposed regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

The Department believes that the proposed rule will provide significant benefits relating to EOIR proceedings. See Section 1(b)(6) of E.O. 12866. The proposed rule will help ensure the efficiency and integrity of these proceedings by setting out enforcement mechanisms for the sanctionable conduct of individuals appearing before the Immigration Court system. The Department anticipates that allowing Immigration Judges to warn and institute the civil money penalty process against those individuals who are disruptive to the proceedings will encourage those appearing before the Immigration Courts to act with decorum and will have a deterrent effect on overall sanctionable conduct, thereby reducing the time Immigration Judges spend attempting to enforce courtroom decorum instead of adjudicating cases.

In contrast, the costs on the public that the proposed rule will impose are the individual liabilities for individuals who may be subject to a civil money penalty for actions or inactions in contempt of the Immigration Judge's authority, as well as the filing fee for any appeals of the Chief Immigration Judge's civil money penalty order. The Department is proposing a $675 appeal filing fee to match the cost recovery portion of the Form EOIR-45, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Adjudicating Official in Practitioner Disciplinary Case. 21 The Department anticipates that the Board's adjudication of an appeal in contempt proceedings will be substantially similar to that in attorney discipline cases, such that the filing fees should be consistent.

Because the Department intends for the civil money penalty to be an “extraordinary” sanction, see 8 CFR 1003.122(b) (proposed), the Department does not anticipate that a significant number of individuals will ultimately be subject to such a penalty (for example, in Section V.F of this preamble, the Department estimates an approximate 50 appeals per year for Paperwork Reduction Act purposes). 22 Rather, the Department expects that, in most cases, warnings issued under this proposed rule will be sufficient to deter contemptuous conduct without having to initiate the civil money penalty process.

Otherwise, the Department does not believe that, broadly speaking, the proposed rule could be said to burden the parties in EOIR proceedings, as the proposed rule simply provides for civil money penalties where misconduct prevents efficiencies. Moreover, any burden would only be held by a covered individual who engaged in contemptuous conduct that delayed, disrupted, or obstructed the adjudicatory process, which holds comparatively little weight in balancing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.

The proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

The proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The Information Collection Requests (“ICRs”) for the proposed new and revised information collections described below have been forwarded to OMB for review and comment. In compliance with these requirements, the Department asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.

If you have any comments or suggestions, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, or if you need a copy of the proposed new or revised information collection instruments with instructions or additional information, please contact the Department as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection instruments are encouraged. Comments should be directed to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble. Comments should also be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for EOIR, New Executive Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053. This process complies with 5 CFR 1320.11.

Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) how the Department could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; or (4) how the Department could minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

The proposed rule includes one new collection of information: Form EOIR-86, Notice of Appeal of a Civil Money Penalty for Contempt. The proposed new information collection is intended to be used by individuals to appeal to the Board an order of the Chief Immigration Judge finding the individual in contempt and issuing a civil money penalty. An individual is required to complete the form to exercise the appeal rights afforded to the individual under the proposed rule. The proposed new collection of information will help the Board differentiate appeals of decisions involving civil money penalties for contempt from other types of appeals, such as appeals of Immigration Judge decisions in removal proceedings.

The proposed new collection of information is modeled on the current approved Forms EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, and EOIR-45, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Adjudicating Official in a Practitioner Disciplinary Case. Like the Forms EOIR-26 and EOIR-45, the proposed new collection will require the appellant to identify himself or herself, to state the decision being appealed, and to explain the basis for the appeal. The proposed new form will also provide the appellant with instructions as to where and how to serve the EOIR General Counsel as a party to contempt proceedings. Individuals will be able to download and complete the form either electronically or by printing and handwriting responses. Individuals will be able to submit completed forms to EOIR by email, electronically when available, or by regular mail, overnight mail, or hand-delivery.

The Department estimates that up to 50 individuals will submit an average of one form per year. The Department estimates that the average time to review the proposed form, gather necessary materials, complete the proposed form, and assemble any attachments will be one hour in total. The total public burden of the proposed new collection is estimated to be 50 burden hours (50 respondents × 1 response per respondent × 1 hour per response = 50 burden hours). The Department estimates the upper bound for aggregate costs for all respondents at $39,278 annually, accounting for the following types of estimated costs to members of the public.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-7230; Project Identifier MCAI-2026-00185-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Soban Saeed, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2024-04-10, Amendment 39-22689 (89 FR 15431, March 4, 2024) (AD 2024-04-10), for all AHD Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, and EC635T2+ helicopters. AD 2024-04-10 was prompted by EASA Emergency AD 2024-0028-E, dated January 25, 2024, (EASA Emergency AD 2024-0028-E) originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA Emergency AD 2024-0028-E to correct an unsafe condition identified as cracks in affected T/R blades. EASA then superseded EASA Emergency AD 2024-0028-E and issued EASA AD 2024-0028R1, dated April 22, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0028R1), to allow an optional visual inspection (Method E). The FAA did not issue an AD corresponding to EASA AD 2024-0028R1.

AD 2024-04-10 requires repetitively inspecting T/R blades having part number (P/N) L642A2002111 or P/N L642A2002112 installed for a crack and, depending on the results, removing any cracked T/R blade from service. AD 2024-04-10 also prohibits installing certain T/R blades on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met. The FAA issued AD 2024-04-10 to detect and address cracks in affected T/R blades. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in separation of a T/R blade assembly and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

Since the FAA issued AD 2024-04-10, EASA superseded EASA AD 2024-0028R1 and issued EASA AD 2026-0032, dated February 19, 2026 (EASA AD 2026-0032) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that a determination was made by the manufacturer that a previously approved inspection method (Method A), should be discontinued. Method A consisted of a dye-penetrant (with increased temperature) inspection.

In addition, since the FAA issued AD 2024-04-10, it has been determined that TRB assemblies with P/N L642A2002121 installed, may also be subject to intergranular corrosion and could contain or develop the same unsafe condition. The FAA may publish a separate rulemaking to address this part number.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-7230.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2026-0032, which specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting the affected TRB assembly for cracks and, if any crack is detected, replacing the affected TRB assembly with a serviceable part. EASA AD 2026-0032 prohibits installing a certain TRB assembly on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met and specifies that replacing an affected TRB assembly with an eligible TRB assembly that is not an affected part is terminating action for certain repetitive inspections.

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

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

This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2024-04-10 and would also require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2026-0032, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.

The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, and EC635 T3 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD does not because those models do not have an FAA type certificate.

The MCAI specifies inspecting for cracks by performing a visual inspection, dye-penetrant inspection, eddy current inspection, or fluorescent penetrant inspection, whereas this proposed AD would require inspection methods under certain scenarios as outlined in the regulatory text of this proposed AD, which are also described in a Note in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2026-0032 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2026-0032 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2026-0032 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2026-0032. Material required by EASA AD 2026-0032 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-7230 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 359 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

On August 13, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order “ Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry” (E.O. 14335). 1 As detailed in E.O. 14335, the U.S. must facilitate efficient launches, reentries, and missions in space to continue enhancing economic growth, national security, and accomplish Federal space objectives. To achieve this objective and maintain American leadership in the commercial space industry, the U.S. will streamline approvals for commercial space licenses and permits.

In accordance with section 3(a) of E.O. 14335, FAA is exploring the use of all available authorities to eliminate or expedite environmental reviews and other obstacles from licenses to operate launch and reentry vehicles, licenses to launch and reentry sites, and experimental permits. Specifically, under section 50905(b)(2)(C) of title 51 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe by regulation that a requirement of a law of the U.S. not be a requirement for a license or permit if the Secretary, after consulting with the head of the appropriate executive agency, decides the requirement is not necessary to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50924, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites within the United States (U.S.) or as carried out by U.S. citizens. Section 50905 directs the Secretary to exercise this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, section 50903 requires the Secretary to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector. As codified in 49 CFR 1.83(b), the Secretary has delegated authority to the FAA Administrator to carry out these functions.

Finally, under 51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(2)(C), the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe by regulation that a requirement of a law of the U.S. not be a requirement for a license or permit if the Secretary, after consulting with the head of the appropriate executive agency, decides the requirement is not necessary to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Chapter III of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) sets forth the procedures and requirements applicable to the authorization and supervision under 51 U.S.C. subtitle V, chapter 509, of commercial space transportation activities conducted in the United States or by a U.S. citizen, with certain exceptions. 2 The issuance of licenses to operate a launch site (part 420), licenses to operate a reentry site (part 433), experimental permits (part 437), and licenses for the operation of launch and reentry vehicles (part 450), respectively, constitutes a major Federal action under NEPA, which triggers an environmental review that may be extensive. 3 In accordance with §§ 420.15, 433.7, 437.21, and 450.47, an applicant must provide the FAA with information needed to show that the FAA complies with the procedures and policies of NEPA and other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. These respective sections also require that, if a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX)  4 does not apply to the proposed action, an applicant must prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), assume financial responsibility for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or provide information to support a written re-evaluation of a previously submitted EA or EIS, when directed by the FAA. While FAA strives to complete these environmental reviews expeditiously, these environmental reviews for each license to operate a launch site, license to operate a reentry site, experimental permit, and license to operate a launch or reentry vehicle can involve multiple statutes and agencies, sometimes leading to duplicative processes and delay for near-term launch operations.

As the Supreme Court explained in Seven County Infrastructure Coal v. Eagle County ,

And just as the Supreme Court recognized a need for a “course correction” in the judicial review of NEPA, 6 so too has DOT and FAA identified a need for course correction in application of NEPA and other related laws to the commercial space licensing and permitting process.

Therefore, FAA proposes to exercise the Secretary's statutory authority to reduce regulatory barriers to obtaining a commercial space license or permit and eliminate environmental review processing while protecting public health and safety, safety of property, and national security interests and foreign policy interests of the U.S. Because the Secretary of Transportation's authority to waive certain laws under 51 U.S.C. 50905 applies broadly to commercial space licenses or permits, the Secretary finds this authority extends to waive laws applicable to licenses to operate a launch site, licenses to operate a reentry site, experimental permits, and licenses to operate launch and reentry vehicles. 7 The Secretary proposes that the identified provisions of the following 13 laws may not be necessary in some or all licensing circumstances to protect public health and safety, safety of property, national security, or foreign policy interests of the United States in the context of commercial space licenses and permits.

1. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (National Environmental Policy Act);

2. 49 U.S.C. 303(f) (U.S. Department of Transportation Act);

3. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (Endangered Species Act);

4. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act);

5. 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. (Coastal Zone Management Act);

6. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (Clean Air Act);

7. 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. (National Historic Preservation Act);

8. 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (Marine Mammal Protection Act);

9. 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act);

10. 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act);

11. 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq. (Noise Control Act of 1972);

12. 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. (Rivers and Harbors Act); and

13. 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. (National Marine Sanctuaries Act).

Other Federal agencies may take actions that authorize and facilitate launch and reentry operations, subject to the CSLA and subject to NEPA, and are required to support an FAA license or permit and the resulting operations. For example, many commercial space launch and reentry operations take place at Federal sites owned or operated by the Federal Government such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of the Air Force (DAF), and other agencies. To operate from a Federal site, operators must first enter into an agreement, such as a real property agreement, with the Federal custodian ( e.g., NASA or DAF). The execution of a real property agreement or other instrument that allows substantial modification of a site or commercial space launch and reentry operations is often a major Federal action subject to NEPA given the Federal agency's substantial Federal control and responsibility over the action and the potential for significant impacts to the human environment. 8 Waiving NEPA only for the commercial space licensing and permitting actions covered under Chapter 509 would merely shift the responsibility for leading the NEPA review and ensuring compliance with other requirements from one executive agency to another. Therefore, the Secretary proposes that the requirements associated with the provisions of the prior 13 laws also may not be necessary to protect public health and safety, safety of property, national security, or foreign policy interests of the United States in the context of commercial space licenses and permits in the following licensing or permitting circumstances including, but not limited to:

(1) Issuance, renewal, or modification of Chapter 509 Licenses or Experimental Permits;

(2) Authorizing airspace closures in accordance with FAA Order 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;

(3) Unconditional or mixed Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval of airport development for which the FAA has ALP approval authority under 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16) and § 47107(x).);

(4) Lease of land to operator from a Federal site.

Pursuant to the procedural requirements of 51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(2)(C), during the pendency of this rulemaking, the FAA will consult with the heads of appropriate executive agencies, including the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, NASA, Department of War, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as applicable, on the Secretary's determination that the enumerated requirements are not necessary to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

To effectuate the waiver of these laws to the commercial space licenses and permits across several FAA parts ( i.e., parts 420, 433, 437, and 450), FAA proposes a new 14 CFR 400.3, titled General Waiver, 9 which would set forth the applicability provision ( i.e., parts 420, 433, 437, and 450) of the waiver in proposed § 400.3(a), identify the specific laws that will no longer be a requirement for such licenses and permits in proposed § 400.3(b), and apply waiver of the laws in paragraph (b) to related actions outside of 14 CFR chapter III ( i.e., the preceding list of four licensing or permitting circumstances) in proposed § 400.3(c). FAA also proposes conforming amendments to §§ 420.15(b), 433.7, 437.21(b)(1), and 450.47, to cross-reference the exceptions that would be set forth in proposed § 400.3.

FAA invites comments on the Secretary's proposed waiver of these laws. FAA also invites comment on other requirements not included that are not necessary, for example: Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401-1445; 40 CFR 220-229); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ); Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26; 40 CFR 141-143); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k; 40 CFR 239-282); Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-2692; 40 CFR 700-799); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. ); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. ); and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ).

Further, FAA seeks comment on the following specific areas of interest:

a. Should applicability be scoped to specific Federal sites, licensed launch and reentry sites, or exclusive use sites?

b. Are any specific launch and reentry sites so differently situated that they warrant different treatment?

c. How have the 13 laws identified for waiver in this proposed rule applied, in the launch and reentry site/launch and reentry context, to reduce a legally cognizable environmental harm? FAA encourages providing quantifiable, technical data to support a response.

d. How would application of these waivers further Congress's purpose to “promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment”?  10

e. Would exempting launch and reentry/launch and reentry site development from these laws fulfill Congress's mandate to “simplify and expedit[e] the issuance and transfer of commercial licenses”?  11 If so, how?

f. Would exempting launch and reentry/launch and reentry site development from these laws fulfill Congress's mandate to “facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure”?  12 If so, how?

E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rulemaking is a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f) of E.O. 12866.

FAA expects the streamlining of its commercial space licensing regulations would significantly reduce the time required to obtain commercial space licenses and permits. Furthermore, there would be significant reductions in costs and time to draft and obtain the necessary approvals related to developing the currently required EAs and EISs. The FAA invites comments on the expected savings from these proposals, as well as any other costs or cost savings.

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

This proposed rule would amend commercial space licensing and permitting regulations to streamline the licensing and permitting process and reduce regulatory burden for applicants. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts to small entities.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of FAA certifies that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, they be the basis for U.S. standards.

FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined the proposed rule would not result in the expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA generally seeks to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. As part of the final rule, the FAA anticipates determining whether this rule affects FAA's conformity with any SARPs or other international obligations and invites public comments on this question.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process. DOT Order 5610.1D, DOT's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (90 FR 29621, July 3, 2025), establishes DOT's procedures and practices for implementing NEPA. In addition, FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (90 FR 29615, July 3, 2025), establishes FAA's policies and procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA. Appendix B of FAA Order 1050.1G identifies FAA's categorical exclusions. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See NEPA § 4336e(1) and DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9(b). FAA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with NEPA, DOT Order 5610.1D, and FAA Order 1050.1G. The FAA has determined that this NPRM does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed environmental analysis is not required because this NPRM qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, Paragraph B-2.6(d) for notices of proposed regulations and do not involve any extraordinary circumstances. The publication of a regulatory proposal is procedural, informational, and without environmental effects; it is not operative and does not normally have a significant effect on the environment. By its nature, a proposed rule is not the type of final action to which NEPA attaches. A final decision on the level of NEPA analysis required will be made at the final rule stage.

FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 13 and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, 14 FAA ensures Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. During the pendency of the rulemaking and comment period to inform the final rule, FAA will identify any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes and engage as necessary.

FAA analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it would not be a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action may effect international regulatory cooperation; FAA will address those effects during the pendency of this rulemaking and the final rule stage.

This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rule. Before acting on this proposal, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process better. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov , as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Any commentary FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

A copy of this NPRM, a plain language summary of the proposed rule, all comments received, any final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at FAA's Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Requests must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

All documents FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104 121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The BLBA, 30 U.S.C. 901-944, provides for the payment of benefits to coal miners and certain of their dependent survivors for total disability or death due to pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung disease. 30 U.S.C. 901(a); Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 5 (1976). The Act places the primary responsibility for paying benefits on coal mine operators. 30 U.S.C. 932(b). When a coal miner is determined to be eligible for benefits, the operator responsible for paying benefits (the responsible operator) is generally the one that most recently employed the miner for a period of at least one year and is financially capable of paying benefits. 20 CFR 725.495(a)(1).

If a responsible operator cannot be determined, is unable to pay, or defaults on its obligation to pay, the responsibility for paying benefits falls to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which is primarily financed by an excise tax on coal mined for domestic use. 30 U.S.C. 932(j), 934(b); 26 U.S.C. 4121, 9501. If the black lung excise tax revenue is not sufficient to finance the Black Lung benefits due, the trust fund may borrow from the general fund of the Treasury. As of September 30, 2024, the Fund reported a $6.6 billion deficit  1 and has borrowed from the U.S. Treasury's general fund nearly every year since 1979 to make needed expenditures. 2 In FY24, OWCP's Black Lung Program paid compensation and medical benefits for 12,911 beneficiaries, totaling approximately $140 million under Part C of title IV of the Act. 3

Because coal mine operators are principally responsible for paying benefits, the Act requires every operator to secure the payment of benefits for which it may be found liable. 30 U.S.C. 932(b). Each operator must secure the payment of benefits either by purchasing commercial insurance or by qualifying as a self-insurer “in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” 30 U.S.C. 933(a); see also 20 CFR 726.1. At the end of FY24, there were 709 Responsible Mine Operators (RMOs) covered by commercial insurance policies containing a Federal Black Lung endorsement. In comparison, 15 RMOs were authorized to self-insure their Federal Black Lung liabilities, which is only two percent of RMOs that could potentially be affected by this rulemaking. There were 10,139 covered beneficiaries being paid by RMOs, either through commercial insurance policies or self-insurance authorization, during this timeframe. 4

Regulations—20 CFR part 726 Subpart B—establish the standards for a coal mine operator to qualify as a self-insurer. They provide that, to qualify as a self-insurer, an operator must meet certain minimum requirements, including “obtain[ing] security . . . in a form approved by OWCP . . . and in an amount to be determined by OWCP.” 20 CFR 726.101(b)(2). The regulations identify four forms of security that an operator may use alone or in concert: (1) indemnity bonds; (2) deposits of negotiable securities; (3) letters of credit; or (4) trust funds under Section 501(c)(21) of the Internal Revenue Code. 20 CFR 726.104(b).

Historically, the Department did “not require self-insured operators to post . . . security with a face value that would cover all of the operator's expected black lung liability.” See 62 FR 3338, 3370 (Jan. 22, 1997). The Department relied in part on a company's size as evidence of its ability to make future benefits payments. Id.

A number of insolvencies in the mining industry revealed weaknesses in that process and demonstrated that a more substantial security amount would be required to adequately protect the Trust Fund. Specifically, beginning in 2014, three large self-insured operators filed for bankruptcy. Because these operators had insufficient securities to cover the full amount of expected benefits, an estimated $865 million in liabilities will ultimately transfer to the Trust Fund. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Black Lung Benefits Program: Improved Oversight of Coal Mine Operator Insurance is Needed, at 13 (Feb. 2020), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-21 .

In response, OWCP developed revised guidelines and procedures for authorizing coal mine operators to self-insure, which it began to implement in 2019. These guidelines were intended to standardize the process by which applicants provide financial and actuarial information to OWCP. OWCP required each company to calculate and report its projected black lung liabilities through actuarial reports using a set of standardized assumptions, including discount rate, claim cost trends, and the probability of awards. OWCP also developed a set of financial metrics and a methodology to assess each operator's solvency, profitability, and risk of default. This assessment determined the proportion of the operator's projected liabilities it would be required to post as security. Operators determined to be at less risk of not meeting their obligations would be required to provide smaller amounts of security, while operators at higher risk would be required to provide larger amounts of security. These guidelines were summarized in a December 2020 bulletin, see BLBA Bulletin No. 21-01 (Dec. 7, 2020). 5

In 2021, the then-new administration withdrew enforcement of these guidelines, and began work on revised rulemaking that culminated in the current regulations.

The Department promulgated new regulations in 2024 (89 FR 100304, December 12, 2024), providing that “[a]ny operator approved to self-insure must submit security equal to 100 percent of the actuarially estimated liabilities (all present and future liabilities), as determined by OWCP based on the actuarial report or reports submitted with the operator's application or on file with OWCP, other information submitted with the operator's application, and any other materials or information that OWCP deems relevant.” 20 CFR 726.105.

The 2024 regulations implemented the practice of basing a self-insured operator's security requirement on an actuarial assessment of its total present and future black lung liability. 20 CFR 726.105, 89 FR at 100320. The regulations eliminated the process of assessing each operator's financial strength and risk of default, and required all self-insured operators to post security equal to 100 percent of their projected black lung liabilities. Id. Coal mine operators were instructed to post this security within one year of promulgation. “Operators that are required to submit an initial or increased security deposit may do so in quarterly increments over the course of one year. Such operators must deposit at least 25 percent of the newly required security amount within thirty days of OWCP issuing the notification provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, followed by at least 50 percent of their required security within four months, at least 75 percent within eight months, and 100 percent within one year. If an operator fails to timely submit any one of these security installments, OWCP will revoke its self-insurance authorization and the operator will be subject to the civil penalty provisions in subpart D of this part.” 20 CFR 726.104(c), 89 FR at 100319. The 2024 regulations also removed the option to establish new Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(21) trust funds for securing a mine operator's estimated liabilities, but continued to allow existing funds to serve as security. 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(21), 20 CFR 726.104(b)(4), 89 FR at 100308, 100319.

The Department now believes that the current 2024 rule is prohibitive and potentially detrimental to the coal industry by requiring operators to secure 100% of actuarial estimated liabilities in a short period of time, regardless of the operator's financial strength. The rule was informed by prior self-insured operator bankruptcies that transferred an estimated $865 million to the Trust Fund, as outlined in the February 2020 GAO report referenced above.

The requirement for 100% of actuarial estimated liabilities within one year of the operator's security determination is a substantial increase in collateral in a short period of time that now risks a negative economic impact on the coal mining industry. The financial impact to individual operators is the cost of the change in securities to meet 100% actuarial estimated liabilities within one year, an amount that ranges between $136 thousand to $343 million per operator. Meeting such a sizeable increase in a short amount of time will require operators to place more liquid assets in the approved security options, such as treasury bills or letters of credit, resulting in less working capital. That change in available assets potentially impairs their operating ability and ability to adjust to strategic changes, such as current industry growth as a result of the increased need for electricity to power AI data centers, or emergent situations where a mine becomes unable to produce due to a full or partial collapse, equipment malfunction, or maintenance.

Such a heavy-handed approach to self-insurance security requirements fails to promote the stated goal of increasing domestic energy production, including coal, announced by President Donald J. Trump (Executive Order 14261, April 8, 2025). OWCP believes that this rule would best balance the needs of the Trust Fund with ensuring that miners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. As was outlined in the 2020 GAO report referenced above, prior security requirements for self-insurance authorizations were inadequate, and resulted in the $865 million transfer of liability to the Trust Fund. Further disruptions in the industry could have an equally dire effect on the Trust Fund. The 2024 rule would place an excessive burden on coal mine operators by requiring self-insured operators to pledge over $500 million in security within twelve months. This diversion of capital from operations to security would have negative impacts on both the companies operating coal mines as well as national energy requirements. This proposed rule supports growth in a critical sector and balances national security and energy interests while adequately protecting the Trust Fund. Self-insured operators would need to pledge additional security to protect the Trust Fund (over $300 million) but they would be permitted to make these allotments over a lengthier period of time, and in a manner that is most appropriate for their operations.

Accordingly, the Department removed the 60-day deadline it had set by letter in January 2025 for self-insured operators to submit applications for renewal authorization under the 2024 rule. The Department sent follow-up letters to the operators in February 2025, informing them that the 60-day deadline no longer applied and they would receive further guidance after OWCP consulted with new Department leadership. In the meantime, OWCP has evaluated current self-insured operators and determined that although not all are secured at 100%, they are not currently at high risk of bankruptcy.

Section 426(a) of the BLBA, 30 U.S.C. 936(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

The Department proposes this rule to balance the need to protect the Trust Fund and benefits owed to disabled miners with vital energy and national security interests. Id. The proposed rule intends to allow self-insured coal mine operators greater flexibility in securing their estimated black lung liabilities for the benefit of disabled miners. The proposed rule would establish a graduated system of security levels based on an operator's risk of default, to reflect the economic realities of the mining industry. The rule would also allow operators an extended period to post this security in order to avoid constraining vital capital that could be used in mining operations. Lastly, the Department proposes to introduce new methods for operators to post required security, while continuing to recognize existing methods. These new methods could be employed individually or in combination with other options, affording the coal mine operators the greatest flexibility in determining how they can utilize their assets to secure their liabilities. By allowing multiple options, coal mine operators can select the method or methods that best fit their business operations, and OWCP can ensure that the Trust Fund is protected in the event of default.

The Department invites comments on the proposed rule from all interested parties. The Department is particularly interested in comments addressing the impact of the proposed rulemaking on coal mine operators currently participating in the self-insurance program and any resulting impact on their ability to continue participating in the program.

The Department is proposing a number of changes to advance the goal of protecting the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund against future insolvencies of mine operators in the coal industry. During the comment period following publication of a previous Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this subject (88 FR 3349, January 19, 2023), the Department received a number of comments from stakeholders. Those comments have been taken into consideration during development of this proposed rule.

The Department proposes to establish security levels for self-insured coal mine operators at levels that account for the financial health of the operator and accurately reflect the risk of default for the Trust Fund. The Department also proposes to allow operators to fully secure the appropriate amount of their established liabilities over the course of three years following promulgation of a Final Rule.

The Department proposes to allow self-insured coal mine operators to secure their estimated liabilities through a number of new methods. These new methods provide operators with expanded options that can be tailored to specific business needs and resources. The Department expects that operators will utilize a combination of multiple methods to arrive at their total security requirement. We note that the option to use multiple instruments to secure liability is not a new authority for self-insured operators. The Department also notes that the methods proposed are merely options. Operators will not be required or encouraged to utilize any particular instrument. The Department is retaining all existing methods of securing liability, with certain limitations about how much liability may be secured through each method, as detailed below.

The Department proposes to allow operators to designate a hierarchy to prioritize which method of security should be utilized first in the event of default. This new authority is intended to allow operators flexibility when purchasing security, and may result in cost savings for the purchase of particular instruments.

The Department retains the ability to adjust security amounts between annual reviews when presented with material change(s) to evidence submitted after the application process is completed and prior to the next scheduled annual review. The operator will receive notification of any security requirement adjustments.

Current § 726.101 describes the minimum requirements established by the Secretary for determining whether any particular coal mine operator may be authorized to self-insure or to renew authorization to self-insure.

Current paragraph (a) is retained in its entirety.

OWCP proposes revising paragraph (b), to update the minimum requirements that must be met by an operator seeking authorization or reauthorization to self-insure. OWCP proposes adding a new requirement that first-time applicants provide, at minimum, $400,000 in security in order to be authorized to self-insure their liabilities. 6 If the present and future estimated liabilities of the operator exceed $400,000 at the time of application or during annual reviews in the first three years of the operator's self-insurance authorization, the operator will be required to provide 100% of their present and future estimated liabilities as security. If the estimated liabilities are less than $400,000 or if OWCP determines that the estimated liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to limited historical claims experience and exposure data, the operator will be required to provide $400,000 in security. This requirement will only apply to the first three years in which the new applicant is authorized to self-insure. After three years, the operator will be subject to the requirements outlined in § 726.105 below and required to post security at a level based on the operator's risk of default; they may withdraw any excess security that was required from them in the first three years of their self-insurance authorization. Previously, operators were not permitted to self-insure within the first three years of commencing mining operations. These revisions will allow new operators to self-insure, provided that they secure a minimum of $400,000 of estimated liabilities. This change allows flexibility to new operators to determine the best methods for securing liabilities, while protecting the Trust Fund.

Given the foregoing changes, OWCP proposes to retain in its entirety and renumber current paragraph (b)(1) as paragraph (b)(2), and current paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph (b)(3).

Current paragraphs (c) and (d) are retained in their entirety.

OWCP also proposes to add a new paragraph (e), which will specify which entities may apply for authorization to self-insure or to renew authorization to self-insure. OWCP proposes using the same language for this paragraph as appears in current § 726.102(c), and will remove the language from that section. New paragraph (e) also provides that if a parent corporation's self-insurance authorization includes subsidiary corporations, the parent will remain liable for claims based on employment with such subsidiaries regardless of any sale or transfer of the subsidiaries.

Current § 726.102 provides requirements for filing an application for authorization to self-insure or renew authorization to self-insure, detailing what information must be submitted with an application and how to file it.

Current paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (b)(6) are retained in their entirety.

OWCP proposes revising paragraph (b)(7). Current paragraph (b)(7) grants OWCP discretion to request additional information or evidence from an applicant. OWCP proposes deleting and replacing current paragraph (b)(7) to identify the exact financial documentation that must be submitted in order to calculate security requirements under § 726.105. OWCP's proposed paragraph (b)(7) will require an applicant to include the most recent long-term credit rating report issued by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization within the past 18 months at the time of application, if such a report exists. This change is intended to provide OWCP with an independent and standardized assessment of the applicant's creditworthiness, to use in conjunction with other information requested in paragraph (b).

OWCP proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(8). The proposed paragraph (b)(8) provides the documentation an applicant must submit for OWCP to use in accordance with the financial scoring systems known as the Altman Z-score  7 and Ohlson O-score. 8 OWCP proposes to use the Altman Z-score and Ohlson O-Score as part of its calculations to determine the amount of security the applicant must submit under § 726.105. To calculate these scores, OWCP will require audited financial statements for the most recent and prior fiscal years, including balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, financial statement notes, and market capitalization data for publicly traded companies. OWCP performed a retrospective analysis on previous bankruptcies that discharged unsecured liabilities to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (BLDTF). The proposed methodology would have been successful in identifying the growing risk of default and would have resulted in requiring higher levels of security at the critical time.

OWCP proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(9) that will allow OWCP to request additional information or evidence not outlined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8). OWCP may request additional information related to the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant as provided by paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8). OWCP's request will detail the reasons for requesting additional information. An example of this would be OWCP's request for additional information because there is a note in the financial statement that necessitates clarification before review of the application can continue.

OWCP proposes retaining the language contained in current § 726.102(c) in its entirety and renumbering current § 726.102(c) as the new § 726.101(e).

Current § 726.103 provides that each of the regulations, interpretations and requirements contained in this part 726, including those described in subpart C related to insurance contracts, are binding upon each applicant for self-insurance authorization, and the applicant's consent to be bound by all requirements of the regulations in this part are deemed to be included in and a part of the application, as fully as though written therein.

OWCP proposes revising this section for clarification in response to a court decision that called into question OWCP's ability to hold liable a parent company based on its self-insurance of a subsidiary when the miner last worked there, if the parent later sold the subsidiary. ( See Hobet Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP and Horace Meredith, 156 F.4th 385 (4th Cir. 2025). OWCP proposes to add a new sentence clarifying that an applicant's consent to be bound by all requirements in this part includes, but is not limited to, § 726.203's insurance endorsement, which applies to any self-insurer. For instance, a parent company whose self-insurance authorization includes a subsidiary company shall remain liable for federal black lung claims based on employment with that subsidiary, regardless of any sale or transfer of the subsidiary.

OWCP proposes revising § 726.104 to focus on the actions OWCP will take upon receipt of applications and how much time operators will have to phase in their required security amounts. OWCP proposes to move references to the forms of security that operators may use from § 726.104 to § 726.106.

Current paragraph (a) is retained in its entirety. OWCP proposes to make stylistic changes to paragraph (a). No alteration in meaning either results from or is intended by these changes.

OWCP proposes retaining the portion of paragraph (b) that provides that OWCP will notify an operator that it may give security in an amount fixed by OWCP. OWCP proposes removing paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), which list the acceptable types of security in the current rule, and will instead provide this information in § 726.106.

OWCP proposes to substantially revise paragraph (c) to change the period of time and process through which operators may phase in their security, after the initial self-insurance review under these new regulations. Current paragraph (c) requires operators to phase in their security within one year. OWCP proposes to revise this phased approach by allowing approved operators to reach full security over the course of three years commencing with OWCP's acceptance of the first security deposit. The first security deposit for year one will be equal to at least 34% of the operator's overall security amount. For the following year, designated as year two, the second annual security deposit will be at least 33%, bringing the total security submitted to at least 67% of the operator's total security requirement. At year three, the remaining balance or 33% of security will be submitted, bringing the operator to its total calculated security. OWCP will notify the operator of the amounts and submission deadline for each security deposit after the initial review under these revised regulations. In this notification, OWCP will typically provide operators thirty calendar days to submit their payments, which can be extended for good cause. This change to the phase-in period is in recognition that some self-insured mine operators are currently severely under-secured and requiring them to attain even a low-level tier of security could put a strain on their financial capital at a time when both coal mine expansion is crucial and the industry continues to shoulder significant regulatory burdens elsewhere. In response to prior self-insurance rulemaking, operators have opposed the narrow timeframes allotted for submission of additional securities, arguing that anything less than a three-year phased in approach is not only unworkable, but arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, developing a longer phase-in approach and providing coal mine operators an established annual period to scale up their security would reduce that burden for entities that are not already at their required security level. This approach will also allow OWCP to take into account various factors that may affect the amount of security required each year of the three-year period, including the operator's assessed risk of default and the amount of security that the operator has already deposited. Furthermore, allowing operators a reasonable time to reach full security will protect the Trust Fund from absorbing the consequences of any potential default caused by operators being unable to reach full security on a truncated timeline. The three-year phase-in approach is only applicable for submitting security to attain total security after the initial review conducted under these revised regulations. Operators will not be afforded additional years to attain total security with each review of a subsequent application for reauthorization.

OWCP proposes to revise paragraph (d) to provide that initial self-insurance authorization is contingent upon and effective upon receipt of either the full security amount or the first security deposit under paragraph (c) of this section, in addition to a completed form OWCP-1 Agreement and Undertaking.

OWCP proposes to revise paragraph (e)(2) to provide that renewed self-insurance authorization is contingent upon and effective upon receipt of either the full security amount or the first security deposit under paragraph (c) of this section, in addition to a completed form OWCP-1 Agreement and Undertaking. The rest of current paragraph (e) is retained in its entirety. OWCP proposes to make stylistic changes to the rest of paragraph (e). No alteration in meaning either results from or is intended by these changes.

OWCP proposes to revise paragraph (f) to clarify that an applicant who cannot satisfy its security requirements has 30 calendar days after OWCP issues notification of its decision to obtain and submit proof of a commercial policy or contract of insurance.

Current § 726.105 provides that any operator approved to self-insure must submit security equal to 100 percent of its actuarial estimated liabilities (all present and future liabilities) as determined by OWCP based on the actuarial report or reports submitted by the applicant (or on file with OWCP), other information submitted with the operator's application, or any other materials or information that OWCP deems relevant.

OWCP proposes to delete current § 726.105 and replace it with a new § 726.105. Proposed § 726.105 would provide that any operator approved to self-insure must submit security according to a multi-tiered risk-focused framework. This new model is designed around financial assessments based on accepted accounting standards and principles. This approach is also consistent with methodologies outlined in the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Financial Condition Examiners Handbook. OWCP will use the self-insured coal mine operator's financial strength to determine the percentage of their total estimated liability which would require security annually. By setting required security amounts at manageable levels, OWCP seeks to prevent a negative impact on coal mine operations while protecting the Trust Fund from absorbing the negative effects of coal-industry disruptions and insolvencies.

New paragraph (a) describes the methodology used by OWCP to determine the amount of security an operator must provide to self-insure their liabilities under the Act. OWCP will determine the financial position of the applicant by the credit rating report submitted in accordance with new § 726.102, in conjunction with the financial metrics outlined in new paragraph (b) of this section. If no external credit rating exists, OWCP will perform an assessment based upon information submitted by the applicant. The risk assessment will place each operator within one of seven tiers with the most financially secure entities required to secure less of their liabilities, while operators who are financially riskier would be required to secure a higher percentage.

OWCP proposes new paragraph (b), which will provide that the amount of required security is determined by calculating a Composite Solvency Score that evaluates the financial health of the operator using a combination of metrics in accordance with actuarial standards. OWCP shall calculate the Composite Solvency Score for each self-insured operator based upon three factors. OWCP proposes new paragraph (b)(2), which will list the three financial indicators it will use to determine the Composite Solvency Score: (i) the company's credit rating; (ii) the company's Altman Z-score; and (iii) and the company's Ohlson O-score.

Subparagraph (b)(2)(i) explains that OWCP will review an operator's most recent long-term credit rating from a nationally recognized statistical rating organization, such as Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors Service or Standard and Poor's.

Subparagraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) explain that OWCP will also factor the Altman Z-score and Ohlson O-score into its calculation of the Composite Solvency Score.

New paragraph (c) provides the procedure OWCP will follow to calculate the Composite Solvency Score. New paragraph (c)(1) provides the formulas for calculating each of the metrics. New paragraph (c)(2) describes how the scores for each metric will be normalized so that the results can be weighted into a composite score. This step is necessary in the scoring process because each of the metrics is expressed on a different scale. A consistent, normalized, scale is applied to ensure that equivalent levels of risk are represented comparably across all metrics. New paragraph (c)(3) provides the final formula OWCP will use to calculate the Composite Solvency Score.

New paragraph (d) provides that after calculating the Composite Solvency Score, OWCP will assign an operator to the appropriate tier of scores and will require the operator to secure the appropriate percentage of their estimated liability based on that tier. The tier structure outlined in paragraph (d) represents OWCP's planned structure for the first year of implementing any final rule arising from this proposed rule. OWCP will update this tier structure periodically by published subregulatory guidance. These adjustments will be based on actuarially assessed economic factors involving the industry.

New paragraph (e) provides that OWCP reserves the right to conduct its own independent financial analysis.

OWCP proposes amending § 726.106 to list the acceptable types of security, a change from where they appear in the current rule, § 726.104(b), and to allow operators to utilize new methods to secure liabilities.

OWCP proposes to amend paragraph (a) to reiterate that multiple forms of security may be utilized to attain the fixed security amount.

Current paragraph (b) is retained in its entirety.

OWCP proposes to revise paragraph (c) to add that deposits of negotiable securities must be in compliance with § 726.107.

OWCP proposes to add paragraph (d) to describe a letter of credit as an acceptable type of security. Letters of credit are described as acceptable types of security in the current rule at § 726.104(b)(3), but the current rule notes that letters of credit are not sufficient by themselves to satisfy an operator's security obligations. OWCP proposes to more definitively limit the portion of a self-insured operator's estimated liabilities that can be secured by a letter of credit, requiring that a letter of credit may only be used to secure fifty percent of an operator's estimated liability. In the event of an insolvency, a letter of credit does not provide priority over other creditors. In order to protect the Trust Fund while still allowing flexibility, OWCP would limit the amount of estimated liability that can be secured through a letter of credit.

OWCP proposes to add paragraph (e) to describe a Section 501(c)(21) trust as an acceptable type of security. OWCP proposes to reintroduce the option for operators to provide security in the form of a new 501(c)(21) trust. The 2024 rulemaking restricted the use of new trusts, and mandated that only trusts in existence prior to publication of the final rule would be allowed. See 89 FR 100304, 100305 (December 12, 2024). In the 2024 rule, OWCP noted that 501(c)(21) trusts had proven to be a less reliable form of security. Id. A number of commenters expressed disagreement with this change. In part, commenters disputed the Department's authority to remove this kind of security instrument and noted that 501(c)(21) trusts are not inherently riskier to the Trust Fund. Id. at 100308. The Department explained in the 2024 Final Rule that while the Department is not concerned about the riskiness of investments in 501(c)(21) trusts, it is concerned about the risk that money in such trusts may fall below necessary security amounts because the trusts can be used to pay claims and other expenses. Id.; see also 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(21)(A). OWCP now proposes to permit the use of new 501(c)(21) trusts as security, but to protect against the risk described here, OWCP proposes to require that an operator secure no more than fifty percent of its estimated liabilities using such a trust. The operator would be required to secure the remaining liabilities with another method or combination of methods.

OWCP proposes to add paragraph (f) to allow self-insured operators to secure a portion of their liabilities using reinsurance policies. Reinsurance policies under this new subsection will be limited to stop-loss or catastrophic coverage, and must not exceed 90% of the operator's total security amount. A reinsurance policy must be utilized in conjunction with one or more other types of security, and those other types of security will act as the self-insured retention limit that must be exhausted before the reinsurance policy becomes responsible. Similar to other commercial insurance, as provided in 20 CFR 726.202, a reinsurance contract can be underwritten by any stock company or mutual company or association, or with any other person, or fund, including any State fund while such company, association, person, or fund is authorized under the law of any State to insure workers' compensation. All reinsurance contracts will be subject to the same requirements of commercial insurance contracts under the Act and regulations, including 30 U.S.C. 933(b) (required provisions of insurance contracts) and 933(c) (cancellation of insurance contracts), and 20 CFR 726.201-213. OWCP proposes to incorporate the provisions of 20 CFR 726.203-207 into § 726.106(f).

OWCP proposes to add paragraph (g) to allow self-insured operators to secure their liabilities using a guaranty from a parent company. The parent company will irrevocably and unconditionally, and jointly and severally, guarantee self-insured obligations allocated to the operator under the Act, either in part or in full, as allowed by OWCP. The guaranty must be submitted on parent company letterhead and contain language as required by OWCP. The guaranty shall be continuous in form and remain in full force and effect until authorized cancellation or release by OWCP. The existence of a parental guaranty does not eliminate liability for a subsidiary company, nor does the absence of a parental guaranty alter the liability of a parent company under the Act and implementing regulations. Because the success of a parental guaranty as self-insurance security will depend on the parent company's risk of default, OWCP proposes to allow a parent company to secure more than 50% of its subsidiary's estimated liabilities if the parent company has a Composite Solvency Score of at least 90 under § 726.105(d), and to secure less than 50% of its subsidiary's estimated liabilities if the parent company has a Composite Solvency Score of at least 70. No parent company with a Composite Solvency Score under 70 will be permitted to guarantee its subsidiary's liabilities.

OWCP proposes to add paragraph (h) to allow an operator to create a hierarchy to determine which security instrument is to be the primary payor, secondary payor, and so forth, in the event of a partial default. Allowing the operator to determine the order in which funds should be recovered may influence the price of the instrument. A hierarchy of this type would not alleviate the operator's responsibility to secure the required amount of estimated liabilities, and would pose no additional risks to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund in the event of a default.

Current § 726.107 is retained in its entirety.

Current § 726.108 is retained with minor changes.

Current paragraph (a) provides OWCP with discretion to increase security between annual reauthorization reviews when OWCP determines that the security on deposit is less than 100% of the self-insurer's estimated liabilities. OWCP proposes revising § 726.109(a) to reflect the change in percentage of estimated liabilities that will be required for security under § 726.105 and to allow OWCP to decrease, rather than only increase, an operator's security between annual reauthorization reviews.

OWCP proposes adding subparagraphs (1) and (2) to explain the conditions that would necessitate a security adjustment. Most notably, if evidence alters an operator's Composite Solvency Score, then OWCP may deem it necessary to adjust the amount of total security or scheduled phase-in deposits. See §§ 726.105, and 726.112.

Current § 726.109(b) is retained in its entirety.

OWCP proposes revising § 726.110 to remove reporting requirements, which will instead be part of § 726.112. Current § 726.110 provides additional conditions that must be met prior to an operator receiving authorization to self-insure. Specifically, an operator must execute and file a form Agreement and Undertaking, in which the operator agrees to the terms of its self-insurance authorization. These requirements are set out in current paragraphs (a) and (b), which are retained in their entirety. OWCP proposes to make stylistic changes to paragraphs (a) and (b). No alteration in meaning either results from or is intended by these changes.

OWCP proposes to remove paragraphs (c) and (d) from this section. These paragraphs provide requirements that operators notify OWCP of certain changes and allow OWCP to require certain information from operators. OWCP proposes moving these provisions to § 726.112, Reporting Required of Self-Insurer; Examination of Accounts of Self-Insurer.

Current § 726.111 is retained in its entirety.

Current § 726.112 provides reporting requirements of authorized self-insurers, including the examination of books of account, records, and other documentation to verify evidence submitted as part of the application process.

OWCP proposes revising the language contained within paragraphs (a) and (b) to better explain conditions that would require an operator to provide additional information or necessitate inspection of financial documentation. When evidence suggests that the operator is neglecting duties as required under 726.110, OWCP may request supplemental documentation confirming all benefits payable have been rendered when due and proper security limits as required under § 726.105 are being maintained.

OWCP proposes retaining the language contained in current § 726.110(c) and renumbering as new § 726.112(c). New paragraph (c) will provide the requirements that operators notify OWCP of certain changes to operations covered under the self-insurance authorization. Also, OWCP proposes revising the language of current § 726.110(d) and renumbering as new § 726.112(d). New paragraph (d) will provide that OWCP may require an operator to provide supplemental information upon notification of changes under paragraph (c) of this section only if it determines that the operator's total security under 726.105 will be impacted.

Given the foregoing changes, OWCP proposes to renumber current paragraph (c) as paragraph (e) and retain the language in its entirety.

Current § 726.113 is retained with non-substantive, editorial revisions to improve clarity.

Current § 726.114 is retained with non-substantive, editorial revisions to improve clarity.

Current § 726.115 is retained in its entirety.

Section 726.116 establishes the steps an applicant must undertake to appeal a self-insurance determination made by OWCP. Current paragraph (a) provides that an applicant may file an appeal in writing with the Director of OWCP in the form and manner prescribed by OWCP within 30 days of the issuance of a self-insurance determination. The 30-day deadline may not be extended. OWCP proposes to retain the substance of this paragraph but clarify that an appeal must be made within 30 calendar days of the issuance of a self-insurance determination.

Current paragraph (b) provides that an applicant may submit a brief in support of its appeal, but no further evidence not provided with the initial application. OWCP proposes to amend this paragraph to allow applicants an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of an appeal. Current paragraph (b) also provides that OWCP may extend an applicant's deadline to submit briefing for up to 30 days upon a showing of good cause, up to a maximum of two extensions. OWCP proposes revising paragraph (b) to allow OWCP to extend an applicant's deadline upon a showing of good cause, without limiting the extensions to 30 days or a maximum of two extensions. OWCP proposes these changes because the Department believes the current provisions do not allow enough opportunity for applicants to submit evidence or enough time to do so.

Current paragraph (c) sets forth the process for requesting an informal conference on an appeal. Current subparagraph (c)(1) provides that an applicant may request in writing an informal conference when it submits its brief in support of an appeal. To provide greater flexibility to applicants, OWCP proposes slightly revising subparagraph (c)(1) to reflect that an applicant may request an informal conference when submitting its brief and evidence or when submitting any new evidence in support of its appeal. Current subparagraph (c)(2) is retained in its entirety.

Current subparagraph (c)(3) provides that if an applicant does not request a conference, OWCP may decide the appeal without one or schedule an informal conference on its own initiative. Subparagraph (c)(3) is retained with stylistic changes.

Current subparagraph (c)(4) provides that the informal conference will be limited to the issues an applicant identified in its written materials. Subparagraph (c)(4) is retained in its entirety.

Current paragraph (d) sets forth OWCP's obligations in the review process and issuance of a final agency decision. Current paragraph (d) provides that OWCP will review its previous determination and issue a final agency decision. OWCP proposes to clarify that the division will review the previous determination in light of any new evidence and information submitted.

Current subparagraph (d)(1) provides that the Director of OWCP will review the initial determination, the evidence of record, and arguments on appeal, and that the applicant may not submit any new evidence to the Director of OWCP. OWCP proposes revising subparagraph (d)(1) to clarify that an applicant may only submit evidence allowed in proposed 726.116(b).

Current subparagraph (d)(2) provides that the Director of OWCP will have 60 days to take up the appeal and issue a final agency decision. Current subparagraph (d)(3) provides that if the Director of OWCP issues a final agency decision denying self-insurance authorization, any existing authorization will end and the applicant will have 30 days to obtain and submit proof of commercial insurance or face civil penalties for failure to secure benefits. OWCP proposes to retain the substance of subparagraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3), but clarify the deadlines in terms of calendar days. OWCP will also add that a final agency decision will be issued within 7 calendar days after review of appeal and evidence provided.

The Department proposes to include a severability provision in Part 726 Subpart B, so that if one or more of the provisions of Part 726 are held invalid or stayed pending further agency action, the remaining provisions would remain effective and operative. The Department believes that the provisions of the proposed rule can operate independently and will improve the effectiveness of the self-insurance program, even if other provisions are deemed invalid.

It is the Department's intent that any final rule following this proposal apply to its greatest extent even if one or more provisions of such rule are invalidated or stayed. For example, it is the Department's intent that each of the minimum requirements that must be met by an operator under § 726.101(b)'s be effective even if one of those requirements is invalidated. Similarly, it is the Department's intent that each of the financial risk metrics relied on in § 726.105(b)(2) be effective even if the consideration of one of those metrics is invalidated. It is also the Department's intent that each form of security provided in § 726.106 be effective even if one of those forms of security is invalidated. This list is not exhaustive. In all circumstances, whether or not specifically discussed, it is the Department's intent that the provisions of any final rule be construed to give the maximum effect to the provisions permitted by law, and that any invalidated provisions be considered severable from Part 726 and not affect the remainder of any final rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person may generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

The proposed rule contains information collections within the meaning of the PRA ( see proposed § 726.102), however, these collections are not new. They are currently approved for use in the Black Lung program by OMB under Control Number 1240-0057 (CM-2017 Application or Renewal of Self-Insurance Authority; and CM-2017b Report of Claims Information for Self-Insured Operators). The requirements for completion of the forms and the information collected on the forms will not change if this rule is adopted in final. In fact, as with the current rule, this proposed rule removes the previous requirement for OWCP to review self-insurers' quarterly financial reports.

Consistent with the 2024 rule, the proposed rule requires applicants to submit an actuarial report of current and future liabilities utilizing actuarial assumptions provided by OWCP. This is not a new requirement of operators. The stipulated data points are based on historical, current, and future trend analysis experienced by the Trust Fund. Applicants will be afforded the opportunity to submit alternative actuarial reports based on their individual experience as a self-insurer.

Although the proposed rule adds the requirement for applicants to submit the most recent long-term credit rating report (if available), as well as audited financial statements for the most recent and prior fiscal years, including balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements, financial statement notes, and market capitalization data for publicly traded companies, the burden on applicants would be minimal. These financial documents are not unfamiliar to applicants and are, in fact, routinely created as part of standard operating procedures. Providing OWCP with copies of these existing documents will not be an arduous task for applicants, so the overall burden imposed by the information collections is negligible.

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14904, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of OMB determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises legal or policy issues “for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in this Executive order.” See E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It also instructs agencies to review “rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them.” See E.O. 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).

The Department has considered the proposed rule with these principles in mind and has determined that the anticipated benefits outweigh the costs. The discussion below sets out the rule's anticipated economic impact and discusses economic factors favoring adoption of the proposal. OIRA has reviewed this rule and designated it as a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The proposed rule will have an economic impact on operators that currently participate in the self-insurance program, as well as any new applicants.

As explained in the preamble, prior security requirements have proven inadequate to protect the Trust Fund when a self-insured operator becomes insolvent. From 2014 to 2016, three self-insured coal operators entered bankruptcy with combined collateral of $27.4 million; the resulting transfer of black lung liabilities to the Trust Fund was eventually estimated to be $865 million. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Black Lung Benefits Program: Improved Oversight of Coal Mine Operator Insurance is Needed, at 13 (Feb. 2020), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-21 . In response to those inadequacies, the Department underwent additional rulemaking. The regulations, as amended in 2024 (89 FR 100304, December 12, 2024) required operators to secure 100 percent of the actuarially estimated liabilities (all present and future liabilities), over one year, regardless of the operator's financial strength. This proposed rule will balance the need to protect the Trust Fund and secure benefits for affected coal miners, while decreasing potential risks and disruptions to the coal industry.

This analysis provides the Department's estimate of the economic impact of the proposed rule, both on the economy as a whole and on individual operators. The Department invites comments on this analysis from all interested parties. The Department is particularly interested in comments addressing the Department's evaluation of the impact of the proposed rule on operators that currently participate in the self-insurance program.

To determine the proposed rule's general economic impact, the Department calculated how the rule will affect several stakeholder groups, including: (i) OWCP, (ii) taxpayers, (iii) commercially insured operators, and (iv) self-insured operators.

The proposed rule does not impose significant additional demands on OWCP resources. In fact, as with the current rule, this proposed rule removes the previous requirement for OWCP to review self-insurers' quarterly financial reports. The proposed rule will require OWCP to review each operator's financial information each year and determine the resulting security percentage. OWCP will also review actuarial liability estimates every three years and monitor authorized self-insurers for compliance with eligibility requirements. The review of annual financial reports and calculation of the required security percentage represents a change from the 2024 rule, but does not pose a significant cost on OWCP due to OWCP's familiarity with this task and the relatively small number of affected operators.

OWCP may incur a minimal cost to review financial statements of the parent corporations of self-insured coal mine operators that elect the parental guarantee security option. However, this would not be a significant expense for OWCP.

The proposed rule will be of net benefit to taxpayers. The proposed rule will balance the need to protect the Trust Fund and secure benefits for affected coal miners, while decreasing potential risks and disruptions to the coal industry upon which Americans rely for domestic energy production. In comparison to the 2024 rule, the proposed rule reallocates a portion of the bankruptcy-related risk to the taxpayers, but the required security deposits are appropriately aligned with the associated risk of bankruptcy.

The proposed rule will not impose additional costs on operators that secure their BLBA liabilities through commercial insurance. The proposed rule affects only the eligibility criteria, security requirements, and other procedures for operators that secure their liabilities by qualifying to self-insure. At most, commercially insured operators might choose to reassess whether, in light of these changes, commercial insurance remains the most cost-effective option for securing their liabilities or, instead, whether to switch to self-insurance. The cost of any such assessment would be de minimis.

The proposed rule may reduce costs for current operators that are self-insured. OWCP has identified a total of 15 operators that are, or recently have been, actively mining coal and participating in the self-insurance program. Of these 15 self-insured operators, four have commercial insurance for their current operations, but self-insure their legacy liabilities. Six secure both their current and legacy liabilities through self-insurance. The remaining five have hybrid coverage with self-insurance or commercial insurance for legacy and current operations, depending on mine site location and/or subsidiary operator.

The proposed rule will apply to these 15 operators. Table 1 lists the estimated actuarial liabilities, securities currently on deposit, the estimated security requirement under the 2024 final rule, and estimated future security requirements under the proposed rule.

The proposed rule imposes small changes to the reporting or filing requirements on the operators currently utilizing self-insurance. Operators are required to continue updating their actuarial liability estimates on a three-year cycle and are required to provide annual financial reports rather than quarterly financial reports. OWCP will provide applicants with actuarial assumptions based on Trust Fund data, however, it is permissible for operators to submit alternative actuarial reports based on their individual experience administering self-insured claims. As part of the security percentage calculation, operators will also be required to provide their most recent credit rating, if available, and publicly-traded operators will be required to provide their market capitalization amount consistent with the date of their financial statements. These financial documents are routinely created as part of standard operating procedures and should be readily available to applicants. The cost to provide OWCP with copies of the existing documentation would be minimal. There will also be a cost to the operators for the time required to review and understand the rule. Because of the small number of affected establishments, the cost of the change in reporting requirements and rule familiarization is de minimis in aggregate and is not included in the rule's total cost estimate. OWCP requests comments on the reporting burden from affected stakeholders.

The proposed rule allows self-insured operators to adjust the amount of their security deposits to reach the required security percent. Table 1 reflects that all of the 15 current self-insured operators will be allowed to decrease their required security deposits as a result of this proposed rule. For each operator, the cost savings of the decrease in required security deposits depends on which security deposit option the operator employs (since different security options have different costs) and the amount of the permissible reduction in required security.

Operators with security deposits in the form of surety bonds incur a premium cost determined by the commercial bond underwriters. OWCP does not have direct information on the cost of these bonds, as pricing is a function of multiple qualitative and quantitative attributes of each operator and is determined by underwriters on a case-by-case basis. Each underwriter has their own pricing formula and offers various payment options. To estimate the impacts of the proposed rule, an annual premium ranging from 2 percent to 12 percent of the additional security was used as an estimate. This range is based on a review of public data from several different surety companies; however, actual costs could be higher or lower. 9 OWCP seeks comments from the public regarding the costs of bonds for coal mine operators. Additionally, OWCP estimates that in most cases the surety companies will require the operator to maintain a certain amount of restricted cash in support of the surety obligations. Based on a review of the coal industry financial reports, OWCP estimates an average restricted cash requirement of 25% of the surety bond amount. The opportunity cost of holding the restricted cash is estimated at the company or industry-level Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) minus interest earned on the restricted cash. The median WACC for the coal and related energy industry is currently 8.4 percent, although the WACC for coal mining companies specifically, and in particular for individual coal mining companies, may be higher or lower. Interest earned on the restricted cash is currently estimated at 3 percent. These assumptions translate into an additional annual cost of approximately 1.5 percent per dollar of increased security. Adding the cost of the restricted cash requirements to the estimated surety bond premium results in an estimated range of 3.5 percent to 13.5 percent annual cost. This analysis focuses solely on surety bonds because that is both the most widely used option among currently self-insured operators and the most cost-effective option. If operators do not wish to use surety bonds, however, they may obtain a different form—or multiple forms—of security, or commercial insurance. See 20 CFR 726.104(b), 30 U.S.C. 933(a), and 20 CFR 726.1 and 726.201.

For operators with security deposits in the form of negotiable securities, the savings would consist of the opportunity costs of the reduced deposits ( i.e., the difference in return between funds held in such accounts and funds invested elsewhere, such as in higher-performing investments or reinvested into the operations of the business itself). The opportunity costs for these operators could be estimated by calculating the difference between their WACC and the annual return earned on their security deposit and multiplying that figure by the dollar decrease in their security requirement. OWCP has not quantified these costs for two principal reasons. First, as noted above, most self-insured operators use surety bonds as security. OWCP does not anticipate that these operators will begin using negotiable securities. Second, annual surety bond costs are likely to be lower than the one-time financing of negotiable securities and associated opportunity costs, making surety bonds the more cost-effective option. Furthermore, any operators that currently use negotiable securities to secure some or all of their liabilities can continue using those securities in combination with surety bonds or similarly approved security option to comply with the revised security requirement ( i.e., some portion of the operator's liabilities could be secured with negotiable securities and the remainder could be secured with surety bonds).

Table 2 calculates the estimated savings from obtaining a a smaller surety bond for each operator and compares this figure to each operator's annual revenues. Annual revenues are represented by the most recent revenue available to OWCP, as reported by S&P or operator-provided financial statements. Annual costs are estimated as the average of the maximum and minimum annual cost ( i.e., the midpoint of the 3.5 percent to 13.5 percent range). As shown in Table 2, the estimated annual impact for operators as a percentage of annual revenue ranges from 0.0002 percent to 0.257 percent savings. 10

OWCP invites additional information and supporting documentation from commenters on the cost of these bonds; security levels required by the surety providers; and information regarding financing costs, borrowing costs, or capital constraints relevant for evaluating the financial and operational impact of the proposed security requirements.

As a result of these changes, some self-insured operators might choose to reassess whether, in light of these changes, self-insurance remains the most cost-effective option for securing their liabilities or, instead, whether to switch to commercial insurance. The cost of any such assessment would be de minimis.

Under current practices, operators new to coal mining are not permitted to self-insure during the first three years after commencing mining operations. The proposed rule would remove this three-year restriction while continuing to require a minimum security amount of $400,000 during the operator's initial three years of self-insurance. This change would provide greater flexibility for new operators in determining the most appropriate method for securing the payment of black lung benefits for their employees, while maintaining a baseline level of financial protection for the Trust Fund.

The Department believes the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the economy as a whole. OIRA has used a $100 million-dollar annual threshold for determining the proposed rule's economic significance. See, e.g., E.O. 12866.

Based on this test, the self-insurance rule change is not “economically significant” because its estimated combined impact ranges from approximately $7 million to $28 million savings on an annual basis, with a mid-range estimate of $17 million. 11 In Table 2 above, the minimum and maximum estimated impacts of the change in security requirements are based on 3.5 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively, of the total change in secured position for each operator. OWCP used an annual cost ranging from 3.5 percent to 13.5 percent of the secured amount based on a review of public data from several different surety companies and operator financial statements. OWCP used estimates for surety bonds because that is both the most widely used option among currently self-insured operators and likely to be the most cost-effective option.

The impact on the coal industry overall is smaller than that of the self-insured operator group because we do not estimate any impact on commercially insured operators.

The Department considered alternative options and methods before proposing these changes to the self-insurance program. Specifically, the Department considered the repeal of the 2024 rule and a return to the prior scheme, or a fixed industry-wide security requirement similar to the 2024 rule's 100% requirement, but at a lesser level. The Department continues to believe that greater security than currently on deposit is required, and that a simple repeal of the 2024 rule would have a negative impact on the Trust Fund, leaving operators severely under secured. The potential financial impact on the Trust Fund is measured by the change in unsecured operator liabilities for future black lung claims. Current unsecured liabilities equal $572 million (the total $688 million estimated operator liability minus the $116 million in current operator securities). Should a series of operators default, the Trust Fund could experience an influx of liabilities similar to the events outlined in the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Black Lung Benefits Program: Improved Oversight of Coal Mine Operators Insurance is Needed (February 2020).

Alternatively, the Department considered maintaining the structure and form of the 2024 rule but applying a different uniform security requirement. While this approach would have mitigated the impact of the loss of liquidity in the form of working capital, it would not address the fact that the 2024 rule did not allow for any consideration of individual company's financial health. The 2024 rule acknowledges OWCP's ability to set security levels and then abdicates that responsibility by imposing a full 100% security mandate. The Department now feels that companies should have the opportunity to present evidence of their ongoing ability to cover liabilities and receive a level commensurate with their status.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis when it proposes regulations that will have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” or to certify that the proposed regulations will have no such impact, and to make the analysis or certification available for public comment.

The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the mining industry, the Small Business Administration (SBA) uses two levels of employee counts to define small mining operations:

According to the SBA criteria, 6 of the 15 self-insured operators, or 40 percent, are considered small firms. Tables 3A and 3B show the impact on small and large self- insured operators. As explained above, the minimum and maximum estimated impact of the change in security requirements is based on 3.5 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively, of the total change in secured position for each operator.

Based on these facts, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 12 The Department, however, invites comments from members of the public who believe the regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small operators. The Department has provided the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration with a copy of this certification. See 5 U.S.C. 605.

The Secretary of State is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Department of State. 22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4). The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, authorized the Department of State (and the newly established Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs) to carry out the purposes of and manage, coordinate, and oversee programs established pursuant to the Act. 22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq. The Department of State is proposing modifications to Subpart C of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22: Foreign Relations, Part 62—Exchange Visitor Program (Subpart C—Status of Exchange Visitors). Subpart C governs the status of nonimmigrant exchange visitors who travel to the United States on J-1 visas and their accompanying spouses and/or dependents, if any, who travel to the United States on J-2 visas. This proposed rule specifically addresses termination of program participation under 22 CFR 62.40, extension of an exchange visitors' program under 22 CFR 62.43, and reinstatement of exchange visitor records to valid program status under 22 CFR 62.45. The status of any accompanying spouses and/or dependents mirrors the status of the exchange visitors they accompany. For purposes of this proposed rule, references to exchange visitor records include the records of accompanying spouses and/or dependents unless stated otherwise.

Subpart C was last modified in 1999, when the former U.S. Information Agency (USIA), which previously had oversight of the Exchange Visitor Program, issued an interim final rule with request for comment (64 FR 44123, Aug. 13, 1999). That rule replaced a prior policy statement published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1997. The 1999 regulations were developed for operation in a paper-based environment.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) directed the Attorney General to create an electronic system to collect information on F, M, and J nonimmigrants in response to concerns that such individuals could fall out of status and remain in the United States without authorization. In 2001, section 416 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56) amended IIRIRA to mandate the expansion and implementation of that system. In January 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department launched SEVIS, a web-based platform for tracking and monitoring F, M, and J nonimmigrants throughout the duration of their participation in approved programs.

This proposed rule addresses the termination of exchange visitor program participation under 22 CFR 62.40. The proposed rule provides an additional basis for which a sponsor must terminate an exchange visitor's participation in their exchange program; namely, when an exchange visitor falsifies or fails to provide a full and truthful response, information, or documents as part of his or her exchange visitor application or during the ongoing exchange program.

The proposed rule also amends 22 CFR 62.40 to expand circumstances where the Department may exercise its discretionary authority to terminate exchange visitor program participation. Under the proposed rule, the Department may terminate an exchange visitor's status when the Department or DHS has revoked or cancelled a visa with immediate effect. In such cases, the individual must immediately leave the country or risk removal. The proposed rule also provides that the Department may terminate an exchange visitor's program when an exchange visitor falsifies or fails to provide a full and truthful response, information, or documents as part of his or her exchange visitor application or during the ongoing exchange program. For example, exchange visitors may be asked to provide proof of a U.S. address, educational qualifications, or attendance at the site of activity. Accurate information is necessary for the sponsors and the Department to assess whether exchange visitors continue to meet the conditions of their nonimmigrant status. A new procedure is also being proposed where an exchange visitor may challenge the Department's termination decision for unauthorized employment or falsifying information or documentation by submitting a statement in opposition within 10 business days of the Department's written notice. Exchange visitors may not appeal on the basis of hardship or other equitable considerations. These regulatory changes are intended to further support the program's objectives of ensuring visitor welfare, program integrity, and national security.

The proposed replacement of 22 CFR 62.43 (Extension of Program) streamlines and clarifies the processes for extensions, both within and beyond the maximum program duration, by integrating these procedures with SEVIS functionalities. Sponsors currently have the authority to extend exchange visitor programs up to the permitted duration of the category of exchange programs. However, consistent with existing regulations, if exchange visitors are seeking to extend beyond the permitted maximum duration, sponsors must obtain Department approval. This rule proposes to establish a deadline for submitting such extension requests. After submitting the electronic application for extension in SEVIS, the Department must receive the supporting documentation no later than three months prior to the new extension period. There will be no exceptions for late submissions.

To ensure consistency across all program categories, this proposed rule deletes 22 CFR 62.31(o) extension of program under the Au pair category, which currently stateses: “Applications to the Department for extensions of six, nine, or 12 months, must be received by the Department not less than 30 calendar days prior to the expiration of the exchange visitor's initial authorized stay . . .” Under this proposed rule, extensions for au pairs will be governed by the general rules and timelines contained in the proposed 22 CFR 62.43, which will require submission 90 days prior to the expiration of the exchange visitor's program end date. These revisions align with Executive Order 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”, 90 FR 10583, Feb. 19, 2025), which directs agencies to streamline obsolete regulatory provisions.

The Department monitors the valid program status of exchange visitors in SEVIS. Designated sponsors must use SEVIS to validate initial program participation, report failures to begin programs, and indicate the early completion or termination of programs (22 CFR 62.13). Whether an exchange visitor completes their program ahead of schedule, voluntarily ends their participation, or has their program involuntarily terminated, sponsors must promptly update the exchange visitor's record in SEVIS to reflect this change and keep the status of the exchange visitor's SEVIS record up to date. This proposed rule revises 22 CFR 62.2 by adding a definition for “Valid Program Status” as the current and accurate status of an exchange visitor's SEVIS record from the time designated sponsors issue a Form DS-2019 through the visitor's active participation in an exchange program and including the visitor's final status upon completion, cessation, graduation, termination, or other program conclusion. The definition relates to any current or future status as contained in the SEVIS record: Initial, Active, Inactive, Terminated, Transferred, Invalid, and No Show. The proposed rule also adds a definition for “Unauthorized Employment,” aligning it with existing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy language. DHS administers and enforces the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. Other federal and state agencies rely on SEVIS data to determine compliance with laws and regulations.

When SEVIS was implemented, designated sponsors transitioned from paper files to electronic reporting. Sponsors are required under 22 CFR 62.12(a)(2) to maintain accurate, current, and updated SEVIS records. They must also ensure that program participation matches the activities described in SEVIS and listed on the Form DS-2019 (22 CFR 62.10(d)).

Sponsors must report program status violations in SEVIS. When a record does not accurately reflect an exchange visitor's program status, whether through administrative oversight, inadvertence, or neglect on the part of the sponsors, exchange visitors, or both, or due to unexpected circumstances beyond their control, the sponsor must either correct the record or request a reinstatement.

The current regulation categorizes violations into three types: (1) minor or technical infractions, (2) substantive violations, and (3) non-reinstatable violations. The proposed rule eliminates the distinction between minor or technical infractions and substantive violations, requiring that, within 30 days, sponsors fix an exchange visitor's record in SEVIS using the Correct SEVIS Status process for all but non-reinstatable violations. This proposed rule provides a simplified system to ensure data integrity by replacing the previous deadlines of 120 days for minor infractions and giving sponsors an easy way to ensure accurate SEVIS records without compromising the program or requiring Department approval. Thus, the “Correct SEVIS Status” action must be used when a sponsor mistakenly changes the status of an exchange visitor's SEVIS record to Active, Inactive, Terminated, Transferred, Invalid, and No Show due to administrative error, neglect, or circumstances beyond their control, or when the error is caused by system changes. The Correct SEVIS Status action must also be used if an exchange visitor fails to request a timely update, such as a transfer or program extension, causing their record to mistakenly reflect an incorrect status, or if a student fails to maintain a full course of study (as defined in § 62.2) without prior consultation with the sponsor and their academic advisor.

Sponsors will have 30 days from the date the SEVIS record went into the incorrect status to use the Correct SEVIS Status action to return SEVIS records to Active or Inactive status with no application or fee to the Department of State. There is no time limit for changing records from Invalid or Active status to Initial status if the exchange visitor has not entered the United States.

The “Correct SEVIS Status” action updates the status of the exchange visitor's record immediately. If the J-2 spouse and/or dependent's SEVIS record changed alongside the J-1, it will automatically update. If not, the J-2 record must be corrected separately. If a sponsor is unable to correct the SEVIS record using the 30-day window, a Reinstatement application must be submitted.

Previously, the Department would not consider requests made after 270 days, as such delays were seen as a lack of program continuity. In an effort to align with the policies provided by DHS, the Department will evaluate requests to reinstate exchange visitor records to Active status if the exchange visitor has not been out of status for more than the time period DHS has set (currently five months). If the exchange visitor has been out of status for more than the time established in DHS's policy, the Department will only consider requests where the sponsor can demonstrate that the failure to file was due to exceptional circumstances and that the request was filed as promptly as possible under those circumstances. There is no time limit for requesting a reinstatement to update a record to Inactive status.

Sponsors may not use the Correct SEVIS Status action or submit a Reinstatement application to update an exchange visitor's record to Active status if the exchange visitor:

• Did not maintain their original program objective identified under their category in 22 CFR part 62 Subpart B (Specific Program Provisions);

• Failed to maintain required insurance coverage required by 22 CFR 62.14;

• Was involuntarily suspended or terminated by sponsor or host organization;

• Received a favorable waiver recommendation under INA § 212(e);

• Received DHS approval for a change of status to a different nonimmigrant class of admission; or

• Failed to pay the fee mandated by Public Law 104-208.

Reinstatement applications must be initiated in SEVIS and followed by submission of supporting documentation within ten (10) days to the Department. Sponsors must pay a non-refundable fee (listed in 62.17) and submit a written statement on official letterhead declaring:

• The exchange visitor's continued pursuit of the original program objective;

• That the lapse was due to oversight, inadvertence, or factors beyond the control of the sponsor;

• That denial would impose unusual hardship on the exchange visitor;

• That no unauthorized employment occurred; and,

• The exchange visitor's accurate program end date.

The proposed rule relocates and updates the definition of “Unauthorized Employment” to § 62.2. It mirrors the language found in Volume 7, Part B, Chapter 6 of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Manual, 1 which defines unauthorized employment as:

“[A]ny service or labor performed for an employer within the United States by an alien who is not authorized by the INA or USCIS to accept employment or who exceeds the scope or period of the alien's employment authorization.”  2

For purposes of this rule, unauthorized employment does not include activities that are normally approvable and appropriate for the visitor's category ( e.g., honoraria for scholars giving lectures or consultations).

The Department has historically determined that rulemakings regarding the Exchange Visitor Program involve a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore are exempt from notice and comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). 3 However, due to the Department's interest in seeking public comment on this rule, the Department is soliciting comments during a 60-day comment period, to which it will respond in a final rule, should the Department choose to finalize all or part of this proposal.

This proposed rule will not result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, Local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector. It also does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

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

While the Department of State considers this rule exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) or Executive Order 13272, we are nonetheless providing an assessment of the potential burden on small entities.

Terminations: The Department estimates that approximately 1,400 designated sponsors operate under the Exchange Visitor Program. The Department anticipates the benefits resulting in changes to the termination of program section will significantly strengthen operational transparency and effectiveness without imposing additional economic burdens on sponsors or exchange visitors, ultimately advancing the program's foreign policy objectives. Any changes resulting from this proposed rule impose no new net regulatory costs. Expenses related to an exchange visitor submitting a statement of opposition and the review process conducted by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange are expected to be minimal and rare.

Analysis of Fee Impact for Extensions: Under the existing regulations, designated sponsors must obtain Department approval for program extensions that exceed the maximum duration allowed for a specific Exchange Visitor Program category. This process requires Department resources for review and adjudication. The fee associated with this request is designed to cover these administrative costs.

The current fee for filing an application for specific exchange visitor status changes is $367 per application (22 CFR 62.17(b)(2)). Based on program data provided for 2022 through 2024, the Department processed an average of approximately 14,563 “Program Extension beyond Maximum Duration” requests annually (calculated from 43,690 requests over three years). Applying the $367 fee results in an estimated total annual cost recovery of approximately $5,344,871 (14,563 requests * $367/request). This cost reflects the Department resources required to act on these requests, which involves verifying the justification for the extension against program regulations and participant eligibility. Unlike the reinstatement fee discussed previously (which designated sponsors can potentially avoid by maintaining timely updates to their records in SEVIS), this fee is required whenever a sponsor seeks an extension for an exchange visitor beyond the standard maximum program duration permitted by regulations for a category, necessitating Department review. The fee per request affects all designated sponsors submitting such requests, including small entities. The estimated total annual cost across all designated sponsors is noteworthy (~$5.34 million), driven by the high volume of extension requests (~14,563 annually).

Unlike the reinstatement fee, which applies to a much smaller volume of requests and may be avoidable, the extension fee applies to a more common request. While the cost per individual request may not be significant, substantial cumulative costs arise from numerous extension requests. The Department also acknowledges that the number of extension requests has remained relatively consistent from 2022 to 2024, with a nominal increase in requests in 2024 compared to the prior year. The Department cannot forecast how the volume of these requests may change in the coming years.

Benefits: A primary benefit of the fee is cost recovery for the U.S. Government, ensuring that the administrative costs associated with processing these requests are borne by the entities requesting the service rather than the public or appropriated funds. The fee also implicitly underscores the nature of extensions beyond the maximum duration, which still represents a relatively small proportion of the total exchange visitor population annually.

Conclusion: Based on recent data, the established fee for Program Extension beyond Maximum Duration requests, which is applied to an average of approximately 14,563 requests annually, results in an estimated cost recovery of approximately $5.34 million annually. This fee allows the Department of State to cover the administrative expenses associated with providing the necessary services for these specific extension requests made by designated sponsors on behalf of exchange visitors.

Analysis of Fee Impact for Reinstatements: Available data shows that only 21 formal reinstatement requests were submitted in 2024. Preparing an extension or reinstatement request typically requires 1 hour of administrative time, resulting in an estimated total annual cost of approximately $2,100 for all affected sponsors combined. This low volume and minimal administrative burden support the Department's determination that the economic impact of this rule on small entities is minimal.

The rule codifies existing SEVIS procedures, such as Correct SEVIS Status, that allow sponsors to fix most issues without Department intervention or fees. Fees only apply when designated sponsors fail to take timely action and reinstatement is necessary to correct SEVIS records.

The rule is structured to promote preventative compliance: sponsors who maintain accurate and timely SEVIS records will not incur new fees. This helps reduce the financial burden, particularly for smaller sponsors with limited resources.

This rule is also consistent with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing American Prosperity Through Deregulation, as it imposes no new net regulatory costs and codifies existing operational practices. The primary direct cost is the non-refundable fee for submitting reinstatement requests to the Department. This fee has consistently remained at $367 per application, as specified in the Exchange Visitor Program regulations at 22 CFR 62.17(b)(2). Program data from 2022 to 2024 indicates that the Department processed an average of 155 reinstatement requests annually (calculated from 465 requests over three years). Consequently, the estimated annual cost to designated sponsors for processing these requests totals $56,885 (155 requests * $367/request).

This proposed rule highlights the significance of quantifying costs and benefits, minimizing administrative burdens, aligning regulations, encouraging flexibility, promoting sponsor independence, and fostering self-reliance. The rule emphasizes the use of SEVIS, enabling designated sponsors to resolve many common record issues directly. This is expected to alleviate administrative burdens and save designated sponsors time when handling routine corrections. However, if designated sponsors fail to update records directly in SEVIS within designated timeframes, the sponsors must initiate the Reinstatement request in SEVIS and pay the non-refundable fee established under 22 CFR 62.17(b)(2). Reinstatement requests require review and processing by the Department of State. The cost per sponsor will significantly depend on the number of reinstatement applications sponsors submit annually due to not utilizing the corrective actions available in SEVIS that do not require prior Department approval. Given the relatively low total number of these specific applications requiring Department involvement among approximately 1,400 designated sponsors, along with the general preventability of such requests through timely actions in SEVIS, the Department believes that the fee is unlikely to impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of designated sponsors. A more detailed analysis comparing potential costs to designated sponsors' revenues would require data on sponsor size distribution and reinstatement request frequency by size, which is not currently available.

The Department recognizes that SEVIS functionality has evolved since it was first implemented in 2003. This rule reflects those developments and aligns the regulatory framework with current sponsor responsibilities and technological capabilities. To ensure clear and consistent program compliance, the Department intends to review and update relevant sponsor guidance as SEVIS tools continue to advance.

The regulations outline streamlined procedures (Correct SEVIS Status) that allow designated sponsors to address many record issues directly in SEVIS within specified timeframes without requiring Department intervention or a fee. The annual estimate reflects the expenses incurred by designated sponsors who seek Department action rather than a rise in costs for designated sponsors using SEVIS as intended. Furthermore, the Department acknowledges that reinstatement requests declined yearly from 2022 to 2024. As such, the Department of State does not make projections regarding potential changes in the number of requests in the coming years.

Benefits: The primary benefits include: (1) Increased efficiency and reduced administrative burden for designated sponsors managing routine record corrections in SEVIS; (2) Enhanced accuracy and timeliness of SEVIS data, resulting from streamlined correction processes and the incentive structure established by the fee, which supports program administration and oversight; (3) Cost recovery for Department resources utilized to resolve more complex reinstatement cases that exceed standard corrections; (4) Clear regulatory standards for designated sponsors regarding record maintenance and corrections; and, (5) Indirect benefits for exchange visitors, of resolving their status issues more efficiently, in contrast to potential adverse impacts on exchange visitors if designated sponsors fail to correct records promptly.

Conclusion: The Department of State believes the proposed approach maximizes net benefits. The anticipated advantages—including enhanced sponsor efficiency, improved SEVIS data integrity, clearer regulatory standards, Department cost recovery, and potentially quicker resolutions for exchange visitors—are expected to outweigh the potential costs associated with the fee for reinstatement requests, which require direct Department involvement.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is significant within the meaning of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The Department has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure consistency with the principles of cost-effectiveness, clarity, and regulatory flexibility described in these Executive Orders.

In 2024, over 1,700 individual exchange visitor records were terminated. The top reasons were for breaking sponsor rules or regulations (975), failure to continue program activities (300), disciplinary reasons or criminal convictions (90), engaging in unauthorized employment (30), and reasons listed as “other” (450). The proposed modernization of 22 CFR 62.40 strengthens program administration by allowing for efficient electronic recording, tracking, and documentation of termination decisions, resulting in greater accuracy and timeliness of data while supporting proactive compliance monitoring. The new regulations also provide sponsors and exchange visitors with increased operational and regulatory clarity, while formalizing the Department's discretionary authority in the exchange visitor termination process through the introduction of defined procedural requirements. There are no new costs involved for updating the functionality in the SEVIS database. Sponsors shall continue the same monitoring and documentation of exchange visitors as is already expected. Exchange visitors who are terminated by the Department will be accorded the right to challenge the Department's termination.

The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. The rule is written to minimize ambiguity, reduce litigation, and establish clear legal standards.

The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationships between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In accordance with Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultation or preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12372, which governs intergovernmental review of federal programs, does not apply to this regulation.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for any new collection of information. This proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements on sponsors, and therefore, does not require approval under the PRA.

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

Unauthorized employment: Any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States by foreign nationals who are not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to accept employment, or who exceed the scope or period of their employment authorization. This definition also applies to accompanying J-2 spouses and/or dependents who perform such labor without prior Department of Homeland Security authorization.

Valid program status: The current and accurate status of an exchange visitor's SEVIS record from the time designated sponsors issue a Form DS-2019 through the visitor's active participation in an exchange program and including the visitor's final status upon completion, cessation, graduation, termination, or other program conclusion.

On July 23, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to rescind and remove the requirements on certain employers and other entities to file workforce data reports to the EEOC contained at 29 CFR part 1602, and proposing to remove the recordkeeping and record preservation requirements related to those reports. 91 FR 46332. The July 23, 2026 document invited public comments on the NPRM.

Section 709(c) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act also requires that, before imposing any new or changed recordkeeping or reporting requirements it deems “reasonable, necessary, or appropriate for the enforcement” of title VII, the Commission must hold a public hearing. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c). Accordingly, the July 23, 2026 NPRM sets a hearing date for August 11, 2026, at 10 a.m. (Eastern).

Persons wishing to speak at the hearing must submit a written request to the EEOC of their desire to do so by August 7, 2026, with their contact information and a written summary of the remarks to be offered. Written requests to speak at the hearing must be submitted to the EEOC via one of the methods outlined in the July 23, 2026, NPRM. Because of time limitations, not all interested persons may be able to testify at the hearing, but the Commission will consider all written statements submitted regardless. You will be notified by close of business August 10 whether you have been selected to speak and the amount of time permitted for your comments.

Please telephone (202) 921-2705, or email commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov at any time for information on this meeting.

First State National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation 8944, signed by President Barack Obama on March 25, 2013, and redesignated by the U.S. Congress as First State National Historical Park on December 19, 2014. Public Law 113-291. The park is the first National Park System unit in the State of Delaware. Visitors to the park can explore the people, places, and stories that played a role in the early colonial history and settlement of the Delaware Valley. Congress established the park to preserve, protect, and interpret the nationally significant cultural and historic resources that are associated with early Dutch, Swedish, Finnish, and English settlers of the Colony of Delaware and portions of the Colony of Pennsylvania; and the role of Delaware in the birth of the United States and as the first state to ratify the Constitution. 16 U.S.C 410rrr. The park tells the unique story of those early settlers and their relationships with Native Americans.

The park consists of six distinct units located in Delaware and southern Pennsylvania: the Brandywine Valley, Old Swedes Historic Site, Fort Christina, the New Castle Court House Museum, the Dover Green, and the John Dickinson Plantation. The NPS administers the Brandywine Valley unit and park's Welcome Center located in the historic Sheriff's House in New Castle, Delaware. The remaining sites are managed by NPS partners.

The park's enabling legislation directs the NPS to administer the park in accordance with the enabling legislation and with the laws generally applicable to the National Park System, including the NPS Organic Act, which gives the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of the lands and waters within System units. See 54 U.S.C. 100101 and 100751(a).

The significant and varied historic resources that form First State National Historical Park include 1,359 acres of preserved natural and cultural landscapes in the Brandywine Valley. The Brandywine Valley unit is the largest of the six units that make up the park. On these lands lie evidence of the seasonal activities of the Lenape bands of Native Americans who utilized the abundant natural resources of the Brandywine Valley for hundreds of years prior to European settlement. The farms dotting the hills and valleys harken to the early eighteenth-century settlement of the landscape by industrious Quaker planters, who followed William Penn to his proprietary commonwealth formerly claimed by Dutch and Swedish traders. The mill remnants along the banks of Beaver Creek reveal some of the earliest industries of the American colonies associated with the remarkable Brandywine Creek corridor.

In 1906, Quaker industrialist William P. Bancroft purchased this bucolic property to preserve the beauty of the Brandywine Valley. His conservation foresight, vision for community planning, and establishment of the Woodlawn Trustees to steward the rural landscape collectively ensured the preservation of this significant area for future generations. In 1959, the Woodlawn Trustees began building bridle paths to help their officers and guests explore more of the area. They used some existing farm roads and added new paths for recreational use. By 1968, these paths were open to the public for activities like hiking, biking, and horseback riding. The land served as a privately-owned park until it was donated to the NPS in 2013. The NPS conserves and interprets the natural and cultural landscape of the Brandywine Valley unit consistent with William Poole Bancroft's vision of an open space accessible to the public for their health and well-being.

The existing trail network in the Brandywine Valley unit consists of historical farm roads and single-track trails, all with natural or unpaved surfacing. The trail network is a popular year-round destination for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians, and numerous trails connect the Brandywine Valley unit to neighboring properties such as the Brandywine Creek State Park. As described above, bicycling was a popular recreational activity on the trail network in the Brandywine Vally unit before it became part of the National Park System and continues to be a popular form of recreation in and around the park. Today, bicycles are used on roads that are open to public motor vehicle traffic, on 4.3 miles of administrative roads that are closed to motor vehicle use by the public but open to motor vehicle use by the NPS for administrative purposes, and on all of the trails in the existing trail system, comprising approximately 15 miles of trails. Public roads, administrative roads, and trails that are open to traditional bicycles are also open to electric bicycles (e-bikes), which are defined in NPS regulations as two- or three-wheeled cycles with fully operable pedals and electric motors of not more than 750 watts that meet the requirements of one of three classes (36 CFR 1.4). Class 1 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Class 2 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Class 3 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. Class 1 and class 3 electric bicycles are allowed in the same locations where traditional bicycles are allowed. Class 2 electric bicycles are not allowed on the trail network.

In 2022, the NPS completed a comprehensive trail inventory for the Brandywine Valley unit. The inventory identified approximately 27.4 miles of trails. Some of the trails are designated and maintained by the NPS. Others are social trails created by users for various purposes. Some were created to avoid designated trails that have been eroded or otherwise damaged. Others were created as a continuation of designated trails that end abruptly. Others have been converted to administrative roads. After reviewing the inventory, the NPS identified a need for a trail plan to establish a cohesive and sustainable trail network with more functionality and quality than currently exists.

In July 2024, the NPS published a draft Brandywine Valley Trail Plan/Environmental Assessment for a 30-day public comment period. In November 2024, the NPS revised and reissued the Brandywine Valley Trail Plan/Environmental Assessment (EA), and the Regional Director for Interior Region 1, Northeast Region, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that identified the preferred alternative in the EA as the selected action. Under the selected action, the NPS will construct approximately 8.5 miles of new shared-use trails and perform site-specific trail modifications and upgrades on 15 miles of existing trails. Trail modifications will focus on existing trail segments identified during the trail inventory as suffering from issues such as erosion, channeling, and saturation. By using trail alignment principles that will be used for new trail construction, modifications to existing trails will improve the durability of the trail surface and soil conditions to accommodate bicycling and other non-motorized uses. The NPS will close and restore to natural condition a total of 8.1 miles of trails that are in poor condition, contribute to erosion and runoff, are unsafe, dead-end at private property, or otherwise fail to provide a high-quality user experience. The EA contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, the alternatives considered, maps of the affected areas, and the environmental impacts associated with the project. As stated in the FONSI, the NPS believes the selected action will improve the sustainability of the trail system, better protect the resources of the park, and improve the visitor experience by providing additional trails that are sustainably designed for recreation, interpretation, and safety.

NPS regulations in 36 CFR part 7 contain special regulations that apply to individual units of the National Park System. The proposed rule would add a new § 7.99 to this part that establishes special regulations for the park. The rule would authorize the Superintendent to designate approximately 25 miles of trails for bicycle use in the Brandywine Valley unit. The proposed rule includes a table that identifies 12 named trails with approximate trail length and start and end points. The total mileage for these named trails includes existing trail segments, planned new trail construction, and certain segments of administrative roads used as part of the trail alignment. In addition to the 12 named trails, the trail network will include 51 connector trails that link the named trails together. Connector trails will be marked on park maps and serve as short linking segments that provide access between the named trails, trailheads, parking areas, viewpoints, and other features of the trail system. Their purpose is simply to facilitate movement within the trail network. Because connector trails are functional rather than recreational in nature, they are generally designed to be direct, clear, efficient, and minimally intrusive to the landscape. The average length of a connector trail is approximately 0.2 miles. The complexity of the trail network makes it difficult to identify and describe each of the connector trails in the proposed rule. As a result, the connector trails are included in the table as a set of trails labeled C1 through C51 with their cumulative mileage.

The proposed rule would require the Superintendent to notify the public of designated trails through one or more of the methods identified in 36 CFR 1.7, including publication in the Superintendent's Compendium (or written compilation) of discretionary actions referred to § 1.7(b). The rule would require the Superintendent to identify the designated trails on maps available at visitor centers and on the park website. The proposed rule would authorize the Superintendent to limit, restrict, or impose conditions on bicycle use, or close any trail to bicycle use, or terminate such limits, restrictions, conditions or closures, after considering public health and safety, resources protection, and other management activities and objectives. Pursuant to 36 CFR 4.30(i), the Superintendent may allow electric bicycles on any trails that are open to traditional bicycles and will notify the public pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7 if electric bicycles are so allowed.

The EA constitutes the planning document and evaluates the criteria required by the NPS's general bicycle regulations at 36 CFR 4.30. Under the selected action in the FONSI, the NPS would allow bicycle use on an approximately 25 mile shared-use trail network. 1 The EA, informed by the comprehensive trail inventory, evaluates the suitability of each trail surface and soil conditions for accommodating bicycle use; and life cycle maintenance costs, safety considerations, methods to prevent or minimize user conflict, and methods to protect natural and cultural resources and mitigate impacts associated with bicycle use. The Superintendent of the park has signed a written determination that bicycle use on all of the trails identified in this proposed rule is consistent with the protection of the park's natural, scenic, and aesthetic values; safety considerations; management objectives; and will not disturb wildlife or park resources, as required by 36 CFR 4.30. This written determination is available on the park's planning website at the URL listed in the ADDRESSES section. The NPS is not publishing the written determination separately in the Federal Register but welcomes comments on the written determination during the public comment period for this proposed rule.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. This rule is a “one-time” enabling regulation that would authorize the Superintendent to expand consumption options for the American public by increasing opportunities for access and recreation at the park. As a result, this rule qualifies as an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action pursuant to M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'” issued by the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, on March 26, 2025.

This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). No small entities would be directly regulated by this rule, which would authorize the superintendent of First State National Historical Park to allow bicycle use on approximately 25 miles of trails within the Brandywine Valley unit. The action would not generate new costs for small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions, nor would it impose fees, operational requirements, training, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on small businesses or organizations. Trail construction and the subsequent authorization of bicycle use on new and upgraded existing trails would expand and improve bicycling opportunities, which is expected to increase recreational visitation and may benefit nearby small businesses through increased visitor spending. This action is not expected to have adverse economic effects on any sector, including small entities. For these reasons, the NPS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This proposed rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule would only affect use of federally administered lands and waters. It would have no direct effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. This proposed rule:

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

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

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to- government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this proposed rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because this rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Nevertheless, in support of the Department of the Interior's and the NPS's commitment to government-to-government consultation, the NPS consulted with the Delaware Nation and the Delaware Tribe of Indians. The NPS executed a programmatic agreement (PA) outlining the ongoing consultation process to avoid, minimize, and, when necessary, mitigate adverse effects. The PA was signed by the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on September 23, 2024, and the Delaware SHPO on September 26, 2024. The Delaware Nation and Delaware Tribe of Indians concurred with the PA. The NPS will continue to consult with Tribes through the standard consultation process. The PA can be found in the EA under Appendix A.

This proposed rule contains no new information collections. All information collections require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NPS has prepared the EA to determine whether this proposed rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This proposed rule would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because of the FONSI. A copy of the EA and FONSI are available online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/frst by clicking the link entitled “BRVA-Comprehensive Trail Plan” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

Final trail alignments may vary slightly from the corridors analyzed in the EA (shown on Figure 12), based on additional field verification prior to construction, archeological field surveys, and Section 106 consultation. The park's natural and cultural resources experts will review final trail alignments to minimize impacts on sensitive resources. If the NPS needs to align a trail outside of an identified corridor, it would conduct additional environmental review of the alignment to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources and would document the change as an amendment to the EA.

This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211; this proposed rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and this proposed rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:

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

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2026-5182, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP received on February 10, 2026. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-6.061 “Construction Permit Exemptions”. The purpose of the state regulation is to list specific construction or modification projects that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permits to construct under 10 CSR 10-6.060. Missouri made several revisions to the rule. These proposed revisions to the rule refine exemptions for emergency generators, update references within the rule and to other rules, and update recordkeeping requirements. The EPA proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the CAA, do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, and do not adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as well as the EPA's analysis of the revisions are contained in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.

The State 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 June 16, 2025, to August 7, 2025, and held a public hearing on July 31, 2025. Missouri received no comments.

In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.061 “Construction Permit Exemptions.” We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.061 as described in section II. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. 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).

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).

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

I. Background A. Nonattainment Designation

On June 22, 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO 2 NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour primary standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). 1 Under the EPA's regulations at title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS is met at a monitoring site when the design value  2 is less than or equal to 75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T). 3 Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year meets data completeness requirements when all four quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days in the quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values, including state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been approved for exclusion by the Administrator, are reported. 4

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS. 5 On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated a portion of Warren County, Pennsylvania (hereafter the “Warren County NAA”), as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013. 6 The designation was based on violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011. The Warren County NAA consists of Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren. 7 This proposed action established an attainment date five years after the effective date for the areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS ( i.e., by October 4, 2018). The Commonwealth was also required to submit an attainment plan SIP revision for the Warren County NAA to the EPA that met the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192 within 18 months of the October 4, 2013, effective date of designation ( i.e., by April 4, 2015).

The EPA did not receive an attainment plan SIP revision for the Warren County NAA by the deadline of April 4, 2015, and subsequently on March 18, 2016, the EPA published a finding of failure to submit indicating that Pennsylvania did not submit the required SO 2 attainment plan. 8 This finding initiated a clock under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review sanctions 18 months after the effective date of the finding and the potential imposition of highway funding sanctions 6 months following that, in accordance with CAA section 179(b) and 40 CFR 52.31. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggered a requirement for the EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that time, Pennsylvania made the necessary complete submittal, and the EPA approved the submittal.

Ultimately, Pennsylvania did submit an attainment plan SIP revision for the Warren County NAA on September 29, 2017. The EPA issued a letter to Pennsylvania on October 5, 2017, finding the attainment plan submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions' deadline. As a result, these CAA section 179(b) sanctions were not imposed. 9 The EPA proposed approving the attainment plan SIP revision submittal on March 22, 2018, 10 and issued a final approval on October 12, 2018. 11 This approval ended the requirement for the EPA to promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

Relevant to this proposed action, on September 19, 2025, PADEP submitted a SIP revision to the EPA for the inclusion of a maintenance plan for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS and requested a concurrent redesignation of the Warren County NAA to attainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. 12 The September 19, 2025 SIP revision also requested that the EPA correct source-specific requirements included in the Pennsylvania SIP. The October 12, 2018 final approval of Pennsylvania's attainment plan SIP revision incorporated by reference the entirety of a consent order and agreement between PADEP and United Refining Company, 13 rather than the intended redacted version and PADEP has provided updated language with the September 19, 2025 revision for inclusion in the SIP to replace the prior error.

After a state has submitted a redesignation request for a nonattainment area, the EPA must assess if the statutory criteria identified in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) have been met to redesignate the area to attainment. These conditions include: (1) the EPA has determined that the applicable NAAQS has been attained; (2) the applicable SIP has been fully approved by the EPA under CAA section 110(k); (3) the EPA has determined that the improvement in the area's air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; (4) the area has a fully approved maintenance plan, including a contingency plan, under CAA section 175A; and (5) the State has met all applicable requirements for the area under CAA section 110 and part D. The EPA has provided direction for how it would consider if these conditions have been met in the April 23, 2014 memorandum “Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (2014 SO 2 Guidance). 14

Section 175A of the CAA and additional EPA guidance, including the September 4, 1992 memorandum “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (Calcagni Memo), 15 identify the required elements for an approvable maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under CAA section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the EPA approves a redesignation request to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for an additional 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, as the EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violations, in this case the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The Calcagni Memo provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: (1) an attainment emissions inventory that identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS; (2) a maintenance demonstration that shows future emissions of a pollutant will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory; (3) the continued operation of a monitoring network that conforms to 40 CFR part 58; (4) a means for verifying the continued attainment of the NAAQS; and (5) a contingency plan to correct any violation of the NAAQS in the area following redesignation of the area.

The EPA's evaluation of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Warren County NAA is based on consideration of the five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) and relevant guidance, including the aforementioned 2014 SO 2 Guidance and Calcagni Memo. The summary and analysis of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan are discussed immediately below, while the summary and analysis of the source-specific requirements revision is discussed in section III in this document.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA requires that the EPA determine that a nonattainment area has attained the applicable NAAQS in order to redesignate the area to attainment. In assessing if the area has attained the NAAQS, the 2014 SO 2 Guidance stipulates that the EPA can interdependently consider two components to support an attainment determination: air quality monitoring data and air quality modeling data. 16

The Warren County NAA contains two operational SO 2 monitor sites: the Warren Overlook site (Air Quality System (AQS) Site ID 42-123-0004) and the Warren East site (AQS Site ID 42-123-0005). The Warren Overlook site is located in Conewango Township, while the Warren East site is located in the City of Warren. The Warren Overlook monitor has been in operation since 1996 and has been in attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS since 2017, with the most recent design value for the 2022-2024 period measuring 45 parts per billion (ppb). The Warren East monitor does not meet siting criteria established in 40 CFR part 58 and as such its data is not appropriate for assessing NAAQS compliance. 17 Since it began monitoring in 2012, the Warren East monitor has continuously recorded design values below the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, with the most recent design value for the 2022-2024 period measuring 32 ppb. Design values for both the Warren Overlock and Warren East monitors are reported in table 1 in this document.

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

The CAA Amendments of 1990 include title V, which requires States to develop an operating permits program that meets the Federal criteria codified in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70. The title V program requires certain sources of air pollution to obtain Federal operating permits from their respective States or air districts. These Federal operating permits improve enforcement and compliance by consolidating all applicable Federal requirements into one federally enforceable document. Before a State can issue permits under 40 CFR part 70 (which are referred to as “title V permits”), the EPA must approve its program under appendix A of 40 CFR part 70. States may submit revisions to their approved programs for EPA approval.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i), either the EPA or the State may initiate a title V program revision “when relevant Federal or State statutes or regulations are modified or supplemented.” It is the responsibility of the State to keep the EPA apprised of any proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority or procedures. Revision of a State program shall be accomplished as follows:

(a) The State submits a modified program description, Attorney General's statement (if necessary for expanded or additional authority), or other documents as the EPA determines to be necessary. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(i).

(b) After the EPA receives a proposed program revision, it will publish a notice of the proposed change in the Federal Register and provide for a public comment period of at least 30 days. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(ii).

(c) The Administrator shall approve or disapprove program revisions based on the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the Act. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(iii).

(d) The EPA must publish a notice of approval in the Federal Register for any substantial program revisions. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(iv).

(e) Approval of nonsubstantial revisions may be given by a letter from the Administrator to the Governor or a designee. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(iv).

(f) A program revision shall become effective upon the approval of the Administrator. See 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2)(iv).

Table 1 lists the rules submitted as part of the title V program revisions by the ACAPCD, the CCAPCD, the GBUAPCD, and the NSAQMD, and the dates they were adopted by the Districts and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor's designee for California rule submittals.

The ACAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program is implemented through its “Procedures for Issuing Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” rule, codified as ACAPCD Rule 500. On November 21, 2003, the EPA approved the ACAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program, which became effective January 1, 2004 (68 FR 65637, November 21, 2003). On January 21, 2025, the ACAPCD amended its Rule 500 and on April 25, 2025, CARB submitted the revision to Rule 500 for approval into the district's EPA-approved title V program. 1 The revision includes removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions in section 500.VI.B.12, “Emergency Provisions.”

The CCAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program is implemented through the following two rules: its “Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990—Definitions” rule, codified as CCAPCD Rule 1002, and its “Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990—Permit Content Requirements” rule, codified as CCAPCD Rule 1006. On November 21, 2003, the EPA approved the CCAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program, which became effective January 1, 2004 (68 FR 65637, November 21, 2003). On August 12, 2025, the CCAPD amended their Rules 1002 and 1006, and on August 21, 2025, CARB submitted the revisions to Rules 1002 and 1006 for approval into the district's EPA-approved title V program. 2 The revisions include removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions in section 1 (M) of 1002, “Emergency” definition, and section B (12), “Emergency Provisions” of 1006.

The GBUAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program is implemented through its “Additional Procedures for Issuing Operating Permits for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” rule, codified as GBUAPCD Rule 217. On November 21, 2003, the EPA approved the GBUAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program, which became effective January 1, 2004 (68 FR 65637, November 21, 2003). On July 3, 2025, the GBUAPCD amended its Rule 217, and on August 21, 2025, CARB submitted the revision to Rule 217 for approval into the district's EPA-approved title V program. 3 The revisions include removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions in section 2 (M), “Emergency” definition, and section I (12), “Emergency Provisions.”

The NSAQMD Title V Operating Permit Program is implemented through its “Title V Federal Operating Permits” rule, codified as NSAQMD Rule 522. On November 21, 2003, the EPA approved the NSAQMD Title V Operating Permit Program, which became effective January 1, 2004 (68 FR 65637, November 21, 2003). On October 28, 2024, the NSAQMD amended its Rule 522, and on February 4, 2025, CARB submitted the revision of Rule 522 for approval into the district's EPA-approved title V program. 4 The revisions include removal of emergency affirmative defense provisions in Section 6.12, “Emergency Provisions.”

As mentioned above, the revisions to these rules include removing emergency affirmative defense provisions. 5 Our Technical Support Document (TSD) provides more details for each of these revisions and how they meet EPA requirements. The EPA finds these revisions acceptable as title V program revisions and consistent with part 70 provisions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2), the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the ACAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program submitted on April 25, 2025, the CCAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program submitted on August 21, 2025, the GBUAPCD Title V Operating Permit Program submitted on July 3, 2025, and the NSAQMD Title V Operating Permit Program submitted on February 4, 2025. The revisions meet the requirements of section 502 of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the revisions discussed in this document.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve title V operating permit program revisions that comply with the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d). Thus, in reviewing title V permit program submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• 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.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the proposed title V action is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the factors in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see also the discussion in Unit II.).

EPA is proposing SNURs for the chemical substances discussed in Unit III. These SNURs, if finalized as proposed, would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

This action applies to you if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This action may also apply to certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification requirements under TSCA ( https://www.epa.gov/tsca-import-export-requirements ).

Chemical importers are subject to TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612), the requirements in 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127, 19 CFR 127.28, and 40 CFR 707.20. Importers of chemical substances in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including regulations issued under TSCA sections 5, 6, 7 and Title IV.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after August 31, 2026 are subject to TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN reporting requirements for potential manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is briefly summarized here.

If a SNUN is submitted, costs are an estimated $45,496 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $14,976 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN (including registration for EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)), and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $37,000 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(c)(2)(ii) and (d), or, if they are a small business as defined at 13 CFR 121.201, a reduced user fee of $6,480 (40 CFR 700.45(c)(1)(ii) and (d)). The costs of submission for SNUNs will not be incurred by any company unless a company decides to pursue a significant new use as defined in these SNURs. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs and fees as they are known at the time of this rulemaking.

EPA has also evaluated the potential costs associated with the export notification requirements under TSCA section 12(b) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications ( i.e., the number of countries to which the chemical is exported). While EPA is unable to make any estimate of the likely number of export notifications for the chemical substances covered by these SNURs, as stated in the accompanying economic analysis, the estimated cost of the export notification requirement on a per unit basis is approximately $106.

Do not submit CBI to EPA through email or https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR parts 2 and 703.

When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

This unit provides general information about SNURs. For additional information about EPA's new chemical program go to https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca .

TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this Unit and discussed in Unit III.

These proposed SNURs are based on orders issued to certain companies for substances that were the subject of PMN submissions. Those orders were issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). The TSCA orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs extend those protective measures to any person intending to manufacture, process, use, distribute in commerce, or dispose of the new chemical substances subject to orders and identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).

Under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B), no person may manufacture a new chemical substance or manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use until EPA makes a determination as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3) and takes any required action. The issuance of a SNUR is not a risk determination itself, only a notification requirement for “significant new uses,” so that the Agency has the opportunity to review the SNUN for the significant new use and make a TSCA section 5(a)(3) risk determination.

During review of the PMNs submitted that identify chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. Based on the findings outlined in Unit III., TSCA section 5(e) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. As a general matter, EPA believes it is necessary to follow a TSCA order with a SNUR that identifies the absence of those protective measures as significant new uses to ensure that all manufacturers and processors—not just the party subject to a TSCA order are held to the same standard.

EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency has determined it is appropriate:

• To identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).

• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

• To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.

Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory .

EPA is proposing to establish certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR parts 2 and 703. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under these regulations, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure at 40 CFR 721.11 to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI. Under these procedures, a manufacturer or processor may ask EPA to identify the confidential significant new use subject to the SNUR. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance, EPA will identify the confidential significant new use to that person. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the bona fide submission under the procedure in 40 CFR 721.11 into a single step.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to SNURs, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. In addition, provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700.

Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use of the chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register , a statement of EPA's findings.

As discussed in Unit I.C.2., persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b), and persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements. See also https://www.epa.gov/tsca-import-export-requirements.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review and received determinations under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C). TSCA Orders have been issued for these chemical substances and the PMN submitters are required by the TSCA Orders to submit a SNUN before undertaking activities that would be designated as significant new uses in these SNURs. Additionally, the identities of many of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have been claimed as confidential per 40 CFR 720.85, further reducing the likelihood that another party would manufacture or process the substances for an activity that would be designated as a significant new use. Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses identified in Unit III. are ongoing.

When the chemical substances identified in Unit III. are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. Persons who begin manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified on or after the designated cutoff date specified in Unit III.A. would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and EPA would have to take action under TSCA section 5 allowing manufacture or processing to proceed.

SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information ( e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: If a person is required to submit information for a chemical substance pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4, then TSCA section 5(b)(1)(A) requires such information to be submitted to EPA at the time of submission of the SNUN.

In the absence of a rule, TSCA order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. To assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN, submitters are encouraged, but not required, to provide the potentially useful information as identified for the chemical substance in Unit III.C.

EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). For more information on alternative test methods and strategies to reduce vertebrate animal testing, visit https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/alternative-test-methods-and-strategies-reduce.

The potentially useful information described in Unit III. may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs that provide detailed information about human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

EPA designates July 30, 2026 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. This designation is explained in more detail in Unit II.E.

For each chemical substance identified in Unit III.C., EPA provides the following information:

• PMN number(s) (as well as the proposed CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this document).

• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

• Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) or Accession Number (if assigned for confidential chemical identities).

• Basis for the SNUR ( e.g., effective date of and basis for the corresponding TSCA Order).

• Potentially useful information.

The regulatory text section of the proposed rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.

These proposed SNURs include PMN substances that are subject to orders issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B). Those TSCA Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying TSCA Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).

The substances subject to the proposed SNURs in this document are as follows, listed by PMN number and with the proposed CFR citation:

Chemical Names: Reaction products of aluminoxanes, Me, Me group-terminated and (alkylcycloalkylene)dialkylzirconium (generic) (P-21-7) and reaction products of aluminoxanes, Me, Me group-terminated and cycloalkylene dialkyl tetrahydroindenyl zirconium (generic) (P-21-8).

CASRNs or Accession Nos.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 20, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use will be as catalysts. Based on pyrophoric nature (violent reactivity) of the PMN substances, EPA has identified concerns for corrosion to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Based on test data for hydrolysis and oxidation products and components, EPA has also identified concerns for neurotoxicity, systemic, and developmental effects. Based on comparison to analogous aluminum compounds and zirconium compounds, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 24 ppb (P-21-7) and 20 ppb (P-21-8). The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substances only in an enclosed process;

• Disposal of the PMN substances, or waste streams containing the PMN substances, only by incineration;

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• No release of the PMN substances, or any waste stream containing the PMN substances, to water; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: 5-Hexen-2-one, 1-bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl-.

CASRN: 1352216-91-1.

Effective Date of modified TSCA Order: April 14, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the use will be as a fragrance in household consumer products. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for acute neurotoxicity, skin and eye irritation, and skin sensitization. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has also identified concerns for systemic effects. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 23 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Manufacture of the PMN substance only below an annual volume of 50,000 kilograms per year;

• Processing for use and use of the PMN substance only as a fragrance ingredient;

• Use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed 1% by weight;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 23 ppb, except that waste streams from formulations containing 2% or less of the PMN substance by weight are exempt from this requirement; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures. On April 1, 2026, EPA received a request from the PMN submitter to modify the language in Written Agreement and Exemptions sections of the Order. EPA approved the request and issued a modified Order, effective April 14, 2026, adding the wastewater treatment removal rate ( i.e., percentage) used in the Agency's environmental and exposure assessments to the compliance criteria for the water release limit of 23 ppb.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of metabolism or pharmacokinetics, specific target organ toxicity, and chronic aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Methanesulfonic acid,l,l,l-trifluoro-, ytterbium(3+) salt (3:1).

CASRN: 54761-04-5.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: June 26, 2025.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use will be as a stabilizer. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for acute toxicity, irritation to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and point-of-contact (glandular stomach, duodenum), neurological, and developmental effects. Based on comparison to analogous lanthanides or rare earth metals, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 9 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed the confidential concentration by weight listed in the Order in final formulation in the consumer product;

• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in a liquid formulation;

• No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance in any manner that results in inhalation exposure;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, to water; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of acute toxicity, developmental toxicity, eye irritation, neurotoxicity, pulmonary effects, skin irritation, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Ethyl cyclohexenyl propionate, ethyl cyclohexenyl propionate (generic).

CASRN or Accession No.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: February 26, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the use will be as a fragrance ingredient, being blended (mixed) with other fragrance ingredients to make fragrance oils that will be sold to industrial and commercial customers for their incorporation into soaps, detergents, cleaners and other similar household and consumer products. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for skin sensitization and reproductive and developmental effects. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 13 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• No manufacture of the PMN substance beyond the confidential combined annual production volume listed in the Order;

• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in consumer products where the combined concentration of the PMN substance exceeds 1% by weight;

• Use of the PMN substance only as fragrance ingredients;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 13 ppb. Waste streams from formulations containing 1% or less of the PMN substance combined by weight are exempt from this restriction; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of chronic aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Fatty acids, C8-14, 2,3-diesters with rel-(2R,3S)-2,3,4-trihydroxybutyl.beta.-D-mannopyranoside acetate.

CASRN: 2711034-48-7.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: February 19, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the use will be as a surfactant. Based on the intended use as a surfactant, and a structural alert for nonionic surfactants, EPA has identified concerns for lung toxicity (surfactant effects). Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has also identified concerns for skin irritation and eye corrosion. Based on comparison to analogous nonionic surfactants, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 550 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;

• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;

• Use of the PMN substance only as an industrial cleaner;

• Use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed 5% by weight;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 550 ppb; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of skin irritation, eye damage, pulmonary effects, skin corrosion, specific target organ toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Names: Graphene, turbostratic, 3-9 layers (P-24-86) and graphene, turbostratic, ~32 layers (P-24-87).

CASRNs or Accession Nos.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: February 20, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMNs state that the use will be for various applications including in lubricants and oils, coatings, biosensors, energy storage, resins, thermosets, thermoplastics, hollow glass microspheres, printed inks, bullet proof armor and glass, and composites. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances and physical/chemical properties of the PMN substances, EPA has identified concerns for lung effects (lung overload) and systemic effects. Due to insufficient information, EPA was unable to estimate the environmental hazard of the PMN substances. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of the PMN substance for battery, electronics, and alternative energy storage manufacture or as concrete and asphalt additives only in a manner that does not result in inhalation exposure;

• Use of the PMN substances for battery, electronics, and alternative energy storage manufacture only if the amount of the PMN substances does not exceed the confidential percentage by weight listed in the Order in the electrode;

• No processing for use or use of the PMN substances in a consumer product;

• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure. If the PMN substances are spray-applied or if the substances are at greater than 6% in formulation by weight and engineer controls reduce inhalation exposures by less than 94%, then the APF for the required respirator is at least 1,000;

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• No release of the PMN substances, or any waste stream containing the PMN substances, to water; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of pulmonary effects, specific target organ toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substances. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: 2-Pyrrolidinone, polymer with 2-oxepanone.

CASRN: 25101-88-6.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 4, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the use will be as an additive for architectural paints (elongation improvers). Based on high molecular weight, negligible water solubility, and comparison to analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates, EPA has identified concerns for lung toxicity via lung overload. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Use of a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 where there is a potential for inhalation exposure;

• Manufacture of the PMN substance only below an annual volume of 10,000 kilograms;

• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;

• Use of the PMN substance only if the concentration of the PMN substance does not exceed 20% by weight in the final formulation; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of pulmonary effects testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Modified tall oil fatty acid polyamine condensate (generic).

CASRN or Accession No.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 3, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use will be as an additive in paving applications. Based on the pH of the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for corrosion to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Based on structure, EPA has identified concerns for lung effects (surfactancy and cationic binding). Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has also identified concerns for acute toxicity, skin sensitization, and systemic effects. Based on comparison to analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 3 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in a manner that does not result in inhalation exposure to the PMN substance;

• Use of the PMN substance only as a site-limited intermediate;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 3 ppb; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of acute toxicity, eye corrosion, pulmonary effects, skin corrosion, skin sensitization, specific target organ toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Carbomonocyclic alcohol, 4,4-[[6-(heteroatom-substituted carbomonocycle)- heteromonocycle-2,4-diyl]heteroatom-substituted]bis- (generic).

CASRN or Accession No.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 9, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use will be in photolithography. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for skin sensitization, respiratory sensitization, carcinogenicity, and systemic effects. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 3 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• No manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance in any manner that generates a vapor, mist, dust, or aerosol containing the PMN substance unless in an enclosed process;

• No processing for use or use of the PMN substance in a consumer product;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, resulting in surface water concentrations that exceed 3 ppb; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of carcinogenicity, skin sensitization, specific target organ toxicity, pulmonary effects, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Name: Arsine, (1,1-dimethylethyl)-.

CASRN: 4262-43-5.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 16, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMN states that the use will be as tertiarybutylarsine (TBA) used in semiconductor manufacturing. Based on submitted test data on the PMN substance and its reactivity, EPA has identified concerns for acute handling hazard. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has also identified concerns for neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, genetic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and portal-of-entry, systemic, dermal, reproductive, and developmental effects. Based on reactivity of the PMN substance, EPA has also identified concerns for corrosion to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 163 ppb. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Manufacture, processing, and use of the PMN substance only in an enclosed process;

• No release of the PMN substance, or any waste stream containing the PMN substance, to water; and

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of skin corrosion, eye corrosion, and aquatic toxicity testing may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

Chemical Names: Carbomonocyclic substituted heteromonocyclic, salt with carbopolycyclic sulfocarboxylate (generic) (P-25-126) and carbomonocyclic sulfonium, salt with carbopolycyclic sulfocarboxylate (generic) (P-25-127).

CASRNs or Accession Nos.: Not available.

Effective Date of TSCA Order: March 4, 2026.

Basis for TSCA Order: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) uses will be as ingredients used in the manufacture of photoresist. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substances (as described in the New Chemical Program's PBT category at 64 FR 60194; November 1999) and in the absence of data, the anions of the PMN substances, the cation photodegradation product of the P-25-127 PMN substance, and the cation of the P-25-126 PMN substance are potentially persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals. EPA estimates that the anions of the PMN substances and the cation of the P-25-126 PMN substance will persist in the environment for more than six months and that their potential to bioaccumulate is unknown. EPA estimates that the cation photodegradation product of the P-25-127 PMN substance will persist in the environment for more than six months and estimates a bioaccumulation factor of greater than or equal to 5,000. Based on comparison to analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for acute toxicity, irritation to the skin and respiratory tract, genetic toxicity, and neurological and systemic effects for the cations of the P-25-126 and P-25-127 PMN substances and eye corrosion for the cation of the P-25-127 PMN substance. Based on photoreactivity of the PMN substances, EPA has also identified concerns for photosensitization for the cations of the PMN substances. Due to insufficient information, EPA was unable to estimate the environmental hazard of the PMN substances. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that, in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

• No manufacture of the PMN substances beyond the time limits specified in the Order without submittal to EPA the results of certain testing described in the Testing section of the Order;

• Use of personal protective equipment where there is a potential for dermal exposure;

• Establishment of a hazard communication program, including human health and environmental precautionary statements on each label and in the SDS;

• No processing of the PMN substances in any way that generates vapor, dust, mist, or aerosol in a non-enclosed process;

• Use of the PMN substances only for the confidential use listed in the Order;

• No domestic manufacture of the PMN substances ( i.e., import only);

• Import of the PMN substances only in solution unless in sealed containers weighing 5 kilograms or less; and

• No exceedance of the confidential annual importation volumes listed in the Order.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially Useful Information: EPA has determined that certain information about the physical/chemical properties, fate, bioaccumulation, environmental hazard, and human health effects of the PMN substances may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that will be designated by this SNUR. The submitter has agreed not to exceed the time limits specified in the Order without performing the required Tier I and Tier II testing outlined in the Testing section of the Order.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because significant new use rules for new chemicals under TSCA section 5 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

The information collection requirements related to SNURs have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per submission. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

EPA always welcomes your feedback on the burden estimates. When submitting comments on these proposed SNURs, include comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for improving the collection instruments or instruction or minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, EPA has concluded that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities.

A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 23 in FY2023, 7 in FY2024, and 10 in FY2025, and only a fraction of these submissions were from small businesses.

In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $37,000 to $6,480. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $14,967 per SNUN submission for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with these proposed SNURs are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684 (FRL-5597-1)), the Agency presented its general determination that SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by SNURs, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by these SNURs. In addition, the estimated costs of this action to the private sector do not exceed $183 million or more in any one year (the 1995 dollars are adjusted to 2023 dollars for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator). The estimated costs for this action are discussed in Unit I.D.

This action will not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.

This action will not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern a human health risk, EPA's 2026 Policy on Children's Health also does not apply. Although the establishment of these SNURs do not address an existing children's environmental health concern because the chemical uses involved are not ongoing uses, SNURs require that persons notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of the identified chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the SNUR. This notification allows EPA to assess the intended uses to identify potential risks and take appropriate actions before the activities commence.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

This action does not involve any technical standards subject to NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).