Subpart A of 5 CFR part 178 prescribes general procedures applicable to claims against the United States that may be settled by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) involving Federal civilian employees' compensation and leave, deceased federal employees, and checks issued to a veteran who dies on or after the last day of the period covered by the check. Claims under the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative agencies pursuant to specific statutory authority, claims concerning matters that are subject to negotiated grievance procedures under collective bargaining agreements, and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are not subject to these provisions.

Under 31 U.S.C. 3702(a)(2), current or former federal civilian employees may file a claim with OPM disputing their compensation or leave. Such claims typically involve backpay, unpaid overtime, unused annual leave upon separation, or denied allowances. For example, if an overseas employee has reason to believe their request for living quarters allowance was inappropriately denied by the agency, the employee may file a claim with OPM. OPM is not granted policy exception authority over any provisions of implementing regulations or agency-specific regulations.

Under 5 U.S.C. 5583, an employing agency pays money due a deceased Federal employee to the beneficiary the employee designated, or, absent a designation, to the employee's widow or widower. This provision applies to unpaid compensation owed at the time of an employee's death, such as final salary or unused leave. See the definition of “money due” at 5 U.S.C. 5581(2). A designated beneficiary, or the widow or widower of the deceased employee, may file a claim with OPM if they have not been paid the money owed.

A third type of claim addressed by this rule are claims to receive accrued benefits due to a deceased veteran. See 38 U.S.C. 5121 and 5122. Potential claimants for these funds include the veteran's spouse, children, or dependent parents.

OPM developed an electronic filing (eFile) system to support existing regulatory provisions. That system will be used for all appeals and claims to allow for faster receipt facilitating OPM's processing and review. To comply with this and inform the public, OPM must update its administrative claims regulations at 5 CFR part 178, subpart A, which provides the filing instructions.

With this rule, OPM updates the provisions concerning administrative claims submissions by removing the inaccurate information such as the OPM office name and mailing address. It also removes the request for a facsimile number. OPM is also revising the submission provision to require, with limited exception, use of OPM's eFile system for filing a claim. OPM is also requiring claims to include the employing agency name, the claimant's email address, and the “agency employee email address.” This information will allow efficient review of claims and facilitate communication with the appropriate people. With the eFile system, it is important that OPM capture the claimant's email address on the claim submission.

Claims filed before September 29, 2026 will be processed under the requirements in effect on the date of submission or postmark. Any submissions on or after September 29, 2026 must comply with the requirements of this part as amended by this rule. OPM notes that it currently accepts claims submitted by mail and email. Claims that are already in process will continue to be processed outside of the new eFile system.

This is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice and is therefore exempt from the prior public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The rule prescribes the manner and format in which claims and supporting documents are submitted to OPM. It does not change who is eligible to file a claim, the substantive bases on which a claim may be brought, the applicable time limits for filing, the evidence required to establish a claim, or the standards OPM applies in adjudicating claims. Because the rule governs the process for submitting matters to OPM rather than the substantive standards that determine their outcome, it does not alter the substantive rights or obligations of claimants.

OPM acknowledges that the rule changes the required method of filing by directing claimants to use OPM's eFile system in place of postal mail or electronic mail. To ensure that this procedural change does not impede any claimant's ability to file, the rule preserves an exemption process under which OPM may authorize an alternative method of filing for a party or representative who cannot reasonably file electronically. § 178.102(e)(2). The change in filing method therefore does not deprive any claimant of the ability to submit a claim or affect the substantive disposition of claims.

As an independent and alternative basis, OPM finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that notice and public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists to proceed without prior notice and comment. The rule makes procedural and technical changes—correcting outdated office and contact information and directing filers to OPM's electronic filing system. OPM does not anticipate significant adverse comment but is issuing the rule as a direct final rule and will withdraw it and proceed by notice of proposed rulemaking if it receives significant adverse comment, as described below.

This rule will be effective September 29, 2026, without further action unless significant adverse comments are received. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) why the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If such comments are received, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and a proposed rule for comments will be published. If no such comments are received, this direct final rule will become effective 45 days after the comment period expires. In determining whether a significant adverse comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, OPM will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response had it been submitted in a standard notice and comment process. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

OPM determined that this rule was needed to correct outdated information in the regulations and to allow for the use of modern technology in its interactions with Federal employees, former Federal employees, and survivors of deceased Federal employees who may experience a delay in processing times due to the current mail-in procedures. Claims are often delayed in themailroom, misrouted to another organization, or wait to be scanned in for processing. Using an electronic filing system eliminates the possibility of misrouting and the need to scan in the claims.

This rule will allow OPM to leverage an electronic filing system, which will improve the efficiency of appeal and claim processing for claimants and OPM staff. Moving to the electronic filing system is a more secure and cost-effective way to receive claims and appeals, without the threat of losing sensitive information in themail or having to be received and sorted in themailroom. It also will expedite the processing of cases, allowing the adjudication of cases to be more timely. The level of confidentiality will not be compromised with compensation and leave cases because, like the process today, OPM reviews the claim first to comply with any claimant request for confidentiality prior to reaching out to the agency to inform the agency that a claim has been filed. It also reduces the risk of losing sensitive or personally identifiable information via U.S. mail. Sending the claims and all supporting documentation through the electronic filing system creates an automatic record, making it easier for OPM and claimants to track to make sure that all claims are being received and considered by OPM.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is a non-substantive, procedural rule.

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

This rulemaking meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined this rule does not meet the criteria listed in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This regulatory action will change the reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OPM has created an e-filing system for use in collecting and maintaining adjudication records for a variety of different existing regulatory provisions. That system will be used to support the changes in this final rule. OPM has submitted a request for a new information collection to the Office of Management and Budget for the e-filing system. (see 91 FR 46802 (July 24, 2026)

After review of OPM's existing System of Records Notices (SORNs), OPM has determined that the following SORNs may apply to information stored in the e-filing system: OPM/GOVT-1, OPM/GOVT-9, OPM/CENTRAL-2, OPM/CENTRAL-5, and OPM/CENTRAL-9. OPM may disclose information outside the agency when such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. The information collected through the e-filing system may be shared outside of OPM pursuant to the routine uses published in the following System of Records Notices: OPM/GOVT-1, General Personnel Records; OPM/GOVT-9, File on Position Classification Appeals, Job Grading Appeals, Retained Grade or Pay Appeals, and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claims and Complaints; OPM/CENTRAL-2, Complaints and Inquiries Records; OPM/CENTRAL-5, Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignment Records; and OPM/CENTRAL-9, OPM Suitability Adjudications Files. Principal routine uses include:

• To parties engaged in the adjudication or review of the matter, such as entities responsible for appeals, oversight, or administrative review.

• To individuals or organizations participating in fact finding or decision making, including witnesses, subject matter experts, consultants, or others assisting in resolving the matter.

• To oversight or compliance bodies responsible for reviewing program integrity, privacy compliance, or adherence to applicable laws, rules, or policies.

• To entities responsible for addressing potential violations of law, where the information indicates a possible breach of civil or criminal statutes.

• To courts or adjudicative bodies when the information is relevant to litigation or administrative proceedings.

• To contractors or service providers engaged by OPM to support system operations, case management, or other authorized functions, when access is necessary for them to perform their duties.

• To records management authorities responsible for ensuring proper maintenance, archiving, or disposition of Federal records.

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 178, as follows:

OPM regulations in 5 CFR part 300 establish basic requirements for Federal employment practices. Section 300.103 requires that each employment practice be based on a job analysis, that there be a rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled and the employment practice used, and that employment practices not discriminate on prohibited bases. Current § 300.103(c) also states that employee-selection procedures must meet the standards established by UGESP, where applicable.

OPM's category rating regulation at 5 CFR 337.303(b) currently requires agencies to define each quality category through job analysis conducted in accordance with UGESP at 29 CFR part 1607 and part 300 of title 5. Similar language appears in OPM's regulations regarding the rating and selection of Reemployment Priority List candidates using category rating in 5 CFR 330.213(d). OPM's Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program regulation at 5 CFR 720.206 and the Appendix to that Part advise agencies that selection processes, including job qualifications, personnel procedures, and criteria, must be consistent with UGESP.

On June 9, 2026, the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued an opinion titled “Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII.”  1 OLC concluded that existing EEOC interpretations, including UGESP, embrace an unconstitutional reading of Title VII insofar as they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer's likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decision-making.

OLC also concluded that UGESP's validation study framework is inconsistent with Title VII's business-necessity defense, properly understood, because it imposes detailed and burdensome validation requirements beyond what Title VII requires. OLC further concluded that Federal regulations encouraging race-conscious action in response to actual or anticipated disparate impacts conflict with Title VII and the Constitution.

Executive branch legal interpretations issued by the President or the Attorney General are controlling on executive-branch employees. Exec. Order 14215, § 7, 90 FR 10,447, 10,449 (Feb. 24, 2025); cf. Exec. Order No. 12146, 44 FR 42,657, 42,658 (July 20, 1979). OLC exercises, by delegation from the Attorney General, the Attorney General's statutory authority to render legal advice and opinions to the President and to heads of Executive Branch departments and agencies. See 28 U.S.C. 510-513; 28 CFR 0.25(a). OLC's core function is to provide controlling legal advice to Executive Branch officials on questions of law that are centrally important to the functioning of the Federal Government, and OLC's legal conclusions are binding within the Executive Branch unless and until superseded by controlling authority.

This interim final rule removes OPM regulatory text that incorporates, requires, or advises consistency with UGESP. OPM is taking this action to conform its regulations to OLC's opinion and to eliminate any suggestion that Federal agencies must apply UGESP's adverse-impact and validation-study framework as a binding condition of lawful Federal selection procedures.

The rule is limited. It does not remove the job-analysis requirement in § 300.103(a). It does not remove the requirement in § 300.103(b) that there be a rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled and the employment practice used. It does not remove the requirement that the employment practice be professionally developed. It does not remove the nondiscrimination language in § 300.103(c). It also does not alter agency obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, veterans' preference laws, merit-system principles, prohibited personnel practice provisions under 5 U.S.C. 2301, or any other applicable Federal law.

OPM expects agencies to continue to use job-related, merit-based, and professionally sound selection procedures. This rule removes UGESP as a binding or advisory regulatory standard in the affected OPM provisions; this rule does not prohibit sound professional assessment practices.

OPM is issuing this rule as an interim final rule with request for comments. OPM finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this rule without prior notice and comment because prior notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. OLC has concluded that the UGESP framework, as reflected in existing Federal employment-selection guidance, is inconsistent with Title VII and the Constitution. Because OLC's legal conclusions are controlling within the Executive Branch unless superseded by controlling authority, leaving OPM regulatory text in place that incorporates, requires, or advises consistency with UGESP would create immediate confusion for Federal agencies administering employment practices.

This rule is limited and deregulatory. It removes references to UGESP but does not eliminate OPM's independent requirements that Federal employment practices be based on job analysis, be rationally related to performance in the position to be filled, be professionally developed, and be administered without prohibited discrimination. OPM also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this rule to take effect upon publication. In addition, the rule relieves a restriction within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because it removes regulatory text that could be read to require agencies to apply UGESP's adverse-impact and validation-study framework as a condition of OPM regulation.

OPM invites comments on all aspects of this interim final rule. After considering timely comments, OPM may issue a subsequent final rule confirming, modifying, or withdrawing this interim final rule.

Part 300—Employment (General). OPM amends § 300.103(c) by removing the sentence stating that employee-selection procedures must meet the standards established by UGESP, where applicable. The remaining nondiscrimination language in § 300.103(c), and the job-analysis and rational relationship requirements in § 300.103(a) and (b), remain in effect.

Part 330—Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General). OPM amends § 330.213(d) by removing the reference to UGESP at 29 CFR part 1607. As amended, agencies using category rating to assess Reemployment Priority List placement priority candidates must continue to define each quality category through job analysis conducted in accordance with part 300 of title 5. This preserves OPM's Federal civil service job analysis requirements while eliminating incorporation of UGESP's adverse impact and validation framework.

Part 337—Examining System. OPM amends § 337.303(b) by removing the reference to UGESP at 29 CFR part 1607. As amended, agencies using category rating must continue to define each quality category through job analysis conducted in accordance with part 300 of title 5. This preserves OPM's Federal civil-service job-analysis requirements while eliminating incorporation of UGESP's adverse-impact and validation framework.

Part 720—Affirmative Employment Programs. OPM removes the advisory text in § 720.206 stating that agency selection processes must be consistent with UGESP and reserves the section. In addition, OPM removes similar text in the Part 720 Appendix that states that OPM should advise all agencies that all job qualifications, personnel procedures and criteria must be consistent with UGESP. Part 720 continues to govern recruitment program requirements, and this rule does not otherwise amend agency recruitment obligations.

This rule is deregulatory. It removes regulatory text that could be read to require agencies to apply UGESP's adverse-impact and validation-study framework to Federal selection procedures. The rule does not require agencies to adopt new systems, conduct new studies, or submit new reports. OPM expects that agencies may need to review internal policy documents, delegated examining materials, category-rating procedures, or training materials to remove outdated references to UGESP, but OPM does not expect this review to impose significant costs.

The rule may reduce administrative burden by clarifying that agencies need not conduct UGESP validation studies or adverse-impact analyses as a matter of OPM regulation. Agencies remain responsible for ensuring that selection practices are based on merit, supported by job analysis, rationally related to job performance, professionally developed, and administered without prohibited discrimination.

The amendments made by this rule are severable. If any provision of this rule, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, OPM intends that the remaining provisions and applications remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

OPM has examined this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This rule removes regulatory requirements and advisory text and does not impose new compliance obligations. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. For the reasons discussed above, this rule is a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192.

The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule applies only to Federal agencies and Federal employment practices.

This 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, this rule does not have federalism implications warranting preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule is intended to provide a clear legal standard by removing obsolete or legally inconsistent cross-references. OPM has reviewed this rule in accordance with applicable civil-justice-reform principles and determined that it is written to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more, adjusted annually for inflation, in any one year. Accordingly, no written assessment under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is required.

This rule does not contain a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It does not require agencies, employees, applicants, or members of the public to submit information to OPM.

This rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act. OPM will submit the rule and other required information to Congress and the Comptroller General before the rule takes effect. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR parts 300, 330, 337 and 720 as follows:

Subpart G of 5 CFR part 551 prescribes general procedures applicable to claims under FLSA (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ) that may be filed with and decided by OPM pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 204(f). Section 204(f) gives OPM the authority to administer the Act's provisions for most Federal civilian employees, including FLSA exemption status determinations, claims for minimum wage or overtime pay, and complaints arising under the child labor provisions. Claims administered by other agencies pursuant to specific statutory authority, claims concerning matters that are subject to negotiated grievance procedures under collective bargaining agreements that do not exclude FLSA matters, and claims already filed in a court of competent jurisdiction are not subject to these provisions. OPM developed an electronic filing (eFile) system to support existing regulatory provisions. That system will be used for all appeals and claims to allow for faster receipt facilitating OPM's processing and review. To comply with this and inform the public, OPM must update its administrative claims regulations in 5 CFR part 551, subpart G, which address FLSA claims for Federal employees.

With this rule, OPM updates the provisions concerning administrative claims submissions by removing the inaccurate information such as the OPM office name and mailing address. It also removes the request for a facsimile number. OPM is also revising the submission provision to require, with limited exception, use of OPM's electronic filing (eFile) system for filing a claim. This includes when an agency submits a claimant's claim to OPM at the request of the claimant. OPM is also requiring claims to include a verifiable signature (such as a wet or digital signature), the employing agency name, and the claimant's email address. This information will allow efficient review of claims and facilitate communication with the appropriate people. With the eFile system, it is important that OPM capture the claimant's email address on the claim submission.

Claims filed before September 29, 2026 will be processed under the requirements in effect on the date of submission or postmark. Any submissions on or after September 29, 2026 must comply with the requirements of this part as amended by this rule. OPM notes that it currently accepts claims submitted by mail and email. Claims that are already in process will continue to be processed outside of the new eFile system.

This is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice and is therefore exempt from the prior notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The rule prescribes the manner and format in which claims and supporting documents are submitted to OPM. It does not change who is eligible to file a claim, the substantive bases on which a claim may be brought, the applicable time limits for filing, the evidence required to establish a claim, or the standards OPM applies in adjudicating claims. Because the rule governs the process for submitting matters to OPM rather than the substantive standards that determine their outcome, it does not alter the substantive rights or obligations of claimants.

OPM acknowledges that the rule changes the required method of filing by directing claimants to use OPM's eFile system in place of postal mail or electronic mail. To ensure that this procedural change does not impede any claimant's ability to file, the rule preserves an exemption process under which OPM may authorize an alternative method of filing for a party or representative who cannot reasonably file electronically (§ 551.710(b)(7)). The change in filing method therefore does not deprive any claimant of the ability to submit a claim or affect the substantive disposition of claims.

As an independent and alternative basis, OPM finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that notice and public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists to proceed without prior notice and comment. The rule makes procedural and technical changes—correcting outdated office and contact information and directing filers to OPM's electronic filing system. OPM does not anticipate significant adverse comment but is issuing the rule as a direct final rule and will withdraw it and proceed by notice of proposed rulemaking if it receives significant adverse comment.

This rule will be effective September 29, 2026, without further action unless significant adverse comments are received. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) why the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If such comments are received, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and a proposed rule for comments will be published. If no such comments are received, this direct final rule will become effective 45 days after the comment period expires. In determining whether a significant adverse comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, OPM will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response had it been submitted in a standard notice and comment process. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

OPM determined that this rule was needed to correct outdated information in the regulations and to allow for the use of modern technology in its interactions with Federal employees, former Federal employees, or survivors of deceased Federal employees who experience a delay in processing times due to the current mail-in procedures of claims. Moving to the eFile system is a more secure and cost-effective way to receive claims and appeals, as claims are often delayed by mail processing and can be misrouted. In addition, claims may be delayed while being scanned for processing. Using the eFile system eliminates the possibility of misrouting and the need to scan in the claims. It also will expedite the processing of cases, allowing the adjudication of cases to be more timely. The level of confidentiality will not be compromised with Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases because, like the process today, OPM reviews the claim first to comply with any claimant request for confidentiality prior to reaching out to the agency to inform the agency that a claim has been filed.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is a non-substantive, procedural rule.

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

This rulemaking meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined this rule does not meet the criteria listed in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This regulatory action will change the reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OPM has created an eFile system for use in collecting and maintaining adjudication records for a variety of different existing regulatory provisions. That system will be used to support the changes in this final rule. OPM has submitted a request for a new information collection to the Office of Management and Budget for the eFile system (see 91 FR 46802 (July 24, 2026)).

After review of OPM's existing System of Records Notices (SORNs), OPM has determined that the following SORNs may apply to information stored in the eFile system: OPM/GOVT-1, OPM/GOVT-9, OPM/CENTRAL-2, OPM/CENTRAL-5, and OPM/CENTRAL-9. OPM may disclose information outside the agency when such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. The information collected through the eFile system may be shared outside of OPM pursuant to the routine uses published in the following System of Records Notices: OPM/GOVT-1, General Personnel Records; OPM/GOVT-9, File on Position Classification Appeals, Job Grading Appeals, Retained Grade or Pay Appeals, and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claims and Complaints; OPM/CENTRAL-2, Complaints and Inquiries Records; OPM/CENTRAL-5, Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignment Records; and OPM/CENTRAL-9, OPM Suitability Adjudications Files. Principal routine uses include:

• To parties engaged in the adjudication or review of the matter, such as entities responsible for appeals, oversight, or administrative review.

• To individuals or organizations participating in fact finding or decision making, including witnesses, subject matter experts, consultants, or others assisting in resolving the matter.

• To oversight or compliance bodies responsible for reviewing program integrity, privacy compliance, or adherence to applicable laws, rules, or policies.

• To entities responsible for addressing potential violations of law, where the information indicates a possible breach of civil or criminal statutes.

• To courts or adjudicative bodies when the information is relevant to litigation or administrative proceedings.

• To contractors or service providers engaged by OPM to support system operations, case management, or other authorized functions, when access is necessary for them to perform their duties.

• To records management authorities responsible for ensuring proper maintenance, archiving, or disposition of Federal records.

The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 551 as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends the regulatory provisions under the Clingstone Peach Diversion Program (7 CFR part 82). This rule is issued under the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935, as amended (Act) (7 U.S.C. 612c). This action has been determined to be non-significant and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the review process required by Executive Order 12866. The annual effect of this rule on the economy will be below the $100 million threshold for mandatory review established in the Executive Order. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” as, pursuant to section (1), this interim rule amends an existing regulation and does not promulgate any new regulation. Further, the amended regulation will be voluntary, and the prospective regulated parties will be free to determine if, and to what extent, they wish to participate, thus aligning with the intent of the Executive Order.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which requires Federal agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has determined this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect.

Programs to reestablish the purchasing power of U.S. farmers are authorized by clause (3) of section 32 of the Act, hereinafter referred to as “Section 32.” (7 U.S.C. 612c). Section 32 authorizes USDA to reestablish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in connection with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption. Section 32 also authorizes USDA to use funds at such times, and in such manner, and in such amounts, as USDA finds will effectuate substantial accomplishments of any one or more of the purposes of the section. USDA's determinations as to what constitutes normal production for domestic consumption shall be final.

The diversion Program as reestablished herein is expected to incentivize clingstone peach growers to voluntarily reduce excess production capacity through the removal of clingstone peach trees. The Program is intended to reestablish the purchasing power of California clingstone peach growers who have suffered from systemic overproduction and low commodity prices. Those negative economic conditions are the result of declining demand for canned peaches over the past two decades and increasing competition in the domestic market from imported canned peaches. Economic conditions in the domestic clingstone peach industry were further challenged in 2025 by the closure of a canned fruit processing facility in California, leaving only one cooperatively owned peach canning company, operating two processing facilities, in the state.

Domestic production of clingstone peaches is concentrated in California. Although there are more than 200 peach varieties, there are just two basic types: clingstone and freestone. Clingstone peaches—so named because their flesh “clings” to the stone, or pit—are almost exclusively canned due to their ability to retain flavor and textural consistency. Other relatively minor uses include frozen peaches, baby food, and fruit concentrate for juice. Freestone peaches—so named because their flesh is readily removed from the stone—are primarily produced for the fresh market, with secondary outlets including the frozen and dried fruit market.

Peaches are grown commercially in more than 20 states. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that, in 2024, California produced about 75 percent of all types of peaches (clingstone and freestone) grown in the U.S. Other significant peach producing states, including South Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Colorado, had a combined production of a little more than 24 percent of the U.S. total. NASS reports that U.S. production of processed clingstone peaches totaled approximately 312,650 tons in 2024. Of this total, 299,170 tons, or 96 percent, were produced in California.

Globally, China and Greece are the world's top producers of canned peaches and have been the largest exporters to the U.S. According to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the U.S. has imported an average of approximately 53,000 tons of canned peaches from Greece per year over the last three tears, followed closely by China with an average of 50,000 tons. Thailand, Chile, Spain, and South Africa are other top exporters to the U.S., each averaging between 2,500 tons to 5,500 tons of canned peaches per year since 2023.

Since the 1990s, domestic canned peach production has been declining, with NASS reporting that California clingstone peach production has fallen from 530,000 tons in 2004 to 228,250 tons in 2025. Once a net exporter of canned peaches, the U.S. has been a net importer for the past several decades as production has increasingly moved offshore. This increased reliance on imports is due to several factors, including high domestic labor and other input costs, subsidized over-production in competing countries, unfavorable exchange rates, and unfair, non-reciprocal trade practices. Labor costs, which account for more than two-thirds of a grower's direct production costs, as well as the costs of energy, chemicals, fertilizer, and equipment have climbed dramatically over the last few years. Producer prices have not kept pace with these increased costs.

The increased consumption of imported canned peaches has contributed to a significant consolidation of the domestic canned peach industry in California. Between 2005 and 2022, the number of growers declined from about 700 to approximately 450, according to the latest figures published by NASS. In addition, many of California's domestic fruit canning operations were permanently closed over that period. In the 1980s, there were 11 processors of canned peaches across the state. In 2000, the largest processor of clingstone peaches at the time, Tri-Valley Growers, declared bankruptcy and closed its eight canning facilities. The industry saw additional consolidation in the 2010s with the closure of Del Monte Foods' Kingsburg, CA plant in 2012 and Seneca Foods' Modesto, CA plant in 2018. Most recently, on July 1, 2025, Del Monte Foods declared bankruptcy and announced plans to close its sole remaining California cannery, leaving only a single processor entity, Pacific Coast Producers (PCP), operating two processing facilities in the state.

As a result of these conditions, bearing acres of clingstone peaches in California have declined from an estimated 19,900 acres in 2014 to an estimated 13,300 acres in 2025. However, due in large part to 20-year peach contracts being offered by Del Monte Foods pre-bankruptcy, farmers planted more than 4,300 new acres of clingstone peach trees between 2023 and 2025. While some of this new acreage has been offset with concurrent acreage reductions elsewhere, the California Canning Peach Association (CCPA) estimates that, without extraordinary measures, bearing acres may increase to about 15,500 acres by 2028. The recent closure of the Del Monte Foods processing plant in Modesto, CA has greatly impaired the industry's ability to process all of the established clingstone peach production, leaving many growers without a market for their excess supply.

Once planted, clingstone peach trees take three years to produce fruit in commercial quantities. Once a peach grower has committed funds to the planting and maintenance of an orchard, it is difficult to reverse those decisions and recoup the costs. Because supply is slow to adjust to changing market conditions, without some remedial action the industry anticipates many years of canning peach production outpacing the demand for canned peaches, resulting in a continuation, if not a worsening, of disruptive market conditions.

As such, CCPA requested a diversion program on behalf of the clingstone peach growers to bring the supply and demand balance back to the industry. Established in 1922, CCPA is a nonprofit cooperative bargaining association, owned and directed by its member growers. CCPA negotiates an annual grower price and otherwise acts on behalf of its roughly 300 grower members, who collectively produce approximately 85 percent of the clingstone peaches grown in California.

The California clingstone peach industry has taken several steps to deal with its oversupply issues. The industry sponsored a diversion program in the spring of 2005, resulting in the removal of trees from approximately 2,000 acres. CCPA has also initiated and helped fund other efforts to aid the industry, including: research projects aimed at reducing the cost of production, export incentive programs to increase the volume of peach exports, and encouraging its growers to limit new plantings to better align supply with demand. However, despite the industry's efforts to mitigate its systemic supply and demand imbalance, production of clingstone peaches continues to be well in excess of normal market needs.

Following the bankruptcy of Del Monte Foods, the company formally rejected all CCPA peach contracts for 2026 and future years, leaving over 5,600 acres of peaches—many recently planted—without a processor contract and without any viable alternative market outlets. The Program, wholly consisting of a reduction in peach production capacity through the removal of peach trees, will provide relief to the peach growers who have been harmed by the contraction of the domestic peach canning industry and will assist the industry in achieving a more balanced supply-demand situation in both the short- and long-term.

On January 13, 2026, the California clingstone peach industry requested $9 million in Federal funds, inclusive of administrative costs, to reestablish the Clingstone Peach Diversion Program—a voluntary tree removal program initially implemented in 2005 (70 FR 67306, November 4, 2005). CCPA has pledged an additional $1.5 million of their funds to augment the Federal funds when the Program is effectuated.

Under the parameters of the Program, the industry expects that at least 3,000 bearing acres of clingstone peach trees will be removed, or approximately 22 percent of the 13,900 acres currently in production. To be eligible for the Program, growers must have had verifiable commercial production under a processor contract for deliveries during the 2025 crop year, with some exceptions for young trees. Non-bearing acres and orchards that have been abandoned, previously removed, or which the land is slated to be sold for commercial purposes—such as shopping centers or housing developments—will not be eligible for participation, except under certain conditions. Orchards which were contracted with a processor for crop year 2025, but which were removed on or after October 1, 2025, following the termination or rejection of such contracts due to the bankruptcy of the processor, may be eligible for reimbursement, provided that both production and tree removal can be verified and the applicant meets all other Program terms and conditions. However, growers who delivered their 2025 clingstone peach crop to a cooperative processor, and subsequently divested their cooperative processor membership rights, will not be eligible to participate in the Program or receive compensation for removal of their clingstone peach trees.

The Program will be jointly administered by AMS and CCPA under a cooperative agreement. Any California clingstone peach grower wishing to participate in the Program will be required to file an application with CCPA on a form, “Application for Clingstone Peach Diversion Program,” approved by OMB. The application period will begin on Monday, August 3, 2026, following publication of this rule announcing the terms and conditions of the Program. Applications will be accepted for 30 days on a rolling basis and will be approved in the order of receipt on a first-come, first-served basis, until either the 30-day period has elapsed or the $9 million of AMS funds are fully allocated.

Each applicant will be required to provide the information needed by AMS and CCPA to administer the Program, including, but not limited to, the location of the orchard from which trees will be removed, the total acreage to be removed, and the tonnage that was harvested from the applicable acreage in 2025. Following OMB approval, the necessary information will collected on an application form titled, “Application for Clingstone Peach Diversion Program.” Applicants must provide a Tax Identification Number (TIN) or Social Security Number (SSN), as well as a System for Award Management Unique Entity Identifier number (SAM UEI), to be eligible to participate or receive a diversion payment under the Program. SAM UEI numbers are assigned to growers after registering with the Federal Government via the SAM.gov website. Applicants will also certify that no tonnage has been, or will be, harvested in the 2026 crop year, that all equity holders in the participating acreage consent to the filing of the application, and that the land has not been, and will not be, sold for commercial development. Further, the applicant must agree not to replant clingstone peach trees on the same acreage for 10 years after the trees are removed, with consequences for non-compliance. CCPA will review each application for completeness and make every reasonable effort to contact growers to obtain any missing information prior to administrative rejection of the application.

Each approved applicant will be notified of their eligibility by CCPA on another form, “Notification of Clingstone Peach Tree Removal,” a form also to be approved by OMB. Once tree removal is completed, the approved grower will be required to fill out a portion of the “Notification” form, certifying to CCPA and AMS that they removed the clingstone peach trees as agreed and the date of such removal, and verifying the correct grower contact and identification information (TIN or SSN, as well as SAM UEI). The remainder of the form will be completed by a CCPA staff member. The staff member will verify that the approved block of clingstone peach trees has been removed, list the equivalent 2025 tonnage removed from production, and indicate the total amount of money due to the grower. The AMS-funded payment to growers will be made via a Federal Government payment system. Growers will need to register their business entity (or entities) with the Federal Government as directed on the application form to receive payment. There will not be an alternative mechanism to pay growers outside of the designated payment system.

Under the Program, growers will be paid $175 per ton ($150 per ton from AMS and $25 per ton pledged from CCPA) based on their verifiable 2025 peach production from the acreage committed to the tree diversion program, provided that payments will not exceed $4,000 per acre (AMS and CCPA total). In addition, payments under the Program will not be less than $1,500 per acre (AMS and CCPA total), allowing some compensation for trees removed from acreage that have not yet achieved full production but otherwise meet all of the other Program conditions.

AMS will pay growers $150 per verifiable ton, subject to the aforementioned minimum and maximum amounts, via a Federal Government payment system. CCPA has pledged to pay growers an additional $25 per verifiable ton. All CCPA payments to growers will be made independent of the Government payment system. AMS has no authority to mandate or effectuate the CCPA pledge, and payments to growers, if made, will be made directly from CCPA to the growers, under such terms and methods as CCPA establishes.

To be eligible for the Program, trees must currently be bearing or be young trees of pre-bearing age that were planted under a contract. Dead trees, or previously abandoned orchards, will not be eligible to participate. Trees will have to be removed no later than 60 days following the date of approval by CCPA.

Growers who participate in the Program and subsequently replant clingstone peach trees in the same location within the 10-year period following removal of the trees will be required to refund all payments received to USDA, plus interest, on the replanted acreage. Because it takes new trees at least three years to be commercially productive, this provision will effectively remove the acreage covered under the Program from the commercial production of clingstone peaches for at least 13 years.

As previously stated, the Program is expected to reduce California clingstone peach acreage by at least 3,000 acres. Based on the most recent 3-year industry average annual clingstone peach yield of 16.6 tons per acre, removal of trees from 3,000 acres could reduce annual canned peach production by approximately 50,000 tons. The decrease in production from this one-time diversion program will help align supply of clingstone peaches with demand into the future while still ensuring that the market is adequately supplied. In addition, the Program will provide the clingstone peach industry with the economic opportunity to concentrate its efforts on rebuilding canned peach demand instead of coping with issues related to oversupply.

As noted earlier, AMS will provide $9 million to fund the Program, inclusive of administrative costs, with CCPA pledging an additional $1.5 million to be administered separately by CCPA. Applications will be approved until the allocated AMS and CCPA funds have been committed, or the 30-day application period has elapsed, whichever comes first. Each participating grower will have no more than 60 days following the date of approval by CCPA.

Based on the provisions of the Program, total payments to growers (both AMS and CCPA commitments) will range from $1,500 to $4,000 per acre, which is expected to cover most of the costs of removing the trees, as well as preparing the land for other uses. Under the Program parameters, even if a grower had a yield greater than 22.9 tons per acre on the acreage committed for removal, the payment to the grower will not exceed the maximum of $4,000 per acre ($3,429 from AMS funds and up to $571 from CCPA) as provided by this rule. Conversely, if a selected block of land had a 2025 yield of 8.6 tons per acre or less, or the acreage had not achieved maturity (young trees less than four years old which did not produce enough fruit to warrant harvesting), the grower will receive the minimum of $1,500 per acre ($1,286 from AMS funds and up to $214 from CCPA). The $175 per ton payment, as well as the upper and lower limits to the amount paid per acre, are considered necessary to help ensure that enough growers participate in the Program to achieve the stated goals. The costs of tree removal relative to participating in the Program may vary depending on the number of acres removed. Some cost savings may accrue to growers when larger blocks of acreage are removed under the Program.

According to CCPA, the estimated cost of tree removal, inclusive of the removal of roots and associated debris, field leveling and tilling, fumigation applications, and weed suppression management, are estimated to be approximately $2,800 per acre. As such, the $1,500-$4,000 per acre total payment authorized under the Program is expected to offset a significant portion of the cost associated with tree removal for a qualified grower participant. A participating grower's ability to plant alternative crops on the cleared acreage is considered an additional option that may help offset the cost of the Program. Grafting another type of tree, other than a clingstone peach tree, onto the remaining rootstock after the removal of the clingstone peach tree trunks will also be allowed under the Program, further expanding the commercial options for participating growers.

The current economic conditions within the industry, specifically weak demand, reduced per capita consumption of peaches, stagnant domestic shipments and exports, increasing low-priced imports, and declining grower prices and revenues are expected to limit the incentives for replanting acreage to clingstone peach trees in the near future, thus contributing to the justification of this Program.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural producers of clingstone peaches as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,500,000 (NAICS code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming). Meanwhile, small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of equal to or less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

In the 2022 Census of Agriculture, NASS reported a total of 468 clingstone peach producing farm operations in California, with 14,142 total acres. To calculate the number of small growers that meet the SBA definition of annual receipts equal to or less than $3.5 million, the amount of acreage required to produce the volume of peaches at an average price to reach $3.5 million must be estimated. For that purpose, NASS price and yield data for 2024 is the most recent available.

For 2024, the average California price for clingstone peaches was $0.314 per pound ($628 per ton) and clingstone peach average yield was reported at 33,200 pounds (16.6 tons) per acre. These figures are utilized to estimate the amount of acreage required to produce the volume of clingstone peaches to reach the SBA threshold of $3.5 million. To generate $3.5 million in annual receipts, at an average grower price of $0.314 per pound, a grower would need to produce 11,146,497 pounds of clingstone peaches ($3.5 million divided by $0.314 per pound equals 11,146,497 pounds). Given an average production of 33,200 pounds per acre, approximately 336 acres would be required for a clingstone peach grower to achieve $3.5 million in annual receipts (11,146,497 pounds divided by 33,200 pounds per acre equals 335.74 acres).

According to the 2022 Census, the number of clingstone peach acres harvested in California was 14,142 acres. Dividing the number of clingstone peach acres (14,142) by the estimated number of clingstone peach growers (468) yields average acres per farm of approximately 30.2 acres, which is considerably below the estimated 336 acres required per grower to generate $3.5 million in sales. Thus, the majority of the 468 clingstone peach farms counted in California by the 2022 Census may be considered small entities by the SBA standard.

NASS data also show the total value of utilized clingstone peach production was $144.3 million in 2024. Given that there were only two clingstone peach processing entities in operation in California in 2024, and that only one entity is currently in operation in the state, a reasonable assumption would be that the one remaining clingstone peach processor would be considered a large entity based on the SBA definition of having annual receipts of equal to or less than $34 million.

This rule reestablishes provisions under the clingstone peach diversion program (7 CFR 82) for the 2026 to 2036 period. Authority for the Program is provided in clause (3) of section 32 of the Act. Participation in the Program is voluntary, so individual growers, both large and small, can weigh the benefits and costs of the Program before deciding whether to participate.

To assess the potential impact that the Program could have on prices growers receive for their product, two potential options were considered: Abandonment, and continued production. Projected grower prices and inventories were calculated assuming the implementation of the Program and comparisons were then drawn between the potential economic benefits and costs of this implementation and the status quo alternative were no such Program implemented.

The analysis assumes that approximately 3,000 acres of clingstone peach orchards will be removed through the Program. Considering all factors, this is expected to result in the reduction of bearing acreage from 13,261 in 2025 to approximately 11,000 acres by 2028. That estimate is derived by taking the 2025 crop year bearing acreage of 13,261, subtracting the Program acreage (3,000 acres), adding in recently established acreage that was previously under contract and is expected to begin bearing fruit in crop year 2028 (2,000 acres), and removing additional acreage that is expected to be taken out of production by growers outside of the Program (1,261 acres) (13,261 current acres minus 3,000 tree pull acres plus 2,000 acres of new bearing trees minus 1,261 acres removed outside of the Program equals approximately 11,000 acres of bearing clingstone peaches in crop year 2028).

Under the Program provisions reestablished herein, acreage is estimated to be reduced to 11,000 acres in 2028. It is assumed that there will be no economic incentive to plant clingstone peach trees outside of the Program, given the expected market outlook, that might add to that acreage estimate. Further, demand for clingstone peaches is estimated to be equal to what can be produced on 11,000 acres moving forward, potentially creating supply and demand equilibrium.

Prior to its bankruptcy filing in July 2025, Del Monte Foods had contracted 4,650 acres of clingstone peaches for canning. Using 2024 yield data from NASS of 16.6 tons per acre, and $628 price per ton, the total value of production delivered to Del Monte may be estimated at $48,475,320 (4,650 acres times 16.6 tons per acres times $628 per ton equals $48,475,320 total value of production).

In 2017, the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) published a cost of production study for clingstone peaches. UC Davis is currently working on an updated study considering the recent increase in cost of inputs, however, that study is not yet available as of the publication of this rule. Based on the 2017 UC Davis study, the cost of production per acre of clingstone peaches is $8,825. Using this per acre cost of production estimate, the cost of production for the 4,650 acres contracted by Del Monte Foods may be estimated at $41,036,250 ($8,825 per acre times 4,650 acres equals $41,036,250). Using the estimated total value of production ($48,475,320) and estimated total cost of production ($41,036,250), total calculated returns to growers using that data would have been approximately $7,439,070 ($48,475,320 minus $41,036,250), or nearly $1,600 per acre ($7,439,070 total returns divided by 4,650 acres equals $1,599.80 return per acre).

The bankruptcy of Del Monte Foods leaves only one buyer of California clingstone peaches for canning, Pacific Coast Producers (PCP), which is cooperatively owned by growers. CCPA reports that PCP has contracted 10,400 acres of clingstone peaches for 2026 from both its members and independent growers. The 10,400 contracted acres is the maximum that PCP can process through its two canning facilities. Based on CCPA estimated total number of acres at the beginning of 2026, that will leave approximately 3,500 acres of clingstone peach production with no buyers without intervention (13,900 total acres of clingstone peaches minus 10,400 PCP contracted acres equals 3,500 acres).

Prior to its bankruptcy, Del Monte Foods had contracted with growers to plant additional acreage of clingstone peaches in the hopes of expanding production. CCPA has indicated that there are an additional 1,400 acres of clingstone peaches that have not reached full production to date. Total acreage of clingstone peaches incurring costs but without contracts is estimated to be 4,900 acres (3,500 acres in production plus 1,400 acres planted not in production equals 4,900 acres).

Clingstone peach growers without a contract may face difficulty finding a buyer for their peaches. According to NASS, the 2022-2024 three-year average of the total production of clingstone peaches sold in the fresh market was less than one percent. With so many clingstone peach acres without a processor contract for 2026, prices are expected to decrease significantly for any alternative market outlet for such peaches due to oversaturation of the market.

Additionally, in October 2025, California's Assembly Bill 732 (AB 732) became effective, which authorizes county agricultural commissioners to penalize owners of neglected or abandoned orchards that become public nuisances, such as breeding environments for pests or diseases. Under AB 732, if landowners are found to have neglected or abandoned their orchards, landowners can face fines of $500 to $1,000 per acre.

In considering the potential economic environment for clingstone peaches without a tree pull program, AMS reviewed two possible options that growers without contracts may consider for the 2026 crop year; (1) abandonment of peach orchards, and (2) producing clingstone peaches without a processor contract. Analysis of the two options follows:

Growers decide to abandon their clingstone peach orchards. Abandonment would result in the smallest economic cost/loss to the growers as growers would not incur any variable production costs, but there would still be fixed costs and fees associated with owning the land such as taxes and insurance. UC Davis estimates those fixed costs at $298 per acre. Factoring in that AB 732 can fine growers $500 to $1,000 per acre for neglecting or abandoning their orchards, growers may incur a loss of between $798 to $1,298 per acre ($275 property tax plus $23 property insurance equals $298 cost per acre; add $500 AB 732 fine equals $798 total cost per acre or $1,000 AB 732 fine equals $1,298 total cost per acre).

Therefore, the total industry cost/loss of Option 1 could range from a lower bound estimate of $3,910,200 ($798 total cost per acre times 4,900 acres equals $3,910,200 total loss) to $6,360,200 ($1,298 total cost per acre times 4,900 acres equals $6,360,200 total loss).

Growers decide to continue to produce clingstone peaches. This option would most likely result in the largest loss to the growers. Growers would incur the full cost of production ($8,825 per acre) with limited market options. That cost could be reduced if the fruit was produced but not subsequently harvested (reduced by the $1,627 harvest cost). Assuming insignificant returns from possible sales, and most fruit abandoned, Option 2 could have the potential for a total industry loss of $35,270,200 ($8,825 cost of production per acre minus $1,627 cost of harvest equals $7,198 cost of non-producing acres times 4,900 acres equals $35,270,200 total industry loss).

The economic effect of the Program, on a per acre basis, is expected to dramatically reduce losses and bring grower returns closer to a break-even level. With the level of imports anticipated to continue to increase, and with the level of exports and domestic demand anticipated to continue to decrease, it is assumed that there will not be an economic incentive to expand production after implementation of the Program. It will remain up to the growers to control costs and to expand demand to ensure their longer-term economic stability.

In addition to the direct impact a tree removal program is expected to have on grower price and revenue, there are other indirect impacts. By design, a tree pull program assists an over-supplied industry by decreasing the volume of fruit that is produced. Without a tree removal program, large quantities of clingstone peaches could continue to be produced, and even harvested, but may not be utilized by processors. Growers would have to cover the total cost of production, harvest, and transportation, but would likely only receive payments on fruit that is actually canned. Further, in an attempt to sell the excessive inventories, packers might reduce wholesale prices, which in turn leads to market share battles and lower prices being passed back to growers. A more balanced supply and demand situation will allow growers and packers to jointly continue developing markets in ways that benefit the entire industry.

CCPA projects the cost of removing a clingstone peach tree is $20, or approximately $2,800 per acre. The cost estimate excludes the establishment of a new irrigation system (if necessary for alternative crops) and the cost of establishing an alternative crop. The projected cost to remove 3,000 acres of clingstone peaches is $8.4 million (3,000 acres times $2,800 removal cost per acre equals $8.4 million).

Economic assessment of the Program indicates that it is expected to benefit growers (particularly small, under-capitalized growers), processors, and others associated with the clingstone peach industry. The Program is expected to remove 3,000 or more acres of clingstone peach production. At that level, CCPA projects that growers will be paid approximately $8,715,000 in total (3,000 acres times 16.6 yield per ton times $175 per ton equals $8,715,000), which should cover the majority of the growers' tree removal expense.

The major direct cost of the Program will be the payment to growers for removing their clingstone peach trees. A total of $9 million, less the costs associated with local administration of the Program by CCPA, will be made available by AMS for the Program. Administrative costs for reviewing applications and verifying tree removal are expected to be about $125,000. Major expense categories for administration of the Program include costs for salaries and benefits, vehicle rental and maintenance, and insurance, overhead, and supplies.

Total grower costs associated with the completion of the Program applications, payment requests, and record maintenance for the period specified after tree removal are expected to be about $2,327.

Payments made under this Program will help California clingstone peach growers by addressing the oversupply problem that is adversely impacting their industry. Reestablishing the peach tree diversion Program is expected to reduce excess supply more quickly than if the industry relied on market forces alone. While market forces could also result in supplies being reduced, such an adjustment may occur more slowly, with resultant economic hardships for growers and processors. In addition, the Program may be beneficial in reducing the risk of loan default for lenders that financed clingstone peach growers and could also help small, under-capitalized growers stay in business. Such small growers are often efficient, but do not have adequate resources to continue to operate given the current depressed conditions within their industry.

The total cost for the Program will be $10.5 million ($9 million provided by AMS and $1.5 million pledged by the industry) with the bulk of those funds to be paid to growers, and a small amount going to CCPA for reimbursement of administrative costs. Additionally, the aggregate total cost to all growers is an estimated $2,327 for compliance with the application and record-keeping requirements of the program.

The estimated average benefit to growers available under the Program to compensate for tree removal is a total of $2,607 per acre. This is calculated by determining the difference between the Program payment per acre and the growers fixed cost per acre ($175 per ton times 16.6 yield per ton equals $2,905 per acre Program payment; $275 property tax per acre plus $23 property insurance per acre equals $298 grower fixed costs per acre) ($2,905 minus $298 equals $2,607). The Program is expected to result in a benefit for the growers who participate in the program, assuming no additional variable costs are incurred, and help offset the costs associated with tree removal. While the Program is not expected to generate positive net returns for growers in the short run, the long-term viability of the industry will be strengthened under the Program.

This cost calculation assumes that the acreage on which trees are removed remains idle, and that growers will therefore absorb all fixed costs on that acreage. To the extent that the land is put to other productive uses, growers will not be absorbing all fixed costs of producing clingstone peaches, and grower benefits will be higher. If growers could earn more income from alternative crops, it follows that processors would be forced to pay more to obtain the peaches from the growers. These higher costs could be passed on to consumers through higher retail prices or could be absorbed as reduced operating margins for processors, wholesalers, or retailers. Adjustments in retail prices, as well as retailer and processor margins, are anticipated to change with or without the Program.

Another cost of the Program is the reduced economic activity due to the growers purchasing fewer inputs (labor, chemicals, etc.) because of the reduction in the number of clingstone peach acres managed and harvested. Farm laborers and agricultural supply firms such as chemical manufacturers and distributors could realize less revenue because of the reduced need for their services and goods. To the extent that acreage removed may be replanted to alternative crops, the costs associated with removal could be offset by purchases of labor and supplies to produce such alternative crops. However, the total cost of the Program is difficult to quantify and is not included in this analysis.

Based on all available information, USDA has determined that there is a systemic surplus of clingstone peaches in the market, there is excess clingstone peach production capacity, and reestablishment of growers' purchasing power will be encouraged by using section 32 funds to reduce clingstone peach production capacity under this Program. USDA has further determined that the Program, as reestablished herein, will be a long-term solution to the perpetual oversupply situation that exists in the clingstone peach industry and will provide financial relief to growers.

Each grower participating in the Program will be required to agree to not replant clingstone peaches on the land from which the trees were removed for 10 years following the date the trees are removed. The grower's commitment to not replant peach trees on the Program approved land is a guarantee by the participant that no one (and not just the participant) will replant the land to clingstone peaches for the agreement period. Only those persons who are current owners of the land, and have not contracted to sell the land, will be eligible to participate in the Program. Participating growers must guarantee that they have not made prior arrangements to sell the land, or to remove the trees from the land but retain ownership for non-agricultural commercial purposes like shopping centers, housing developments, or similar purposes. Inclusion of such non-agricultural land in the Program will not serve the expressed purposes of the Program.

A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons the opportunity to respond to this interim rule, including any regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. This interim rule will have immediate effect so that those clingstone peach growers who choose to participate in the Program can implement individual tree removal plans in a timely manner and can plant alternative crops, if they so choose, on the acreage where peach trees are to be removed within the 2026 crop year. The Program is voluntary in nature and there is not any regulatory burden associated with this rule. All written comments received within the comment period will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this interim rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted and other available information, AMS has determined that this interim rule is consistent with, and will tend to effectuate the purposes of, the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule makes funds available to producers that will facilitate the removal of clingstone peach trees to reduce canning peach production. Participation in the Program is voluntary, has no regulatory effect, and was re-established following a request from the clingstone peach industry.

It is necessary for this rule to be immediately effective due to the peach growing season. Clingstone peach growers, who are under severe downward economic pressure due to chronic oversupply, are currently making decisions regarding their peach production and alternative cropping plans. The availability of this diversion program will materially influence those decisions. The cropping season in the production area has already started, and any delay in implementing the Program could limit the options that producers have at their disposal and may negatively impact economic outcomes, as has already been evidenced by the series of cannery closures over the last fifteen years. Further, clingstone peach growers are not only aware of this action but have requested it and are anticipating its enactment. Finally, this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), AMS will request OMB approval of the collection of information under the USDA Generic Solution for Solicitation for Funding Opportunity Announcements—OMB form number 0503-0028. This information collection is a generic collection used by USDA for one time funding opportunity announcements. Since the agency does not need to collect new information, such as progress reports, beyond the expiration of this generic information collection, set to expire October 2027, there is no need to submit a regular generic information package.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 82 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

A third-party survey of the location of the Thedford, NE, VOR/DME discovered that the published coordinates were incorrect. There was a discrepancy of 344 feet between the former coordinates and the correct coordinates. The Thedford VOR/DME is listed in the legal descriptions of RNAV Routes T-285 and T-286. This rule corrects the coordinates for the Thedford VOR/DME in the descriptions of these two routes.

United States Area Navigation Routes areas are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the geographical coordinates of the Thedford, NE, VOR/DME in the legal descriptions of RNAV Routes T-285 and T-286 in the vicinity of Thedford, NE. Specifically, the geographic coordinates for the Thedford VOR/DME are updated from “lat. 41°58′53.99″ N, long. 100°43′08.55″ W” to “lat. 41°58′54.04″ N, long. 100°43′13.08″ W”

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This rule updates the geographical coordinates of the Thedford, NE, VOR/DME in the legal descriptions of RNAV Routes T-285 and T-286. This action will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it only updates the coordinates of an already established Navigational Aid. The action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to impose, at most, de minimis costs. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending geographical coordinates of the Thedford VOR/DME in the legal descriptions of RNAV Routes T-285 and T-286 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a) which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes), and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change the concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. Additionally, in accordance with Appendix B, paragraph B-1 of FAA Order 1050.1G, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies terminal airspace as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic in the New York, NY, area.

On September 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USSS requested that the FAA establish a prohibited area at the presidential residence in New York, NY, to enhance the level of security provided to the President of the United States. In order to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the President, it is necessary to designate certain airspace above the presidential residence at New York, NY, as a prohibited area. Under the provision of 14 CFR 73.83, no person may operate an aircraft within that area without permission from the using agency. In response to that request, Prohibited Area P-75, New York, NY, is established concurrent with this action under Docket No. FAA-2025-2635. The New York, NY, Class B airspace overlies the presidential residence where Prohibited Area P-75 is established. Consequently, the New York, NY, Class B airspace, Areas A and E, must be amended concurrently to exclude this prohibited area airspace.

Accordingly, this action amends the description of the New York, NY, Class B airspace to exclude Prohibited Area P-75, which is defined as an area beginning at lat. 40°45′52″ N, long. 073°57′11″ W; then counterclockwise along an arc with a 1 nautical mile (NM) radius centered at lat. 40°45′46″ N, long. 073°58′30″ W; to lat. 40°44′48″ N, long. 73°58′09″ W, with a straight line to the point of beginning, and extending from the surface to 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).

Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the New York, NY, Class B, Area A and Area E, airspace legal descriptions to exclude Prohibited Area P-75. The FAA is taking this action due to the concurrent establishment of Prohibited Area P-75 under Docket No. FAA-2025-2635.

Additionally, the FAA makes technical amendments to airport and NAVAID information contained in the airspace description to conform to current data listed in the NASR database and current formatting requirements. The geographic coordinates for the airport reference point (ARP) for the John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY, the point “lat. 40°38′25″ N, long. 73°46′40″ W” is changed to “lat. 40°38′24″ N, long. 073°46′43″ W” The geographic coordinates for the ARP for the Newark International Airport, NJ, the point “lat. 40°41′34″ N, long. 74°10′07″ W” is changed to “lat. 40°41′33″ N, long. 074°10′07″ W” The name of the “Newark International Airport, NJ” is changed to the “Newark Liberty International Airport, NJ.” The NAVAID name “Kennedy (JFK) Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)” is changed to the “Kennedy VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME).” The NAVAID name “LaGuardia (LGA) VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)” is changed to the “LaGuardia VOR/DME.” Finally, the geographic coordinates for the LaGuardia VOR/DME, the point “lat. 40°47′02″ N, long. 73°52′07″ W” is changed to “lat. 40°47′01″ N, long. 073°52′07″ W”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553, federal agencies engaged in informal rulemaking must provide the public with a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation. However, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) exempts a rule from these requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Courts have construed these exceptions narrowly, but have nonetheless accepted determinations of good cause that notice and comment is unnecessary in “those situations in which the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012). This action implements airspace exclusions necessitated by separate rulemaking and also includes ministerial updates. Public comment would not have the potential to alter the action because it is automatically triggered and required by the establishment of P-75. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending the New York, NY, Class B airspace qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points ( see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the FAA's NEPA implementation policy and procedures regarding extraordinary circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace in Groton, CT, and Class E airspace in Fishers Island, NY.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-5644 in the Federal Register (91 FR 31648; May 28, 2026), proposing to amend Class D and Class E airspace in Groton, CT, and Class E airspace in Fishers Island, NY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the latest version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class D and Class E airspace over Groton, CT and Fishers Island, NY. A review of the Groton, CT Class D airspace revealed a need for a reduction in the lateral dimensions of the airspace to properly contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Groton-New London Airport. This action reduces the lateral dimensions of the Groton, CT Class D airspace from a 5-mile radius of the Groton-New London Airport, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Elizabeth Field to a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Elizabeth Field. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the Groton-New London Airport in the Groton, CT Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions from (lat. 41°19′48″ N, long. 72°02′42″ W) to (lat. 41°19′48″ N, long. 72°02′43″ W), which is one second of longitude.

This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the Elizabeth Field Airport, Fishers Island, NY, in the Groton, CT Class D airspace legal description from (lat. 41°15′07″ N, long. 72°01′54″ W) to (lat. 41°15′08″ N, long. 72°01′54″ W), which is one second of latitude. This action also updates the airport name for the Elizabeth Field Airport in the Groton, CT Class D airspace legal description. This action also updates the verbiage in the Groton, CT Class D airspace legal description from “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA guidance. This action also removes the exclusion for the adjacent Class E airspace area of Westerly, RI from the Groton, CT Class E airspace legal description in order to comply with current FAA guidance.

This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the Elizabeth Field Airport, Fishers Island, NY, in the Fishers Island, NY Class E airspace legal description from (lat. 41°15′05″ N, long. 72°01′54″ W) to (lat. 41°15′08″ N, long. 72°01′54″ W), which is three seconds of latitude. This action also removes the exclusions for the adjacent Class E airspace areas of Montauk, NY; Westerly, RI; and Groton, CT, from the Fishers Island, NY Class E5 airspace legal description in order to comply with current FAA guidance.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Services (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-0826 in the Federal Register (91 FR 5690; February 8, 2026), proposing to amend RNAV Route T-388 in the vicinity of Kodiak, Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

RNAV Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying RNAV Route T-388 in the vicinity of Kodiak, Alaska.

T-388: Prior to this final rule, T-388 extended between the Wixer, AK, waypoint (WP) and the Baily, AK, Fix. The FAA is extending the airway to the Kodiak, AK, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) located at the Kodiak Airport. As amended, T-388 extends between the Wixer WP and the Kodiak VOR/DME.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending RNAV Route T-388 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.5(a) which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change the concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. Additionally, in accordance with Appendix B, paragraph B-1 of FAA Order 1050.1G, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The FAA is adding a regulation to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73, subpart C establishing a prohibited area in the vicinity of Trump Tower in New York, New York. The prohibited area is necessary according to the United States Secret Service (USSS) to protect the President, secure the non-Governmental property in accordance with the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, and exercise its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3056 and 3056A.

Section 73.95 creates Prohibited Area P-75 (P-75). P-75 will prohibit aircraft operations from the surface to 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) beginning at lat. 40°45′52″ N, long. 073°57′11″ W; then counterclockwise along an arc with a 1 nautical mile (NM) radius centered at lat. 40°45′46″ N, long. 073°58′30″ W; to lat. 40°44′48″ N, long. 73°58′09″ W, with a straight line to the point of beginning. In other words, P-75 will cover a circle with a 1 NM radius centered on Trump Tower and with a flat edge on the southeast side that parallels the East River. Aircraft operations will not be permitted within P-75 unless the using agency, which would be USSS, granted authorization to enter the area.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft, the efficient use of airspace, and the protection of individuals and property on the ground. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes prohibited area airspace in the vicinity of New York, NY, to protect persons and property on the ground and to enhance national security.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2635 in the Federal Register (91 FR 23187; April 30, 2026), proposing to establish Prohibited Area 75 (P-75) in the vicinity of the New York, NY, residence of the President of the United States. Two comments were received, both of which supported the proposal. One commenter expressed that the rule will provide permanent charting of the prohibited area, which will enhance situational awareness. The commenter also opined that the rule effectively balances national security with efficiency, by preserving East River VFR corridors. The other commenter favorably remarked upon the past precedent of establishing prohibited areas over presidential residences, and supported greater protection for the president in light of past assassination attempts. The commenter also claimed that the affected airspace should be largely devoid of aircraft based on minimum altitude requirements. He alleged that the rule would have some impacts on certain operators, but that the FAA had appropriately minimized these impacts with the low ceiling and overall dimensions of the prohibited area. This final rule adopts the proposal without any changes.

This action amends 14 CFR part 73, subpart C by establishing Prohibited Area P-75, New York, NY. The prohibited area extends from the surface to 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL), and is defined as an area beginning at lat. 40°45′52″ N, long. 073°57′11″ W; then counterclockwise along an arc with a 1 nautical mile (NM) radius centered at lat. 40°45′46″ N, long. 073°58′30″ W; to lat. 40°44′48″ N, long. 73°58′09″ W, with a straight line to the point of beginning. In other words, P-75 covers a circle with a 1 NM radius centered on Trump Tower and with a flat edge on the southeast side that parallels the East River. Aircraft operations within P-75 are prohibited unless the using agency, the USSS, grants authorization to enter the area. 1

The size of the prohibited area is based on discussions between the FAA and USSS and meets security needs while minimizing impact on operators and the general public. Specifically, in its coordination with USSS, the FAA sought to ensure minimal impact on helicopter operations and other operations that are routinely conducted along the Hudson and East River corridors. The FAA specifically carved out an area over the East River that is within 1 NM of Trump Tower to allow helicopter operations along the East River to continue. The prohibited area achieves the objective of maintaining the efficient flow of air traffic while also meeting the security requirements associated with USSS's request. The FAA constructed the prohibited area in a way that avoids typical aircraft routes. On October 20, 2025, the FAA issued a Special Security Instruction (SSI) flight restriction, under 14 CFR 99.7, that temporarily restricted all flight operations in the vicinity of the presidential residence at New York, NY. Prior to the SSI flight restriction, only law enforcement helicopters, air ambulance aircraft, and unmanned aircraft systems operated in this area. Additionally, per 14 CFR 73.83, if authorization has been granted by the using agency, which would be USSS, aircraft could still gain access to the area.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is anticipated to have a minimal economic impact, as it only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, resulting in at most de minimis costs from minor rerouting of flights. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures with de minimis impact on operators, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it has legitimate domestic objectives of safety and security. The rule will not impact exports. As a result, the FAA does not consider this rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FAA determined that there will be no information collection associated with the rule.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.6(d), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the issuance of regulatory documents ( e.g., Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and issuance of Final Rules) covering administrative or procedural requirements. (Does not include air traffic procedures; specific air traffic procedures that are categorically excluded are identified under Appendix B, Paragraph B-2.5 of this Order). In accordance with the FAA's NEPA implementation policy and procedures regarding extraordinary circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 7400.2, section 32-4-7 regarding environmental analysis of Prohibited Area and Alert Area designations, such designations are actions that are neither permissive nor enabling, and therefore, environmental assessments or statements are not required when designating these areas.

The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined this action will 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, does not have federalism implications.

Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, the 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. The FAA did not identify any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this rule.

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

Executive Order 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. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and determined this action has no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to a national security or homeland security function of the United States.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the shore on the Ohio River near Follansbee, WV. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a mile of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on July 9, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by August 1, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

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

This rule establishes a safety zone on August 1, 2026 from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 70 to 71 on the Ohio river. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each State must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to the EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by the EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and are identified in part 52, “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the State regulation approved by the EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52 but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that the EPA has approved a given State regulation or specified changes to the given regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows the EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a State implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action for violations of the SIP.

The SIP is a living document which the State can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. Therefore, the EPA from time to time must take action on proposed revisions containing new or revised State regulations. A submission from a State can revise one or more rules in their entirety, or portions of rules. The State indicates the changes in the submission (such as by using redline/strikethrough text) and the EPA then takes action on the requested changes. The EPA establishes a docket for its actions using a unique Docket Identification Number, which is listed in each action. These dockets and the complete submission are available for viewing on www.regulations.gov.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference, into the CFR, materials approved by the EPA into each SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanisms for announcing the EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and streamlined the mechanisms for the EPA's updating of the IBR information contained for each SIP in 40 CFR part 52. The revised procedures also called for the EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” that contain the federally approved regulations and source specific permits submitted by each State agency.

The EPA generally updates these SIP Compilations every few years. Under the revised procedures, the EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the Federal Register notifying the public that updates have been made to a SIP Compilation for a particular State. The EPA began applying the 1997 revised procedures to the Rhode Island SIP on August 9, 1999 (64 FR 43083), with additional updates to IBR information on July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40014) and November 24, 2008 (73 FR 70873). In this action, Region 1 is updating the SIP Compilation for IBR information since November 24, 2008.

In this action, the EPA is providing notification of an update to the materials incorporated by reference into the Rhode Island SIP as of December 22, 2025, and identified in 40 CFR 52.2070(c) and (d). This update includes SIP materials submitted by Rhode Island and approved by the EPA since the most recent IBR update. See 73 FR 70873 (November 24, 2008).

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs, makes corrections and clarifying changes to the tables in the CFR, and makes ministerial changes to the prefatory heading to the tables in the CFR. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification (and corrections) only reflect existing law. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notification of the updated Rhode Island SIP Compilation and notification of corrections to the Rhode Island “Identification of Plan” portion of the CFR. Further, pursuant to section 553(d)(3), making this action immediately effective benefits the public by immediately updating both the SIP Compilation and the CFR “Identification of plan” section (which includes table entry corrections).

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of regulations and source specific orders promulgated by Rhode Island, previously approved by the EPA and federally effective before December 22, 2025, contained in 40 CFR 52.2070(c), EPA-Approved regulations, and 40 CFR 52.2070(d), EPA-approved State Source specific requirements, as described in section II. of this preamble. The EPA is also removing certain EPA-approved regulations and the source specific order for Tillotson-Pearson in Warren, Rhode Island, as described in section II. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ), including titles I, IV-A, IV-D, X, XIV, and XVI(note) of the Social Security Act which authorizes the administration of public assistance, child support enforcement, and other family assistance programs. This rulemaking is further supported by Section 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302), which provides the Secretary with general authority to make and publish regulations necessary for the efficient administration of programs under the Act. These statutory authorities provide the basis for the regulations codified at 45 CFR parts 201, 204, 205, 225, 233, 234, 235, 237, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, 283, 284, 286, and 287.

45 CFR parts 201, 204, 205, 225, 233, 234, 235, and 237 comprise the core regulatory framework governing the administration of public assistance and related programs authorized under the Social Security Act and administered by HHS, primarily through the ACF. Originally promulgated to implement Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other categorical assistance programs prior to enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub. L. 104-193), these regulations to established administrative, fiscal, and program integrity requirements applicable to States, Territories, and, where applicable, Tribal agencies operating federally funded assistance programs.

These parts establish State plan requirements, Federal financial participation (FFP) standards, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, hearing and appeals processes, eligibility and payment provisions, and administrative enforcement mechanisms. They include general administrative provisions (Part 201), public assistance reporting requirements (Part 205), financial management standards (Part 201 and related subparts), program-specific requirements for assistance and services (Part 233), and fair hearing and appeals procedures (Part 205). Collectively, these regulations provide the uniform administrative structure under which States, Tribes, and Territories receive and administer Federal funds for cash assistance and related benefit programs.

45 CFR parts 260 through 265 establish the regulatory framework for the TANF program, enacted under title IV-A of the Social Security Act as amended by PRWORA in 1996. Originally published in 1999 and subsequently amended, these regulations govern the purposes of TANF (Part 260), work participation requirements (Part 261), eligible and ineligible uses of Federal TANF funds (Part 263), State reporting requirements (Part 265), penalty and corrective action procedures (Part 262), and data collection and verification standards (Part 264).

The TANF regulations define key statutory terms such as “assistance,” “work activities,” and “work-eligible individual,” and establish the methodology for calculating State work participation rates. They also set forth maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirements, limitations on administrative expenditures, and procedures for determining and appealing financial penalties. Together, these parts provide the accountability and performance measurement structure for the TANF block grant program while preserving State flexibility in program design.

45 CFR part 270, “High Performance Bonus Awards” governs the bonus funds awarded to States for meeting certain TANF measures. The regulations lay out the amount in bonuses provided, explain the measures and what factors ACF uses to determine each state's scores.

45 CFR part 283 “Implementation of Section 403(A)(2) of the Social Security Act Bonus to Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio” governs the bonuses given to states who lowered illegitimacy. The regulations describe what data a state had to submit to be considered for the bonus, how ACF would consider the data, and the amounts of the bonus.

45 CFR part 284 “Methodology for Determining Whether an Increase in a State or Territory Child Poverty Rate is the Result of the TANF Program” governs the previous requirement under 42 U.S.C. 613(i) for determining child poverty rates. The regulations explain the method of determining child poverty rates and corrective action required if the poverty rate increased by over five percent in a two-year period.

45 CFR part 286 “Tribal TANF Provisions” establishes the regulatory requirements governing the approval and administration of Tribal TANF programs. Promulgated following statutory authorization for Tribal administration of TANF, this part specifies Tribal plan content requirements, funding methodologies, reporting obligations, and procedures for plan amendments and corrective actions. It provides for direct Federal funding to eligible federally recognized Tribes and Tribal consortia and outlines the process for determining Tribal family assistance grant amounts based on historical State expenditures.

45 CFR part 287 “The Native Employment Works (NEW) Program” describes the rules for implementing the program described in Section 412(a)(2) of the Social Security Act. This part lists plan requirements, allowable expenditures under the program, and reporting requirements.

Taken together, these regulatory parts form an integrated framework governing the administration, funding, accountability, and oversight of TANF, Tribal TANF, child support enforcement, and related assistance programs. They establish uniform procedures for State and Tribal plans, financial management, reporting, performance measurement, enforcement, and appeals, while implementing statutory requirements designed to promote program integrity, fiscal stewardship, and the effective delivery of services to low-income families.

This final rule removes multiple regulations that are either unnecessary or wholly obsolete. The regulations removed and reserved by this final rule can be categorized into three groups: those that are duplicative, those that are better suited in a sub-regulatory format, or those that are obsolete.

The duplicative regulations are those that exist yet, carry no impact as the authority and requirements stated in the regulation exist or are stated elsewhere such as in statute. This renders the language found in the regulation to be either duplicative or otherwise generally unnecessary.

The regulations that are better suited to a sub-regulatory document are those that generally read like a Frequently Asked Questions document or are overly prescriptive and carry technical details that belong in programmatic instruction. These documents are being removed and reserved in order to allow them to be published in the more appropriate format.

Finally, obsolete regulations are those that are outdated. This includes regulations that refer to grant programs that are no longer funded, practices that are no longer followed, or are no longer relevant.

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

The provisions of this final rule are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid. The changes address a variety of issues relevant to the Office of Family Assistance. None of the provisions contained herein are central to an overall intent of the final rule, nor are any provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.

ACF published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on May 26, 2026, (91 FR 30538) proposing revisions to 45 CFR parts 201, 204, 205, 225, 233, 234, 235, 237, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, 283, 284, 286, and 287. ACF provided a 30-day comment period during which interested parties could submit comments in writing electronically through Regulations.gov or via email to the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary.

During the 30-day comment period, ACF received 6 total comments from one individual, two legal advocacy organizations (Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles), one public policy think tank (Foundation for Government Accountability), one State agency (The Maryland Department of Human Services), and one Tribal government (the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California). All comments received were posted on www.regulations.gov.

Of the 6 submissions received, all 6 comments were unique, and none were duplicative. At the conclusion of the public comment period, HHS analyzed the content of the comments to inform the development of the final rule. All comments were reviewed to determine each commenter's support or opposition towards the policies proposed in the NPRM.

Public comments reflected a range of perspectives, with most commenters generally supportive of the intent of removing outdated and obsolete regulations, though many commenters identified specific sections they believed did not meet the parameters of obsolete or unnecessary. One commenter supported the NPRM and identified no provisions of opposition, whereas another commenter stated complete opposition to the entire NPRM and identified no areas of support. The remaining commenters listed specific sections that they wanted to retain for various reasons as discussed below. All responsive comments informed our consideration of the final rule.

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

This final rule includes the removal of multiple sections of regulations relating to 45 CFR parts 201, 204, 205, 225, 233, 234, 235, 237, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, 283, 284, 286, and 287. HHS received and reviewed comments on the proposed changes. Following review of all comments, HHS has maintained all proposed changes from the NPRM. Specific comments are discussed below.

As stated above, most commenters were generally supportive of the intent of removing outdated and obsolete regulations but identified specific sections they believed did not meet the parameters of obsolete or unnecessary. These specific comments are discussed in Section VI.

There were four general or cross cutting comments made by the commenters. The first commenter was the individual who urged HHS to not finalize this rule and stated that the regulations were “needed” but did not provide any information to justify this claim. With the limited information provided, HHS cannot provide any more specific response than below in the Section-by-Section discussion.

The second commenter with cross-cutting comments was Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), who said that they supported HHS's efforts to distinguish between outdated text and non-binding guidance as compared to active regulatory requirements. FGA encouraged HHS to finalize the proposed rule as published to reduce administrative burden and to allow states and grantees to focus on current statutory obligations. HHS agrees with the commenter's stated rationale for issuing a final action to repeal the stated Sections.

The third commenter with cross-cutting or general comments was from the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California who encouraged HHS to engage in more regular Tribal consultation for regulations affecting Tribal communities. HHS agrees and will continue to consult with Tribal leaders to the extent possible.

The final commenter with broad spectrum comments was the Maryland Department of Human Services who said that they disagreed with the classification of “duplicative of statute” and “better suited for sub-regulatory guidance” as acceptable reasons to remove a regulation. The commenter argued that while language may repeat statutory requirements, it “applies uniformity” and creates a “baseline” for States. The commenter further asserted that moving regulations to sub-regulations removes the ability for public comment and creates less durability between administrations.

HHS respectfully disagrees that language that is duplicative of statute should also remain in regulation as we believe it can serve to confuse the public about what unique requirements exist. Furthermore, for Sections that are to be moved to sub-regulatory guidance, these are in reference to items that “clarify” regulatory or statutory text without providing new requirements and therefore do not belong as regulations.

HHS acknowledges the thoughts, both in support and opposition to the proposal, raised by the commenters and moves forward with rescinding the requirements as proposed.

HHS received comments about changes proposed to specific subparts of the regulation. Below, HHS identifies each subpart, whether or not they received comments, summarizes the comments, responds to them accordingly, and identifies HHS's final action.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program, following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. . While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commentor was concerned that while this Section was promulgated in connection with the AFDC program, that this applied beyond AFDC. The commenter stated that present day federal audit and grant management requirements seem to address many of the functions that are included in this Section. The commenter was concerned that the proposed rule did not identify which authorities would be assuming these grant management responsibilities.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the continued administration of Federal grant management and audit responsibilities. Although § 201.12 was promulgated in connection with the former AFDC program and may have addressed matters beyond that program, the regulation is obsolete because AFDC was replaced by the TANF program under PRWORA. Removing this obsolete AFDC regulation does not eliminate applicable Federal audit or grant management requirements. Those requirements continue to be governed by applicable statutes and government-wide Federal grant management and audit requirements. For grant programs, including TANF, these requirements are found 2 CFR part 200 Subpart F. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 201.12 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commentor was concerned that while this Section was promulgated in connection with the AFDC program, that this applied beyond AFDC. The commenter stated that present day federal audit and grant management requirements seem to address many of the functions that are included in this Section. The commenter was concerned that the proposed rule did not identify which authorities would be assuming these grant management responsibilities.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the continued administration of Federal audit and grant management responsibilities. Actions on audit and review findings are governed by other government-wide statutes and regulations. For HHS grants, including TANF, the management and audit requirements are covered by 2 CFR part 200. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 201.13 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While these provisions still apply to child support enforcement under IV-D of the Social Security Act, as well as the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While these provisions still apply to child support enforcement under IV-D of the Social Security Act as well as Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Part 204, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 204.1, 204.2, 204.3, and 204.4, was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were two comments specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter was concerned that this Section should not be removed because it outlines detailed hearing requirements for public assistance programs. They are concerned that the NPRM did not identify another authority that provides a framework to address these hearing and administrative review procedures and request further clarity on how disputes concerning benefits and eligibility will continue to be resolved.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the continued availability of fair hearing and administrative review procedures. Section 205.10 was promulgated in connection with the former AFDC program, which was replaced by the TANF program under PRWORA. Section 205.10 governed the administration of the former AFDC program and is no longer mandatory now that PRWORA has been replaced by TANF. Removing this regulation does not alter any applicable statutory or constitutional requirements governing the administration of public assistance programs. This rulemaking is limited to removing redundant or obsolete regulations and does not establish or modify hearing procedures for TANF or other programs. Although certain states still cite the 205.10 hearing procedures for TANF appeals, they can continue to use the same procedures even without the regulation in place. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.10 as proposed.

Comment: A commenter was concerned that this Section should not be removed as it explains the AFDC hearing requirement when there is no equivalent right set out under TANF. The commenter urged HHS to not repeal this Section, but rather to promulgate new regulations that would apply to the TANF program as they insist that as TANF is a federal program, there ought to be a floor for a fair hearing process to ensure the constitutional right to due process.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's recommendation that it promulgate hearing regulations applicable to the TANF program. This rulemaking, however, is limited to removing redundant or obsolete regulations and is not intended to establish new regulatory requirements for TANF. Section 205.10 governed the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by TANF under PRWORA. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.10 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated that this Section established a mechanism through which States documented program operations and administrative changes. Their concern was that the NPRM did not identify whether existing TANF regulations would provide similar documentation regarding the administration of the program for advocates, administrators, beneficiaries, and future policymakers.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding documentation of State program operations and administrative changes. Section 205.36 established State plan requirements for the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by the TANF program under PRWORA. The documentation requirements applicable to the TANF program are established by section 402(a) of the Social Security Act. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.36 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated that they believe TANF should keep a requirement to have a single State agency operating under a State plan with statewide operations. The commenter feared that without this requirement, federal review and enforcement would be severely hindered and complicated.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the administration and oversight of State TANF programs. Section 205.100 established a single State agency requirement for the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by the TANF program under PRWORA. For TANF, section 402(a)(4) of the Social Security Act requires a certification by the chief executive officer of the State identifying the State agency or agencies that will administer and supervise the program. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.100 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated that they believe TANF should keep a requirement to have a single State agency operating under a State plan with statewide operations. The commenter feared that without this requirement, federal review and enforcement would be severely hindered and complicated.

Response: Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the organization and oversight of State TANF program administration. Section 205.101 established organizational requirements for the administration of the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by the TANF program under PRWORA. For TANF, section 402(a)(4) of the Social Security Act requires a certification by the chief executive officer of the State identifying the State agency or agencies that will administer and supervise the program. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.101 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated that they believe TANF should keep a requirement to have a single State agency operating under a State plan with statewide operations. The commenter feared that without this requirement, federal review and enforcement would be severely hindered and complicated.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the administration and oversight of State TANF programs. Section 205.120 established a statewide operation requirement for the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by the TANF program under PRWORA. For TANF, section 402(a)(4) of the Social Security Act requires a certification by the chief executive officer of the State identifying the State agency or agencies that will administer and supervise the program. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 205.120 as proposed.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Part 225, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 225.1, 225.2, and 225.3, was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Part 234, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 234.11, 234.60, 234.70, 234.75, 234.120, and 234.130, was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

Part 235, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 235.50, 235.60, 235.61, 235.62, 235.63, 235.64, 235.65, 235.66, 235.70, and 235.110, was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There was one comment specifically on one Section within this Part: Section 235.50. This final rule removes and reserves this Part.

Comment: A commenter was concerned that the removal of Section 235.50 within this Part would eliminate the requirement that TANF staff meet the requirements of the Merit System of Personnel Administration under 5 CFR part 900, subpart F. The commenter stated that without Section 235.50 there would be no standards to ensure quality staff, equitable compensation, training, or freedom from partisan politics.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding personnel standards for the administration of public assistance programs. Section 235.50 was promulgated in connection with the former AFDC program and is obsolete following the replacement of AFDC by the TANF program under PRWORA. Removing this obsolete AFDC regulation does not alter any otherwise applicable Federal personnel or merit system requirements. This rulemaking is limited to removing obsolete regulations and does not establish or modify personnel standards applicable to TANF programs. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of Part 235, including § 235.50, as proposed.

Part 237, which is only inclusive of 45 CFR part 237.50, was established for the AFDC Program which was in effect from 1935 to 1996. However, this program was replaced during the welfare reform era of the 1990s with many of AFDC's former responsibilities now falling under the TANF program following its creation in 1996. AFDC no longer exists. As such, the regulations do not need to remain on the books for a program that Congress eliminated. While some provisions relate to the Adult Assistance programs that still operate in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the statute provides sufficient authority for general administrative and procedural operations of these programs to be addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

This Section does not provide any additional clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements. The removal of this Section will not affect program operations as the scope and authority for TANF are adequately defined elsewhere in the regulatory framework. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section defines the term “WtW cash assistance.” This Section relates to the WtW program which has been unfunded since 2004, and therefore inactive for over 20 years. As this Part refers to an inactive program, the removal of this Part will not affect the operations for the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated their opposition to the removal of this Section as they assert that removing this Section will inject ambiguity into a framework that protects survivors of domestic violence. The commenter recommended that if HHS were to remove this Section that the final rule should expressly affirm that the Family Violence Option (VFO) and the associated penalty relief framework in Sections 260.58 and 260.59 remain fully in effect and that no substantive changes to survivor protections are intended.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the continued protection of survivors of domestic violence under the TANF program. The Department did not intend to, and this final rule does not, make any substantive changes to those protections. Section 260.50 merely restates statutory language found at 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7) and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Accordingly, while § 260.50 is removed as duplicative of the statute, the VFO established by statute, as well as the implementing provisions in §§ 260.58 and 260.59, remain in effect. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 260.50 as proposed.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(A), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: A commenter stated their opposition to the removal of this Section as they assert that removing this Section will inject ambiguity into a framework that protects survivors of domestic violence. The commenter recommended that if HHS were to remove this Section that the final rule should expressly affirm that the Family Violence Option (VFO) and the associated penalty relief framework in Sections 260.58 and 260.59 remain fully in effect and that no substantive changes to survivor protections are intended.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the continued protection of survivors of domestic violence under the TANF program. The Department did not intend to, and this final rule does not, make any substantive changes to those protections. Section 260.52 merely restates statutory language found at 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(A) and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Accordingly, while § 260.52 is removed as duplicative of the statute, the FVO established by statute, as well as the implementing provisions in §§ 260.58 and 260.59, remain in effect. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 260.52 as proposed.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section refers to an outdated opportunity for states to continue to keep Section 1115 “welfare reform” waivers in place as described under Section 415 of the Social Security Act so long as the waivers were in place on August 22, 1996. This was designed to allow for states to maintain their policies as allowed by the waiver, if they were inconsistent with the amendments made by PRWORA. However, as all of these waivers were for a set period of time, conformity with PRWORA was required at the point of expiration. As such, the last state waiver expired in 2006, thus making any regulations relating to this process obsolete. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 602, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(B)(iv), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608(b), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608(b)(2), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states the implications for an individual who receives benefits but does not follow an individual responsibility plan. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608(b)(3), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states the penalties for individuals who receive benefits but refuse to work. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(14), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section clarifies that a family cannot be penalized if a parent refuses to work because he or she cannot find child care. The Section further identifies penalties for a State if they penalize parents who are covered under this provision. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(14), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section declares that any penalty issued by a State against a family for failure to comply with TANF requirements does not represent a reduction in any wage paid to such individual. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608(c), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details that each State must achieve at least a 50 percent work participation rate, minus any caseload reduction credit. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(a)(1), (b)(1)-(3), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commenter was concerned with the removal of this Section. They stated that other Sections that were not proposed for removal reference § 261.21 and that this could produce confusion. The recommendation was to either keep this Section, or to confirm that the 50 percent work participation credit and the accompanying calculation and caseload-reduction credit provisions that depend on them remain unchanged. The commenter also recommended that cross references be updated to ensure clarity.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding clarity in the work participation rate requirements. In response to this comment, the Department intends to update cross-references in the regulations, as appropriate, to avoid confusion resulting from the removal of § 261.21. Section 261.21 merely restates the statutory work participation rate requirements found at 42 U.S.C. 607(a)(1) and (b)(1) through (3) and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Removing this duplicative regulation does not alter the 50 percent work participation rate, the caseload reduction credit, or the methodology governing their application, all of which continue to be governed by the statute. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 261.21 as proposed.

This Section details that each State must achieve at least a 90 percent two-parent work participation rate, minus any caseload reduction credit. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(a)(2), (b)(1)-(3), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commenter was concerned with the removal of this Section. They stated that other Sections that were not proposed for removal reference § 261.23 and that this could produce confusion. The recommendation was to either keep this Section, or to confirm that the 90 percent two-parent work participation rate and the accompanying calculation and caseload-reduction credit provisions that depend on them remain unchanged. The commenter also recommended that cross references be updated to ensure clarity.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding clarity in the two-parent work participation rate requirements. In response to this comment, the Department intends to update cross-references in the regulations, as appropriate, to avoid confusion resulting from the removal of § 261.23. Section 261.23 merely restates the statutory two-parent work participation rate requirements found at 42 U.S.C. 607(a)(2) and (b)(1) through (3) and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Removing this duplicative regulation does not alter the 90 percent two-parent work participation rate, the caseload reduction credit, or the methodology governing their application, all of which continue to be governed by the statute. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 261.23 as proposed.

This Section provides a list of what is counted as work activities. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(d), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section provides special requirements related to determining monthly work participation rates for instances including individuals in vocational training and individuals under 20 years of age. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that a single custodial parent or caretaker relative with a child below the age of six will be considered as engaged in work if they participate in qualified activities for at least 20 hours per week. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(B), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses how a welfare reform waiver could impact a State's workforce participation rate. This Section refers to an inactive practice. The last “welfare reform waiver” expired in 2006, thus making this Section outdated and obsolete. Therefore, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses that States are eligible to receive additional penalties for improperly imposing penalties on individuals. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(e) and 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(14), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses what other safeguards exist to ensure that participants in work activities are not displacing other workers. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 607(f), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses how a welfare reform waiver could impact a State's penalty liability in relation to this Part. This Section refers to an inactive practice. The last “welfare reform waiver” expired in 2006, thus making this Section outdated and obsolete. Therefore, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses that the general TANF definitions found in Part 260 apply to this Part as well. This Section cites back to 45 CFR 260.30 which already states that “the following definitions apply under parts 260 through 265 of this chapter.” In other words, Part 260 establishes that those definitions are used throughout the subsequent five parts. Therefore, there is no need to restate that the definitions from 260 are utilized in Part 262. As this Section is duplicative, its removal will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details a list of TANF fiscal penalties that can be imposed on States. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section describes the amount of money States are required to spend annually to meet the basic MOE requirement of the TANF program. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses when State funds expended on child care may be counted towards the basic MOE requirement. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details what penalties and actions ACF will take when a State fails to meet the basic MOE requirement. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details that the reasonable cause and corrective compliance provisions would not prevent a State from penalties for failing to meet the basic MOE requirements as it does not apply. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609(b)-(c), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section defines terms related to the Individual Development Accounts. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 604(h), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section explains that a State may use Federal TANF funds or WtW dollars to fund IDAs for individuals eligible for TANF. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 604, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details the restrictions that apply to recipients of IDA funds. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 604, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section defines terms related to this Part. Specifically, it is broken down into two components: (1) that the general TANF definitions found in Part 260 apply to this Part as well, and (2) lists several additional terms not defined in Part 260. The first component of this Section cites back to 45 CFR 260.30 which already states that “the following definitions apply under parts 260 through 265 of this chapter.” In other words, Part 260 establishes that those definitions are used throughout the subsequent five parts. Therefore, there is no need to restate that the definitions from 260 are utilized in Part 264.

The second component of this Part merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 603 and 608, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section explains that if a State does not comply with the five-year assistance limit that they will face a penalty of a reduction of five percent of the adjusted State Family Assistance Grant (SFAG). This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(9), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section explains that when a State fails to repay a Federal loan that the SFAG payable for the succeeding fiscal year will deduct the amount of the loan balance plus all accumulated interest. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(6), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses that States must enact policies that prevent TANF or MOE funds from being used towards expenditures at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs. This merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608(a)(12), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details that a State's failure to implement policies that restrict usage of TANF or MOE funds for liquor stores, casinos, or strip clubs will be subject to additional penalties. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 608, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses the qualifications to receive a provisional payment of contingency funds and explicitly restricts the Tribes and Territories from being eligible to be deemed as a “needy State.” This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 603(b), the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the removal of this Section could cause a lack of a clear statement of eligibility for the contingency fund.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding clarity in the eligibility requirements for contingency funds. Section 264.70 merely restates the statutory eligibility requirements for contingency funds found at 42 U.S.C. 603(b) and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Removing this duplicative regulation does not alter the eligibility criteria for provisional contingency fund payments, which continue to be governed by the statute. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 264.70 as proposed.

This Section discusses the methodology for calculating the amount of the provisional payment of contingency fund that can be awarded to a State. This Section contradicts the plain reading of the language found at 42 U.S.C. 603(b). Therefore, removing this Section will return the operation of the program to be in line with legislative intent. There was one commenter who commented specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the removal of this Section. The commenter stated that HHS's stated rationale, that this Section conflicted with a clear reading of statute, was inappropriate. The commenter stated that while this docket as a whole is intended to be “housekeeping,” they believe this specific Section change represents a substantive policy change and thereby needs to propose a replacement methodology. The commenter further stated that HHS should explain how this Section is inconsistent with statute, propose a replacement methodology, and provide an analysis of how this could impact States.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the methodology for calculating provisional contingency fund payments. As explained in the proposed rule, § 264.71 is inconsistent with the methodology established by section 403(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(b)). Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)(C) indicates the “total amount paid to a single State under subparagraph (A) during the month shall not exceed 1/12 of 20 percent of the State family assistance grant” whereas the regulation at subsection (a) indicates the “amount that we will pay to a State in a fiscal year will not exceed an amount equal to 1/12 times 20 percent of that State's SFAG for that fiscal year, multiplied by the number of eligible months for which the State has requested contingency funds.” See 42 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)(c) (emphasis added) and 45 CFR 267.71(a) (emphasis added). Removing a regulation that is inconsistent with the governing statute does not establish a new methodology; rather, it removes a regulatory provision that conflicts with the methodology enacted by Congress. Because the statute governs the calculation of provisional contingency fund payments, the removal of § 264.71 does not create uncertainty regarding the applicable methodology. The Department also considered whether States have developed reliance interests in the procedures reflected in § 264.71. Although States may need to adjust certain administrative processes, including submitting applications on a monthly basis and providing information necessary to support monthly payment determinations, the Department does not expect this removal to affect the amount of contingency funding for which an eligible State may qualify. The Department concludes that these limited administrative reliance interests do not warrant retaining a regulation that is inconsistent with section 403(b) of the Social Security Act. The Department intends to provide additional information regarding implementation through sub-regulatory guidance. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 264.71 as proposed.

Comment: The same commenter stated that they believe that the removal of this Section will produce such a substantial impact on States that the certifications that this rule produces no federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 and that this rule does not produce a “significant” economic impact under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is inaccurate. The commenter requests that a further notice be published in the Federal Register allowing for further comment from potentially impacted States.

Response: The Department disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the removal of § 264.71 gives rise to federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 or a significant economic impact requiring additional analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because these regulations are applicable to States and Territories, which are not small entities. As for Executive Order 13132, it only requires consultation if as regulation imposes substantial direct compliance costs or preempts State law. Because this action does not establish new requirements or impose new obligations beyond those already established by statute, the Department does not believe that additional notice or regulatory analyses are warranted. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 264.71 as proposed.

This Section discusses the requirement for Territories to submit information as required by other regulations on the quarterly Territorial Financial Report. The requirement of a quarterly report is procedural and therefore better addressed in sub-regulatory guidance. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that Territories may appeal a disallowance to the Departmental Appeals Board. This Section does not need to be in regulation. ACF can enter a memorandum of understanding with the Departmental Appeals Board for appeals of disallowances under the Matching grant, or territories could go to Federal Court. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details that each State must submit their reports electronically based on format specifications prescribed by HHS. HHS has the right to require reports to be completed in a particular format regardless of this regulation. Furthermore, as this Section states that the format will be specified by HHS, it already concedes that this regulation is not penultimate in the sense that there are other guidance documents that further detail report filing specifications. Therefore, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations for the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Part 270, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 270.1, 270.2, 270.3, 270.4, 270.5, 270.6, 270.7, 270.8, 270.9, 270.10, 270.11, 270.12, and 270.13, are the regulatory provisions relating to the bonus to reward high performing States in the TANF program. The High Performance Bonus (HPB) had its funding eliminated through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Therefore, this program has been unfunded and inactive for over 20 years. As this Part refers to an inactive program, the removal of this Part will not affect the operations for the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

Part 283, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 283.1, 283.2, 283.3, 283.4, 283.5, 283.6, 283.7, 283.8, and 283.9, are the regulatory provisions relating to the “Bonus to Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio”. This bonus program was eliminated through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Therefore, this program has been unfunded and inactive for over 20 years. As this Part refers to an inactive program, the removal of this Part will not affect the operations for the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

Part 284, which is inclusive of 45 CFR parts 284.10, 284.11, 284.15, 284.20, 284.21, 284.30, 284.35, 284.40, 284.45, and 284.50, are the regulatory provisions relating to the methodology for determining the child poverty rates in the States and Territories. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 rewrote Section 413 of the Social Security Act which removed the provision authorizing this Part. Therefore, this regulation is inactive and no longer needs to exist. The removal of this Part will not affect the operations of the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Part. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Part.

This Section discusses how either an Indian Tribe or an intertribal consortium of eligible Indian Tribes can apply to operate a Tribal Family Assistance Program (TFAP). This Section imposes no requirements on Tribes and merely informs them of ACF policy. As a statement of policy, ACF believes this provision would be more appropriate for sub-regulatory guidance. The removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There was one comment specifically on this Section. This final rule removes and reserves this Section.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that moving this Section from regulation into a sub-regulatory format could leave Tribes with reduced regulatory certainty. The commenter urged HHS to recognize the unique needs and nature of Tribal governments and that a one-size-fits all approach would inhibit the ability to be responsive to the individual needs of their communities.

Response: The Department appreciates the commenter's concern regarding regulatory certainty for Tribal governments and recognizes the unique circumstances of Tribal TANF programs. Section 286.15 merely restates the statutory framework governing Tribal eligibility to operate a Tribal Family Assistance Program and does not impose requirements beyond those established by statute. Removing this duplicative regulation does not alter the eligibility of Indian Tribes or intertribal consortia to operate Tribal TANF programs or otherwise change the requirements applicable to those programs. Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the removal and reservation of § 286.15 as proposed.

This Section states that Tribes are not required to obligate all Tribal Family Assistance Grant (TFAG) funds by the end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 604, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses the instances in which WtW cash assistance is counted towards a Tribe's TANF time limit. This Section relates to the WtW program which has been unfunded since 2004, and therefore inactive for over 20 years. As this Section refers to an inactive program, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations for the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details the special requirements and allowances available to the State of Alaska. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section describes that HHS will work with Tribes in Alaska as well as the State of Alaska to develop a process for the development and amendment of the comparability criteria. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses that the two penalties that cannot be excused are the penalty for failure to repay a Federal loan and a penalty for failure to replace any reduction in the TFAG from other penalties. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 609 and in other regulations at 45 CFR 286.195, the removal of this Section will not affect program operations for TANF. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section describes the impacts of data collection and reporting for 102-477 Tribes. This Section restates the requirements for Tribes to comply with the reporting requirements as is already stated in Public Law 102-477. Therefore, this language is duplicative and the removal of this Section will not affect the operation of the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states the general purpose and scope of the NEW program. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses which Tribes are eligible to apply for the NEW Program. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section clarifies that a Public Law 102-477 Tribe can operate a NEW Program so long as the Tribe is an “eligible Indian tribe.” This Section is merely an interpretation Public Law 102-477, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. 612(a)(2), which authorizes the NEW program. The removal of this Section will not affect the operation of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section details the amount of funds that each Tribe will receive under PRWORA for the NEW Program. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that there are no matching fund requirements with the NEW Program. As the authorizing statute makes no mention of matching requirements, HHS is therefore not authorized to impose such requirements. This Section may be better suited in a sub-regulatory frequently asked questions document. The removal of this Section will not affect program operations for the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that NEW Program grantees are required to comply with other Federal government and HHS-wide regulations regarding auditing and financial requirements. Irrespective of this Section, NEW Program grantees are required to comply with such regulations. The removal of this Section will not result in grantees no longer having to abide by general financial reporting requirements and will not affect program operations for the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states which OMB circulars apply to the NEW Program. The circulars listed in this Section have since been superseded by the Uniform Guidance found at 2 CFR part 200. As such, this Section is stating outdated and inaccurate information. Therefore, the removal of this Section will not affect the operation of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that Tribes are required to complete certain certifications for the NEW Program. The requirement that Tribes attain certain certifications exists in a variety of other locations including in other Federal government-wide statutes. Therefore, the removal of this Section will not affect the operation of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section clarifies that a Tribe may operate both a NEW Program as well as a Tribal TANF program so long as they meet the statutory requirements of both programs. Nothing in either authorizing statute indicates that a Tribe is prohibited from operating both programs, with each statute explicitly stating what Tribes are eligible to apply. This Section does not belong in regulation but could serve a useful purpose in a sub-regulatory format, such as a frequently asked questions document. The removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW program or the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section states that a Tribe that operates both a NEW Program and a Tribal TANF program must submit two separate plans. The requirement for grantees to submit a plan is implied by having separate plan requirements in Part 286 (Tribal TANF) and Part 287 (NEW). This Section does not belong in regulation but could serve a useful purpose in a sub-regulatory format, such as a frequently asked questions document. The removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW program or the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section discusses what provisions of the Social Security Act govern the NEW Program. This Section merely restates statutory language without adding any clarity, interpretation, or additional requirements not already found in statute. As the language is already found at 42 U.S.C. 612, the removal of this Section will not affect the operations of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section lists what other data collection and reporting requirements apply to Public Law 102-477 Tribes that choose to consolidate their NEW Program with other programs. This Section is outdated and unnecessary. Reporting requirements under Public Law 102-477 are governed by 25 U.S.C. 3410 and are the responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in coordination with each agency. Therefore, guidance on reporting could be issued by BIA. The removal of this Section will not affect the operation of the NEW Program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

This Section lists what other data collection and reporting requirements apply to Tribes that operate both a NEW Program as well as a Tribal TANF program. This Section states that each Tribe must comply with the specific requirements found in the respective program statutes and regulations. That requirement is true regardless of this Section. The removal of this Section will not affect the operation of either the NEW Program or the TANF program. There were no comments specifically on this Section. Thus, this final rule removes and reserves this Section.

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

Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments or preempt state law. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This final rule does not impose substantial compliance costs or pre-empt State law. The Sections the final rule is removing are duplicative and unnecessary regulations from the Office of Family Assistance rules. Therefore, in accordance with Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

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

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

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects over that threshold must also seek input from State, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when regulations have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Similarly, ACF's Tribal Consultation Policy says that consultation is triggered for a new rule adoption that significantly affects tribes, meaning the new rule adoption has substantial direct effects on one on more Indian tribes, on the amount or duration of ACF program funding, on the delivery of ACF programs or services to one or more Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. ACF is nevertheless committed to consulting with Indian Tribes and Tribal leadership on this action to the extent practicable and permitted by law.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, ACF amends 45 CFR parts 201, 204, 205, 225, 233, 234, 235, 237, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, 283, 284, 286, and 287 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order ( Order ) in PS Docket Nos. 22-329 and 25-224, FCC 26-38, adopted on June 25, 2026, and released on June 29, 2026. A summary of the accompanying proposed rule in PS Docket Nos. 25-224, 15-94, and 15-91, FCC 26-38, adopted on June 25, 2026 and released on June 29, 2026 is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-38A1.pdf.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Report and Order on small entities.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Report and Order does not contain proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

In the Alerting Modernization NPRM, we sought comment on the objectives that effective alert and warning systems should serve. Specifically, we sought comment on three possible core goals: (1) alerting systems should provide authorities with the ability to rapidly notify the public of emergencies that may put the public at risk; (2) alerting systems should be capable of delivering instructions that facilitate the protection of life and property; and (3) alerting systems should provide a mechanism for government officials to provide additional authoritative communications with the public before, during, and after an emergency. Commenters generally agree that these should be the overarching goals of the nation's alert and warning systems. The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) “fully supports these three goals and notes that the industry has continuously evolved WEA to meet these objectives.” The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) believes that these “broad but simple goals proposed for the nation's alerting systems . . . seem appropriate . . . [as they] are worthwhile, important to public safety, and consistent with statutory instructions and intent.” North Carolina Emergency Management et al., the Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (Harris County), APCO International (APCO), and the National Weather Service (NWS) also agree with the three stated objectives, with the NWS noting that, “[w]hile a perfect alerting system is not possible, it should have the main goal of being easy to use and available to anyone.”

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) supports the three core goals the Commission proposed for alerting systems, but contends that they “are focused on the capabilities of the system rather than on the public safety outcomes they are intended to achieve.” Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management, Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management, former California Office of Emergency Services Director Art Botterrell, and Washington State Emergency Management Division likewise emphasize that public safety outcomes are of utmost importance. iHeartMedia, Inc. supports the three objectives that we identified, but believes we should consider a fourth: “(4) alerting systems should include resilient and reliable delivery systems proven capable of functioning during emergencies, including when other emergency alerting technologies may be unavailable.” The New York City Emergency Management Department (NYCEM) agrees with us that “the speed of notification is a critical component of any alerting system” but proposes the following alternative to our third objective focused on ensuring the ability for authorities to send authoritative alerts to the public: “Alerting systems should be designed and utilized to ensure that all members of the public receive an alert and are aware of actions that they may take to protect life and property. . . . [A]lerting systems should be available in a wide array of languages, able to be displayed on various devices, and include considerations for members of the public with various accessibility needs.” Although we understand and appreciate the proposals for additional goals of alerting, we conclude that the three goals we proposed already encompass these important public safety-, resiliency-, and accessibility-focused concerns within the objectives that effective alert and warning systems should serve. For example, while we agree with iHeartMedia, Inc. that alerting systems must be resilient and reliable, and capable of functioning when other emergency alerting technologies may be unavailable, that objective is subsumed within our goal of providing authorities with the ability to rapidly notify the public of emergencies that may put them at risk. NYCEM's view that alerting systems should be available in a wide array of languages and on a variety of devices falls within the core goal of notifying the public of emergencies, as that notification can only occur if recipients can receive and understand the message.

Commenters recognize that the Commission should continue to evaluate ways to improve these systems, and we agree. As Sinclair comments: “Ultimately, the nation's alerting systems are critical to the preservation of public health and safety, and examining ways to enhance or improve these systems can save lives.” We also find that commenters generally recommend that, while alerting systems can be improved, we should refrain from making fundamental changes to EAS and WEA. We agree with commenters that these systems generally meet today's alerting objectives, and determine that incremental improvements advance the core goals of the nation's alerting systems. At this time, we therefore decline to overhaul or phase out the legacy EAS architecture. Legacy EAS continues to effectively support public safety by creating alerting pathway redundancy, making alerting more resilient, and by warning the public and informing them about protective actions to take during emergencies. Eliminating it would create a gap in alert delivery that would threaten the achievement of our three goals. Consistent with the record, we take steps to improve EAS and WEA as they exist today.

Central to our effort to modernize the nation's alerting systems is ensuring those systems are secure. Commenters to both the Alerting Modernization NPRM and the Alerting Security NPRM broadly agree that it is vital to ensure the security of EAS and WEA. Foreign adversaries, criminals, and other bad actors can wreak havoc if they gain access to alerting systems, by sending a false alert that causes public panic or delivers false information about a disaster or crisis, or by preventing a real alert from being transmitted to the public. As one former broadcaster who submitted comments points out, the dissemination of false alerts can also undermine public trust in alerting capabilities, which depends on “ensuring that every message originates from an authorized and verifiable source.” Because of these risks, keeping these systems “secure against cyberattacks from our nation's adversaries” and “[m]aintaining trust in these systems is vital for both national security and achieving the nation's alerting goals.”

Today, we adopt three targeted measures that aim to ensure that EAS Participants secure their equipment to prevent cyberattacks that could result in the transmission of false EAS alerts or disrupt the transmission of legitimate alerts. Specifically, we require EAS Participants to do the following with respect to EAS equipment, studio transmitter link equipment, and any remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming stream: (1) prior to operation, change any default password, use strong passwords, and change any password if the EAS Participant has reason to believe that the password has been compromised; (2) test and install security patches and security-related software and firmware upgrades issued by equipment manufacturers promptly after those patches or upgrades become available; and (3) use a network firewall or comparable network segmentation practice to limit remote management access to authorized devices and authorized users.

These three requirements represent a subset of the six basic cybersecurity hygiene requirements that the Commission proposed to require EAS Participants to implement as part of their cybersecurity risk management plans in the Alerting Security NPRM. In the Alerting Security NPRM, the Commission proposed to require EAS Participants to implement these cybersecurity measures in the context of their implementation of broader cybersecurity risk management plans. The Commission sought comment on whether that approach “strik[es] the appropriate balance between improving EAS security, complementing EAS Participants' existing cybersecurity activities, and reducing burdens on small EAS Participants?” In response, commenters express concern that compliance with precise cybersecurity risk management requirements would be costly, could hinder their ability to adapt to changing cybersecurity needs, and could subject them to strict liability enforcement in the event an EAS Participant is victimized by a cyberattack. The approach we adopt today responds to those concerns by eliminating the broader cybersecurity risk management and threat assessment components of the proposed requirement, as well as the proposed requirements that EAS Participants employ “sufficient security controls to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the EAS.”

The Alerting Security NPRM asked whether, “[i]nstead of requiring the use of a risk management plan, should [the Commission] require EAS Participants to take specific steps to secure their EAS equipment?” In addition, the Alerting Modernization NPRM asked if there are “specific authentication, validation, and security measures that EAS and WEA should be designed to incorporate?” In response to the Alerting Modernization NPRM, APCO and other commenters agree that the Commission should adopt specific security requirements for EAS Participants. As with other commenters to the Alerting Security NPRM, National Public Radio (NPR) is concerned about the costs of cybersecurity risk management plan requirements and asks that EAS Participants be required to, instead, only implement the basic security measures that the Commission proposed without requiring the creation of broader risk management plans. REC Networks agrees that “security of EAS equipment is of paramount importance” but asks that smaller EAS Participants be required to “implement a simpler plan of good network operating practices, which involve network configuration, password management and protection, periodic password changes[,] and other `common sense' methods to assure that EAS equipment is not compromised.” The approach we adopt today is consistent with NPR's view that we should require EAS Participants to implement minimum security controls, rather than comprehensive risk management plans, while also respecting REC Networks' view that some of the specific security measures we proposed to require, such as addressing the replacement of end-of-life equipment and wiping, clearing, or encrypting user information before disposing of old devices, may be more complicated than is appropriate to require of some EAS Participants. Other commenters, such as NCTA, express concern that requiring EAS Participants to implement a specific cybersecurity framework would “freeze cybersecurity practices in time and hamper an EAS Participant's ability to develop and implement cybersecurity measures in response to its specific cybersecurity risk profile, to the detriment of public safety.” The requirements we adopt today will not hamper an EAS Participant's ability to respond to evolving cybersecurity threats. Rather, they represent a minimum acceptable baseline that will harden critical communications infrastructure against today's threats, while being flexible enough to adapt to changes in the threat environment.

The cybersecurity requirements we adopt today are narrowly tailored to address vulnerabilities that have been repeatedly exploited through a series of cyberattacks on EAS Participants in recent months. In these attacks, bad actors gained control of radio broadcasters' systems by exploiting improperly secured, remotely accessible equipment in the broadcast signal processing system to transmit unauthorized audio that included EAS alert tones, an offensive song that included racial slurs, and promotional content. In response to the attacks, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice on November 23, 2025, urging broadcasters to immediately implement basic cybersecurity hygiene best practices to secure their systems and protect EAS, including installing software security patches for broadcast equipment issued by the manufacturer as soon as they become available; upgrading equipment firmware and software to the most recent versions recommended by the manufacturer; changing devices' default passwords and replacing them with robust alternatives; regularly changing passwords to promote continued security; and, where reasonably feasible, installing EAS, studio-transmitter link equipment, and other equipment interconnected to the broadcast signal processing system behind network firewalls. Similar attacks on broadcasters going back more than a decade have included hoax radio broadcasts about a zombie attack and false alerts about a “radiological hazard” sent to cable subscribers through the infiltration of EAS equipment connected to the internet. The Bureau recently convened a cybersecurity workshop for broadcasters that brought together public and private sector representatives to raise awareness of emerging cybersecurity risks, share and promote the adoption of best practices, and highlight opportunities for public-private partnerships on cybersecurity issues facing broadcasters. Despite our repeated efforts urging EAS Participants to take basic steps to secure their networks, including the November 2025 Public Notice, an August 2022 Public Notice recommending similar steps to those we recommended last year, and an April 2020 email to EAS Participants encouraging them to secure their EAS equipment by installing current security patches, successful attacks have continued into 2026.

Because some EAS Participants have not taken adequate steps to remediate these vulnerabilities and address the significant risk posed by a false alert or non-transmission of a real alert, we find that each of the three requirements we adopt today are necessary to protect the security and integrity of EAS.

Password requirements. Strong password security is essential to protecting EAS equipment, studio-transmitter link equipment, and remotely accessible equipment from unauthorized access that exploits weak or default credentials. Digital Alert Systems, Inc. (DAS) and former broadcaster, Jonah Kibin, caution against using default passwords and recommend changing required credentials upon setup as default passwords, particularly on encoders, “are widely available on the internet and have led to high-profile intrusions of the EAS in the last couple of decades.” We require that default passwords for EAS equipment, studio transmitter link equipment, and any remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming stream be changed prior to any use to broadcast to the public. Passwords used for this equipment must employ a minimum of 15 characters, not use dictionary words (because they can be cracked through brute force), and not be reused for other accounts, equipment, applications, and services that the EAS Participant uses.

As an alternative to a strong password, we permit EAS Participants to use alternative authentication measures that are reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access. We believe that there are numerous authentication methods available to EAS Participants that would be reasonably sufficient, including methods that have been highlighted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as meeting one of three authentication assurance levels. For example, NIST's guidance provides that authentication properly implemented at Authentication Assurance Level 1 can include, in addition to passwords, look-up secrets, which are “[a] secret determined by the claimant by looking up a prompted value in a list held by the subscriber”; out-of-band devices, consisting of “[a] secret sent or received through a separate communication channel with the subscriber”; single- or multi-factor one-time password devices, in which a one-time secret is obtained from a device or application held by the subscriber, which may or may not require activation by a second authentication factor; and single- or multi-factor cryptographic authentication, which entails “[p]roof of possession and control via an authentication protocol of a cryptographic key held by the subscriber,” which may or may not require activation by a second authentication factor. We recognize that, were we to simply require use of specifically structured passwords, our rule could preclude the use of other authentication methods offering equal or better security. To ensure our requirements do not result in reducing the security of currently secure systems, the rule we adopt today continues to allow EAS Participants to secure their equipment through means that are equally or more secure than the password requirements we adopt today.

As DAS observes, “systemic risks” are created when EAS Participants use “[w]eak passwords [and] shared accounts.” These risks are present throughout the industry. As the National Television Association concedes, many EAS Participants “had never changed the default password on their EAS device(s).” A former broadcaster further emphasizes that the use of default passwords to widely owned broadcast equipment—many of which are publicly available—has contributed to multiple high-profile intrusions over the past decade, demonstrating that these risks are neither hypothetical nor isolated. NPR characterizes requirements to change default passwords and secure equipment as reasonable and sound. Prometheus Radio Project supports Low Power FM stations “maintaining a firewall, following password management best practices, and implementing multi-factor authentication.” REC Networks supports the immediate changing of default passwords, and includes this as one of the recommendations in its Practice of Good Network Security for Small Stations. This requirement aligns with authoritative, industry-recognized cybersecurity standards, including the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs), which are designed for operators of critical infrastructure such as communications networks. We have elsewhere pointed to the CISA CPGs as an instructive suite of cybersecurity best practices for communications service providers. The Submarine Cable Second Report and Order adopts certain national security standards that, if met, will presumptively exempt a submarine cable application from referral to the Executive Branch agencies, including that the applicant must affirm, as part of its required cybersecurity and physical security risk management plan certification, that the plan meets a set of established cybersecurity best practices such as the standards and controls set forth in the CISA CPGs. Specifically, CISA CPG 3.A, “Changing Default Passwords,” encourages companies to address the risk that “[a]dversaries might acquire and exploit default account credentials to gain initial access, maintain persistence, escalate privileges, or evade defenses” by “[i]mplement[ing] an organization-wide policy that requires changing default manufacturer passwords for all hardware, software, and firmware before connecting them to any internal or external network.” We disagree with NCTA's suggestion that cybersecurity protections should be limited to EAS equipment alone, as this would be insufficient to protect EAS when unprotected studio transmitter link equipment and remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming stream create similar opportunities to transmit false alerts or disrupt the transmission of real alerts. The password characteristics that we require reflect the CISA and NIST guidance on minimum password strength and unique credentials. We expect compliance with the requirement to be straightforward for EAS Participants, which need only log into each relevant piece of equipment, locate the account-management or security settings, and replace the factory-set default password or existing weak password with a strong, unique password—a process that should be repeated whenever the EAS Participant has reason to believe that the password has been compromised.

Firmware and Software Patching. Prompt firmware and software patching are key to reducing the risk that bad actors will exploit known vulnerabilities to infiltrate broadcast and cable systems to insert false EAS tones or alerts. The record includes support for requiring EAS Participants to promptly install security patches and firmware and software updates. DAS also points to the failure to apply software updates as a “systemic risk[]” to EAS. One comment submitted by a radio broadcast engineer recommends that the Commission require EAS equipment to automatically query a centralized database to confirm EAS codec firmware and certificate updates. APCO opines that “[t]he Commission should consider rules requiring EAS and WEA participants to maintain current software and replace outdated equipment in a timely manner,” citing findings from the Commission's 2023 Nationwide Emergency Alert Test showing that “approximately 23 percent of the EAS equipment units were either using outdated software or operating equipment that was no longer supported with regular software updates.” The fact that nearly a quarter of EAS devices may potentially be exposed to known, readily addressed vulnerabilities because they are operating obsolete or out-of-date equipment represents a significant gap in the security of the nation's alerting capacity that poses national security risks. Promptly testing and installing security patches and software and firmware upgrades will also address DAS's concern that “[g]ray-market EAS encoders/decoders ( i.e., used equipment sold on auction websites) can ship with outdated firmware and unremoved configurations or credentials, allowing attackers to exploit known vulnerabilities or use retained settings to impersonate sources and inject false alerts.” Going forward, EAS Participants will be responsible for ensuring that their EAS devices are properly patched and updated, regardless of the devices' provenance. The requirement to install patches and update software promptly also aligns with CISA's CPGs. Specifically, CISA CPG 2.B encourages companies to “Mitigate Known Vulnerabilities” by “[i]mplement[ing] a vulnerability management program to patch and mitigate misconfigured software in a timely manner” to protect against the risk that “[a]dversaries frequently target unpatched and misconfigured systems, particularly those exposed to the internet,” and “often leverage software vulnerabilities, temporary malfunctions, or configuration errors to gain initial access to a network.” Here, too, we expect implementation to be simple. Once a security patch, or security-related software or firmware upgrade, becomes available for EAS equipment, studio transmitter link equipment, or any other remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming, EAS Participants must promptly download and install the patch or upgrade. EAS Participants are permitted to test that patch or upgrade to ensure that it does not introduce performance issues, provided that the testing begins promptly and is completed in a timeframe that is consistent with industry best practices. No commenter specifically opposes prompt patching as a security requirement.

Use of a Firewall or Comparable Network Segmentation. We require EAS Participants to use a network firewall or comparable network segmentation practices to limit remote management access to authorized devices and authorized users, which will secure EAS and other vulnerable equipment on a private network inaccessible to the public internet. This requirement addresses a widespread EAS vulnerability. In response to the Alerting Security NPRM, REC Networks identified 730 EAS Participant servers through which the password screen for Sage Alerting Systems' ENDEC EAS device was directly exposed. Of those servers, 288 operated on port 80, which is the default port for HTTP web services. In contrast with the servers operating on port 80, web services that use the more secure transport layer security (HTTPS) use port 443. It is thus easy and cheap for even low-capability malicious actors to locate EAS Participant equipment. To comply with the requirement we adopt today, EAS Participants must ensure that their EAS equipment is secured behind a firewall or other segmentation mechanism—such as a dedicated Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN), demilitarized zone, or physically isolated management network—with access restricted to only those internal systems and ports necessary for EAS operations. EAS Participants must either deploy a hardware or software firewall with appropriate filters, reconfigure existing routers to block inbound public internet connectivity to EAS devices, or otherwise isolate EAS equipment from general-purpose business networks so that unauthorized external access is not possible. These measures constitute essential, straightforward safeguards that EAS Participants of all sizes can realistically implement. As with the other two requirements we impose, this network segmentation requirement is consistent with established cybersecurity best practices. For example, CISA CPG 3.S calls on companies to “Secure Internet Facing Devices” by “[m]inimiz[ing] internet-facing assets whenever possible” to address the risk that “[a]dversaries might exploit weaknesses in internet-facing hosts or systems to gain initial network access, targeting software bugs, temporary glitches, or misconfigurations,” and CISA CPG 3.I recommends that networks should be logically segmented. No commenter specifically opposes network segmentation as a security requirement.

Based on commenters' assertions that EAS Participants already implement cybersecurity risk management plans, we suspect that many EAS Participants already implement the baseline cybersecurity requirements we adopt today. But EAS is only as secure as its weakest link. Not only does the hack of even a single EAS Participant's systems potentially expose that entity's audience to false information about an emergency, but also the architecture of legacy EAS means that certain types of EAS Participants could pass a false alert along to other EAS Participants. As DAS explains, “Commission rules can help ensure consistent implementation [of security requirements] across thousands of EAS Participants, preventing weakest-link vulnerabilities.” As REC Networks notes, small broadcasters are especially likely not to have implemented basic cybersecurity practices, and would benefit from straightforward and easily implemented rules rather than “an extensive and elaborate cybersecurity plan” requirement, as proposed in the Alerting Security NPRM. We accordingly find that the requirements we adopt today are particularly important to protect EAS Participants that are small- and medium-sized businesses. We therefore reject comments that suggest smaller EAS Participants should be exempt from cybersecurity requirements. Native Public Media and other commenters state that small stations typically lack the budget, resources, and expertise to manage IT security responsibilities, noting that many EAS Participants are very small, and are often nonprofit or municipal operations with minimal funding. But that concern cuts both ways. Smaller broadcasters with fewer security protections in place are often a more attractive target for bad actors, as the recent attacks on small radio broadcasters demonstrate. Moreover, while having limited resources might have made it burdensome to adopt the far-reaching cybersecurity risk management requirements imposed in the Alerting Security NPRM, the minimal requirements we adopt today will be far easier and less resource-intensive to implement. We further disagree with Cox Media Group and NAB that the Commission should focus on education of EAS Participants to secure the nation's public alert and warning capability. While we recognize the value of education, we find that it is not sufficient, on its own, to effectively reduce the dynamic and evolving risks posed by cybersecurity threats to emergency alert systems. We conclude that all EAS Participants can and must implement the cybersecurity safeguards we adopt today.

While we appreciate DAS's view that EAS equipment manufacturers should be expected to implement security practices in their equipment, including by following secure coding practices, providing digitally signed software and firmware updates, shipping devices with hardened default settings, and supporting role-based access controls, we find that the primary responsibility for securing vulnerable equipment rests with EAS Participants themselves. The vulnerabilities identified in the record stem mainly from insecure password practices, unpatched EAS participant-managed systems, inadequate network segmentation, or exposure of devices to the open internet—not from defects in underlying equipment design and development. This approach to responsibility for EAS security delineates clear roles. Manufacturers develop, validate, and make available security patches. EAS Participants, in turn, are responsible for applying patches to their equipment, and ensuring their systems are updated.

We disagree with NAB that, rather than imposing uniform requirements for EAS Participants to secure their systems, the Commission should engage in targeted outreach to those EAS Participants found to be using outdated software or unsupported equipment. We similarly disagree with security researcher Shawn Merdinger, who suggests that “[w]hat is needed is direct outreach . . . . Someone at the FCC who identifies the EAS device . . . , finds out who the asset owner is, and reaches out to the person running, or in charge of running, that EAS device.” We recognize the value of outreach to EAS Participants to identify ways to better secure their systems, and take a variety of actions to promote public-private partnership and voluntary efforts to protect networks and EAS from cybersecurity threats. These include releasing Public Notices warning about recent threat vectors and providing guidance about how EAS Participants can better secure their equipment against such threats; hosting workshops that raise situational awareness of the threat landscape and share best practices for protecting communications networks and incident response; and investigating reports about false EAS alerts that suggest the breach of an EAS device or willful misuse of the EAS tones or Attention Signal. Despite these efforts, cyberattacks on EAS Participant facilities continue to occur with disturbing frequency. It is neither practical, administratively efficient, nor a reasonable use of public funds, for the Commission to respond to these threats by assessing the security status of equipment operated by thousands of EAS Participants across the United States and working with each such participant individually to implement the cybersecurity practices that we have been urging them to adopt for years. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the Commission will be able to identify every EAS Participant whose systems may be vulnerable because of flawed passwords, patching, or network segmentation practices. The far more efficient approach is to impose a minimally burdensome requirement on each EAS Participant to implement the basic security requirements we adopt today for its own equipment.

We also disagree with commenters like NCTA that recommend the Commission first focus on modernizing EAS technology prior to considering any additional or updated cybersecurity or resiliency requirements. Maintaining strong passwords, routinely installing security upgrades, and segmenting sensitive equipment from the public internet are vital to preventing unauthorized access to EAS encoding and decoding functions and unauthorized transmission of EAS header tones and audio messages, irrespective of where in the EAS Participant's signal processing system those functions and transmission may be activated. We decline to wait additional months to secure these systems against cybersecurity vulnerabilities that are actively being exploited.

We do not apply the targeted cybersecurity requirements we adopt today to WEA at this time. As discussed above, there is a long history of attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in EAS Participants that have resulted in false EAS alerts reaching the public. While a 2016 report on WEA's security found risks of blocking valid WEA messages, changing the content of a valid WEA message, injecting false WEA alerts into operator equipment, and sending false alerts from false base stations, there have been no reported instances of those kinds of attacks on WEA being successful. We find this to be evidence, as CTIA and ATIS assert, that additional security requirements are not needed at this time. Consistent with the overarching recommendation of CSRIC V, we find that that best practices, rather than requirements, are currently suitable for addressing cybersecurity threats to WEA. Three alerting authorities and two individuals generally support improvements to WEA's cybersecurity posture, but focus on end-to-end cryptographic authentication, auditing, and other more burdensome security measures. None of these commenters adequately explain how the security benefits of additional WEA requirements would outweigh the costs, particularly when the lack of successful attacks on WEA suggests that the benefits of adding security measures for WEA may currently be limited.

We adopt a compliance timeframe for the rule changes adopted in this Order of 60 days after the rule's publication in the Federal Register , balancing the need to quickly secure vulnerable equipment against known vulnerabilities with the time EAS Participants require to implement the security controls. We find that sixty days provides sufficient time for compliance with these changes. Many EAS Participants and their representative organizations state that EAS Participants have already implemented cybersecurity risk management plans that include these specific security measures, and the Commission and FEMA have repeatedly raised the security of EAS as an urgent priority. EAS Participants that have not already implemented these basic cybersecurity hygiene measures will need only make a handful of straightforward changes to certain equipment to comply with these requirements. Minimal time is required, for instance, to log into the equipment subject to these requirements—which, for many EAS Participants is likely to comprise only a few devices—and change the passwords. Indeed, most Americans routinely manage passwords to a variety of devices and applications as a matter of course, which consumes no more than a few minutes each week. Similarly, it will take little time for most EAS Participants to test and install any currently available patches and updates for equipment subject to the requirement. As DAS explains, installing patches and updating equipment to the latest software version is minimally burdensome, because over-the-air software updates and software patching are both feasible and supported by modern, internet-connected EAS equipment. Here, too, the burden is no greater than that experienced by many Americans who routinely install security-related updates to their device operating systems and applications on a regular basis. While installing a firewall may require some EAS Participants to identify a vendor who can configure their systems appropriately, we do not expect that this will be burdensome or time-consuming for EAS Participants to identify because firewalls are widely recognized as a basic and cost-effective cybersecurity safeguard appropriate even for organizations with limited resources.

Further, there is an urgency to protect against threats from malicious actors by implementing these security measures as soon as practicable. Cyber threats that we warned EAS Participants about several years ago continue today. At the same time, cyber threat activities are becoming more sophisticated. For example, CISA recently issued an advisory that warned of “China-nexus cyber actors . . . using large scale networks of compromised devices (covert networks) to route their cyber activity.” Given the apparent inadequacy of voluntary approaches to implementing basic security safeguards to remediate these threats—and the significant risk posed by a false alert or non-transmission of a real alert—we find that each of the three requirements we adopt today are reasonable and necessary to protect the security and integrity of EAS.

We find that the targeted rules adopted today will promote EAS security without imposing substantial costs on EAS Participants. These measures are necessary to protect EAS from future false alerts that are damaging to public safety. Improved EAS security will also provide benefits to EAS Participants in the form of avoided reputational harm that may arise from cyberattacks and false alerts being transmitted from their stations. While the new rules may require hiring outside contractors in some cases, EAS Participants will have the flexibility to satisfy this requirement in a manner tailored to their particular business needs.

Costs. While commenters, including FEMA, Altice, Gray Television, and Sage, raise concerns about the increased costs and burdens that the proposals in the Alerting Security NPRM would place on EAS Participants, the basic cybersecurity hygiene practices we adopt today represent a narrow subset of those proposals, which EAS Participants should be able to implement without significant expenditure. For instance, the American Militia Association states that the Commission's estimated total cost of $11,600 per year is “grossly understated [as applied to] legal fees to review new rules and reporting requirements, payments to networking professionals and other costs . . . to ensure compliance.” However, the requirements in this Report and Order are less burdensome than what was proposed in the Alerting Security NPRM as they do not include reporting of unauthorized access incidents, nor do they include creating, updating, or annually certifying to having a sufficient cybersecurity risk management plan that covers a broader range of established best practices.

We estimate that the costs of changing and regularly updating default passwords, installing security patches as available, and implementing firewalls or other network segmentation practices will not exceed $26 million. We estimate the total cost of implementing the EAS security measures as follows: 25,800 entities × (10 hours per entity per year) × ($65 mean hourly wage) × (1 + 7% inflation adjustment) × (1 + 46% benefit mark-up) = $26,198,094 total cost per year, rounded to $26 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2025, civilian wages and salaries averaged $33.45/hour and benefits averaged $15.33/hour. Total compensation therefore averaged $33.45 + $15.33 = 48.78. Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of $15.33/$33.45 = 46%. We therefore mark up wages by 46% to account for benefits. The figure 25,797 includes 21,658 broadcaster stations and 4,139 headends. With two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers and one satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) provider, the total number of providers is 25,800. Based on Commission staff review of the S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography, there were 4,139 cable headends in the United States. This methodology likely overestimates the number of radio and television broadcasters that participate in the EAS, as some are exempted from the Commission's rules that govern EAS. For example, if a hub station satisfies the EAS requirements, an analog or digital broadcast satellite station that rebroadcasts 100% of the hub station's programming would not be required to comply with the proposed rules. This estimate is adjusted to reflect the requirements adopted today in light of the record. In the Alerting Security NPRM, we estimated that EAS Participants would require, on average, 10 hours annually to draft a cybersecurity risk management plan, update the plan, and submit their certification to the Commission, at an overall cost of $21 million. We instead find that 10 hours is a reasonable average burden estimate across all EAS Participants for the three limited requirements that we adopt today. As DAS states, changing default passwords and installing certain security patches can be accomplished in the normal course of business and at little or no additional cost to EAS Participants. Further, NAB points out that many EAS Participants are already taking some or all of the actions adopted in this Report and Order, recommending that “the FCC should target its efforts at the fairly small number of entities that may lag in updating their equipment or software.” To the extent that these entities already engage in password security and regular software update practices, we expect that the amount of additional time required to comply with the rules we adopt today would be low. Some EAS Participants may incur costs, however, to implement firewalls or other comparable network segmentation practices to limit remote management access, if they do not already do so. Therefore, we find that the cost estimate we adopt today is very conservative, due to the relatively narrow scope of requirements in this Report and Order, but the benefits will outweigh even this overestimated cost.

Benefits. We find, as suggested in the Alerting Security NPRM, that while it is impossible to quantify the precise dollar value of improvements to the public's safety, life, and health, as a general matter, substantial public safety benefits will result from the adoption of robust security requirements for EAS providers, such as the rules adopted today. We agree with the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency that “[o]ne of the most damaging and dangerous impacts we have [of a cybersecurity incident] is that we don't have the ability to launch Wireless Emergency Alerts or push to EAS.” The rules we adopt today will help to ensure the security and operability of EAS Participants. Additionally, as the Commission previously found, “a foreign adversary's access to American communications networks could result in hostile actions to disrupt and surveil our communications networks, impacting our nation's economy generally and online commerce specifically, and result in the breach of confidential data.” Consistent with the Commission's past analysis, our national gross domestic product (GDP) was over $30 trillion in 2025. As the requirements we adopt today apply narrowly to EAS Participants and their EAS equipment, studio transmitter link equipment, and any other remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming, rather than the more broad proposals we sought comment on in the Alerting Security NPRM, if these requirements prevent even a 0.00009% disruption of our economy, that would offset the costs. Likewise, local radio and television broadcasting, a subset of EAS Participants, supported $1.19 trillion of our GDP in 2025, so preventing the disruption of even 0.0022% would outweigh the costs. As the Commission also noted in the Alerting Security NPRM, the cost of malicious cyber activity on the U.S. economy in 2016 was between $57 billion and $109 billion, so reducing this activity (or preventing an expansion of such damage) by even 0.046% (significantly less than the 1% considered in the Alerting Security NPRM ) would produce benefits that outweigh the costs. We find that our reasoning in the Alerting Security NPRM remains applicable to the rules we adopt today, notwithstanding their narrowed scope, because the security measures we adopt today will significantly harden EAS Participants' systems against these types of attack and mitigate the risk of occurrence. Thus, we conclude that the minor costs associated with implementing the targeted security requirements in this Report and Order will be more than offset by its public safety and economic benefits.

We believe that the most effective and proportionate path to mitigating threats against EAS Participants and Participating CMS Providers is to address specific, repeatedly exploited cybersecurity vulnerabilities rather than adopting the broader cybersecurity risk management framework proposed in the Alerting Security NPRM. We agree with Nexstar Media that the cyber incidents this Report and Order is intended to prevent could have been easily avoided by undertaking basic network security measures such as those we require today. After further consideration, we conclude that adopting wide-ranging cybersecurity risk management requirements that apply to all of an EAS Participant or Participating CMS Provider's systems and services would impose extremely high costs that outweigh the security benefits.

NPR highlights the high costs of the Commission's proposals by pointing out that the Alerting Security NPRM' s estimate is “off by a factor of 10 or more—it would take a local General Manager or Operations Manager many hours just to understand the baseline framework involved, not to mention developing and implementing a cybersecurity risk plan.” On further consideration, we conclude that costs to EAS Participants and Participating CMS Providers would include not only the creation of a cybersecurity risk management plan, but also the implementation of that plan, which the Commission failed to take into account in designing its proposal. Based on additional evidence and additional consideration, we agree with the view that “compliance with the FCC's proposals in the Notice could easily run into the thousands of dollars, directly impacting a station's bottom line.” These costs would be particularly high for small broadcasters. In light of these costs, we disagree with the Center for Internet Security's view that requiring alerting participants to implement a cybersecurity framework, such as their Critical Security Controls, is appropriate because those requirements would be “narrowly tailored” or “minimally intrusive.” On balance, we find that addressing the most immediate threats to EAS Participants by adopting narrowly targeted security requirements to be more cost-effective than adopting the Commission's broad and burdensome proposal.

We decline to adopt a rule at this time that would require Participating CMS Providers to take further action to prevent false alerts from fake base stations. No commenter to the Alerting Security NPRM supported the Commission's adoption of rules to address this risk. To the contrary, AT&T and CTIA state that the ongoing international standard process is best positioned to address this issue, and ATIS questions whether such an attack on WEA would have a realistic chance of success. We acknowledge that the 3GPP SA3 (Security) working group published a study in 2023 on 5G security enhancements against false base stations, which identifies key issues and multiple candidate solutions. We encourage the 3GPP security working group to continue this work to move from candidate solutions to implementable best practice recommendations.

We decline at this time to make changes to the rules that allow for continued operations for a period of 60 days despite having defective equipment that precludes their participation in EAS. The Commission did not receive a sufficient record on this issue in response to the Alerting Security NPRM and several commenters were opposed to elimination of the 60-day rule arguing that the 60-day timeframe is necessary to complete repairs on EAS equipment. We note that our proposal in the accompanying Further Notice to allow EAS Participants to use software to fulfill their EAS obligations could have implications for the ability to receive timely repair and replacement of defective EAS equipment, and we seek comment on this issue below.

We also decline to adopt the Commission's proposal that EAS Participants and Participating CMS Providers report any substantial incident of unauthorized access of their systems to the Commission. We agree with commenters that adopting additional cybersecurity incident reporting requirements for alerting participants would be premature in light of CISA's pending rulemaking implementing the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA). Rather than adopting potentially duplicative incident requirements, we will continue to monitor CISA's work.

We decline to remove language from Sections 10.330 and 10.500 of the Commission's rules that provide that WEA functionality, both in Participating CMS Providers' networks and in mobile devices, “are dependent upon the capabilities of the delivery technologies implemented by a Participating CMS Provider” and certain WEA protocols “are defined and controlled by each Participating CMS Provider.” The Commission proposed these changes because it was concerned that the rules might “create the mistaken impression that Participating CMS Providers' compliance with the rules . . . , would be conditioned on the Participating CMS Providers' delivery technology.” CTIA opposes changing Section 10.330 because “it provides CMSPs the necessary flexibility to develop and deploy network technologies driven by consumer demand” and FEMA opposes changing it because they wanted to preserve Participating CMS Providers' flexibility to use technologies other than cell broadcast to support WEA. No commenter supported the elimination of this language, nor have we observed any non-compliance with the WEA rules attributable to the flexibility this rule provides. For these reasons, we decline to remove the language in question at this time.

The actions we take today are consistent with the approach to cybersecurity that we described in the 2025 CALEA Order on Reconsideration. The Commission continues to pursue targeted, legally robust regulatory and enforcement measures alongside a collaborative approach that emphasizes public-private partnerships that protect and secure communications networks. For instance, the Commission hosted cybersecurity workshops for broadcasters and telecommunications companies in May 2026 that brought together public- and private-sector representatives to raise awareness of emerging cybersecurity risks, share and promote adoption of best practices, and highlight opportunities for public-private partnership on cybersecurity issues facing communications providers. Unlike the one-size-fits-all proposals in the Alerting Security NPRM, our flexible and coordinated approach is proven to make networks more secure. For these reasons, we terminate PS Docket No. 22-329.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Modernization of the Nation's Alerting Systems Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Alerting Modernization NPRM ), released in August 2025, and the Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts; Protecting the Nation's Communications Systems from Cybersecurity Threats ( Alerting Security NPRM ), released October 2022. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRMs, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are addressed below.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules. The Report and Order adopts targeted measures to enhance Emergency Alert System (EAS) security that address the public safety risks arising from breaches of EAS equipment that can result in false alerts or hijacked broadcasts. The Commission requires EAS Participants to do the following with respect to EAS equipment, studio transmitter link equipment, and any remotely managed equipment that routes, processes, or inserts content into the EAS Participant's programming: (1) prior to operation, change any default password, use strong passwords, and change any password if the EAS Participant has reason to believe that the password has been compromised; (2) test and install security patches, security-related software and firmware upgrades issued by equipment manufacturers promptly after those patches or upgrades become available; and (3) use a network firewall or comparable network segmentation practice to limit remote management access to authorized devices and authorized users. These rules support the Commission's goals of strengthening the security of alerting systems to ensure these systems are designed to be secure from attacks by foreign adversaries and other malicious actors. When criminals can gain access to these systems, they can cause alarm by sending out false alerts that cause public panic or deliver false information about crises and disasters. This unauthorized access can also prevent real alerts from being transmitted. The Commission has observed attacks in recent months where threat actors exploited improperly secured, remotely accessible equipment in broadcasters' signal processing systems to gain control of station transmissions and insert unauthorized audio that included EAS tones, offensive language, and promotional content.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. In 2022, the Commission released the Alerting Security NPRM seeking comment on ways to strengthen the operational readiness of EAS equipment. The Alerting Security NPRM proposed requiring EAS Participants to report compromises of their EAS equipment, communications systems, and services to the Commission, and also proposed requiring EAS Participants and Commercial Mobile Service providers that participate in Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) (Participating CMS Providers) to annually certify that they have a cybersecurity risk management plan in place, and to employ sufficient security measures to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their respective alerting systems. The proposal would have required an annual certification attesting that the EAS Participant has created, updated, and implemented a cybersecurity risk management plan that includes security controls sufficient to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the EAS through the following best practices: (1) changing default passwords prior to operation; (2) installing security updates in a timely manner; (3) securing equipment behind properly configured firewalls or using other segmentation practices; (4) requiring multifactor authentication where applicable; (5) addressing the replacement of end-of-life equipment; and (6) wiping, clearing, or encrypting user information before disposing of old devices. It also proposed requiring Participating CMS Providers take steps to ensure that only valid alerts are being displayed on consumer devices.

Several commenters raise concerns about the burdens associated with these specific proposals. In the record of this proceeding, Prometheus Radio Project (Prometheus), NPR, and REC Networks comment on the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. Prometheus comments that it supports cybersecurity best practices for all broadcasters, but notes that compliance will be “onerous for small, rural and LPFM broadcasters, most of whom lack in-house technical expertise and will have to shoulder significant additional financial burden.” Prometheus also states that the Commission “must take a more nuanced approach to ensuring the security of EAS equipment, by providing cybersecurity assistance to EAS Participants directly and by placing compliance burden on EAS equipment manufacturers when technically feasible.” Prometheus agrees, however, with the Commission's “initiative to strengthen security practices and EAS and supports the implementation of cybersecurity practices for all broadcasters, big and small.” NPR agrees that there should be “secure, reliable communications during emergencies without relying on the internet, which may be offline or become unreliable, particularly during power outages” but raises concerns “that some of the proposed rules would create costly obligations for stations without clear public benefits [and] [s]ome of the proposed rules would be especially burdensome for noncommercial public radio stations—stations that already provide consistent and trusted emergency alerting service despite significant staffing and monetary constraints.” REC Networks similarly states “that security of EAS equipment is of paramount importance” but emphasizes the limited resources of “ `small stations' [ ] normally operated by small nonprofit organizations, minority groups, `mom and pop' and individual owners with limited budgets and very limited information technology resources.” REC Networks states that they “will oppose the `one size fits all' approach to information security as proposed by the Commission including any requirements that involve the immediate reporting of any security breaches . . . as well as the requirements to develop, update and maintain complex extensive cyber-security risk management policies as they would be applied to small stations.” Finally, DAS notes in its reply comments that while sometimes equipment manufacturers provide firmware and software updates “sometimes at no cost or sometimes with a charge,” others in the record accurately note that “(e)ven small operators should consider these [firmware and software] updates to be the normal cost of doing business.”

In response to the Alerting Modernization NPRM, DAS expresses concerns that “large operators may move ahead quickly, but small-market and rural licensees might find it hard to keep up” and urges a “comprehensive cost-benefit and small-entity impact assessment before final rule adoption.” The Competitive Carriers Association comments that there needs to be “relief and/or reduction of the cadence of imposition of new regulatory requirements related to public safety” and that small providers are at risk of a disadvantage in sales because “smaller carriers would likely lose customers to larger providers that offer [alerting] but with potentially less coverage and quality of service in rural and remote areas.”

We are persuaded by these views. We agree that the practices proposed in the Alerting Security NPRM are overly burdensome, especially for smaller providers. As such, we adopt a very narrowly tailored subset of these proposals. These requirements have been streamlined with smaller providers in mind and are adaptable for various providers, regardless of size.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply. The rules we adopt in the Report and Order will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—NFPA 58” (91 FR 21986). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA 58) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of NFPA 58 will replace the existing reference within 49 CFR 192.11 to NFPA, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, 2020 edition, effective August 25, 2019.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM A372/A372M” (91 FR 22008). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the reapproved 2025 edition of ASTM A372/A372M, Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for Thin-Walled Pressure Vessels (ASTM A372/A372M) by reference. Reference to the reapproved 2025 edition of ASTM A372/A372M will replace existing references within § 192.177 to ASTM A372/A372M-20e1, Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for Thin-Walled Pressure Vessels, approved March 1, 2020.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM F2620” (91 FR 22004). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM F2620, Standard Practice for Heat Fusion Joining of Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings (ASTM F2620) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition will replace existing references within §§ 192.281(c) and 192.285(b) to ASTM F2620-20ae2, Standard Practice for Heat Fusion Joining of Polyethylene Pipe and Fittings, approved December 1, 2020.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM D2564” (91 FR 21990). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM D2564, Standard Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Piping Systems (ASTM D2564) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of ASTM D2564 will replace existing references with § 192.281 to ASTM D2564-20, Standard Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Piping Systems, approved August 1, 2020.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—NFPA 59” (91 FR 22012). The DFR amended 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas Plant Code, by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of NFPA 59 will replace the existing reference in § 192.11 to NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas Plant Code, 2018 edition, effective September 6, 2017.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM F1055” (91 FR 21997). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the reapproved 2022 edition of ASTM F1055, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyethylene Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyethylene and Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe and Tubing (ASTM F1055) by reference. Reference to the reapproved 2022 edition of ASTM F1055 will replace existing references within § 192.283(a) and Appendix B to Part 192 to ASTM F1055-16a, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyethylene Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyethylene and Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe and Tubing, approved November 15, 2016.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM D2513” (91 FR 22021). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM D2513, Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings (ASTM D2513) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of ASTM D2513 will replace existing references within Appendix B to Part 192 to ASTM D2513-20, Standard Specification for Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings, approved December 1, 2020.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM F2767” (91 FR 22001). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM F2767, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution (ASTM F2767) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of ASTM F2767 will replace existing references within Appendix B to Part 192 to ASTM F2767-18(2023), “Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution,” November 1, 2023.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—NACE SP0206” (91 FR 21993). The DFR amended part 192 to incorporate by reference the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206, Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas (DG-ICDA). Reference to the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206 will replace existing references in §§  192.923 and 192.927 to NACE SP0206-2006, Standard Practice, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas (DG-ICDA),” December 1, 2006.

In commenting on the DFR, the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) noted that the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206 was not available at the website identified by PHMSA in the Notice, and that the PHMSA standards library email was not explicitly listed in this DFR as in other similar rules. 1 While expressing its support for adopting the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206, PST stated that it “believe[d] that [its] comment constitute[d] an adverse comment,” and that the DFR should be withdrawn.

PHMSA does not agree that PST's comment satisfies the adversity standard in § 190.339(c). Section 190.339(c) states, in relevant part, that “an adverse comment is one which explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.” Section 190.339(c) further states that “[c]omments that are frivolous or insubstantial will not be considered adverse under this procedure.”

PST has not shown that anyone suffered real harm from the incorrect website link published in the DFR Notice. 2 The DFR provided multiple options for interested parties to obtain access to the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206 consistent with 49 U.S.C. 60102(p). For example, the DFR directed interested parties to the PHMSA Standards Incorporated by Reference web page that details the means for obtaining industry standards proposed for incorporation, including by emailing PHMSA at phmsaphpstandards@dot.gov. PST submitted such an email and received the correct public website link to access the standard free of charge during the comment period. Other members of the public could have used the same approach to obtain access to the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206. 3 Section 192.7, a regulation referenced in the DFR, also provides PHMSA's contact information for requesting certain industry standards, and PHMSA's standard update library is a generally accessible public email account. The DFR informed interested parties that the materials can be obtained by directly contacting the publisher at the contact information listed in § 192.7.

The DFR outlined numerous ways for interested parties to access the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206, and PST used one of those methods to access the standard during the public comment period. PST has not shown that the incorrect website listed in the DFR Notice caused it (or anyone else) to suffer real harm or that adopting the 2016 edition of NACE SP0206 would be inappropriate. In fact, PST has expressed its support for that action. 4 PHMSA therefore finds that PST's comment on the DFR is not an adverse comment. See § 190.339.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM F1973” (91 FR 22018). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to incorporate the 2025 edition of ASTM F1973, “Standard Specification for Factory Assembled Anodeless Risers and Transition Fittings in Polyethylene (PE) and Polyamide (PA11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Fuel Gas Distribution Systems” (ASTM F1973) by reference. Reference to the 2025 edition of ASTM F1973 will replace existing references within § 192.204(b) and Appendix B to Part 192 to ASTM F1973-21, Standard Specification for Factory Assembled Anodeless Risers and Transition Fittings in Polyethylene (PE) and Polyamide 11 (PA11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Fuel Gas Distribution Systems, November 1, 2021.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM A53/A53M” (91 FR 22032). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM A53/A53M, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless (ASTM A53/A53M) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition will replace existing references within § 192.113, Appendix B to Part 192, and § 195.106(e) to ASTM A53/A53M-22, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, approved July 1, 2022.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASTM A333/A333M” (91 FR 22029). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 to incorporate the 2024 edition of ASTM A333/A333M, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service and Other Applications with Required Notch Toughness (ASTM A333/A333M) by reference. Reference to the 2024 edition of ASTM A333/A333M will replace existing references within § 192.113, Appendix B to Part 192, and § 195.106(e) to ASTM A333/A333M-18, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service and Other Applications with Required Notch Toughness, approved November 1, 2018.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—NACE SP0502” (91 FR 22025). The DFR amended parts 192 and 195 to incorporate by reference the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology (NACE SP0502). Reference to the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502 will replace existing references in §§ 192.319(f); 192.461(h); 192.620(d); 192.923(b); 192.925(b); 192.931(d); 192.935(b); 192.939(a); and § 195.588(b) to ANSI/NACE SP0502-2010, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology,” revised June 24, 2010.

In commenting on the DFR, the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) noted that the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502 was not available at the website identified by PHMSA in the Notice, and that the PHMSA standards library email was not explicitly listed in this DFR as in other similar rules. 1 While expressing its support for adopting the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502, PST stated that it “believe[d] that [its] comment constitute[d] an adverse comment,” and that the DFR should be withdrawn.

PHMSA does not agree that PST's comment satisfies the adversity standard in § 190.339(c). Section 190.339(c) states, in relevant part, that “an adverse comment is one which explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.” Section 190.339(c) further states that “[c]omments that are frivolous or insubstantial will not be considered adverse under this procedure.”

PST has not shown that anyone suffered real harm from the incorrect website link published in the DFR Notice. 2 The DFR provided multiple options for interested parties to obtain access to the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502 consistent with 49 U.S.C. 60102(p). For example, the DFR directed interested parties to the PHMSA Standards Incorporated by Reference web page that details the means for obtaining industry standards proposed for incorporation, including by emailing PHMSA at phmsaphpstandards@dot.gov. PST submitted such an email and received the correct public website link to access the standard free of charge during the comment period. Other members of the public could have used the same approach to obtain access to the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502. 3 Section 192.7, a regulation referenced in the DFR, also provides PHMSA's contact information for requesting certain industry standards, and PHMSA's standard update library is a generally accessible public email account. The DFR informed interested parties that the materials can be obtained by directly contacting the publisher at the contact information listed in § 192.7.

The DFR outlined numerous ways for interested parties to access the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502, and PST used one of those methods to access the standard during the public comment period. PST has not shown that the incorrect website listed in the DFR Notice caused it (or anyone else) to suffer real harm or that adopting the 2025 edition of NACE SP0502 would be inappropriate. In fact, PST has expressed its support for that action. 4 PHMSA therefore finds that PST's comment on the DFR is not an adverse comment. See § 190.339.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR (91 FR 22036) amending part 194 requirements for oil spill response plans to clarify that operators may maintain them electronically. Section 194.111 requires that a copy of the response plan be maintained at the operator's headquarters and at other locations where response activities may be conducted.

The DFR amended § 194.111(a) to clarify that operators may maintain the response plan on an electronic device readily accessible at those locations. The Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) commented emphasizing the importance of having the response plan accessible and agreeing that electronic availability could improve access. PST also questioned whether the DFR could result in a lack of access if internet connectivity is limited. 1

PHMSA believes that PST's concern regarding accessibility was addressed through the language of the DFR itself, which requires “electronic storage” not contingent on internet connectivity. This may require downloading a copy or taking other measures to ensure the response plan is stored and available on the portable device regardless of internet connection. While PST is concerned that electronic devices are susceptible to “fire, explosion, rupture, or power outage,” PHMSA notes that the paper record alternative would be equally, if not more, at risk of destruction under similar circumstances.

PST's concern that electronic devices are vulnerable to a cybersecurity incident that could impact internet access has also been addressed. In addition to requiring “electronic storage,” the DFR requires the device be “secured,” which further obligates the operator to ensure the portable device is protected from such external threats. In this way, secured electronic devices can be more durable than paper records.

PST commented that the DFR required notice and comment as a change that could impact safety. PHMSA disagrees that the DFR represents a substantive change that could have such an effect. Section 194.111(a) does not specify the manner or format in which the response plan should be maintained. As stated in the DFR, PHMSA is merely “expressly permitting” maintenance in a form the agency understands already to be allowed, while imposing additional guardrails. 2

PHMSA does not agree that PST's comment satisfies the adversity standard in § 190.339(c). Section 190.339(c) states, in relevant part, that “an adverse comment is one which explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.” Section 190.339(c) further states that “[c]omments that are frivolous or insubstantial will not be considered adverse under this procedure.” The DFR addressed PST's concerns, and PST has not otherwise shown how the DFR is inappropriate, ineffective, or unacceptable.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that, if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on August 3, 2026. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

PHMSA is withdrawing the DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—ASME B31.4,” which published on April 24, 2026 (91 FR 22039). A comment on the DFR provided technical justification to recommend that PHMSA await clarification by the standard developing organization to the expansion stress provisions in the 2022 edition of the standard. 1 Because PHMSA received adverse comment, PHMSA is withdrawing the DFR in accordance with 49 CFR 190.339.

On April 24, 2026, PHMSA published a DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Standards Update—MSS SP-75” (91 FR 22043). The DFR amended regulations at 49 CFR part 195 to incorporate the 2025 edition of MSS SP-75 High Strength, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings (MSS SP-75) by reference. Reference to the 2025 edition of MSS SP-75 will replace existing references within § 195.118(a) to MSS SP-75-2019 Standard Practice, High Strength, Wrought, Butt-Welding Fittings, published December 2019.

PHMSA issued the DFR under the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 190.339. In accordance with those procedures, PHMSA stated in the DFR that if no adverse comments were received, the DFR would become effective on January 1, 2027. PHMSA did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the DFR; therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

PHMSA is withdrawing the DFR titled “Pipeline Safety: Clarifying Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Management Guidance,” which published on April 24, 2026 (91 FR 22047). Because PHMSA received adverse comment, PHMSA is withdrawing the DFR. 1 In accordance with 49 CFR 190.339, PHMSA may incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent DFR or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.

This interim final rule (IFR) amends 49 CFR part 555, “Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,” to align the regulation with the Administrator's statutory discretion to determine the vehicle population covered by a temporary exemption, including vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a grant of temporary exemption. 1

Except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), 30113, and 30114, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, import, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any motor vehicle that does not comply with the applicable FMVSS and is not covered by a certification to that effect issued under Section 30115. 2 Section 30112(b) lists limited categories of persons or motor vehicles to which the requirements of section 30112(a) do not apply. 3

Section 30113 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis, under specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate, motor vehicles from an FMVSS or bumper standard. 4 The Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA. 5 The exercise of NHTSA's authority to grant, in whole or in part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer is conditioned upon the agency's making specified findings. The agency must comprehensively evaluate the request for exemption and find that the temporary exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act”), as amended. 6 In addition, the agency must make at least one of the following four findings: 7

• Compliance with the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

• The exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard.

• The exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle.

• Compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.

To provide procedures for implementing the provisions in section 30113 concerning temporary exemptions, NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, “Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,” which became effective January 29, 1973 (38 FR 2694). Section 555.7, “Processing of applications,” describes the steps that NHTSA takes after it receives an exemption petition and the effective date of the temporary exemption if the petition is granted. Under section 555.7(f), unless a later date is specified in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date.

In 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act. 8 The FAST Act added 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10), which provided a new exception to the prohibition in section 30112(a)(1) against manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce, or importation into the United States of a vehicle not certified to comply with the FMVSS. Section 30112(b)(10) states that section 30112(a)(1) does not apply to vehicles introduced into interstate commerce solely for the purpose of testing or evaluation by particular manufacturers (“FAST Act vehicles”), so long as the manufacturer agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation. 9

In this IFR, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 555.7(f) to remove the statement that a temporary exemption applies only to vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date of a temporary exemption. NHTSA adds a new paragraph (g), stating that a temporary exemption exempts vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date unless otherwise determined by the Administrator. This IFR also removes language in 49 CFR 555.5 requiring that three copies of a request for exemption be provided to the Administrator.

Section 2 of Executive Order 14219 instructs agencies to identify and rescind or modify, as appropriate, regulations that do not comport with the best reading of the underlying statutory authority. The purpose of this IFR is to align the regulatory text regarding the effective date of exemptions with the Safety Act's provision establishing that authority. Section 30113 does not restrict the granting of an exemption to only motor vehicles that have already been manufactured; nor does the statute state that an exemption only has future effect. In a final rule that was issued on October 25, 1974 without prior notice and comment, paragraph (f) was added to section 555.7 together with certain additional amendments to part 555. The agency found that because the amendments pertained to agency practice and were interpretative in nature, no notice of proposed rulemaking was required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In that rulemaking, NHTSA stated that the purpose of paragraph (f) was to clarify NHTSA's policy that temporary exemptions should not “serve to excuse manufacture of nonconforming vehicles” in violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act (now codified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1)). 10 That section provides in relevant part that “a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any [nonconforming] motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.”

By limiting the Administrator to granting temporary exemptions only to vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date of a temporary exemption, section 555.7 does not comport with the best reading of section 30113, which does not so limit the Administrator's discretion. It remains NHTSA's general policy that part 555 should not serve to excuse prior violations of section 30112(a), including prior manufacture for sale of nonconforming vehicles. Revising paragraph (f) does not change that policy. Rather, it codifies the Administrator's statutory discretion to exempt previously manufactured vehicles in circumstances that are consistent with the agency's enabling legislation as amended by the FAST Act. For instance, vehicles produced or operating in interstate commerce that are subject to exceptions created under the FAST Act or relevant exemptions may appropriately be eligible for exemptions under part 555—which, of course, requires the appropriate safety determination and a finding that granting an exemption is consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act. This issue is particularly relevant in light of dramatic changes in vehicle technology and in light of passage of the FAST Act—and as reflected in recent changes in the nature of exemption requests received by NHTSA. Going forward, NHTSA intends to review each request for exemption of vehicles already manufactured prior to a grant of exemption on a case-by-case basis. 11

Although the amendment in this IFR is not specific to FAST Act vehicles, NHTSA anticipates that manufacturers of vehicles that utilize the exception for testing or evaluation added by the FAST Act may seek exemptions for such vehicles under the amended section 555.7. 12 This may prevent substantial waste by codifying for these vehicles a pathway to uses other than testing or evaluation. Granting such exemptions would not be contrary to NHTSA's policy that part 555 exemptions generally should not excuse the manufacture of nonconforming vehicles because these vehicles were not required to meet the FMVSS in the first instance. Because both section 30112(b)(10) and section 30113 provide exceptions to the prohibitions of section 30112(a), should such vehicles be granted an exemption under section 30113 to be used for purposes other than “testing or evaluation,” the vehicles would no longer be subject to section 30112(b)(10).

In establishing the non-application provision in section 30112(b)(10), Congress facilitated the expeditious testing of new vehicle technologies on public roads. Unlike the process for obtaining temporary exemptions, no approval from NHTSA is required for qualifying manufacturers (those producing FMVSS-compliant vehicles prior to the enactment of the FAST Act) to operate their test vehicles on public roads. NHTSA believes that Congress's incorporation of the language “agrees not to sell or offer for sale” in section 30112(b)(10) was not meant to bar vehicles operated under 30112(b)(10) from entry into the market entirely or that such a manufacturer is precluded from seeking to avail itself of other available legal pathways. Accordingly, if a manufacturer is granted an exemption under section 30113 that includes a vehicle originally introduced into interstate commerce under 30112(b)(10), the grant of the 30113 exemption for that vehicle would render moot the restrictions of section 30112(b)(10). This would allow the vehicle to be used for purposes other than testing or evaluation, including being offered for sale if the terms of the exemption so permit. 13

Under 49 CFR part 555 and part 567, “Certification,” manufacturers must certify vehicles subject to a temporary exemption as conforming to all applicable FMVSS and bumper standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle, and must affix securely a label containing specified language, including the date of manufacture as well as a list of standards for which they have been exempt. 14 This IFR does not amend these requirements. Therefore, the same certification and labeling requirements will apply to exempted vehicles manufactured prior to the date of an exemption as those manufactured after, subject to any terms and conditions of an exemption grant. This is true regardless of whether the applicable FMVSSs change during the time between a vehicle being manufactured and when an exemption is granted. However, the Administrator may consider such factors when determining whether a grant is consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and when determining what grant terms may be appropriate. In addition, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 30113(d), for the purpose of accounting the maximum annual sales volume under a grant, vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a grant will be accredited to the 12-month period in which they are sold ( i.e., regardless of the timing of their manufacture).

This IFR also removes the requirement in 49 CFR 555.5(b) requiring that applications be submitted in three copies. In lieu of physical duplicate submissions, applicants are now required to submit electronically via email. This administrative modernization eliminates unnecessary paper burdens and costs for petitioners while enabling faster distribution and concurrent internal review of exemption requests within the agency.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), codified at 5 U.S.C. 553, provides that notice and public comment procedures are not applicable to “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The APA defines “rule” as “the whole or part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) (emphasis added). Interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” See, e.g., Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97 (2015) (citing Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995)).

As explained above, this IFR is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, an interpretative rule, or general statement of policy and therefore notice-and-comment procedures need not be done under 5 U.S.C. 553. This IFR clarifies NHTSA's policy that the determination of whether a particular exemption complies with the requirements of the Safety Act is done on a case-by-case basis within the context of analyzing a specific request for exemption. This IFR interprets the current text of sections 30113 and 30112 to not place a direct restriction on exemptions applicable to vehicles that were previously manufactured and to establish cognizable populations of such vehicles that may be eligible for exemptions. In addition, under the principles stated in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015), the agency is not required to use notice and comment procedures to issue a new interpretive rule amending an existing interpretive rule. Just as the 1974 rule did not undergo notice and comment procedures, no such procedures are needed for this IFR.

In determining whether a rule is “legislative” (and thus generally subject to the APA's notice and comment requirements) rather than “interpretative,” among the factors courts consider are whether, in the absence of a rule, an agency has an adequate basis for enforcement action or other agency action to confer benefits; whether the rule leaves the agency with any discretion; and whether the rule repudiates or is irreconcilable with a prior legislative rule. Each of these factors is addressed briefly below.

This IFR has no impact on the agency's basis for enforcement actions. It does not confer benefits because NHTSA, in prior instances consistent with statute, has exempted certain vehicles notwithstanding § 555.7(f). It also does not commit the Administrator to any substantive outcome in response to any exemption request. The IFR is not irreconcilable with a prior legislative rule, as the previous rule it amends was itself an interpretive rule or a rule of agency procedure.

This IFR is also a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Part 555 contains procedures governing how NHTSA processes applications for exemption, such as which documents are published in the Federal Register , the timing of effect, and whether a public hearing is needed. The amendments to § 555.5 direct the electronic means by which applications for exemption are to be submitted. The amendments to § 555.7 codify the scope of the Administrator's discretion regarding the determination of an exempted vehicle population. In addition, the changes do not impact substantive rights because NHTSA has exempted relevant vehicles where appropriate under statute notwithstanding the language in § 555.7.

Finally, although such a determination is not necessary due to this IFR being an interpretative rule, general statement of policy, or rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, there is good cause to issue this IFR without prior notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B) because notice and public comment are unnecessary. This is an action that only states agency interpretation and general policy and aligns the regulatory text with that interpretation. Nonetheless, the agency is seeking comment as detailed below.

As explained above, the APA authorizes NHTSA to issue this IFR without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. As an IFR, this regulation is in effect and binding upon its effective date. No further regulatory action by NHTSA is necessary to make this rule effective. However, to benefit from comments that interested parties and the public may have, NHTSA is requesting that any comments be submitted to the docket for this notice. NHTSA is providing an opportunity for comment on this IFR for 30 days after this action's publication date. Comments received in response to this notice will be considered by the agency. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will publish a final rule responding to the comments and making any necessary changes to the provisions of this IFR.

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 14192, and E.O. 14219. This rule is nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. NHTSA has not quantified any potential benefits or costs. NHTSA does not anticipate any new regulatory costs, as the rule does not amend any of the substantive requirements for petitions submitted under part 555. Removal of the three-copy requirement will provide a minor reduction in paperwork burden. E.O. 14219 is discussed above.

NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concludes that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that this rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does 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.” This IFR makes minor amendments to an existing procedural regulation in 49 CFR part 555 and is not a safety standard and imposes no new requirements or responsibilities.

When promulgating a regulation, E.O. 12988 specifically requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations.

Pursuant to this E.O., NHTSA notes that, as discussed above with regard to E.O. 13132, there is no preemptive effect associated with this IFR. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

E.O. 13609 promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. NHTSA has analyzed this IFR under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined that it has no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), where a proposed rule must be published for comment by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because NHTSA was not required by law to publish a proposed rule, the analytical requirements of the RFA do not apply.

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this IFR pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ). NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion (CE), the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b).Each DOT Operating Administration (OA) may apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. § 9(f). To do so, the OA “must evaluate the action for extraordinary circumstances identified in the OA procedures in which the CE is established to determine if a normally excluded action may have a significant impact and coordinate with the originating OA to ensure that the CE is being applied correctly.” Id. This rulemaking, which removes the statement that a temporary exemption applies only to vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date of a temporary exemption, codifies the Administrator's discretion to determine the vehicle population covered by a temporary exemption, and removes the requirement that an application be submitted in three copies, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), “Planning and administrative activities not involving or leading directly to construction, such as: Training, technical assistance and research; promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance; approval of project concepts; engineering; and operating assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine demand.” NHTSA has coordinated with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure that this CE is being applied correctly. NHTSA does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. There are no changes to information collections associated with this IFR.

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” There are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this IFR.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually ($206 million adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This IFR would not result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $206 million annually. As a result, the requirements of Section 202 of the Act do not apply.

DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this IFR as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). NHTSA will submit this IFR to Congress and the Government Accountability Office as required by the CRA.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket number indicated in this document in your comments.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 553.21, your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will return the postcard by mail.

You should submit a redacted “public version” of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under ADDRESSES . This “public version” of your comment should contain only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do this.

You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.

You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted “confidential version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.6, the words “ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” or “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS” (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: “[ ].”

You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted “public version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the redacted “public version” should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment ( i.e., the only information that should be unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential treatment).

NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. You may either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer link. Manufacturers or any companies that already have a Confidential Business Information (CBI) Portal account or an Enterprise Account with NHTSA should use the CBI Portal for their submission. If you submit a CBI request, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to Eli Wachtel at eli.wachtel@dot.gov.

We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 555 as set forth below.