A federal credit union (FCU) may only engage in activities that are either expressly authorized by statute or within its incidental powers. The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) explicitly grants FCUs the power to, among other activities, make loans to members and to provide letters of credit on behalf of members. The accompanying incidental powers provision states that each FCU may “exercise such incidental powers as shall be necessary or requisite to enable it to carry on effectively the business for which it is incorporated.” The FCU Act defines the business for which each FCU is incorporated—“promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for provident or productive purposes.” In suretyship and guaranty agreements, a credit union promises to pay a member's obligations in the event of default. NCUA has recognized that acting as a guarantor or surety on behalf of a member is a logical extension of an FCU's authority to make loans to its members and to provide letters of credit on behalf of members; and involves risks that are similar in nature to the risks involved in an FCU's lending activity. NCUA's regulation at 12 CFR 701.20 (§ 701.20) sets the requirements for FCUs entering into suretyship and guaranty agreements for their members as an incidental power. The same requirements apply to FISCUs that are authorized under state law to enter into suretyship and guaranty agreements.

On December 29, 2025, the Board published a proposed rule to remove the specific segregated deposit and the detailed collateral criteria prescribed by § 701.20 for surety and guaranty agreements. Currently, paragraph (c)(3) of § 701.20 mandates a segregated deposit when a FICU serves as a surety or guarantor. Paragraph (d) of the section also requires a perfected security interest in collateral equal to 100 percent or 110 percent of the federal credit union's potential liability, depending on the type of collateral. The 100 percent collateral category includes cash; obligations of the United States or its agencies; obligations fully guaranteed by the United States or its agencies as to principal and interest; and notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and bankers' acceptances that are eligible for rediscount or purchase by a Federal Reserve Bank. The 110 percent category comprises real estate and marketable securities. The Board solicited public comments on these proposed changes to § 701.20, providing a 60-day comment period that concluded on February 27, 2026. This final rule takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposal.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 1 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 2 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 3 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 4 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on February 27, 2026, the Board received 15 comments regarding the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by an individual, state and regional credit union leagues, a national association representing state credit union supervisors and state-chartered credit unions, and national trade associations representing credit unions. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change.

In summary, this final rule amends § 701.20 to eliminate the specific segregated deposit and detailed collateral requirements for surety and guaranty agreements. The final rule retains two existing requirements designed to ensure the safety and soundness of surety and guaranty agreements. The first requires that the FICU's obligation under the agreement be limited to a fixed amount and limited in duration. Because the nature of a surety or guaranty agreement is a loan, the second provision requires that a FICU's performance under the agreement creates a loan that is permissible under the applicable lending regulations. The final rule also preserves state regulators' existing authority over FISCUs participating in surety and guaranty activities. In light of other requirements, the Board believes that maintaining a separate NCUA requirement for segregated deposits and collateral criteria specific to suretyship or guaranty agreements adds unnecessary complexity. The final rule will simplify the regulatory framework and reduce unnecessary compliance burdens.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's response to the comments.

All substantive comments expressed support for eliminating the segregated deposit and collateral requirements outlined in § 701.20. They described the proposal as a practical update that aligns regulatory requirements with current risk-management expectations rather than prescriptive collateral formulas.

Several commenters highlighted that removing the collateralization rules would lessen compliance burdens and afford credit unions greater operational flexibility to develop innovative products that better serve their members. Additionally, two commenters indicated that the changes may reduce costs and simplify arrangements for small FCUs and state credit unions. Three commenters described the current collateral requirements as rigid and burdensome. Moreover, other commenters noted that the proposal would enhance operational efficiency while maintaining standards of safety and soundness.

NCUA Response. The Board appreciates the support expressed by the commenters and agrees that removing the prescriptive segregated deposit and detailed collateral requirements required by § 701.20 will reduce burden and provide FICUs the flexibility to design products that meet member needs. As noted, the Board has elected to adopt the proposed rule without change.

Four commenters noted that existing lending regulations, such as NCUA's commercial lending rules under 12 CFR part 723, render the additional deposit and collateral requirements for surety and guaranty agreements redundant and unnecessary. NCUA's member business loan and commercial lending regulations include collateral requirements that reflect a broad, principles-based regulatory approach. These principles are predicated on the Board's expectation that credit unions will maintain prudent risk management practices and sufficient capital to mitigate the risks associated with their commercial lending activities.

NCUA Response. The Board agrees that the prescriptive collateralization rules for surety and guaranty agreements required by § 701.20 are duplicative. As highlighted in the preamble to the proposed rule, § 701.20 requires that the suretyship or guaranty create an authorized loan under the applicable lending regulations. The Board emphasizes that a surety or guaranty agreement is not a mechanism to avoid the other applicable lending requirements. These requirements are designed to ensure the safety and soundness of lending transactions.

Section 701.20's segregated deposit and collateral requirements apply to FISCUs that are permitted to enter into suretyship and guaranty agreements under state law. Consequently, the proposed amendments would apply to such FISCUs. Four commenters from state and regional credit union leagues expressed support for eliminating these requirements, highlighting the advantages of regulatory relief through reduced compliance burdens and increased flexibility for member credit unions to introduce innovative products. Another commenter noted that the proposal empowered states to exercise authority over lending rules for state-chartered credit unions.

One commenter representing an association of state credit union supervisors and state-chartered credit unions expressed general support for the proposal, while underscoring the importance of maintaining the integrity of the state system and state authority within the dual-chartering framework. This association stressed that states should serve as the principal authority in establishing collateral requirements for state-chartered credit unions offering suretyship or guaranty services for members. This commenter recommended that the final rule explicitly communicate supervisory expectations and confirm that states retain the primary responsibility for tailoring requirements to their respective state-chartered credit unions.

The commenter also supported structural changes outside of § 701.20 to lessen administrative burden and improve clarity for FISCUs. The recommendations included consolidating deposit-insurance regulations into a dedicated subchapter for FISCUs, distinct from FCU operational provisions, and clarifying the circumstances in which NCUA serves as share insurer for all FICUs versus its role as the chartering or operating regulator for FCUs.

NCUA Response. The Board is always interested in feedback on the clarity of its regulatory requirements and remains committed to working with all credit unions to ensure the clarity of their regulatory obligations. The Board observes that, under current NCUA regulations, a FISCU's authority to enter into surety or guaranty agreements depends on state law. The Board recognizes that such authorities derive from relevant state legislation, applicable state regulations, or official interpretations by the state supervisory authority. As discussed in both the proposed rule's preamble and this preamble, the relevant lending regulations will continue to govern all FICUs, including FISCUs authorized under state law to participate in surety and guaranty activities. For example, 12 CFR part 723 outlines commercial lending standards applicable to all FISCUs, but states may implement equivalent regulations as deemed acceptable by NCUA, thereby preserving oversight over their institutions. The Board emphasizes that the current regulatory framework recognizing state-specific business lending rules remains unchanged. The commenter's other suggestion is outside the scope of the rulemaking. Accordingly, the Board has not revised the rule in response to the comment.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 5 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 6 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 7 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  8 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 9 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 10 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule does not impose any new requirements that would result in small FICUs incurring an economic cost. To the extent that the final rule would have any economic impacts, they will be deregulatory in nature. The current rule authorizes FCUs to enter into suretyship and guaranty agreements. The final rule would remove the segregated deposit and collateral requirements for FCUs to enter into such agreements imposed by § 701.20. It is unlikely that small credit unions will participate in either of these activities. Less prescriptive regulation of surety/guarantor agreements may also encourage FICUs (irrespective of size) to increase the scale of this activity. Less prescriptive regulation should lower FICU supervision and examination expenses as well. To the extent that small FISCUs are authorized to enter into surety and guaranty agreements under state law, small FISCUs may similarly benefit from the removal of the segregated deposit and associated collateral requirements imposed by § 701.20.

Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has reviewed this rule and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 11 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule would apply to all FICUs, including FISCUs. FISCUs, however, may act as a surety or guarantor for members only to the extent permitted by their specific state law. NCUA expects that any effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government will be minor. The final rule is not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between NCUA and state supervisory authorities with oversight of FISCUs.

The final rule would remove the segregated deposit and collateral requirements imposed by § 701.20 when FCUs or FISCUs act as a surety and guarantor. FISCUs would remain subject to the other requirements, including compliance with the applicable lending regulations. The final rule may, therefore, have some direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. However, to the extent the rule has any such effects, it will be to reduce the federal regulatory burden on FISCUs.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 12 The final rule relates to the collateral requirements for FICUs to enter into surety and guaranty agreements, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect. The final rule is exclusively concerned with removing separate segregated deposit and collateral requirements specific to such agreements imposed by a federal regulation. Any potential positive effect on family well-being, including financial well-being is, at most, indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 13 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 14 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 701, as follows:

The regulations in § 701.25 govern the ability of a federal credit union (FCU) to make loans, including investments in subordinated debt, to other credit unions. In accordance with section 107(7)(C) of the FCU Act, the regulation establishes an aggregate limit on such loans of 25 percent of the lending FCU's paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus. 1 It also sets limits for loans to a single credit union borrower. The regulation sets forth specific eligibility requirements and aggregate limits for FCUs that invest in the subordinated debt of other credit unions. The requirements of § 701.25 are made applicable to federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) through § 741.227. 2

In addition to the limits discussed above, § 701.25 imposes documentation requirements on FCU boards of directors, and through § 741.227 on FISCU boards as well. Specifically, paragraph (b) of § 701.25 requires the board of directors to approve all loans to other credit unions and to establish written policies for managing the associated credit risk. The policies must specify the limits on the aggregate principal amount of loans the FICU can make to all other credit unions and the aggregate principal amount of loans the FICU can make to any single credit union. Such limits specific to the FICU may not exceed the generally applicable limits established in § 701.25.

On December 29, 2025, the Board published a proposed rule requesting public comment on the removal of the documentation requirements codified in 12 CFR 701.25(b). 3 As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Board believes this portion of the regulation is unnecessary and overly prescriptive. The FCU Act already requires an FCU's board of directors to approve all loans to other credit unions. 4 Accordingly, for FCUs, § 701.25(b) is largely redundant of an existing statutory requirement. Moreover, FICU boards are in the best position to determine whether formal approval policies are necessary for such loans, consistent with the number, size, and risks associated with the FICU's lending practices. This final rule follows publication of the December 29, 2025, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposal.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 5 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 6 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 7 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 8 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on February 27, 2026, the Board had received 10 public comments. Comments were submitted by credit union leagues, a national association of state credit union supervisors, trade organizations, and advocacy organizations. After careful consideration of the issue raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change. The Board emphasizes that while FICU boards will no longer be required to adopt written policies regarding aggregate limits on loans to other credit unions, FICUs remain subject to the limits and other requirements regarding such loans set forth in the other provisions of § 701.25. FISCUs should refer to state law to determine whether their boards must approve loans to other credit unions.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

The commenters were unanimous in their support for the proposed rule. They agreed with the NCUA's assessment that the documentation requirements are duplicative and unnecessary. The commenters wrote that removal of § 701.25(b) would enable FICUs to more efficiently manage liquidity and enhance mutual support among credit unions. The commenters also appreciated the reduction in compliance burden, noting that this would especially benefit smaller FICUs.

NCUA Response. The Board appreciates the support expressed by the commenters and agrees that removal of § 701.25(b) will provide FICUs with greater flexibility. As noted, the Board has elected to adopt the proposed rule without change.

One commenter, a national trade organization, also offered the following suggestions for additional changes to the NCUA requirements governing credit union lending to other credit unions.

Comment: Upfront consolidation of lender prohibitions. The commenter suggested the NCUA consider revising its regulation and accompanying instructions so that lender prohibitions are clearly presented at the beginning of the document rather than being embedded. The commenter wrote that placing these prohibitions in a more prominent location would help reduce confusion by making this critical information easier to identify and navigate.

NCUA Response. The Board is always interested in feedback on the clarity of its regulatory requirements and instructions. However, the commenter's suggestion is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, the Board has not revised the rule in response to the comment.

Comment: Greater flexibility in addressing limit violations. The commenter also suggested the NCUA consider providing greater flexibility when a credit union exceeds the generally applicable limits, rather than requiring the FICU dispose of these investments. The commenter wrote that FICUs have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses when compelled to dispose of some of these assets.

NCUA Response. The commenter's suggestion is outside the scope of the rulemaking and, therefore, no change to the rule has been made in response.

Comment: Due diligence requirements. The commenter objected that the pre- and post-funding due diligence requirements for these transactions are unnecessarily cumbersome. While recognizing the importance of proper underwriting and risk management, the commenter wrote that any reduction by the NCUA would constitute significant relief for credit unions. In particular, the commenter suggested that the NCUA adopt a tiered approach in which the scope of required due diligence varies based on the loan amount or the issuing credit union's CAMELS rating, rather than adhering to the current one-size-fits-all framework.

NCUA Response. The scope of the recommendation made by the commenter is broader than that of the proposed rule. No change to the rule has therefore been made, as the comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking.

One commenter, a national association of state credit union supervisors, recommended the NCUA consolidate all of its deposit insurance related regulations in a clearly delineated, self-contained sub-chapter distinct from the FCU chartering and operational requirements. The commenter wrote that that would clarify when the NCUA is acting in its capacity as share insurer for all FICUs versus as regulator for FCUs, reducing ambiguity for state-chartered institutions and examiners. The commenter also wrote that such consolidation would significantly reduce regulatory burden by eliminating the current need of FISCUs to navigate through the entirety of the NCUA's regulations to find even minor share insurance provisions applicable to FISCUs.

NCUA Response. The suggestion made by the commenter is outside the scope of the rulemaking. Accordingly, the rule has not been revised in response to the comment. However, the NCUA remains committed to working with all credit unions to ensure the clarity of their regulatory obligations.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 9 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 10 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 11 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  12 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 13 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 14 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

To the extent that the final rule has any economic impacts, they are deregulatory in nature. The final rule removes the requirement that FICU boards adopt minimum approval and written policy standards regarding loans to other credit unions. While these documentation requirements might impose some economic costs on FICUs, they are unlikely to be significant. Any impacts associated with their rescission are therefore also unlikely to impose a significant economic burden. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement.

The information collection requirements contained in 12 CFR 701.25(b) are approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 3133-0207. The rescission of these regulations, along with the information collection requirement(s) contained therein and the revision of OMB Control Number 3133-0207, will reduce public information collection burden by an estimated 1,250 annual burden hours.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 15 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule applies to FCUs and to FISCUs. The rulemaking may, therefore, have some direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. However, to the extent the rule has any such effects, it will be to relieve FISCUs of regulatory burden. The final rule removes the requirement that FICU boards adopt minimum approval and written policy standards regarding loans to other credit unions. In doing so, the final rule defers to state law on approval requirements for loans that FISCUs make to other credit unions.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 16 The regulatory requirements are exclusively concerned with the adoption of written policies by FICUs regarding loans to other credit unions. The potential positive effect on family well-being, including financial well-being, is, at most, indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 17 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 18 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 701 as follows:

Since 1979, the Board has issued IRPS to address various generally applicable interpretive and policy matters through publication in the Federal Register . 1 In issuing IRPS, the Board has often, but not always, used notice-and-comment procedures comparable to those it uses for codified regulations. While the IRPS are often not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, NCUA does make the currently effective IRPS available on its public website at https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/rules-regulations/interpretive-rulings-policy-statements. As NCUA's rules, regulations, and interpretive positions evolved over the years, the Board has withdrawn or rescinded certain IRPS when guidance was superseded by a new IRPS or incorporated into NCUA's regulations. 2

In 1989, the Board issued its Chartering and Field of Membership Policy (IRPS 89-1), which consolidated NCUA's chartering and field of membership (FOM) guidance. The Board also incorporated IRPS 89-1 by reference into § 701.1 of NCUA's regulations. Over the years, the Board periodically updated the policy through other IRPS and amended § 701.1 to reference the updated IRPS. In 2008, after notice and consideration of public comment, the Board issued IRPS 08-2 to update and clarify NCUA's policies for adding underserved areas. 3 In 2010, the Board revised § 701.1 to establish the Chartering Manual as the consolidated source for FCU chartering and FOM policies in Appendix B to part 701 of NCUA's regulations. 4

On January 14, 2026, the Board announced its proposal to rescind IRPS 08-2 as a separate policy, emphasizing that Chapter 3 of the Chartering Manual already contains the prevailing FOM rules for underserved areas. 5 In the proposed rule, the Board stated that rescinding IRPS 08-2 would ease the regulatory burden for FCUs by reducing the number of reference sources they must consult to comply with applicable FOM requirements. The comment period ended on March 16, 2026.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union (FCU Act). Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 6 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 7 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 8 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 9 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

The Board is also issuing this final rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority under Section 109 of the FCU Act. 10 Section 109 of the FCU Act establishes the chartering and FOM framework for FCUs. 11 Section 109(d)(3) directs the Board to issue guidelines or regulations, after notice and opportunity for comment, setting forth the criteria that the Board will apply in determining whether or not an additional group may be included within the FOM category of an existing multiple common bond FCU. 12 Sections 109(a) and 109(f)(2)(E) reference more general rulemaking authority with respect to associational groups and FCU FOMs. 13 Pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act, the Board implements these statutory requirements through the Chartering Manual. 14

This final rule follows publication of the January 14, 2026, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on March 16, 2026, the Board received 13 public comments. Of these, 11 addressed rescinding IRPS 08-2. Comments were submitted by FCUs, trade associations, credit union leagues, and one individual.

Most commenters expressed support for the proposal. As detailed below, these commenters observed that IRPS 08-2 overlaps with underserved area requirements found in Chapter 3 of the Chartering Manual. Moreover, commenters agreed that the proposal would ease the compliance burden for FCUs without altering existing requirements. One comment broadly expressed opposition to rescinding multiple IRPS; however, they did not provide comments specific to rescinding IRPS 08-2. After careful consideration of the comments, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal as final without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

Commenters generally agreed that IRPS 08-2 is redundant or outdated. Most commenters stated that rescinding IRPS 08-2 would shift reliance to the Chartering Manual. These commenters noted that this shift promotes consistency, makes supervisory expectations easier to understand, and helps FCUs allocate fewer resources to duplicative tasks. Some commenters observed that maintaining parallel standards across multiple sources creates unnecessary complexity and may result in misalignment and ambiguity. Other commenters noted that IRPS 08-2 contains outdated references, and its removal aligns with efforts to modernize and reduce regulatory burden.

Most commenters identified the benefits of rescinding IRPS 08-2 in terms of reducing the compliance burden for FCUs. Several commenters noted that rescission would streamline compliance by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must consult for underserved area standards. One commenter specifically noted that these changes would be particularly beneficial for community-focused, small credit unions. Lastly, another commenter observed that, while the proposal would directly reduce the burden for FCUs, streamlining and modernization would benefit the broader credit union system by improving clarity and consistency across charters.

A few commenters recommended additional changes outside the scope of the proposal. One commenter wrote that NCUA's continued reliance on IRPS adds procedural layers and unnecessary regulatory burdens. This commenter urged NCUA to discontinue issuing IRPS and suggested publishing all regulatory requirements solely in the Code of Federal Regulations. Another commenter conditioned their support for the proposal on continued transparency in updates to the Chartering Manual. Specifically, the commenter wrote that the Chartering Manual should remain easily accessible on NCUA.gov, the agency's public website. Additionally, the commenter noted that NCUA should provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before implementing any substantive changes to the Chartering Manual, with any updates clearly marked and dated. Several commenters supported additional streamlining and modernization to reduce burdens on FCUs.

One commenter opposed rescinding multiple IRPS, arguing that removing established guidance without replacements creates regulatory ambiguity. The commenter noted that eliminating IRPS could weaken consumer protection, reduce transparency, and increase the risk of inconsistent enforcement. The commenter urged NCUA to assess impacts, consult additional stakeholders, and provide replacement guidance before proceeding.

NCUA Response. The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that IRPS 08-2 has become redundant. The Board agrees that consolidating FOM requirements in the Chartering Manual improves clarity and consistency. The Board agrees and expects the rescission of IRPS 08-2 to reduce regulatory burden and enhance operational efficiency by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to verify compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The broader suggestions addressing IRPS in general and future amendments to the Chartering Manual are outside the scope of this specific rescission. As noted in this preamble and the preamble to the proposed rule, rescinding IRPS 08-2 simplifies NCUA's regulatory framework without changing substantive requirements. The Board acknowledges the concern with the continued accessibility and clear versioning of the Chartering Manual. The Board observes that this rescission does not change § 701.1, which specifies that the Chartering Manual is contained in Appendix B to 12 CFR part 701 and is also available online at ncua.gov. Consistent with § 701.1, the Board expects that the Chartering Manual will remain publicly available on the agency's website. In addition, because the Chartering Manual is published in the Code of Federal Regulations, the public can review current and prior versions on the Federal Register website and GovInfo.gov . The Board agrees that any future amendments of substantive effect should follow applicable notice-and-comment procedures. The Board notes the constructive feedback and will consider it in the future as appropriate. Accordingly, the Board adopts the proposal as final and, therefore, rescinds IRPS 08-2.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 15 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 16 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 17 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 18 If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 19 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 20 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule is intended to ease the compliance burden on FCUs by limiting the number of sources that FCUs of all sizes must check to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. The rescission is also designed to reduce confusion by allowing FCUs to focus principally on applicable statutes and codified regulations. The rescission imposes no new requirements that would result in FCUs (irrespective of size) incurring an economic cost. To the extent the rescission has any economic impact, it will be indirect by reducing the staff time and other resources FCUs currently devote to checking potentially duplicative sources to ensure compliance with existing requirements in the Chartering Manual. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has reviewed this rule and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 21 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. NCUA expects that any effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government will be minor. This final rule would only affect FCUs. The final rule reinforces existing regulatory requirements applicable solely to FCUs and is not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between NCUA and state regulatory authorities with oversight of federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. The rulemaking therefore does not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 22 The final rule relates to the FOM requirements for FCUs, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 23 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 24 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

Since 1979, the Board has issued IRPS to address various generally applicable interpretive and policy matters in the Federal Register . 1 In issuing IRPS, the Board has often, but not always, used notice-and-comment procedures comparable to those it uses for codified regulations. While the IRPS are often not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, NCUA does make the currently effective IRPS available on its public website at https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/rules-regulations/interpretive-rulings-policy-statements. As NCUA's rules, regulations, and interpretive positions evolved over the years, the Board has withdrawn or rescinded certain IRPS when the guidance was superseded by a new IRPS or incorporated into NCUA's regulations. 2

In 1989, the Board issued its Chartering and Field of Membership Policy (IRPS 89-1), which consolidated NCUA's chartering and field of membership (FOM) guidance. The Board also incorporated IRPS 89-1 by reference into § 701.1 of NCUA's regulations. Over the years, the Board periodically updated the policy through other IRPS and amended § 701.1 to reference the updated IRPS. In 2006, after notice and consideration of public comment, the Board issued IRPS 06-1 to update and clarify NCUA's policies for adding underserved areas. 3 In 2010, the Board revised § 701.1 to establish the Chartering Manual as the consolidated source for FCU chartering and FOM policies in Appendix B to part 701 of NCUA's regulations. 4

On February 11, 2026, the Board announced its proposal to rescind IRPS 06-1 as a separate policy, noting that Chapter 3 of the Chartering Manual already contains the prevailing requirements for adding underserved areas. 5 In the proposed rule, the Board stated that rescinding IRPS 06-1 would also ease the regulatory burden for FCUs by reducing the number of reference sources they must consult to comply with applicable FOM requirements. The comment period ended on April 13, 2026.

The Board is issuing this final action pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union (FCU Act). Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 6 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 7 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 8 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 9 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

The Board is also issuing this final action pursuant to its rulemaking authority under Section 109 of the FCU Act. 10 Section 109 of the FCU Act establishes the chartering and FOM framework for FCUs. 11 Section 109(d)(3) directs the Board to issue guidelines or regulations, after notice and opportunity for comment, setting forth the criteria that the Board will apply in determining whether or not an additional group may be included within the FOM category of an existing multiple common bond FCU. 12 Sections 109(a) and 109(f)(2)(E) reference more general rulemaking authority with respect to associational groups and FCU FOMs. 13 Pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act, the Board implements these statutory requirements through the Chartering Manual. 14

This final action follows publication of the February 11, 2026, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on April 13, 2026, the Board received 22 public comments. Of these, 15 addressed rescinding IRPS 06-1. Comments were submitted by FCUs, trade associations, credit union leagues, and individuals.

Most commenters expressed support for the proposal. These commenters observed that IRPS 06-1 overlaps with Chapter 3 of the Chartering Manual, and its rescission would avoid unnecessary complexity and duplicative tasks. Moreover, commenters agreed that the proposal would ease the compliance burden for FCUs without altering existing requirements. Four commenters opposed the proposed rescission, noting that the proposal may increase regulatory ambiguity and inconsistent supervision. After careful consideration of the comments, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal as final without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

Most commenters supported rescission, stating that IRPS 06-1 is redundant. Several commenters observed that the proposal promotes efficiency and consistency by shifting focus to the Chartering Manual as the consolidated source for FOM requirements. Some commenters observed that maintaining parallel standards across multiple sources creates unnecessary complexity and may result in duplicative compliance checks.

Most commenters identified the benefits of rescinding IRPS 06-1 in terms of reducing the compliance burden for FCUs. Several commenters noted that rescission would streamline compliance by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must consult for FOM requirements. Several commenters remarked that simplification is particularly beneficial for smaller FCUs with limited staff resources. Many commenters agreed that rescinding IRPS 06-1 would not alter substantive requirements. These commenters observed that the Chartering Manual will continue to guide compliance, thereby maintaining safety and soundness.

Several commenters expressed concern that rescinding IRPS 06-1 could increase regulatory ambiguity and remove beneficial redundancies that may help close regulatory gaps. According to one commenter, removing these provisions due to perceived repetition could compromise rule integrity and potentially create loopholes. Noting that oversight and documentation are part of responsible governance and member protection, this commenter also cautioned against equating staff effort with lack of value. Another commenter stated that proposed rescission may adversely impact smaller FCUs that rely on interpretive rulings as accessible summaries, anchors for consistent interpretation, and training tools. This commenter suggested that the Board retain IRPS 06-1 in abbreviated form and clearly link guidance within the Chartering Manual to ensure high visibility and consistent examiner references.

A few commenters recommended additional changes outside the scope of the proposal. One commenter wrote that NCUA's continued reliance on IRPS adds procedural layers and unnecessary regulatory burdens. This commenter urged NCUA to discontinue issuing IRPS and suggested publishing all regulatory requirements solely in the Code of Federal Regulations. Another commenter conditioned their support for the proposal on continued transparency in updates to the Chartering Manual. Specifically, the commenter wrote that the Chartering Manual should remain easily accessible on ncua.gov, the agency's public website. Additionally, the commenter noted that NCUA should provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before implementing any substantive changes to the Chartering Manual, with any updates clearly marked and dated. Several commenters supported additional streamlining and modernization to reduce burdens on FCUs. Another commenter opposed rescinding multiple IRPS, arguing that removing established guidance without replacements creates regulatory ambiguity. The commenter noted that eliminating IRPS could weaken consumer protection, reduce transparency, and increase the risk of inconsistent enforcement. The commenter urged NCUA to assess impacts, consult additional stakeholders, and provide replacement guidance before proceeding.

NCUA Response. The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that IRPS 06-1 has become redundant. The Board agrees that consolidating FOM requirements in the Chartering Manual improves clarity and consistency. The Board agrees and expects the rescission of IRPS 06-1 to reduce regulatory burden and enhance operational efficiency by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to verify compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The broader suggestions addressing IRPS in general and future amendments to the Chartering Manual are outside the scope of this specific rescission. As noted in this preamble and the preamble to the proposed rule, rescinding IRPS 06-1 simplifies NCUA's regulatory framework without changing substantive requirements. The Board acknowledges the concern with the continued accessibility and clear versioning of the Chartering Manual. The Board observes that this rescission does not change § 701.1, which specifies that the Chartering Manual is contained in Appendix B to 12 CFR part 701 and is also available online at ncua.gov. Consistent with § 701.1, the Board expects that the Chartering Manual will remain publicly available on the agency's website. In addition, because the Chartering Manual is published in the Code of Federal Regulations, the public can review current and prior versions on the Federal Register website and GovInfo.gov. The Board agrees that any future amendments of substantive effect should follow applicable notice-and-comment procedures. The Board notes the constructive feedback and will consider it in the future as appropriate. Accordingly, the Board adopts the proposal as final and, therefore, rescinds IRPS 06-1.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 15 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 16 This final action was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final action is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 17 This final action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 18 If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 19 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 20 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule is intended to ease the compliance burden on FCUs by limiting the number of sources that FCUs of all sizes must check to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. The rescission is also designed to reduce confusion by allowing FCUs to focus principally on applicable statutes and codified regulations. The rescission imposes no new requirements that would result in FCUs (irrespective of size) incurring an economic cost. To the extent the rescission has any economic impact, it will be indirect by reducing the staff time and other resources FCUs currently devote to checking potentially duplicative sources to ensure compliance with existing requirements in the Chartering Manual. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has reviewed this rule and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 21 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. NCUA expects that any effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government will be minor. This final action would only affect FCUs. The final action reinforces existing regulatory requirements applicable solely to FCUs and is not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between NCUA and state regulatory authorities with oversight of federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. The rulemaking therefore does not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final action will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 22 The final action relates to the FOM requirements for FCUs, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 23 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 24 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

Since 1979, the Board has issued IRPS to address various generally applicable interpretive and policy matters through publication in the Federal Register . 1 In issuing IRPS, the Board has often, but not always, used notice-and-comment procedures comparable to those it uses for codified regulations. While the IRPS are often not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, NCUA does make the currently effective IRPS available on its public website at https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/rules-regulations/interpretive-rulings-policy-statements. As NCUA's rules, regulations, and interpretive positions evolved over the years, the Board has withdrawn or rescinded certain IRPS when guidance was superseded by a new IRPS or incorporated into NCUA's regulations. 2

In 1989, the Board issued its Chartering and Field of Membership Policy (IRPS 89-1), which consolidated NCUA's chartering and field of membership (FOM) guidance. The Board also incorporated IRPS 89-1 by reference into § 701.1 of NCUA's regulations. Over the years, the Board periodically updated the policy through other IRPS and amended § 701.1 to reference the updated IRPS. In 2010, after notice and consideration of public comment, the Board issued IRPS 10-1 to update the Chartering Manual and clarify NCUA's community chartering policies. 3 In the 2010 final rule, the Board also revised § 701.1 to establish the Chartering Manual in Appendix B to part 701 of NCUA's regulations as the consolidated source for FCU chartering, conversion, and FOM policies. 4

On January 14, 2026, the Board announced its proposal to rescind IRPS 10-1 as a separate policy, emphasizing that the Chartering Manual already contains the prevailing community chartering requirements for FCUs. 5 In the proposed rule, the Board stated that rescinding IRPS 10-1 would ease the regulatory burden for FCUs by reducing the number of reference sources they must consult to comply with applicable chartering and FOM requirements. As proposed, rescinding IRPS 10-1 would not change any substantive requirements or otherwise amend § 701.1. The comment period ended on March 16, 2026.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union (FCU Act). Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 6 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 7 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 8 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 9 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

The Board is also issuing this final rule pursuant to its rulemaking authority under Section 109 of the FCU Act. 10 Section 109 of the FCU Act establishes the chartering and FOM framework for FCUs. 11 Section 109(d)(3) directs the Board to issue guidelines or regulations, after notice and opportunity for comment, setting forth the criteria that the Board will apply in determining whether or not an additional group may be included within the FOM category of an existing multiple common bond FCU. 12 Sections 109(a) and 109(f)(2)(E) reference more general rulemaking authority with respect to associational groups and FCU FOMs. 13 Pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act, the Board implements these statutory requirements through the Chartering Manual. 14

This final rule follows publication of the January 14, 2026, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on March 16, 2026, the Board received 13 public comments. Of these, 11 addressed rescinding IRPS 10-1. Comments were submitted by FCUs, trade associations, credit union leagues, and one individual.

Most commenters expressed support for the proposal. As detailed below, these commenters observed that IRPS 10-1 overlaps with the requirements found in the Chartering Manual. Moreover, commenters agreed that the proposal would ease the compliance burden for FCUs without altering existing requirements. One comment broadly expressed opposition to rescinding multiple IRPS; however, they did not provide comments specific to rescinding IRPS 10-1. After careful consideration of the comments, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal as final without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

Commenters generally agreed that IRPS 10-1 is redundant or outdated. Most commenters stated that rescinding IRPS 10-1 would shift reliance to the Chartering Manual. Several commenters noted that relying on the Chartering Manual as the consolidated source for chartering and FOM requirements reduces ambiguity and supports supervisory clarity. Additionally, several commenters expressed concern that maintaining overlapping standards across multiple sources could lead to inconsistencies and interpretive ambiguity. Two commenters indicated the rescission promotes consistent application across institutions.

Most commenters highlighted the benefits of rescinding IRPS 10-1 in terms of reducing the compliance burden for FCUs. Several commenters noted that rescission would streamline compliance by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must consult to understand chartering and FOM requirements. Several commenters indicated that consolidating NCUA's community chartering requirements in the Chartering Manual will make compliance easier for FCUs. One commenter emphasized the benefit to small credit unions. Another commenter added that rescinding IRPS 10-1 will reduce associated paperwork burdens while maintaining safety and soundness. Several commenters indicated that removing outdated materials, such as IRPS 10-1, supports burden reduction and transparency. Lastly, one commenter observed that, while the proposal would directly reduce the burden for FCUs, streamlining and modernization would benefit the broader credit union system by improving clarity and consistency across charters.

A few comments recommended additional changes outside the scope of the proposal. One commenter wrote that NCUA's continued reliance on IRPS adds procedural layers and unnecessary regulatory burdens. This commenter urged NCUA to discontinue issuing IRPS and suggested publishing all regulatory requirements solely in the Code of Federal Regulations. Another commenter conditioned their support for the proposal on continued transparency in updates to the Chartering Manual. Specifically, the commenter wrote that the Chartering Manual should remain easily accessible on ncua.gov, the agency's public website. Additionally, the commenter noted that NCUA should provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before implementing any substantive changes to the Chartering Manual, with any updates clearly marked and dated. Several commenters supported additional streamlining and modernization to reduce burdens on FCUs.

One commenter opposed rescinding multiple IRPS, arguing that removing established guidance without replacements creates regulatory ambiguity. The commenter noted that eliminating IRPS could weaken consumer protection, reduce transparency, and increase the risk of inconsistent enforcement. The commenter urged NCUA to assess impacts, consult additional stakeholders, and provide replacement guidance before proceeding.

NCUA Response. The Board agrees with the majority of commenters that IRPS 10-1 has become redundant. The Board agrees that consolidating chartering and FOM requirements in the Chartering Manual improves clarity and consistency. The Board agrees and expects the rescission of IRPS 10-1 to reduce regulatory burden and enhance operational efficiency by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to verify compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The broader suggestions addressing IRPS in general and future amendments to the Chartering Manual are outside the scope of this specific rescission. As noted in this preamble and the preamble to the proposed rule, rescinding IRPS 10-1 simplifies NCUA's regulatory framework without changing substantive requirements. The Board acknowledges the concern with the continued accessibility and clear versioning of the Chartering Manual. The Board observes that this rescission does not change § 701.1, which specifies that the Chartering Manual is contained in Appendix B to 12 CFR part 701 and is also available online at ncua.gov. Consistent with § 701.1, the Board expects that the Chartering Manual will remain publicly available on the agency's website. In addition, because the Chartering Manual is published in the Code of Federal Regulations, the public can review current and prior versions on the Federal Register website and GovInfo.gov . The Board agrees that any future amendments of substantive effect should follow applicable notice-and-comment procedures. The Board notes the constructive feedback and will consider it in the future as appropriate. Accordingly, the Board adopts the proposal as final and, therefore, rescinds IRPS 10-1.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 15 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 16 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 17 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 18 If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 19 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 20 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule is intended to ease the compliance burden on FCUs by limiting the number of sources that FCUs of all sizes must check to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. The rescission is also designed to reduce confusion by allowing FCUs to focus principally on applicable statutes and codified regulations. The rescission imposes no new requirements that would result in FCUs (irrespective of size) incurring an economic cost. To the extent the rescission has any economic impact, it will be indirect by reducing the staff time and other resources FCUs currently devote to checking potentially duplicative sources to ensure compliance with existing requirements in the Chartering Manual. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has determined that the changes in the rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 21 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. NCUA expects that any effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government will be minor. This final rule would only affect FCUs. The final rule reinforces existing regulatory requirements applicable solely to FCUs and is not intended to affect the division of responsibilities between NCUA and state regulatory authorities with oversight of federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. The rulemaking therefore does not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 22 The final rule relates to the chartering and FOM requirements for FCUs, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 23 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 24 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

NCUA originally issued rules related to FCUs entering service contracts in the 1970s. 1 In 1982, the rules governing service centers and other FCU contracting activities were combined into one section to enhance the scope of FCU contractual agreements. Section 701.26 has remained largely unchanged since 1982 with one exception. A 1998 amendment removed a provision that treated advance payments to a vendor for more than three  2 months of service as an investment in a credit union service organization, a change made to reduce regulatory burden and provide FCUs with greater flexibility in managing vendor contracts. 3 Section 701.26 has not been amended since 1998.

Section 107(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) gives an FCU the power to enter into contracts. 4 Additionally, the incidental powers provision of the FCU Act expressly grants FCUs the power “to exercise such incidental powers as shall be necessary or requisite to enable it to carry on effectively the business for which it is incorporated.”  5 Accordingly, FCUs have broad authority to enter into contractual agreements to perform or engage in activities that are expressly authorized by the FCU Act or are incidental to the business of credit unions.

Additionally, the FCU Act includes a general grant of regulatory authority, and it authorizes the Board to prescribe regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 6 Therefore, the Board has authority to regulate FCU contractual agreements.

Part 701 of NCUA's regulations codifies these FCU Act authorities and governs the organization and structure of FCUs, including a wide range of operational activities. The part establishes the framework for essential functions such as lending, governance, member services, and ensuring that FCUs operate in a safe and sound manner.

Section 701.26 defines a FCU's authority to enter contracts for assets or services that relate to its daily operations. The regulation covers contracts with third-party vendors and other organizations, including credit unions, that offer services to credit unions. The regulation also allows one FCU to represent one or more other credit unions or organizations in contractual arrangements with a third party and authorizes the sharing of fixed assets. 7 Agreements must be in writing and must advise all parties subject to the agreement that the goods and services provided are subject to examination by NCUA to the extent permitted by law. Section 701.26 does not give FCUs the authority to provide services directly to other credit unions but reflects authority to contract for assets or services that may be offered to credit unions through shared service arrangements. That is, § 701.26 does not address FCUs directly offering services to other credit unions.

On February 25, 2026, the Board issued a proposed rule to eliminate § 701.26 because it is unnecessary. The authority for an FCU to enter contracts for operational services is inherent in its charter and its general powers under the FCU Act. 8 Additionally, the regulation's principal requirement—that such agreements be in writing—is a standard business practice, which exists regardless of whether it is mentioned in NCUA's regulations. Accordingly, the Board proposed to rescind § 701.26 to reduce administrative costs and compliance complexity, enabling FCUs to serve their members more efficiently.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on April 27, 2026, the Board received 12 public comments. Comments were submitted by individuals, FCUs, state credit union leagues, and national credit union trade associations. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal with one change. The final rule amends NCUA's incidental powers rule to reflect FCU authority to represent one or more other credit unions or organizations in contractual arrangements with a third party and authorizes the sharing of fixed assets.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

One individual commenter opposed the proposed rule. This commenter generally raised concern about NCUA's deregulatory efforts and stated the proposal prioritized reducing regulatory obligations over maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect credit union members, but the commenter did not have comments specific to the proposed rule.

Another commenter did not outrightly oppose the proposed rule but expressed substantial concerns. The commenter noted that service provider relationships remain operationally significant to many FCUs and can present third-party risk. The commenter was in favor of removing outdated prescriptive language only if maintaining sound risk management expectations, such as adopting clear guidance to replace it. The commenter reasoned that without a clear framework, contracts may omit essential provisions such as audit rights and information security obligations. The commenter also suggested that removal could lead to unclear expectations and inconsistent examiner interpretations across regions on what is standard business practice.

The Board agrees with the commenter that third-party service provider relationships remain operationally significant, and sound due diligence related to contractual relationships is imperative to the success of these relationships. The Board notes that it continues to expect FCUs to adhere to standard business practices and maintain safe and sound practices regarding third-party contracts, including that all contracts should be written. 9 However, § 701.26 does not impose any minimum standards for contracts, outside of the requirement for contracts to be in writing. Therefore, while the Board agrees with the importance of managing third-party relationships, the removal of § 701.26 does not raise any concern regarding FCU management of third-party relationships. The Board also does not believe that removal of § 701.26 leads to unclear expectations regarding standard business practices.

Most commenters supported removing § 701.26. Commenters pointed to redundance with the FCU Act, which includes authority for FCUs to enter contracts for operational services. Other commenters stated that it is unnecessary to explicitly state that FCUs must execute contracts in writing, as that is standard business practice. One commenter noted that state law may require contracts to be in writing. Many commenters stated that removing § 701.26 would streamline regulations, reduce administrative costs, and allow FCUs to operate more efficiently without compromising safety and soundness. The Board agrees with these commenters as outlined in the proposed rule.

One commenter encouraged the Board to consider reaffirming, either in the preamble to the final rule or through supervisory guidance, that the removal of § 701.26 does not alter existing expectations regarding written contracts, vendor oversight, or safe and sound third-party risk management practices. The Board is reaffirming that the removal of § 701.26 does not alter existing expectations regarding written contracts, vendor oversight, or safe and sound third-party risk management practices. To operate safely and soundly, FCUs must carefully consider the potential risks these relationships may present and how to manage them. FCUs should consider how contracts address important terms, such as audit rights, information security obligations, business continuity expectations, indemnification, performance metrics, data ownership/return provisions, termination for cause or convenience language, and dispute resolution terms.

The proposed rule specifically sought comments on whether part 721 should be updated to explicitly recognize the authority of FCUs, in joint operations and other resource sharing situations, to act as a representative of another credit union or organization. Commenters were mixed. One commenter did not believe it was necessary as part 721 provides sufficient flexibility to include this authority, but a few commenters recommended updating part 721. One commenter generally stated that the absence of clear regulatory text may create uncertainty for FCUs, examiners, and third-party partners. One commenter stated that NCUA should clarify whether a corporate credit union may act in such a representative capacity. Section 701.26 does not govern corporate credit unions permissible activities and permissible activities for corporate credit unions are subject to § 704.12.

In response to commenters, the final rule amends part 721 to explicitly recognize the authority of FCUs, in joint operations and other resource sharing situations, to act as a representative of another credit union or organization. The provision permits an FCU to represent another credit union in contractual arrangements, but does not authorize an FCU to provide any other services or activities to FCUs, only to act as a representative. 10

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 11 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 12 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 13 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  14 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 15 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 16 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule only removes an existing regulatory provision related to FCU contracting. The regulation's requirement—that such agreements be in writing—is a standard business practice, which exists regardless of whether it is mentioned in NCUA's regulations. The Board considers the regulation to be superfluous, and its removal streamlines NCUA's regulations, thereby reducing burden.

Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has determined that the changes in the rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 17 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The changes only apply to and affect FCUs and do not affect state-chartered credit unions. The final rule has no effect on states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Board affirms it will not affect the division of responsibilities between NCUA and state regulatory authorities with oversight of federally insured, state-chartered credit unions.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 18 The final rule relates to FCUs' contractual requirements, and any effect on family well-being is expected to be indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 19 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 20 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR parts 701 and 721 as follows:

In 2006 NCUA approved a final rule (2006 Final Rule) governing FICU purchases of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties, which is codified in §§ 701.21(h) and 741.203(c) of NCUA's regulations. At that time, the Board recognized that indirect lending has certain advantages for credit unions, such as growth in membership and loans. The Board was concerned, however, that some credit unions may involve themselves in indirect lending programs without adequate due diligence, appropriate controls, or sufficient experience with a third-party servicer. At that time, the Board thought this could create undue risk when a third party manages a credit union's relationship with automobile dealers and with credit union members whose loans are serviced by the third party.

The resulting regulation governing third-party servicing of indirect vehicle loans set prescriptive, inflexible limits on the aggregate amount of indirect loans and participations in indirect loans. The 2006 Final Rule limits the aggregate amount of indirect loans and participations in indirect loans a credit union may purchase from any one servicer to 50 percent of the credit union's net worth, which, after 30 months of experience with a particular servicer, the rule increases the limit to 100 percent of net worth. These requirements create a rigid, one-size-fits-all framework that is unduly burdensome for credit unions. The Board believes that a credit union's board is in the best position to develop policies that are appropriately scaled to its activities. Removing NCUA's current regulatory requirements would reduce regulatory burden and provide credit unions with greater operational flexibility, consistent with a principles-based supervisory approach. Accordingly, on March 25, 2026, the Board issued a proposed rule to remove these prescriptive requirements and allow credit union boards to develop their own policies. 1 Public comments received on the proposal offered unqualified support. Accordingly, the Board is now issuing a final rule removing NCUA's unnecessarily prescriptive regulation regarding third-party servicing of indirect vehicle loans.

Credit union boards will continue to be responsible for developing policies and procedures that protect the safety and soundness of the credit union and ensure that their purchases of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties are appropriately scaled for the credit union's size and the complexity of the transactions. NCUA will continue to monitor credit unions' purchases of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties through the examination process.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act). Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for federal credit unions (FCUs) and the federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 2 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 3 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 4 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 5 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

Section 107(5) of the FCU Act  6 sets forth general requirements that an FCU must comply with to make loans. Section 206 of the FCU Act  7 sets forth the Board's authority to intervene in situations where any FICU, among other things, is engaging or has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices in conducting its business.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on May 26, 2026, the Board had received 14 public comments. Comments were submitted by credit unions, state credit union leagues, national trade associations, and a national association of state credit union supervisors. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

All 14 commenters offered unqualified support for the proposed rule. Commenters generally appreciated NCUA's efforts to modernize its regulatory framework governing indirect vehicle loans and agreed that existing supervisory and risk-management frameworks already provide meaningful safeguards. In general, commenters also stated that the proposal will help reduce regulatory burden, improve competitive equity, and allow credit unions to continue serving their members responsibly. Additional details regarding the specific comments received are included in the section-by-section analyses below.

§ 701.21(h) Third party servicing of indirect vehicle loans. Current § 701.21(h)(1) limits the aggregate amount of indirect vehicle loans and participations in indirect vehicle loans a FCU may purchase from any one servicer to 50 percent of the credit union's net worth. After 30 months of experience with a particular servicer, paragraph (h)(1) increases the limit to 100 percent of net worth. Paragraph (h)(2) sets forth a process for a FCU to request a waiver from the concentration limits from its Regional Director. Paragraph (h)(3) sets forth a timeline for NCUA to provide written responses to waiver requests. Paragraph (h)(4) defines various terms, including the term “third-party servicer,” which excludes federally insured depositories, wholly owned subsidiaries of those depositories, and certain servicing entities.

Commenters generally stated that the existing concentration limits do not sufficiently account for differences in institutional size, sophistication, business strategy, and risk-management capabilities, noting that the supervisory landscape has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Commenters suggested that credit unions today operate with varying levels of operational complexity, and boards are best positioned to establish policies and procedures tailored to their institution's indirect lending activities and overall risk profile. Commenters further noted that, since 2006, NCUA has developed broader supervisory expectations related to third-party vendor management, enterprise risk management, internal controls, and board governance that more comprehensively address these risks. Commenters also noted that the waiver process can create administrative burden and operational uncertainty despite the continued availability of supervisory oversight through the examination process. Finally, commenters pointed out that similar prescriptive concentration restrictions generally do not apply to other insured depository institutions participating in indirect auto lending markets so removing § 701.21(h) will remove a potential competitive disadvantage for credit unions.

The Board agrees with commenters that the provisions in § 701.21(h) impose a prescriptive framework for the purchase of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties, which is unduly burdensome for credit unions. The Board believes that a FCU's board is in the best position to develop policies that are appropriately scaled to its purchases of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties. Accordingly, the final rule removes current paragraph (h) from § 701.21.

§ 741.203(c). Current § 741.203(c) provides that federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) must adhere to the requirements set forth in § 701.21(h) concerning third-party servicing of indirect vehicle loans. Paragraph (c) also requires that, before a state-chartered credit union applies to a Regional Director for a waiver under § 701.21(h)(2), it must first notify its state supervisory authority. In addition, paragraph (c) states that the Regional Director will not grant a waiver unless the appropriate state official concurs in the waiver. Finally, paragraph (c) provides that the 45-day period for the Regional Director to act on a waiver request, as described in § 701.21(h)(3), will not begin until the Regional Director has received the state official's concurrence and any other necessary information.

Commenters generally stated that the requirements in current § 741.203(c) can result in additional operational complexity without providing meaningful supervisory benefit beyond the existing oversight inherent in state and federal examination processes. Commenters stated further that FISCUs already operate under robust supervisory frameworks that include board oversight, risk-management expectations, vendor due diligence requirements, and ongoing examination review by both state regulators and NCUA. As with FCUs, commenters felt that FISCUs are fully capable of developing policies and controls that appropriately reflect the scale and complexity of their indirect lending activities. Finally, commenters stated that safety and soundness objectives can be more effectively achieved through risk-focused supervision and institution-specific governance practices.

The provisions in § 741.203(c) impose the same prescriptive framework in § 701.21(h) on FISCUs for the purchase of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties. The Board also believes that a FISCU's board is in the best position to develop policies that are appropriately scaled for its purchases of indirect vehicle loans serviced by third parties. Accordingly, consistent with the removal of § 701.21(h), the final rule also removes current paragraph (c) from § 741.203(c).

§ 746.201(c) Scope. Current § 746.201(c) lists rule sections and subsections covered under part 746, subpart B for appeals of initial agency determinations by a program office, which the petitioner has a right to appeal to the Board. Among other things, paragraph (c) lists § 701.21(h)(3), which this proposal would remove. NCUA did not receive comments on this change. Accordingly, the final rule removes the citation to § 701.21(h)(3) consistent with the other changes made by this rule.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 8 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 9 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 10 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  11 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 12 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 13 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule will remove NCUA's regulation regarding third-party servicing of indirect vehicle loans. This action reduces regulatory burden and provides credit unions with greater operational flexibility, consistent with a principles-based supervisory approach. The intent is to reduce administrative costs and compliance complexity, enabling credit unions to serve their members more efficiently. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has determined that the changes in the rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 14 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The rule would remove a prescriptive limitation that currently applies to FISCUs, which would remove a federally imposed restriction on state-chartered entities. The rulemaking will not have a direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 15

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 16 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 17 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR parts 701, 741, and 746 as follows:

On February 25, 2026, the Board published a proposed rule to streamline 12 CFR 701.23, which governs the purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations, for public comment. 1 The Board proposed to remove the prescriptive lists of items that must be addressed in the written policies adopted by an FCU.

Section 701.23 governs the purchase of whole or partial loans from various sources, including the eligible obligations of an FCU's own members, student loans, and real estate-secured loans. Paragraph (b)(6) of § 701.23 provides that the purchases of eligible obligations and notes of liquidating credit unions must comply with the purchasing FCU's internal written purchase policies. The paragraph goes on to mandate a detailed list of requirements for an FCU's internal written purchase policies. Paragraph (c) of § 701.23 establishes similarly prescriptive elements that must be addressed in an FCU's written policies on the sale of eligible obligations. Paragraph (d) does the same for the required written policy to address the pledging of eligible obligations.

These requirements, which cover due diligence, risk management, underwriting, portfolio concentration limits, and legal review, create a rigid, one-size-fits-all framework that is unduly burdensome, particularly for smaller FCUs. Section 107(13) of the FCU Act requires the Board to prescribe “rules and regulations” for the purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations, but does not require the Board to mandate a detailed framework for internal credit union policies. Accordingly, the Board proposed revising paragraphs (b)(6), (c), and (d) of § 701.23 to remove the prescriptive list of items that must be addressed in the FCU's written policies.

The Board also proposed to remove paragraph (g) of § 701.23, which establishes a detailed code of conduct regarding conflicts of interest and compensation. The regulation's broad prohibition on compensation, followed by a narrow list of exceptions, is inflexible and may hinder legitimate incentive structures. FCUs are already governed by broader conflict of interest provisions in their bylaws and by the fiduciary duties of their officials. The FCU Act does not require the Board to establish such a detailed compensation framework.

In addition to the substantive amendments discussed above, the Board also proposed making several technical, non-substantive changes to the regulations. As a result of the removal of existing paragraph (g), current § 701.23(h) would be redesignated as § 701.23(g). A conforming change to the appeals procedures regulation in 12 CFR part 746 was also proposed to reflect this redesignation. Specifically, the current reference to “701.23(h)” in § 746.201(c) would be revised to read “701.23(g).”

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 2 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to NCUA to issue regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 3 The FCU Act also includes an express grant of authority for the Board to subject federally chartered central, or corporate, credit unions to such rules, regulations, and orders as the Board deems appropriate. 4

When the public comment period ended on April 27 2026, the Board had received 15 public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were received from individuals, a nonprofit advocacy organization, credit unions, state credit union leagues, national trade associations, and a national association of state credit union supervisors. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change. The following sections of this preamble summarize the significant issues raised by the commenters, and NCUA's responses to these issues.

Nine of the commenters offered unqualified support for the proposed rule. The commenters wrote that the regulatory changes would reduce compliance burden on FCUs. The commenters appreciated the flexibility provided by the proposed rule, which would enable FCUs to develop written policies appropriately scaled for their operations, while not increasing safety and soundness risks. The commenters also agreed with the removal of the conflict-of-interest and compensation provisions because these matters are already governed by FCU bylaws and fiduciary duties.

NCUA Response. The Board appreciates the support of the commenters. As noted, the Board has decided to adopt the proposed rule without change. The Board continues to believe that an FCU's board is in the best position to develop policies that are appropriately scaled for its activities. Although FCUs would still be required to maintain written policies, removing the mandated items will allow boards to exercise their business judgment in developing these policies while remaining accountable for safe and sound operations.

Three commenters, while supporting the proposed rule, also expressed concern about the resulting increased reliance on institutional interpretation and supervisory judgment. The commenters wrote that additional clarity would be beneficial to ensure expectations remain consistent and that FCUs are not subject to varying interpretations of appropriate governance practices. The commenters suggested that NCUA clarify, possibly through guidance, that the rulemaking is not intended to reduce supervisory expectations regarding due diligence, risk management, underwriting discipline, or board oversight. The commenters wrote that such guidance would help ensure continued FCU alignment with safe and sound practices.

NCUA Response. The Board emphasizes that nothing in the final rule alters the supervisory expectation that FCUs be operated in a safe, sound, and resilient manner. The final rule removes the overly prescriptive list of items that must be addressed in an FCU's written policies regarding the purchase, sale, or pledge of eligible obligations. However, FCUs are still required to maintain internal written policies regarding such transactions and will continue to be evaluated on their compliance with the policies. With regards to the removal of the conflict of interest provisions, the Board reiterates that FCUs remain subject to the conflict of interest provisions in their bylaws and the fiduciary duties of their officials.

One commenter, a nonprofit advocacy organization for small credit unions, supported the proposed rule and urged NCUA to apply the same principles-based philosophy to address four additional issues. Specifically, the commenter requested that NCUA: (1) reduce the frequency and scope of examinations for FCUs with less than $500 million in assets and a CAMELS rating of 1 or 2; (2) ease examiner “over-compliance” pressure and acceptance of simple in-house methods; (3) raise asset thresholds or simplify current expected credit loss (CECL) accounting methodology and asset liability management/net economic value requirements; and (4) modernize Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) rules to reduce pressure on minor, low-impact findings. The commenter wrote that these are the issues small credit unions have identified as the most significant in the surveys it has conducted.

NCUA Response. The Board appreciates the feedback provided by the commenter but notes that the suggestions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. With regards to the commenter's suggestions regarding examinations, the Board will continue to assess its examination program for possible improvements. With respect to the suggestion regarding BSA, the Board notes that on April 10, 2026, NCUA, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published a proposed rule to align each agency's anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations with changes concurrently proposed by the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). 5 The regulatory amendments are intended to modernize and reform federal supervision of AML/CFT programs, and to ultimately reduce compliance burden. 6 With regards to CECL, the Board notes that the accounting methodology is mandated under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. However, the Board's regulations provide several mechanisms to ameliorate the effects of CECL on credit unions. Specifically, the CECL final rule established a three-year phase-in of the adverse effects on the regulatory capital of credit unions, and exempted credit unions with total assets of less than $10 million from CECL. 7

Two duplicate comments opposed the proposed rule on general grounds. The commenters wrote that the current regulations establish clear standards and are necessary to ensure FCUs are held accountable for their practices. The commenters did not, however, discuss any of the details of the proposed rule or this regulation as a whole.

NCUA Response. The Board respectfully disagrees with the comments. The Board continues to believe that the final rule will relieve FCUs from the burden of having to comply with an unnecessarily prescriptive requirement. The regulatory change establishes a principles-based approach that enables boards to exercise their business judgment, while preserving the safety and soundness of FCU operations.

One commenter expressed general opposition to NCUA's deregulation project. The commenter was concerned that NCUA's proposals appear to prioritize reducing regulatory obligations over maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect credit unions, preserve institutional stability, and maintain public trust in the federally insured credit union system. The commenter wrote that, while several of the proposals characterize existing regulatory provisions as unnecessarily duplicative, this duplication may be necessary to ensure clarity and compliance.

NCUA Response. The Board respectfully disagrees with the commenter. This final rule is part of NCUA's Deregulation Project, through which the Board is reviewing all of its existing regulations to ensure they are focused on the safety, soundness, or resilience of credit unions. 8 The regulations proposed for removal are those the Board has determined are obsolete, merely repeat statutory requirements, prescribe guidance rather than requirements, or are unduly burdensome. The Board disagrees that duplication may be necessary to ensure the clarity of regulatory requirements. While regulations are necessary to establish binding requirements, there are other available resources (such as written guidance and webinars) that can help address questions regarding the clarity or scope of specific regulations.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 9 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 10 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 11 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  12 generally requires that, in connection with a final rulemaking, an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the final rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million)  13 and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule.

This final rule removes the prescriptive lists of items that must be addressed in an FCU's written policies regarding the sale, purchase, and pledge of eligible obligations. While the current requirement to maintain written policies might impose some economic costs on FCUs, they are unlikely significant. Although FCUs will still be required to maintain these written policies, they will no longer be subject to any additional costs they may have incurred in addressing the items currently specified in the regulations. Given that the economic costs of maintaining the current written policies is insignificant, the economic impact of removing the prescribed lists is equally unlikely to have a significant economic impact.

The final rule also removes detailed requirements regarding conflicts of interest and compensation. The permissibility of incentive structures currently prohibited under the current regulations may have some economic impact. However, the Board does not anticipate that such impacts will be significant because FCUs will remain governed by broader conflict of interest provisions in their bylaws and by the fiduciary duties of their officials.

Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The PRA applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information-collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The information collection requirements contained in § 701.23 are approved by OMB under OMB control number 3133-0127.

The final rule contains information collection recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will require revision of an existing information collection for approval under the PRA. NCUA is proposing to extend for three years, with revision, its information collection. The revision was submitted to OMB for approval under OMB control number 3133-0127. The rescission of these regulations, along with the information collection requirement(s) contained therein and the revision of OMB control number 3133-0127, will reduce public information collection burden by an estimated 686 annual burden hours.

Title of Information Collection: Purchase, Sale, and Pledge of Eligible Obligations, 12 CFR 701.23.

OMB Control Number: 3133-0127.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 343.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Varies.

Estimated Annual Responses: 343.

Estimated Hours per response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,231.5.

NCUA estimates a total annual burden of 10,231.5 hours as follows:

Executive Order 13132 encourages certain regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule applies solely to FCUs and therefore will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 14 The regulatory requirements that are the subject of this final rule are exclusively concerned with FCU policies regarding the sale, purchase, and pledge of eligible obligations. The potential positive effect on family well-being, including financial well-being is, at most, indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 15 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 16 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR parts 701 and 746, as follows:

The Board issued IRPS 11-02 in 2011 following the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the restructuring of the corporate credit union system. As part of that restructuring, the Board believed some groups of consumer credit unions would form new corporate credit unions. The Board sought to provide uniform requirements for prospective new corporate federal credit unions (FCUs) and NCUA's standards for evaluating applications. On September 24, 2010, the Board issued a proposed IRPS setting forth the requirements and process for chartering corporate FCUs because previous corporate chartering guidance had been withdrawn. 1 After reviewing public comments, the Board issued a final IRPS on February 24, 2011. 2 The final IRPS set forth requirements for prospective new corporate FCUs and NCUA's standards for evaluating applications. It also included detailed timelines for processing charter applications. NCUA also issued the Federal Corporate Credit Union Chartering Manual (chartering manual) as a companion resource to IRPS 11-02. 3

Following the issuance of IRPS 11-02 and the chartering manual, the Board chartered a new corporate FCU as part of restructuring the corporate system. The Board, however, has not chartered any new corporate FCU in the last 10 years.

The Board proposed to rescind IRPS 11-02 on January 14, 2026, because it is no longer needed. 4 The Board stated its belief that it is reasonable to rely on the chartering manual for NCUA guidance on corporate FCU chartering and that the proposed rule may reduce redundancy and eliminate potential confusion by providing for only one source on chartering federal corporate credit unions.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). 5 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 6 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 7 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 8 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

The FCU Act also includes an express grant of authority for the Board to subject federally chartered central, or corporate, credit unions to such rules, regulations, and orders as the Board deems appropriate. 9

This action follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on March 16, 2026, the Board had received 10 public comments. Comments were submitted by individuals, state credit union leagues, and national credit union trade associations. After careful consideration of the issue raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

Two individual commenters were opposed to the proposed rule. These commenters expressed general concerns about NCUA's deregulatory efforts but did not have comments specific to the proposed rule.

Most commenters supported the proposed rule. Commenters discussed how the IRPS is redundant with the chartering manual and that removing it will reduce confusion as entities would only have one source to look for guidance on chartering corporate credit unions. Commenters generally stated this would lower regulatory burden and streamline guidance without affecting safety or soundness. The Board agrees and expects the rescission of IRPS 11-02 to reduce regulatory burden generally by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. In conjunction with removing IRPS 11-02, NCUA also intends to make technical updates to the chartering manual. For example, the changes would update terminology related to the responsible office and language reflecting electronic submission.

One commenter who supported the rule generally, strongly encouraged NCUA to ensure that the chartering manual remains easily accessible on the agency's public website, that any updates are clearly marked and dated, and that the agency provides notice and an opportunity for public comment before implementing any substantive revisions. The Board intends for the chartering manual to remain a public document. However, the manual may be updated in the future without notice and comment rulemaking as it is not a binding rule and instead serves a guidance. 10

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 11 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 12 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 13 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  14 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 15 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 16 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

There are no corporate credit unions under $100 million in assets. Also, the Board finds it unlikely that prospective corporate credit unions would be under that threshold. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has determined that the rescission of the IRPS does not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 17 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This rescission removes guidance regarding procedures and timelines for chartering federal corporate credit unions and does not impact state-chartered corporate credit unions. The rulemaking therefore does not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Part 741 generally applies to federal credit unions (FCUs), federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs), and credit unions applying for insurance of accounts pursuant to title II of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act). This part prescribes various requirements for obtaining and maintaining federal share insurance and paying insurance premiums and the capitalization deposit. Subpart A of part 741 contains substantive requirements that are not codified elsewhere in NCUA's regulations. Subpart B lists additional regulations, set forth elsewhere in NCUA's regulations as applying to FCUs, that also apply to FISCUs.

A FISCU that is permitted by state law to accept nonmember shares or deposits from sources other than other credit unions and public units (or, for low-income designated credit unions, any nonmembers) must, under NCUA's current regulation § 741.10, identify such accounts on all required reports to NCUA and notify all nonmember account holders in writing that their accounts are not insured by the Share Insurance Fund.

Section 741.10 applies to FISCUs that are permitted by state law to accept nonmember shares or deposits from sources other than those provided for in the FCU Act. Shares or deposits from other credit unions and public units or, for low-income-designated credit unions, from any nonmembers, are included as insurable accounts under the FCU Act. 1 For any other nonmember funds permitted by state law, § 741.10 requires FISCUs to identify such nonmember accounts as nonmember shares or deposits on any statement or report required by the Board for insurance purposes. Immediately after a state-chartered credit union receives notice from NCUA that its member accounts are federally insured, § 741.10 requires the credit union to advise any present nonmember share and deposit holders, by letter, that their accounts are not insured by the Share Insurance Fund. FISCUs are similarly required to notify any future nonmember share and deposit fund holders by letter as they open accounts.

To reduce regulatory burden, on January 28, 2026, the Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing to eliminate § 741.10 of subpart A of part 741 as its provisions are redundant to the disclosures FISCUs already must make as part of their agreement for maintaining federal share insurance. 2 NCUA adopted this regulation in 1995 to incorporate requirements already imposed on FISCUs by the Agreement for Insurance of Accounts, which must be completed by state-chartered credit unions applying for federal share insurance. 3 Current NCUA Form 9600, “Information to be Provided in Support of the Application of a State Chartered Credit Union for Insurance of Accounts,” maintains these same requirements. 4

As noted in the proposal, the Board is now of the view that, to minimize the volume of regulations and other materials FICUs must review to comply with legal and contractual requirements, § 741.10 should be removed as duplicative of the contractual requirement imposed on FISCUs as part of maintaining federal share insurance. Thus, the Board proposed to remove § 741.10 but stressed that FISCUs are still contractually required to fulfill the terms of NCUA Form 9600 as a condition of maintaining federal share insurance coverage.

In the proposal, the Board also solicited comments suggesting changes that should be made to § 741.9 of NCUA's regulations, which prohibits FICUs from offering members shares that are not eligible for federal share insurance coverage.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 5 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 6 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 7 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 8 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. When the public comment period closed on March 30, 2026, the Board had received 12 public comments. Comments were submitted by individuals, state leagues and national trades, and an association of state credit union supervisors. Eleven commenters supported the proposal. One generally opposed NCUA's deregulatory initiative. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without change.

This section of the preamble discusses the significant issues raised by the commenters, and the Board's responses to the comments.

All 11 supportive commenters concurred with the Board's assessment that the provision is an unnecessary regulatory requirement that is duplicative of the contractual obligations imposed by Form 9600 for maintaining share insurance. This contract clearly and independently sets forth the requirements to identify nonmember share or deposit accounts and to notify nonmembers that such accounts are not insured by the Share Insurance Fund. One state league provided a FICU's comment noting the redundancy does not enhance consumer understanding or safety but does create additional administrative work. The commenter said the proposal streamlines compliance expectations while preserving all essential disclosure requirements. Three commenters said the proposal maintains essential protections while streamlining compliance by eliminating unnecessary notifications and cutting duplicative paperwork and reporting. Three commenters cited benefits to small FICUs. The Board appreciates and agrees with these comments.

One commenter suggested that NCUA should provide a more standardized plain-language document to ensure compliance with the contractual obligations under Form 9600 and that all people, including those lacking great financial literacy, receive consistent information across all FISCUs. They suggested that the final rule contain a clear reminder that even though the regulatory section is being removed, the requirement to notify nonmembers of a lack of federal insurance remains a condition of maintaining federal share insurance. The commenter also agreed with the Board's determination that the changes will not negatively impact families' well-being. The Board appreciates the commenter's input but has not seen evidence of a need to provide FICUs a standardized notice document. The Board also believes it clearly stated in the proposal that the removal of § 741.10 does not remove FISCUs' contractual obligation to fulfill the terms of NCUA Form 9600 as a condition of maintaining federal share insurance coverage. Nevertheless the Board reiterates here that the removal of § 741.10 does not remove FISCUs contractual obligation to notify nonmembers of their lack of federal share insurance remains a condition of maintaining federal share insurance.

One commenter voiced general opposition to NCUA's deregulatory actions and expressed that the actions inappropriately prioritized reducing regulatory burdens at the expense of protecting consumers and the safety of FICUs. The Board appreciates the commenter's input but strongly disagrees that NCUA's deregulatory actions have prioritized reducing regulatory burdens at the expense of protecting consumers and the safety of FICUs.

Separately, in response to the proposal's request for additional comments on § 741.9, which prohibits offering member shares not eligible for federal share insurance coverage, one commenter supported considering removing § 741.9. This commentor generally supports greater flexibility for FISCUs, but stressed that the volume of deregulatory proposed rules has not provided sufficient time to thoroughly analyze the implications of removing the prohibition. The commenter said removing § 741.9 also might be beneficial, should the credit union system obtain access to supplemental capital for net worth purposes on par with credit unions worldwide. The Board appreciates the commenter's input and will continue to consider it as it evaluates any future changes.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 9 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 10 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 11 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  12 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 13 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 14 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The final rule will reduce regulatory burdens on FICUs by eliminating an unnecessary and redundant section within NCUA's regulations, which imposes requirements on FICUs for obtaining and maintaining federal share insurance. Its removal simplifies the regulatory code by eliminating unnecessary text. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has reviewed this rule and determined that it does not create any new or revise any existing collections of information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to this rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 15 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The final rule will reduce regulatory burden by eliminating an unnecessary and redundant section within NCUA's regulations imposing requirements on FICUs for obtaining and maintaining federal share insurance. Thus the rulemaking will not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 16 The final rule will reduce regulatory burden by eliminating an unnecessary and redundant section within NCUA's regulations imposing requirements on FICUs for obtaining and maintaining federal share insurance. While the rescission is intended to reduce regulatory burden generally to allow FCUs to focus on their provision of financial services to members, any potential positive effect on family wellbeing, including financial well-being is, at most, indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 17 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 18 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 741 as follows:

Part 741 generally applies to federal credit unions (FCUs), federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs), and credit unions applying for insurance of accounts pursuant to Title II of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act). This part prescribes various requirements for obtaining and maintaining federal share insurance and the payment of insurance premiums and capitalization deposit. Subpart A of part 741 contains substantive requirements that are not codified elsewhere in NCUA's regulations. Subpart B lists additional regulations that are codified elsewhere in NCUA's regulations as applying to FCUs, which also apply to FISCUs. Section 741.5 requires a FICU that maintains excess share insurance coverage in addition to the coverage provided by the Share Insurance Fund to notify all members in writing at least 30 days before the effective date of any termination of that excess coverage. NCUA adopted this rule in 1986. 1

On January 28, 2026, the Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing to amend the 30-day notification requirement in § 741.5 to provide more flexibility and reduce regulatory burden. Specifically, the Board proposed removing the 30-day requirement and simply requiring FICUs to notify members before any excess share insurance coverage is terminated. In the proposal, the Board noted that the 30-day timeframe imposes a prescriptive requirement not explicitly mandated by the FCU Act. While the Board believes members need to be notified before their excess coverage ends, requiring 30 days' prior notice may not provide sufficient flexibility or align with state law or contractual agreements. The Board is of the view that these timing considerations are best left to the discretion of each FICU board of directors and a more flexible standard would still satisfy the goal of informing members of the change before it occurs. The proposal did reiterate that FICUs should consider their member agreements and applicable state law requirements when determining adequate prior notice for members.

The Board is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the FCU Act, NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 2 The FCU Act grants NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 3 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 4 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 5 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure that the federally insured credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

This final rule follows publication of the proposed rule and takes into consideration the comments received on the proposal. By the close of the public comment period on March 30, 2026, the Board had received 18 public comments. Comments were submitted by individuals, national trades organizations and state credit union leagues, a FICU, and an association of state credit union supervisors. Twelve commenters supported the proposal, five opposed it, and one suggested an alternate approach. After careful consideration of the issues raised by the commenters, the Board has decided to adopt the proposal without any substantive change. A summary of the comments received and the Board's responses to them are provided below.

Twelve commenters supported the removal of the 30-day notice requirement to FICU members before their excess insurance coverage ends. All 12 commenters cited the benefit of increased flexibility for FICUs. Five commenters specifically said that the change would provide flexibility without causing any material harm or burden to member awareness. Six commenters said the change would provide FICU boards the flexibility to implement notice time frames that reflect state law and the contractual requirements of individual private insurers, including provisions around the required time frame to notify members of excess insurance coverage termination. One noted that a mismatch between federal and contractual notice requirements can cause increased burdens tracking and reconciling differing notice requirements. They said this would reduce burdens for FISCUs by allowing them to focus compliance efforts on state requirements, rather than reconciling competing federal deadlines. Another commenter noted the 30-day requirement applies even if state law mandates a different notice period. One commenter said that removing NCUA's prescriptive rule allows states to tailor expectations and requirements for FISCUs.

Nine commenters cited the benefits of reduced regulatory and compliance burdens. Three commenters said the 30-day requirement can create operational constraints and felt the proposal would better accommodate operational realities. Eight noted the proposal maintains the same substance, requiring FICUs to notify members before terminating excess coverage so they can adjust accounts. Three of these commenters stressed the proposal does not prohibit FICUs from deploying their own, potentially longer, notification requirements, further empowering boards to manage member agreements. One commenter expressed support, but asked how NCUA will ensure FICUs still give members fair and adequate warning before their insurance drops.

The Board agrees with the supportive commenters that the proposal will provide flexibility and regulatory relief without negatively impacting member awareness. As to how NCUA will ensure FICUs still provide members fair and adequate warning before their insurance drops, the Board believes the requirement to notify members in advance of any reduction of excess insurance coverage should provide members adequate notice and an opportunity to restructure any affected accounts. The Board stresses that this notice only relates to optional excess insurance coverage that a FICU has purchased from a private insurer above the minimum $250,000 in coverage provided to all FICU members by NCUA. Any notice provided to members is unrelated to and does not affect the share insurance coverage provided by NCUA. The Board also reiterates that notices for termination of excess insurance coverage are still subject to state law and contractual requirements.

Five commenters provided comments in opposition, with three specifically addressing this proposal. One urged the Board to either retain the current standard or set some minimum for clarity and member protection, reasoning that the 30-day requirement is a clear and enforceable standard that protects FICU members compared to the proposed “prior to” termination standard that the commentor opined is vague. They felt the proposal leaves members vulnerable and could lead to a lack of transparency and adequate time for member account changes. Another commenter expressed vehement opposition to removing the 30-day requirement. A third commenter strongly opposed the change, arguing that, while it is valid to make processes more efficient, it should not come at the cost of removing FICU member protections. The commenter said citizens have a right to transparency about their coverage and what is done with their funds and said depositors' money should not be subject to the preferred efficiency of CEOs and executives. Two other commenters voiced general opposition to NCUA's deregulatory actions and expressed that the actions inappropriately prioritized reducing regulatory burdens at the expense of protecting consumers and the safety of FICUs.

The Board appreciates the commenters expressing their concerns, but disagrees that the change will negatively impact members or the safety and soundness of FICUs. The Board believes that the requirement to notify members in advance of any reduction of excess insurance coverage should provide members adequate notice and an opportunity to restructure any affected accounts. The Board again stresses that this notice only relates to optional excess insurance coverage that a FICU has purchased from a private insurer above the minimum $250,000 in coverage provided to all FICU members by NCUA. Any notice provided to members is unrelated to and does not affect the share insurance coverage provided by NCUA. The Board also reiterates that notices for termination of excess insurance coverage are still subject to state law and contractual requirements.

One commenter proposed an alternative approach, suggesting that, to balance regulatory flexibility with consumer protection, NCUA establish a minimum baseline notification period (for example, 10-15 days) rather than eliminating the timeframe entirely. They felt this would still reduce burden while ensuring members retain a reasonable opportunity to respond to changes affecting their financial security. The commenter expressed concern that the more flexible standard in the proposal could result in inconsistent notification practices across institutions and insufficient time for members to make informed financial decisions. They worried a shorter or undefined notice period could disproportionately impact individuals who rely on excess coverage but may not closely monitor FICU communications.

The Board appreciates the commenter's perspective and the rationale for their proposed alternative approach. However, the Board believes that maintaining a specific notification period would not address potential inconsistencies with state law and contractual notice requirements and thus would impose unnecessary burdens on FICUs. As stated above, the Board does not believe that the proposed change will negatively impact members or the safety and soundness of FICUs. The Board believes that the requirement to notify members in advance of any reduction of excess insurance coverage should provide members adequate notice and an opportunity to restructure any affected accounts. The Board stresses that this notice only relates to optional excess insurance coverage that a FICU has purchased from a private insurer above the minimum $250,000 in coverage provided to all FICU members by NCUA. Any notice provided to members is unrelated to and does not affect the share insurance coverage provided by NCUA. The Board also reiterates that notices for termination of excess insurance coverage are still subject to state law and contractual requirements.

In sum, the Board is adopting the proposed rule without substantive change. The final rule includes a plain language change—the phrase “prior to” is being changed to “before” in revised § 741.5. This new wording does not change the regulation's meaning.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. 6 Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 7 This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. 8 This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act  9 generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification. 10 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets. 11 The Board fully considered the potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit unions.

The rule will reduce the regulatory burden on FICUs by eliminating the inflexible requirement for FICUs to notify members 30 days before excess non-Share Insurance Fund share insurance coverage is terminated. The Board does not expect the final rule to change FICUs' obligations to their members materially because FICUs will still be required to provide prior notice. Accordingly, NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The PRA applies to rulemaking in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. NCUA has determined that the changes described in this final rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. 12 NCUA, an agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The change will reduce regulatory burden by eliminating an unnecessary provision within NCUA's regulations imposing timing requirements on FICUs for providing member notice when excess non-federal insurance coverage is terminated. The change is not expected to change FICUs' obligations to their members materially and thus the rulemaking will not have direct effect on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 13 While the change is intended to reduce regulatory burden generally to allow FICUs to focus on their provision of financial services to members, any potential positive effect on family well-being, including financial well-being is, at most, indirect.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 14 NCUA must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General when it issues a final rule, as defined by the CRA. 15 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.” OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the CRA. NCUA will also file appropriate reports with Congress and the Comptroller General so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 741 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2026 (91 FR 27873). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0127, dated June 27, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0127) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that on the final assembly line, the engine flange on the MGB engine coupling may have been installed inverted.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the MGB engine coupling for correct installation and, depending on the results, corrective actions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct the inverted installation of the engine flange on the MGB engine coupling. The unsafe condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the loss of power transmission to the MGB and the main rotor and lead to loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-4638.

The FAA received a comment from one commenter, Papillon Airways (Papillon). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Papillon requested the FAA revise the applicability of the NPRM, to apply not only to the production date of the helicopters but also that the NPRM apply to helicopters with less than 3,500 total flight hours. Papillon stated the date ranges are too broad and they do not address high usage aircraft. Papillon also stated that aircraft with more than 3,500 flight hours have likely already replaced the engine and gearboxes [MGB] and would therefore no longer be affected by the unsafe condition.

The FAA disagrees with revising the applicability of this final rule. The FAA is unable to determine how many helicopters may have replaced the MGBs or engines before 3,500 total hours time-in-service (TIS) or how many helicopters may not have replaced the MGB or engine before exceeding 3,500 total hours TIS. The FAA acknowledges that a majority of the MGBs may have been replaced. Thus, adopting the MCAI applicability ensures that all helicopters that may be affected are included in this final rule. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0127, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the MGB engine coupling for correct installation. Depending on the results, EASA AD 2023-0127 specifies installing a correctly assembled engine flange or a new engine flange. EASA AD 2023-0127 also specifies reporting the inspection results to the manufacturer. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350BB helicopter, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4,102 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2026 (91 FR 21741). The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34, dated July 3, 2025, (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states Bell Textron Canada Limited has discovered a quality escape in the production installation of the pitch link assemblies where a washer was installed in the wrong location. The MCAI further states this incorrect installation could cause fracture of the pitch horn stud due to fatigue or when the rotor blade exceeds the travel during certain control inputs and blade flapping angles. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fracture of the pitch horn stud due to fatigue or when the rotor blade exceeds the travel during certain control inputs and blade flapping angles and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time visual inspection for proper installation of the washer installed on the pitch link assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-3866.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-34, which specifies procedures for a one-time visual inspection for proper installation of the pitch link assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, reassembling the pitch link assembly and washer or removing and replacing the pitch link assembly, tail rotor pitch horn, packings, and conical washer.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-20-12, Amendment 39-18291 (80 FR 63422, October 20, 2015) (AD 2015-20-12). AD 2015-20-12 applied to certain Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; Sikorsky Aircraft; Croman Corporation; Carson Helicopters, Inc.; Glacier Helicopter, Inc.; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; and Siller Helicopters Model S-61A, D, E, L, N, NM (S/N 61454), R, V, CH-3C, CH-3E, HH-3C, HH-3E, SH-3A, and SH-3H helicopters with a MRS, part number S6135-20640-001, S6135-20640-002, or S6137-23040-001, installed. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2026 (91 FR 21269). The NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer's design re-evaluation that shows that the MRS on certain helicopter models requires a lower life limit based on torque, ground-air-ground (GAG) cycle, and fatigue testing. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2015-20-12, except the retirement life of a Non-REL MRS. The FAA also proposed to require reducing the retirement life of a Non-REL MRS currently assigned a 13,000-hour time-in-service (TIS) retirement life to 7,300 hours TIS. If the hours TIS on a Non-REL MRS are greater than 7,300 hours TIS and the MRS is installed, the FAA proposed to require removing it from service at the next main gearbox overhaul. If the hours TIS on a Non-REL MRS are greater than 7,300 hours TIS, and the MRS is uninstalled or in overhaul, the FAA proposed to require removing it from service. If the hours TIS on a Non-REL MRS are less than 7,300 hours TIS, the FAA proposed to require removing the MRS from service before exceeding 7,300 hours TIS.

AD 2015-20-12 describes life limits as retirement lives. Retirement lives and life limits are used interchangeably throughout this AD. While life limit is the 14 CFR part 43 terminology, the FAA uses retirement life and life limit in this AD because some of the initial requirements of this AD have been in place for over a decade.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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

The FAA reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 61B-35-69, Revision A, dated October 10, 2023, which specifies procedures for determining the total number of accumulated cycles since new for the MRS, determining REL and Non-REL status, assigning new REL and Non-REL MRS retirement lives, marking the REL MRS, and annotating the retirement life of the MRS in the existing helicopter logbook.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 76 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2025 (90 FR 53245). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear strap at the forward upper corner of the forward galley door cutout. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of the fuselage skin for existing repairs and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the fuselage skin and bear strap, which may lead to the inability of the principal structural element to sustain limit loads and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from The Boeing Company who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from two commenters, including The Foundation for Aviation Safety and United Airlines (United). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety asked what the FAA and Boeing are doing to address the root cause of the defect. The commenter also asked if a structural defect is important enough to immediately ground an airplane after it is detected, why is the inspection for defects not accomplished long before the proposed compliance time.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on in-service airplanes. The required compliance times for the initial inspection and on-condition repetitive inspections and repair were established to ensure any crack is detected and repaired before the crack reaches critical length with multiple opportunities for detection. The rulemaking timeline was based on Boeing 737 fleet findings, supporting analysis, and the severity of the effect on the airplane ( i.e., safety consequences) if cracking propagates beyond a critical length. The FAA determined that the required actions and compliance times provide an acceptable level of safety. In addition, Boeing is introducing changes to the manufacturing process that address the root cause of the unsafe condition on in-production airplanes.

United stated that Table 1, Condition 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1408 RB, dated December 20, 2024, specifies to contact Boeing for alternative inspection instructions for any repair found during the general visual inspection of the fuselage skin. The commenter noted that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1408, dated December 20, 2024, does not provide guidance for repairs accomplished per the structural repair manual (SRM) limits in 737-8 and 737-9 SRM 53-00-01, for fuselage skin blend out and bear strap blend out repair. United requested clarification on whether repairs performed within allowable damage limits should be considered “repairs found” for the purposes of Table 1, or if such repairs may be treated as unrepaired areas, “no repair found.”

The FAA notes that Condition 1 applies to any repair, which includes blend out repairs accomplished per the SRM within the allowable damage limits. Such blend out repairs need to be evaluated to determine whether the repetitive inspection interval specified in the service information provides an acceptable level of safety for those repairs. Depending on findings, it may be necessary to reduce the inspection interval. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1408 RB, dated December 20, 2024. This material specifies procedures for an external general visual inspection of the fuselage skin for any repair and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repetitive detailed inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin; repetitive external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the fuselage skin at certain fastener locations and the fuselage skin and bear strap along the edge of door corner radius for cracking; repetitive external subsurface low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection of the bear strap at certain fastener locations for cracking; and obtaining instructions from Boeing for alternative inspections or for crack repair.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 471 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preamble to this temporary final rule consists of four sections:

BIS administers the DPAS regulation which implements the priorities and allocations authority under Title I of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4501, et seq. ), with respect to all materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials, not delegated to other Secretaries under Executive Order (“E.O.”) 13603. These materials, services, and facilities are referred to as “industrial resources.”

On July 30, 2026, the President issued DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs. Under DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, the President found that certain recoverable CMMs are scarce and critical materials essential to the national defense. The President stated that the inadequate supply of CMMs poses an increasing risk to our national defense and security, and it is imperative that the United States take immediate action to secure the supply of recoverable CMMs. Accordingly, pursuant to section 101 of the DPA, the President found that recoverable CMMs meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4511(b)). With these findings, the President authorized the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) to use the Secretary's delegated authority under E.O. 13603 of March 12, 2012 (National Defense Resources Preparedness) to implement this determination by taking all appropriate action under section 101 of the DPA.

BIS has determined that sales by U.S. persons of certain scarce materials identified in DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs shall be allocated to U.S. persons through an Allocation Order, which are described in pursuant to Subpart F of Part 700 (DPAS). Consistent with section 709(b)(2) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(2)), this Allocation Order and associated necessary conforming revisions to the DPAS regulations are published as a temporary final rule because BIS has determined that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with prior notice and opportunity for public comment impracticable. This temporary rule is necessary to immediately secure the supply of certain recoverable CMMs to ensure an adequate supply of these materials deemed essential to the national defense, as required by the President under DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs.

Specifically, BIS is publishing this temporary final rule to implement a Directive Allocation Order, as described in § 700.33 (Types of allocation orders) in the DPAS. The industrial resources specified in the Directive Allocation Order may not be exported from the United States without explicit authorization by BIS. This Directive Allocation Order and the associated regulatory revisions in this temporary final rule expire one year from its effective date, unless adjusted or extended by BIS prior to the expiration date in a Federal Register publication.

BIS is revising § 700.34 of the DPAS to add new paragraph (d), to include a provision to issue allocation orders through a temporary final rule in the Federal Register . In addition, BIS is adding new supplement no. 1 to part 700 to issue a Directive Allocation Order pursuant to new paragraph § 700.34(d). The new supplement includes:

• Information regarding scope and definition of terms that apply solely to the Directive Allocation Order issued by publication of this temporary final rule (and not to other provisions within the DPAS);

• Adjustment and exceptions requirements for this Directive Allocation Order issued by a temporary final rule;

• Additional compliance guidance; and

• A table that identifies the scarce and critical materials deemed essential to national defense under DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, identified by 10-digit Schedule B codes and accompanying description. The table includes the monthly domestic sales requirement percentage, as well as effective date and expiration date of this Directive Allocation Order.

The provisions in the supplement apply solely to the Directive Allocation Order and do not apply to other official actions taken pursuant to the DPAS. Additionally, BIS is making conforming changes to §§ 700.8 (Definitions) and 700.80 (Adjustments or exceptions) to include reference to supplement no. 1 to part 700 and the specific provisions that are exclusively required for allocation orders issued through a temporary final rule in the Federal Register in new supplement no. 1 to part 700.

U.S. persons engaged in the sale of materials described and identified by Schedule B codes listed in Table 1 of this supplement are required to comply with this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulation (15 CFR part 700).

As of August 27, 2026, U.S. persons engaged in the sale of `black mass' and tungsten waste and scrap, must allocate 100 percent of monthly sales to U.S. persons, as specified in new supplement no. 1 to part 700 of the DPAS. For purposes of this Directive Allocation Order, “black mass” means any shredded lithium-ion battery scrap that contains cathode material (which may include lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese), anode material (graphite, silicon) or other residual battery cell materials.

Accordingly, starting August 27, 2026, U.S. persons engaged in the sale of black mass (Schedule B codes 8549.13.00.00, 8549.14.00.00, and 8549.19.00.00) and tungsten waste and scrap (Schedule B code 8101.97.00.00) must allocate 100 percent of monthly sales to U.S. persons (referred to as a “domestic sales requirement”), unless an exception or adjustment is granted by BIS, as described in Section II.C of this temporary final rule. The domestic sales requirement for electrical and electronic waste and scrap: waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators; spent primary cells, spent primary batteries and spent electric accumulators: sorted by chemical type and not containing lead, cadmium or mercury (Schedule B code 8549.13.00.00); electrical and electronic waste and scrap: waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators; spent primary cells, spent primary batteries and spent electric accumulators: unsorted and not containing lead, cadmium or mercury (Schedule B code 8549.14.00.00); and electrical and electronic waste and scrap: waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators; spent primary cells, spent primary batteries and spent electric accumulators: other (Schedule B code 8549.19.00.00) are limited to materials that meet the definition of “black mass”, as defined in supplement no. 1 to part 700. Materials under these Schedule B codes that do not meet this definition of “black mass” are not subject to this Directive Allocation Order.

Therefore, starting August 27, 2026, “black mass” (Schedule B codes 8549.13.00.00, 8549.14.00.00, and 8549.19.00.00) and tungsten waste and scrap (Schedule B code 8101.97.00.00) must remain physically located within the United States, unless otherwise authorized by BIS. U.S. persons must continue to fill DPAS rated orders for covered black mass and tungsten waste and scrap from U.S. persons in accordance with the DPAS regulations. In accordance with new Supplement no. 1 to part 700(c), implemented through this temporary final rule, BIS may grant exceptions or adjustments on a case-by-case basis to allow sales to non-U.S. persons, notwithstanding the domestic sales requirement.

While Subpart K of the DPAS describes the Adjustments, Exceptions and Appeals process, U.S. persons who are subject to the domestic sales requirement for “black mass” and tungsten waste and scrap must submit a request for an adjustment or exception, following the process described in new supplement no. 1 to part 700(c). BIS may authorize both company-specific and generally applicable adjustments or exceptions from the sale requirement at its discretion, consistent with the determination that the restrictions covered by this rule are necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. In addition, BIS may authorize interim relief— i.e., a DPAS temporary license—while a request is pending. A DPAS temporary license or other type of approval which provides authorization from BIS for an adjustment or exception to this Directive Allocation Order is neither equivalent to nor replaces licenses or other authorizations to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) commodities, technology, or software pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774). Persons granted a DPAS license or DPAS temporary license under the Directive Allocation Order must otherwise adhere to U.S. export control regulations.

BIS will consider granting adjustments, exceptions, or interim relief for this Directive Allocation Order for the following scenarios, among others:

• The domestic sales requirement results in an undue or exceptional hardship on that person not suffered generally by others in similar situations and circumstances.

• The consequence of complying with the domestic sales requirement is contrary to the intent of the DPA or this part—for example, because it would reduce the domestic supply of CMMs.

• A U.S. person plans to sell black mass and tungsten waste and scrap to a person located outside the United States for processing or refining, and then the processed/refined material will be returned to the United States.

• Compliance with the domestic sales requirement will result in irreparable harm to a U.S. person who is subject to the order.

• Additional time is needed to comply with the domestic sales requirements.

Requests for adjustments and exceptions must be made in writing and provided to BIS via DPASAllocations@bis.doc.gov. Each request for adjustment or exception must contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the domestic sales requirement from which relief is sought, and a full and precise statement of the reasons why relief should be provided; and relevant supporting documents or data to support the request.

The submission of a request for adjustment or exception shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the domestic sales requirement while the request is being considered, unless such interim relief is granted in writing. BIS intends to respond to requests for adjustment of or exceptions to compliance with the domestic sales requirement within 14 days of the date of receipt. An appeal for a decision under this section may be made in accordance with 15 CFR 700.81. For more information regarding adjustments and exception requests, please refer to 15 CFR 700.80.

Compliance provisions in Subpart J of the DPAS continue to apply. U.S. persons are required to comply with allocation orders and the terms of any adjustment or exception authorizations granted, in accordance with 15 CFR 700.35. Further, in accordance with 15 CFR 700.90, section 707 of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4557), and to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law, a person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with the DPAS regulation, or this Directive Allocation Order, notwithstanding that such provision or action shall subsequently be declared invalid by judicial or other competent authority.

If a U.S. person is unable to comply fully with the required action(s) specified in an allocation order, the U.S. person must notify BIS immediately in writing, explain the extent to which compliance is possible, and give the reasons why full compliance is not possible. Written notification must be provided to BIS via DPASAllocations@bis.doc.gov. If notification is given verbally to BIS via 202-482-3634, written or electronic confirmation must be provided to BIS within one working day via DPASAllocations@bis.doc.gov. Such notification does not release the U.S. person from complying with the order to the fullest extent possible, until the U.S. person is notified by BIS that the order has been changed or cancelled.

BIS will implement this temporary final rule with the cooperation and assistance of other U.S. Government agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Any covered materials intended for export may be detained by CBP while BIS conducts its review of the shipment. BIS will review the shipment and provide notification as soon as possible regarding the disposition of the covered materials under this Directive Allocation Order, provided that any goods that have been detained by CBP and are subsequently made subject to a DPAS rated order will be consigned to BIS pending further distribution or agency direction. BIS may provide additional guidance regarding the application of any exemptions to this temporary final rule, as appropriate.

BIS may conduct investigations and issue requests for information as may be necessary for the enforcement of the Act, the DPAS regulations, and this Directive Allocation Order. See 15 CFR 700.71; see also section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4555. BIS may also seek an injunction or other order in accordance with 15 CFR 700.74(b). See also section 706 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4556. In addition to an injunction, failure to comply fully with this temporary final rule is punishable in accordance with 15 CFR 700.74(a). See also sections 103 and 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4513 and 4555.

At any point in time, and to the extent consistent with United States policy, BIS may determine that additional materials identified in DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs be subject to an allocation order. BIS may add additional materials to this Directive Allocation Order and will provide notification of this decision through publication in the Federal Register .

While this temporary final rule is effective on publication, BIS requests comments on whether any additional sales requirements are necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. In addition, BIS also welcomes comments on the framework of the temporary regulatory provisions added to the DPAS.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This temporary final rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This temporary final rule is exempt from Executive Order 14192 because it is being issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

2. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

3. This rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) ( See 5 U.S.C. 553) and is published as a temporary rule with immediate effective date. Agency rulemaking is generally governed by the agency rulemaking provisions of the APA and such provisions generally require that, unless the rule falls within one of a number of enumerated exceptions, or unless another statute exempts the rulemaking from the requirements of the APA, BIS must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that provides interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments, prior to finalization of regulatory requirements.

Pursuant to section 709(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4559(a), this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, sections 5 U.S.C. 551-559. While section 709(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(1) requires agencies to promulgate regulations under that section by providing notice and opportunity for public comment “consistent with section 553(b)”, section 709(b)(2) directs agencies to waive the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) if (A) the officer authorized to issue the regulation finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with such requirements impracticable; (B) the regulation is issued on a temporary basis; and (C) the publication of such temporary regulation is accompanied by the finding made under subparagraph (A) (and a brief statement of the reasons for such finding) and an opportunity for public comment is provided for not less than 30 days before any regulation becomes final. Based on the findings in DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, which already have been summarized in this document, the Under Secretary for Industry and Security has determined “that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance” with the notice and comment requirements of section 709(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(1), “impracticable.” An opportunity for public comment is being provided now for a period of 90 days, which shall ensure that a minimum 30-day public comment period is provided before any provisions of this temporary final rule “become final,” i.e. without an expiration date, pursuant to section 709(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(2)(C).

America's inadequate supply of CMMs poses an increasing risk to our national defense and security. The United States relies heavily on imports of certain CMMs commodities from foreign sources, and this reliance threatens serious, sustained supply chain disruptions. It is imperative that the United States take immediate action to secure the supply of recoverable CMMs by allocating a percentage of sales of specific recoverable CMMs to U.S. persons.

The measures described in this rule are being issued on a temporary basis. This temporary rule will cease to be in effect on August 27, 2027.

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

5. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that an agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, unless that collection has obtained Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

On July 30, 2026, the President issued a Presidential Determination titled “Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 101 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended, on Recoverable Critical Minerals and Materials” (“DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs”). Under DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, the President found that recoverable critical minerals and materials (CMMs) are scarce and critical materials essential to the national defense, meeting the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4501, et seq. ). Per DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, the President found that America's inadequate supply of CMMs poses an increasing risk to our national defense and security and directed the Secretary to take immediate action to secure the supply of recoverable CMMs.

BIS cannot reasonably comply with the normal PRA clearance process as a delay in BIS's ability to begin immediate information collection from companies engaged in the sale of recoverable CMMs to ensure a continued and adequate supply of these items, which are scarce and critical materials essential to the national defense. The Department has determined the following conditions have been met:

a. The collection of information is needed prior to the expiration of time periods normally associated with a routine submission for review under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act in view of DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/07/presidential-determination-pursuant-to-section-101-of-the-defense-production-act-of-1950-as-amended-on-recoverable-critical-minerals-and-materials/.

b. The collection of information is essential to the mission of the Department, in particular to promote the national defense; and to allocate materials, services, and facilities in such a manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as the President shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, as defined in the DPA.

c. Public harm is reasonably likely to result if BIS were to follow the normal clearance procedures before issuing this information collection. A delay in BIS's ability to begin immediate information collection from companies engaged in the sale of recoverable CMMs will lead to increased scarcity of these materials through additional exports, posing an imminent threat to U.S. military readiness and critical infrastructure sectors. BIS is required to issue official actions under the DPAS regulation and collect certain critical information from companies engaged in the sale of recoverable CMMs to effectuate DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs and ensure compliance with the DPAS regulation and the official actions issued, as described in sections 700.80, 700.81, and 700.91 of the DPAS regulation. These collection requirements may include buyer information, the applicable material and Schedule B code, quantity of material, and value of the sale. BIS may issue additional allocation orders as required to meet the objectives of DPA Determination on Recoverable CMMs.

For the reasons stated above, BIS has requested, and OMB has granted, a new information collection for this rule under OMB control number 0694-0148 with the title Directive Allocation Orders under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System in Response to Presidential Determination on Recoverable Critical Minerals and Materials. All materials for the currently approved collection can be accessed at www.reginfo.gov. Separately, BIS will be publishing a 60 day notice to take comment on the emergency collection.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 700 of subchapter A of 15 CFR chapter VII is amended as follows:

The Commission is adopting technical amendments to rule 0-1(a)(7) [17 CFR 270.0-1(a)(7)] under the Investment Company Act.

Rule 0-1(a)(7) sets forth governance standards that regulated funds must meet in order to rely on various exemptive rules under the Investment Company Act. 1 The Commission adopted fund governance standards in 2001 to enhance the independence and effectiveness of disinterested directors of regulated funds that choose to rely on these exemptive rules. 2 These standards required that, among other things, boards have a majority of disinterested directors and were silent as to whether the chairman of the board needed to be disinterested. In 2004, the Commission amended these standards to encapsulate seven requirements, including, among other things, that at least seventy-five percent of the directors of the regulated fund be disinterested (the “75% requirement”) and a disinterested director serve as chairman of the board of the regulated fund (the “chairman requirement”). Those amendments became effective on September 7, 2004. 3 In 2006, a Federal court of appeals vacated the 75% requirement and the chairman requirement. 4 The Court's action did not address the other requirements of rule 0-1(a)(7) that were amended in 2004, such as a requirement that disinterested directors of the fund select and nominate any other disinterested director of the fund. The court's vacatur of the 75% and chairman requirements went into effect July 6, 2006, 5 thereby reverting the fund governance standards to those standards as previously in effect before September 7, 2004. These technical amendments reflect the court's vacatur in the CFR by removing the 75% requirement and the chairman requirement, and reverting to the requirement of a simple majority of directors of the regulated fund be disinterested directors. The other provisions of rule 0-1(a)(7), which were not subject to the court's vacatur, remain unchanged.

The Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereupon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  6

The technical amendments do not impose any new substantive regulatory requirements on any person and merely reflect the court's vacatur of the 75% requirement and chairman requirement. For these reasons, for good cause, the Commission finds that notice and public comment are unnecessary. 7

For similar reasons, although the APA generally requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before its effective date, the Commission finds there is good cause for the amendments to take effect on August 6, 2026. 8

For purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), 9 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined the final rule is not a “major rule.” OMB also determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.

We are amending rule 0-1(a) pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 6(c), 10(f), 12(b), 17(d), 17(g), 23(c), and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-10(f), 80a-12(b), 80a-17(d), 80a-17(g), 80a-23(c), and 80a-37(a)].

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission amends title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the fludeoxyglucose F18-guided radiation therapy system into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

On February 23, 2022, FDA received RefleXion Medical Inc's request for De Novo classification of the RefleXion Medical Radiotherapy System (RMRS). FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on February 1, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.5060. 1 We have named the generic type of device “fludeoxyglucose F18-guided radiation therapy system,” and it is identified as a device that combines the functionality of an emission computed tomography detection system and a linear accelerator. The device is intended for use with approved fludeoxyglucose F18. The emission computed tomography detection system acquires images of positron-emitting fludeoxyglucose F18 for the purpose of guiding the delivery of megavoltage X-rays for oncologic treatment with radiation therapy using an FDA-cleared, -authorized, or -approved linear accelerator.

FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.

Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for fludeoxyglucose F18-guided radiation therapy systems. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 201 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 210 and 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:

On June 9, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Marine Events Within the USCG East District.” There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and we invited comments on our proposed regulatory action to amend 33 CFR 100.501, Table I to paragraph (i)(1) by adding permanent special local regulations (SLRs) for four recurring marine events and revising regulations for three recurring events already in the table. During the comment period that ended July 9, 2026, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. Within the Coast Guard, that authority has been delegated to the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay COTP Zone (COTP), as provided in 33 CFR 1.05-1(i).

The COTP has determined that participants in the events listed in this rule and other waterway users could be at risk of injury or death resulting from actual or near contact with non-participants traversing areas regulated by these rules during the events. To protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this rulemaking establishes SLRs subject to enforcement at the times and locations provided, or to be provided, for each marine event. This rule prohibits vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP, or designated Event Patrol Commander.

As noted above, we received no comments on the NPRM we published June 9, 2026. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The Coast Guard is adding entries for four recurring SLRs to Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of 33 CFR 100.501 for annual marine events in the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone. We are also modifying entries for three existing marine events in the Table. The Coast Guard will publish annual “Notifications of Enforcement” in the Federal Register and provide other notice of the exact dates and times the regulations will be subject to enforcement. For each event, these notices will provide the geographical description of each regulated area and other pertinent details concerning the nature of the event.

This rulemaking will serve to protect participants spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with a variety of marine events. While subject to enforcement, these SLRs prohibit non-participant persons or vessels from entering into, remaining within, transiting through, or anchoring in a regulated area unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

Below is a description of the four recurring marine events that we are adding to Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 100.501.

This marine event takes place one Saturday or Sunday in September, at the location described as follows: The event is in Wildwood, NJ, within the following area: All navigable waters of Atlantic Ocean near Wildwood, NJ, within a polygon bounded by the following: originating on the shore line at approximate position latitude 38°59′26″ N, longitude 074°47′37″ W; thence southeast to approximate position latitude 38°59′07″ N, longitude 074°46′40″ W; thence southwest to approximate position to latitude 38°57′42″ N, longitude 074°48′43″ W; thence northwest to the shoreline at approximate position latitude 38°58′11″ N, longitude 074°49′43″ W; thence northeast along the shoreline to the point of origin. The sponsor is Greater Wildwoods Tourism Improvement and Development Authority.

This marine event takes place one Saturday or Sunday in September or October. The event is in Philadelphia, PA, at the following location: All navigable waters of the Delaware River in Philadelphia, PA, shoreline to shoreline at approximate position 39°58′33″ N, longitude 075°4′51″ W, southerly to approximate position 39°56′04″ N, longitude 075°8′23″ W. The sponsor is Liberty Sailing Club.

This marine event takes place one Saturday or Sunday in September or October. The event is in Point Pleasant, NJ, at the following location: All navigable waters of the Manasquan River in Point Pleasant, NJ, within a polygon bounded by the following: originating at 40°5′39″ N, longitude 074°4′26″ W, thence to 40°5′19″ N, longitude 074°4′26.″ W, thence to 40°5′19″ N, longitude 074°4′7″ W, thence to 40°5′39″ N, longitude 074°4′6″ W, and along the shoreline back to the point of origin. The sponsor is Point Pleasant Foundation for Excellence in Education.

This marine event takes place on Saturday or Sunday in October. The event is in Ocean City, NJ, at the following location: All navigable waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway near Ocean City, NJ, shoreline to shoreline, between approximate position 39°13′41″ N, longitude 074°39′00″ W. and approximate position 39°15′20″ N, longitude 074°37′34″ W. The sponsor is Ocean City, NJ.

Below is a description of the three SLRs in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 100.501 that we are changing.

The name for this marine event has been updated to Battle at Brigantine and has changed locations from Atlantic City, NJ to Brigantine, NJ at the following location: All navigable waters of Bonita Tideway in Brigantine, NJ, within a polygon originating at position latitude 39°24′33″ N, longitude 074°22′28″ W; thence southwest across the Bonita Tideway to the shoreline to latitude 39°24′22″ N, longitude 074°22′49″ W; thence southwest along the shoreline to latitude 39°23′49″ N, longitude 074°23′33″ W; thence across the Bonita Tideway to the shoreline at latitude 39°23′43″ N, longitude 074°23′33″ W; thence north along the shoreline to the point of origin. The event will take place one Saturday or Sunday in March or April. The event sponsor is still Stockton University.

The name for this marine event has been updated to Atlantic City Airshow and the dates have been changed to “four consecutive days in May, June, July, or August.” The event location is in Atlantic City, NJ in the following location: The waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, NJ, bounded by a polygon, originating at the shoreline at position latitude 39°21′51″ N, longitude 074°24′27″ W; thence southeast to approximate position latitude 39°21′13″ N, longitude 074°23′48″ W; thence southwest to approximate position to latitude 39°20′17″ N, longitude 074°26′24″ W; thence northwest to the shoreline at approximate position latitude 39°20′57″N, longitude 074°26′52″W; thence northeast along the shoreline to the point of origin. The sponsor has been changed to Visit Atlantic City.

The coordinates have been updated to create a larger regulated area for the event. The event location in Ocean City, NJ is more specifically described as: All navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, NJ, bounded by a polygon originating on the shoreline at latitude 39°17′01″ N, longitude 074°33′20″ W, thence southeast to latitude 39°16′28″ N, longitude 074°32′27″ W, thence southwest to latitude 39°15′08″ N, longitude 074°34′46″ W, thence northwest to latitude 39°15′44″ N, longitude 074°35′30″ W, thence northeast to point of origin.

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 Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulatory action determinations are based on size, location, duration and time-of-day of the regulated areas. The regulated areas would be for short durations and are necessary for safety of life to participants in the event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would make a post in the Local Notice to Mariners with details on the regulated area.

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).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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. 4321-4370f), 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 involves special local regulations at various locations and at various times to maintain the safety of event participants, spectators, and transiting vessel traffic. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A memorandum for record (MFR) supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) would be installing new power line towers to raise the height of the power lines across the St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Florida. The project includes the use of a helicopter to stretch the lines across the navigable channel over the St. Johns River. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Jacksonville has determined that potential hazards associated with installation and deconstruction of power lines are a safety concern for anyone within the work area. 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 and contrary to the public interest since the hazardous conditions will be presented starting on July 27, 2026. The project creates an urgent need for a safety zone to protect the safety of both the workers and the waterway users operating in the vicinity of the project. An interruption of the project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would also delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and postponement to the completion date of the raising power lines across the river.

Additionally, 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 because it is contrary to the public interest. It is contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential hazardous conditions created by raising power lines across the river.

Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable. Accordingly, persons wishing to comment may do so by submitting written comments as set out under ADDRESSES in this preamble. Commenters should include their names and addresses, identify the docket number for the regulation, and give reasons for their comments. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

This rule establishes a safety zone from July 27, 2026, through March 5, 2027. However, the safety zone will only be in effect when the helicopters are actively engaged in operations across the navigable channel. The anticipated time for the window of helicopter operations in the channel will be from 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. every day of the week unless there is a reason that the operations cannot take place. The window of time and dates are tentative and subject to weather, supply chain delays, or other unforeseen circumstances. The Coast Guard will rely on the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7 to notify the public prior to activation. Specifically, the Coast Guard will make notice of the safety zone via the Local Notice to Mariners and issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) as soon as practicable in advance of these scheduled closures.

The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the St. Johns River Ship Channel within the following points: Point 1 at 30°23′23.3″ N, 81°32′11.2″ W, thence to Point 2 at 30°23′.3″ N, 81°32′6.3″ W, thence to Point 3 at 30°23′34″ N, 81°31′6.2″ W thence to Point 4 at 30°23′21.4″ N, 81°31′1.6″ W; thence returning to Point 1. 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 involves 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 instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

Although we are promulgating this as a temporary interim rule for lack of time to take comments prior to issuing the rule, we view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2026-0935 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in the docket. To view available documents, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. We will post public comments in our online docket. Additional information is on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more information about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

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

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from Madison Township Beach Park, Madison Township, OH. The Captain of the Port, Sector Eastern Great Lakes (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 400 feet 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. We must establish this safety zone by August 8, 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 8, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 400-foot radius of the following position: 41°50′18.35″ N, 081°2′52.95″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 12, 2026, the Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a near shore land site in the vicinity of Rockport Harbor, Rockport, MA. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks, such as being hit by unexploded pyrotechnics and other falling debris, are a safety concern for anyone within 350 yards of the fireworks display. The COTP is issuing this rule under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034 to protect spectators, personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As 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 to publish an NPRM, respond to comments, and publish a final rule within the time since notification of the fireworks and August 8, when the safety zone must be in place to protect spectators, personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.

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

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. on August 8, 2026, through 10 p.m. on August 9, 2026. It will only be enforced, however, from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. August 8, 2026, unless the event is delayed because of weather conditions, in which case it will be subject to enforcement during those same hours on August 9, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Rockport Harbor, Rockport, MA within a 350-yard radius of the land-based launch site near shore at position 42°39.99′ N, 070°37.25′ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the COTP Boston.

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).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 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.

On March 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut. 1 In the NPRM, EPA proposed to approve Connecticut's submittal adding Consent Order 8383 to the Connecticut SIP and to approve its declaration that no rubber tire manufacturing sources exist in the state (also referred to as a “negative declaration”). Consent Order No. 8383 establishes emission standards that the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) determined satisfy RACT for VOCs pursuant to Section 22a-174-32(e)(1)(D) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) for the Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC's Cromwell compressor station facility located at 252 Shunpike Road, Cromwell, Middlesex County, CT. The formal SIP revision was submitted to the EPA by CT DEEP on December 10, 2024.

The specifics of Consent Order No. 8383 and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. The EPA received three comments during the public comment period. Two fully support EPA approval of Connecticut's SIP submittal. The EPA appreciates and agrees with the supportive commenters. The third comment states only that the anonymous commenter is “confused” but does not elaborate and does not expressly oppose EPA approval. None of the comments warrant any further response.

The EPA is approving the revisions to the Connecticut SIP to include Consent Order 8383 and is approving the negative declaration for existing rubber tire manufacturing sources statewide.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions to the Connecticut SIP to include Consent Order No. 8383, dated December 9, 2024, issued to Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC for the Cromwell compressor station as discussed in section I. of this preamble and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. 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). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under CAA sections 110 and 113 as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

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 (Public Law 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 rule is exempt from the Congressional Review Act because it is a rule of particular applicability.

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 October 5, 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:

On February 24, 2026, Alaska submitted an application to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program, which included a letter from the Governor, a State hazardous waste program description, an Attorney General's statement and copies of applicable State statutes and regulation (amended on March 24, 2026), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA, amended July 28, 2026), and a showing of the State's public participation activities prior to program submission to the EPA. These documents taken together are hereafter referred to as the application and provide the basis for the EPA determining that the State's program is equivalent to the Federal program, as further described in the following paragraph.

Section 3006 of RCRA allows the EPA to authorize state hazardous waste programs to operate in the State in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste program, subject to the authority retained by the EPA in accordance with RCRA, including HSWA. The EPA grants authorization if the EPA finds that the State program is: (1) “equivalent” to the Federal program; (2) is consistent with the Federal program and other State programs; and (3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste program (RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b)). States are required to impose requirements which are at least as stringent as the Federal program. States may impose requirements which are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal program. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 271.1(i). The EPA's regulations for final state authorization appear at 40 CFR part 271.

On May 14, 2026, the EPA published a tentative determination announcing its intent to grant Alaska final authorization for its state hazardous waste program. Further background on the tentative decision to grant authorization appears in 91 FR 27229-27234, May 14, 2026.

Along with the tentative determination, the EPA announced the availability of the application for public comment. The EPA received four written comments during the May 14 through July 2, 2026, public comment period. Significant issues raised by the commenters and the EPA's responses are summarized in the following paragraphs of this document.

The Agency considered all the points raised and has concluded that the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval. As explained in the tentative decision and further explained in this final authorization, the EPA finds that Alaska's hazardous waste program is: (1) equivalent to the Federal program; (2) consistent with the Federal program and other State programs; and (3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste program (RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b)) and the EPA has determined that it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for authorization as established by RCRA. The EPA's regulations for state authorization appear at 40 CFR part 271.

Three commenters requested the EPA delay final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program until their comments and requests for clarification are addressed.

○ Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association recommends that ADEC address several areas (see 2. and 3. Comments) that AO&GA characterizes as needing more clarity, or revision in Alaska's regulations before the EPA grants hazardous waste authorization to Alaska.

○ Comment: The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) asks that the EPA and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation evaluate cumulative risks and the potential for increased burdens on rural and Tribal communities and identify safeguards before authorizing Alaska's hazardous waste program (see 4. Comment).

○ Comment: Anonymous recommends that the EPA not enact or approve the final authorization until all hydrocarbons are prevented from leaks, spills, or any type of emissions (see Comment 5.).

○ The EPA considered all the points raised and has concluded that these issues are outside the scope of the Agency's decision to authorize Alaska's hazardous waste program. Commenters may elect to raise hazardous waste program implementation and coordination issues with Alaska. The EPA is making a final authorization determination based on the State program that was submitted by Alaska to the EPA for authorization, consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements as enumerated above. The comments do not provide reasons for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval under the authorization review framework.

Several comments express concern regarding Alaska's universal waste regulations at 18 AAC 62.205, 1110, 1135, and 1390 which add electronic waste as a universal waste stream. These commenters suggest that ADEC adopt alternative approaches to the regulation of electronic waste than those that were included in Alaska's authorization submission to the EPA.

○ Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association states that:

Only five U.S. States manage electronic waste as universal waste. The commenter asks why Alaska is managing electronic waste as universal waste when most states do not.

Alaska's management of electronic waste as universal waste could lead to shipments being rejected in Washington State.

Analytical testing to show discarded electronic devices are not RCRA hazardous waste is not a practical solution to electronic waste management.

Alaska should clarify that electronic devices sent for resale or legitimate recycling are not discarded and are therefore not solid waste.

Alaska should define electronic waste consistent with the EPA's guidance and interpretation.

Alaska should make several changes to Alaska Administrative Code to clarify applicability, management standards, reporting requirements, and definition of electronic waste.

○ Comment: Aditi Vig asserts that:

Electronic waste should be considered in the hazardous waste category instead of solid waste because the potential negative health impacts are detrimental to exposed populations.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) exposure is a major concern for electronic waste disposal. Expanding the oversight of hazardous waste to rural populations in Alaska will go a long way to keep Alaskans healthy by keeping the negative health effects associated with toxic exposure from PBDEs at a minimal level.

○ These comments include policy recommendations and suggest future actions and are outside the scope of the EPA's final authorization determination. The EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns about possible PBDE health effects; however, agency review of individual chemical toxicity and potential health effects is not part of the EPA's state hazardous waste program authorization process under RCRA. See also response to Comment 1. for explanation of the basis for the EPA's final authorization determination.

One Comment related to the applicability of RCRA requirements to spent leather products that meet a hazardous waste threshold for chromium.

○ Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association states that:

After Alaska's hazardous waste program is authorized, ADEC should interpret that used leather and waste leather products meet the criteria under 40 CFR 261.(4)(b)(6) hazardous waste exclusion, even if these spent leather products fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).

Used leather may meet the hazardous waste threshold for chromium because it contains trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium resulting from the leather tanning process.

ADEC should issue guidance that used leather products should not be classified as hazardous waste due to trivalent chromium content unless the leather is visibly contaminated with another hazardous substance.

○ The Alaska Oil & Gas Association (AO&GA) comments relate to regulatory interpretations that it wishes ADEC to adopt regarding the applicability of the 40 CFR 261.4(b)(6) hazardous waste exclusion to discarded leather. These comments do not provide a basis for the EPA to deny or delay Alaska's requested program authorization. See also response to Comment 1. for explanation of the EPA's final authorization determination.

One commenter provided a list of eight recommendations and several related comments on behalf of an inter-Tribal organization.

○ Comment: The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) makes the following recommendations:

Establish a Tribal Co-stewardship Working Group with representation from CRRC and CRRC member Tribes.

Maintain clear EPA and ADEC points of contact for rural and Tribal hazardous waste concerns during and after the hazardous waste program transition.

Provide plain-language guidance explaining applicable rules, reporting requirements, inspection procedures, and timelines.

Commit to regular rural and Tribal outreach, including community visits, training, and technical assistance.

Ensure public access to permits, enforcement actions, compliance information, and opportunities to raise concerns.

Support capacity-building for Tribal governments to participate in environmental review, data collection, monitoring, and enforcement-related processes.

Evaluate cumulative impacts and risks to subsistence resources, food security, public lands, cultural continuity, and Tribal governance. CRRC further recommends that the EPA and ADEC evaluate these risks and identify safeguards prior to final authorization (see also Comment 1.).

Ensure that State authorization does not reduce the EPA's involvement, Federal accountability, or support for broader rural Alaska solid waste issues.

In addition, CRRC's comment identified concerns about possible State budget constraints that would result in less outreach, technical assistance, and State enforcement. CRRC further described concerns related to transparency and the possibility of new State requirements beyond those in the Federal program. CRRC also commented that a State-administered program may provide opportunity for program design and budgeting that reflects rural Alaska hazardous waste issues that may not be fully addressed under a Federal program.

○ The EPA appreciates the Chugach Regional Resources Commission's engagement on this authorization and recognizes the Federal Government's trust relationship with federally- recognized Tribes. The agency considered all the points raised in the CRRC letter and concluded that, while the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval, certain comments are relevant to hazardous waste program implementation. Please see response to Comment 1 forr explanation of the EPA's final authorization determination.

The commenter identified the need for clarity regarding Federal and State primacy and program implementation roles. The EPA notes that the State of Alaska currently implements the RCRA solid waste management program. This authorization does not alter the present approach to solid waste management issues in Alaska or the EPA's prior approvals of Alaska's solid waste management program pursuant to RCRA Subtitle D. Alaska will continue to have primary responsibility for the solid waste program after the EPA authorizes the State to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program.

The EPA notes that Alaska does not assert State hazardous waste program authority over Indian country, as defined in Federal statute (18. U.S.C. 1151); Alaska does not seek State hazardous waste program authority over Indian lands under 40 CFR 271.1(h) and 271.7(b). Once final authorization is effective, the EPA will continue to implement the Federal hazardous waste program in Indian country in the State of Alaska.

Elements of Alaska's hazardous waste program submission address CRRC's concerns; identify the State's resources and funding sources; and describe the EPA's ongoing oversight role. ADEC included a Program Description in its State hazardous waste program submission to the EPA. This Program Description estimates program costs and State funding sources The EPA maintains oversight authority over authorized State hazardous waste programs and will monitor State activities on a regular basis. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and Alaska provides the EPA will assess State administration and enforcement of the hazardous waste program on a continuing basis for equivalence and consistency with RCRA, this MOA, all applicable Federal requirements and policies, and for adequacy of enforcement. The EPA may consider, as part of its regular assessment, written comments about the State's program administration and enforcement that are received from regulated persons, the public, Alaska Native Tribal governments and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, and Federal, State and local agencies. The MOA also includes provisions governing oversight, information sharing, data management, confidentiality, and public requests for information, among others. The EPA will continue to work with State and Tribal partners in Alaska to help support successful State hazardous waste program implementation and ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

Following the effective date of authorization, State hazardous waste program implementation and coordination is the authorized State's responsibility. Tribes may continue to request government-to-government consultation with the EPA. The EPA will continue to offer consultation with federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native corporations, consistent with applicable Federal laws and regulations, and policies.

○ Comment: Anonymous recommends that the EPA not enact or approve the final authorization until all hydrocarbons are prevented from leaks, spills, or any type of emission(s).

○ The commenter additionally states that we need to transition to clean renewables because of the impact from global warming producing and consuming fossil fuels.

The EPA interprets these comments as identifying environmental concerns that are outside of the scope of this authorization. Please see the response to Comment 1. for an explanation of the basis for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program.

The EPA has made the final determination that Alaska's application meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA as of May 14, 2026. Therefore, the EPA is granting Alaska final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program described in the authorization application, subject to the authority retained by the EPA under RCRA. Alaska will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA State hazardous waste program described in its program application, subject to the requirements of RCRA, including HSWA. New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before such states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Alaska, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. Section I. G. of this document discusses the provisions for which Alaska did not seek authorization as part of this program submission.

The effect of this authorization is that persons in Alaska subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized State hazardous waste program requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. These include Alaska's adopted Federal RCRA regulations with modifications (effective June 1, 2025). Additionally, such persons must comply with applicable Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not yet received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements.

As an authorized State, Alaska is responsible for enforcement of its hazardous waste program. However, the EPA continues to have independent authority under RCRA. Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to: conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; and enforce authorized program requirements. Regulations for which Alaska is authorized are already effective under State law and are not changed by this authorization.

Alaska has adopted almost verbatim the Federal hazardous waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279, promulgated through July 26, 2024, except for the technical corrections promulgated August 9, 2023 (88 FR 54086) affecting 40 CFR part 261 subparts M, AA, and CC, and with a few additional modifications as described in this document. The EPA does not authorize states for certain Federal regulations relating to import/export requirements (40 CFR part 262 subpart H), Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR part 268), and manifest registry and electronic manifest functions administered solely by the EPA (40 CFR part 262 subpart B, 40 CFR part 263 subpart B, 40 CFR part 265 subpart FF, and 40 CFR part 267 subpart E). Alaska has adopted these provisions by leaving the authority with the EPA for implementation and enforcement.

State hazardous waste requirements that are either equivalent to or more stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements will become part of the authorized State program and are federally enforceable. Upon authorization, the State's hazardous waste program requirements that are either equivalent to or more stringent than the corresponding Federal rules will apply in lieu of the Federal rules. State hazardous waste program requirements that are broader in scope than the Federal program will not be part of the authorized program and are not federally enforceable. The application authorized rules are identified in the chart below.

In the discussion below, the EPA also identifies State hazardous waste requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope.

The EPA considers the following Alaska program requirements to be more stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements.

Alaska's hazardous waste regulations include additional State reporting and notification requirements, which are not part of the Federal program. Specifically, Alaska requires annual notification for the following handler categories: (1) Small Quantity Generators (SQGs); (2) Large Quantity Generators (LQGs); and (3) Transporters. These reporting requirements are described in 18 AAC 62.301(a)(2), 18 AAC 62.430, and 18 AAC 62.840(b).

Alaska adopted by reference the EPA's 2009 Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 530-F-09-007) in 18 AAC 62.525(b). In some circumstances this Unified Guidance is more specific regarding the statistical analysis that must be applied to a particular data set, which makes the State's adoption of the Unified Guidance as a regulatory requirement more stringent than the Federal regulations in these situations.

18 AAC 62.527 requires that corrective action for a release from a solid waste management unit must satisfy requirements for the corrective action program under 18 AAC 62.525 and the State requirements under the Contaminated Sites Program in 18 AAC 75.300-18 AAC 75.396. These additional State regulations include specific procedural requirements for cleanup that are not required by the Federal program, and, in some cases, the State program includes more stringent cleanup standards for contaminants in soil and groundwater (18 AAC 75.340-75.345). Where soil or groundwater cleanup standards differ between State cleanup standards and RCRA-state hazardous waste program requirements, the more stringent of the standards applies (18 AAC 62.527 and 18 AAC 62.630). Alaska's regulations at 18 AAC 62.850(b) also require that if closure and post-closure requirements in 40 CFR part 267, subpart F includes corrective action requirements, the facility owner/operator must also comply with 18 AAC 62.527.

The EPA considers the following Alaska program requirements to be broader in scope than the Federal requirements.

18 AAC 63—Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities creates specific location requirements and a public participation process that facilities must adhere to prior to receiving a permit for a new TSDF, in addition to other requirements. Some of the requirements within 18 AAC 63 are not addressed in the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 264.18 and are thus considered broader in scope. 18 AAC 62.1010 (Siting of hazardous waste management facilities) says for new facilities, not fewer than 365 days before the construction of a facility requiring a permit, the owner or operator must initiate the requirements of 18 AAC 63; 18 AAC 63.020 identifies pre-application requirements for siting approval; and 18 AAC 63.030 identifies application requirements for siting approval. 18 AAC 63.040 (Location Requirements) establishes minimum setback requirements for hazardous waste management facilities with regard to nearby land use and 18 AAC 63.050 identifies State financial assurance and compliance history siting approval requirements.

Alaska's regulations at 18 AAC 62.205, 1110, 1135, and 1390 add electronic waste as a universal waste stream, which Alaska maintains will result in streamlined handling requirements if the electronic waste is properly recycled. The State has defined “electronic waste” as “a device that contains one or more circuit boards or other complex circuitry, including computer components, laptops, central processing units, mouses, keyboards, monitors, cellular telephones, audio or video devices, and copy machines; electronic waste includes components, subassemblies, or other parts derived from the disassembly of electronic items. It does not include refrigerators, freezers, stoves, dishwashers, washers, or dryers.” 18 AAC 62.1390(c)(2). Thus, electronic waste managed under the universal waste regulations is exempt from the State's standard hazardous waste requirements. Electronic waste that is not a characteristic hazardous waste as determined by a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) performed on that specific item or model by the generator or manufacturer, or other documentation provided by the manufacturer and approved by the EPA or Alaska, may be managed as solid waste as set out under the State Solid Waste Management regulations (18 AAC 60).

The EPA notes that Alaska will manage electronic waste as universal waste without adopting 40 CFR part 273 subpart G (Petitions to Include Other Wastes Under 40 CFR part 273). The EPA acknowledges that the State may adopt electronic waste as State-only universal waste without adopting 40 CFR part 273 subpart G as the State regulations as of June 1, 2025, provide Alaska with the authority to evaluate proposed State-only universal waste streams under factors that are analogous to the factors in 40 CFR 273.81.

Alaska did not adopt and is not seeking authorization of the following Federal regulations. Implementation and enforcement of these regulations will remain with the EPA:

a. 40 CFR part 260 subpart C—Rulemaking Petitions.

b. 40 CFR part 273 subpart G—Petitions to Include Other Wastes Under 40 CFR part 273.

Alaska has not adopted the Federal regulation for the Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes at 40 CFR part 266 subpart Q (89 FR 82682, October 11, 2024). Currently authorized states are not required to seek authorization for this provision until July 1, 2027.

RCRA section 3006(b) requires that the State provide adequate enforcement of compliance with the hazardous waste requirements to receive authorization. The EPA has determined that Alaska can adequately enforce compliance with its hazardous waste regulations. Alaska's enforcement authorities include the power to issue, modify, suspend, or revoke permits; collect information and enter and inspect the premises of persons who handle hazardous waste; assess administrative penalties or initiate action in court for penalties or injunctive relief; issue abatement and corrective action orders; and pursue criminal violations. Alaska's enforcement provisions are located at Alaska Statutes (AS) 46.03.020 et seq. (2024).

Alaska will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer and enforce the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which the EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until such permits expire or are terminated. When Alaska either incorporates the terms and conditions of the Federal permits into State RCRA permits or issues State RCRA permits to those facilities, the EPA will terminate those previously issued EPA permits and rely on the State RCRA permits. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the authorized provisions after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will implement State oversight of permits through review and comment on State permits as appropriate, such comments may be incorporated into the permit by the State. The EPA will continue to oversee and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Alaska is not yet authorized.

On February 24, 2026, the State submitted an application consisting of a letter from the Governor, a State hazardous waste program description, an Attorney General's statement and copies of applicable State statutes and regulations (amended on March 24, 2026), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA, amended July 28, 2026), and a showing of the State's public participation activities prior to program submission to the EPA. Per 40 CFR 271.5(b), the EPA must notify the State whether its submission is complete within 30 days of receipt of a state program submission. On March 25, 2026, the EPA determined Alaska submitted required elements of a program submission consistent with 40 CFR 271.5 and the submission was complete.

In accordance with the process described in RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR part 271, the EPA has reviewed Alaska's final program submission for equivalency with the Federal program; consistency with the Federal program and state programs applicable in other states; and, for adequate enforcement of compliance with RCRA requirements. The EPA determines that the State program is equivalent to the Federal program; consistent with the Federal program and state programs applicable in other states; and, adequate for enforcement. The EPA also evaluated where the State is more stringent or broader in scope compared to the Federal program. The State has identified some areas in its statutes and regulations where it is broader in scope or more stringent than the EPA. While the State identified a few differences in approach, the EPA's final determination is the State program is at least equivalent to the Federal program and includes State regulations which are more stringent than the Federal regulations and certain State requirements which are broader in scope than the Federal program.

The EPA received four written comments during the May 14 through July 2, 2026, public comment period. The EPA considered all the points raised in the comments and concluded that the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval. The EPA summarizes significant comments and the EPA's responses in section I.B. of this document.

The EPA acknowledges that Alaska does not assert State hazardous waste program authority over Indian country, as defined in Federal statute (18 U.S.C. 1151); Alaska does not seek State hazardous waste program authority over Indian lands under 40 CFR 271.1(h) and 271.7(b). Once final authorization is effective, the EPA Region 10 will continue to implement the Federal RCRA Subtitle C program in Indian country in the State of Alaska. Alaska has no authority to implement a State hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program in Indian country.

The EPA retains jurisdiction, authority, and responsibility for the implementation of the Federal Program in Indian country as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151 and areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within the State of Alaska. Once final authorization is effective, the State will be authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program consistent with RCRA except in Indian country (as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151) or in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Within the State of Alaska, the EPA maintains full authority and responsibility for the implementation of RCRA in Indian country and in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. In these areas, the EPA will continue to implement the Federal hazardous waste program. For example, the Alaska Statehood Act section 11 acknowledges the United States retains exclusive jurisdiction over Denali National Park.

Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying Alaska's hazardous waste program at this time. However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272 subpart C for the authorization of Alaska's program changes at a later date. Alaska's hazardous waste regulations are found at 18 AAC 62.

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

This final authorization does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those already imposed by State law. The final program authorization does not create any new requirements and does not directly regulate any entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This final action does not involve technical standards.

Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

On June 16, 2026, NMFS published a final rule implementing fishing periods ( i.e., season dates) and fishing period limits ( i.e., vessel catch limits) for the IPHC Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, WA, lat. 46°53.30′ N (91 FR 36094). The Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation for 2026 is 261,211 lb (118 mt), net weight ( i.e., the weight of Pacific halibut that is without gills and entrails, head off, washed, and without ice and slime) (91 FR 14464, March 25, 2026).

The initial fishing periods for the 2026 fishery occurred June 23-25 and July 7-9, 2026, with fishing period limits ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 lb (0.907 to 2.268 mt), varying by vessel size class. A third fishing period was added through an inseason action on July 20, 2026 (91 FR 45224), and occurred between July 21 and 23, 2026. Landings information to date indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant another additional fishing period. Approximately 157,617 lb (71 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 261,211 lb (118 mt) allocation (60 percent), through August 3, 2026, leaving 103,594 lb (47 mt) remaining (40 percent).

NMFS is implementing an additional fishing period not previously implemented in the final rule on June 16, 2026 (91 FR 36094), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Pursuant to the final rule for the 2026 fishery, fishing period limits for any additional fishing period(s) implemented through inseason action will be equal across vessel size classes and developed based on the estimated remaining allocation to date, projected participation, and catch rates for the additional fishing period.

NMFS has determined that the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's 2026 allocation, not anticipated to risk exceeding the allocation, and consistent with the inseason management provisions at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii).

This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning August 18, 2026, at 8 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) and ending on August 20, at 6 p.m. PDT. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes, during this fishing period.

On July 31, 2026, notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected public.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this inseason action because the public had an opportunity to comment on the final rule implementing the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A. The final rule specifically provided that additional fishing periods and fishing period limits may be set through inseason action during the 2026 fishing season, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), if another fishing period(s) is deemed necessary to attain the 2026 allocation. The final rule further specified that NMFS would open a fourth 58-hour fishing period on August 18, 2026, at 8 a.m. PDT that would close on August 20, 2026, at 6 p.m. PDT, through inseason action, if a fourth fishing period is necessary to reach the allocation. The final rule for the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial fishery was subject to notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, the public had specific notice and an opportunity to comment on NMFS' intent to implement inseason action to open this fourth fishing period for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery during that rulemaking process.

Second, the California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provide estimated harvest data to NMFS in season, tracking the estimated catch of Pacific halibut within the fishery to date. As of August 3, 2026, the Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery caught an estimated 60 percent of the fishery's 2026 allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years, to determine whether additional fishing periods are necessary to reach the fishery's annual allocation, and to set fishing period limits for any additional fishing periods set through inseason action. Given that harvest in the first three fishing periods for the 2026 fishery is estimated to be below the allocation, a fourth fishing period is considered necessary to maximize the opportunity and likelihood that the fishery will attain its 2026 allocation.

The final rule implementing the 2026 fishing season sets the regulated public's expectations for both the initial and additional fishing periods for the fishery by setting a prescribed schedule in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026). The regulated public needs sufficient time to plan for additional fishing periods and makes business planning decisions for the 2026 season, accordingly. The annual directed commercial fishing season for Pacific halibut in Area 2A is relatively short and occurs primarily during the summer months. As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants and there is good cause to waive notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Specifically, delaying this inseason action for notice and comment rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would limit the rule's ability to create meaningful opportunity for the fishery to achieve its 2026 allocation. Without implementation of an additional fishing period, the fishery allocation would not be reached. This would eliminate economic benefits for fishery participants and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. Finally, no aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (91 FR 36094, June 16, 2026).

NMFS has also determined that the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) does not apply to this inseason action because this action relieves a restriction on the fishery and there is good cause to waive the requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), respectively.

The 30-day delay in effective date requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) does not apply to this inseason action because this inseason action relieves a restriction by allowing participants to fish on the additional fishing dates outlined in the final rule. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness thus provides additional opportunity for commercial Pacific halibut fishermen to harvest Pacific halibut and increases the likelihood of full utilization of the 2026 allocations in Area 2A.

Additionally, there is good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after the date of publication, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would: (1) constrain fishing opportunity; (2) be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan; and (3) potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. NMFS regulations allow for implementing additional fishing periods and setting period limits for the directed commercial fishery inseason in order to provide opportunity for the fishery to achieve its annual allocation, so long as this additional fishing will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received landings data for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery, that indicates that an additional fishing period is necessary to ensure optimal harvest of the allocation. The non-Tribal directed commercial fishery's season is limited. Thus, timely action to implement additional fishing periods is necessary to achieve the allocation. It is therefore in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period could prevent the allocation objectives of the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery from being met.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

In the final rule to implement Amendment 36 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP) (91 FR 46000, July 22, 2026), NMFS mistakenly omitted portions of three amendatory instructions: 2.b., 11., and 24.e. These omissions include one set of asterisks, italics, and one subparagraph numeral in the regulatory text, among others. This action corrects these omissions to the amendatory instructions and ensures the regulations are consistent with the intent of the final rule to implement Amendment 36 to the Groundfish FMP.

In the FR Doc. 2026-14790, published July 22, 2026, at 91 FR 46000, the following corrections are made.

1. On page 46004, in the second column, the amendatory instruction of 2.b. is corrected to read as follows: “Revising the paragraph heading in paragraph (1)(iv)(B) of the definition of “Conservation area(s)”.

2. The regulatory text that is being revised by amendatory instruction 2.b. is also corrected to add three asterisks after the paragraph heading so that it reads as follows: “(B) Non-Trawl (Limited Entry Non-Trawl and Open Access Non-Trawl Gears) RCAs. * * *”.

3. On page 46006, in the second column, the amendatory instruction of 11. is corrected to read as follows: “Amend § 660.55 by removing the words “fixed gear” and “ fixed gear” wherever they appear, and adding in their place “non-trawl” and “ non-trawl”, respectively.”

4. On page 46008, in the first column, the amendatory instruction of 24.e. is corrected to read as follows: “Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2) and newly redesignated paragraph (b)(5) introductory text;”.

5. On page 46011, in the first column, the regulatory text is corrected to add the following: “(ii) [Reserved]” directly following the end of paragraph § 660.231(c)(7)(i)(C)( 3 ).

NMFS manages the Cook Inlet EEZ Area according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska (Salmon FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the salmon resources in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Salmon FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2026 aggregate coho salmon stock complex TAC for the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is 16,619 fish as established by the final 2026 harvest specifications for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (91 FR 36761, June 18, 2026).

In accordance with § 679.118(c)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2026 aggregate coho salmon stock complex TAC may be or has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting commercial fishing for all salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to prevent exceeding the aggregate coho salmon stock complex TAC. It is necessary to close commercial fishing for all salmon species because the commercial fishery harvests mixed stocks of salmon but cannot target specific stocks and the harvest of the aggregate coho salmon stock complex is therefore unavoidable. If commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area continued, the aggregate coho salmon stock complex would be harvested in conjunction with other salmon species in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and the aggregate coho salmon stock complex TAC would be exceeded.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 679.118(c)(1)(i), which was issued pursuant to section 304(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data on salmon catch in a timely fashion, and would delay the closure of the commercial fishery for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Any delay in the closure of the commercial fishery for salmon could result in the fishery exceeding the 2026 aggregate coho salmon stock complex TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on the commercial harvest of salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area only became available as of July 31, 2026.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.