This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (Act), amending Marketing Order No. 923 (7 CFR part 923; the Order), regulating the handling of sweet cherries grown in designated counties of Washington. The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of sweet cherries operating within the area of production.

This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This rule amends existing Marketing Order No. 923, as amended (7 CFR part 923), Sweet Cherries Grown in Designated Counties in Washington, and is necessary for the continued operation of the Order. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

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

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

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608(c)(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

Under the Order, sweet cherries produced in designated counties in Washington are required to be inspected and are subject to grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements. This final rule increases the minimum size requirements for all sweet cherry varieties, except the Rainier, Royal Anne, and similar varieties commonly referred to as “light sweet cherries.” In addition, this action removes one row count/row size designation and adds two new row count/row size designations to the Order's pack requirements.

Section 923.51 of the Order authorizes the Committee to recommend handling regulations to the Secretary. Section 923.52 of the Order authorizes the Secretary to establish such handling regulations. Further, § 923.53 authorizes the Committee to recommend the modification, suspension, or termination of handling regulations when it finds that industry conditions so dictate. Section 923.322 establishes the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container requirements for sweet cherries handled subject to the Order. Section 923.322(b) establishes the Order's minimum size requirements and § 923.322(d) details the Order's pack requirements. Section 923.322(d)(1) includes a table that specifies the allowable row count/row size designations and the corresponding allowable size variation tolerance.

The Committee held two public meetings on May 22, 2024, and August 27, 2025, to consider changes to the Order's handling regulations. The Committee determined that the production and marketing conditions of Washington sweet cherries have changed and that the Order's handling regulations should be modified accordingly pursuant to § 923.53. The Committee met on May 22, 2024, and recommended, with a vote of nine in favor, three opposed, and one abstention, modifying the Order's handling regulations by increasing the minimum size requirements for all cherries, except cherries of the Rainier, Royal Anne, and other similar “light sweet cherries,” in § 923.322(b)(2). The Committee met again on August 27, 2025, and unanimously recommended, with a vote of 12 in favor and none opposed, modifying the Order's pack requirements in § 923.322(d)(1). The Committee recommended these changes to the Order, discussed in further detail below, to allow the industry to maximize market returns and facilitate access to crop insurance for growers, when necessary.

Currently, the size requirements in the Order's handling regulations require that at least 90 percent of all sweet cherries, except the Rainier, Royal Anne, and other similar “light sweet cherries,” be a minimum size of 54/64 inch in diameter and not more than 5 percent, by count, may be less than 52/64 inch in diameter. In addition, under the Order's pack requirements, the minimum row count/row size designation is 12-row, with at least 90 percent, by count, not smaller than 54/64 inch in diameter. The largest defined row count/row size designation is an 8-row, with at least 90 percent, by count, not allowed to be smaller than 84/64 inch in diameter. Because there is no maximum size requirement defined by the Order's handling regulations, cherries larger than 84/64 inches in diameter were all designated as 8-row size/row count. For context, higher number row count/row size designations correlate to smaller fruit and lower number row count/row size designations correlate to larger size fruit.

At its meeting on May 22, 2024, the Committee recommended, with a vote of nine in favor, three opposed, and one in abstention, modifying the Order's handling regulations by increasing the minimum size requirements for all cherries, except cherries of the Rainier, Royal Anne, and other similar “light sweet cherries,” from 54/64 inch in diameter (12-row count/row size designation) to 57/64 inch in diameter (11 1/2 -row count/row size designation). Under the change, at least 90 percent, by count, of cherries in any lot will be required to measure not less than 57/64 inch in diameter, and not more than 5 percent, by count, could measure less than 54/64 inch in diameter. Additionally, the Committee recommended eliminating the 12-row count/row size designation from the table in the Order's pack requirements to conform with the minimum size requirement increase to 57/64 inch in diameter (11 1/2 -row count/row size). The three members opposed did not believe the recommendation would be good for industry and would limit growers' ability to market all their fruit, as in some very specific circumstances, 12-row count/row size designated sweet cherries can be marketed. The abstaining member wanted additional time to consider the recommendation.

According to the Committee, small size cherries ranging from 54/64 to 57/64 inch in diameter (12-row count/row size) account for approximately 1 to 2 percent of the Washington sweet cherry market annually. In addition to making up a very small percentage of sweet cherry volume, small size cherries usually command a lower market price, which can create competition with the larger size fruit which is also produced within the production area. Further, during difficult crop years when weather events adversely impact yield and fruit size, growers are often required to pick and deliver their 12-row count/row size cherries to handlers to qualify for crop insurance coverage, even if picking the smaller size cherries is not economically viable. This is because crop insurance adjustors typically require harvesting all “marketable” fruit prior to submission of a crop insurance claim, even though the smaller size cherries have little market value to the grower or the handler. For these reasons, the Committee believes that increasing the minimum size requirement to 57/64 inch in diameter and eliminating the corresponding 12-row count/row size designation in the Order's pack requirements will be beneficial to the industry by preventing low value, small size cherries from competing in the market against larger, more valuable fruit, and by reducing crop insurance barriers for growers following weather-induced crop losses.

At its public meeting on August 27, 2025, the Committee recommended, with a vote of 12 in favor and none opposed, to further modify the Order's handling regulations by adding two new row count/row size designations to the Order's pack requirements. The rule will add a 7 1/2 -row count/row size designation, with a minimum 88/64 inches in diameter, and a 7-row count/row size designation, with a minimum 92/64 inches in diameter. Prior to this action, number 8-row count/row size (minimum 84/64 inches in diameter) and larger sweet cherries are marketed without further size definition, making it difficult for industry to differentiate and capitalize on the larger size fruit. The Committee believes that adding the two larger size designations will benefit growers and handlers of larger size sweet cherries and facilitate industry's desire to market larger size cherries in export markets at premium prices.

Therefore, this final rule amends the size requirements in § 923.322(b)(2) by increasing the minimum size requirement from 54/64 inch in diameter to 57/64 inch in diameter. Additionally, at least 90 percent, by count, of cherries in any lot are required to measure not less than 57/64 inch in diameter, and not more than 5 percent, by count, could measure less than 54/64 inch in diameter. Further, this final rule amends the table in § 923.322(d)(1) by removing the 12-row count/row size designation in Column 1, as well as the corresponding minimum 54/64 inch in diameter from same row in Column 2. This action also adds two new row count/row size designations to the table: a 7 1/2 -row count/row size in Column 1, with a corresponding minimum 88/64 inches in diameter in Column 2, and a 7-row count/row size in Column 1, with a corresponding minimum 92/64 inches in diameter in Column 2. Lastly, this final rule makes a technical amendment to revise the title of the pack requirements table to “Table 1 to Paragraph (d)(1).” For the reasons stated above, the changes in the Order's handling regulations effectuated by this final rule are expected to benefit growers, handlers, and consumers of Washington sweet cherries.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique regulations in that they are brought about through group action of typically small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 1,350 sweet cherry growers in the production area and approximately 35 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,500,000 (NAICS code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) (13 CFR 121.201). Small agricultural service firms, which include sweet cherry handlers, were defined by the SBA as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities).

Based on data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Committee, the reported average price growers received for Washington sweet cherries during the 2024-2025 fiscal year was approximately $1.08 per pound, with total shipments of around 404,000,000 pounds. Using the average grower price, shipment information, and the number of growers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of growers have estimated average annual receipts of significantly less than $3,500,000 ($1.08 multiplied by 404,000,000 pounds equals $436,320,000, divided by 1,350 growers equals $323,200 per grower). Thus, the majority of growers may be classified as small entities.

According to data from Market News and production records from the Committee, the average price of Washington sweet cherries handled during the 2024-2025 fiscal year was approximately $3.17 per pound, with total shipments of around 404,000,000 pounds. Based on the average terminal market price, shipment information, and the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of Washington sweet cherry handlers have estimated average annual receipts of more than $34,000,000 ($3.17 multiplied by 404,000,000 pounds equals $1,280,680,000 divided by 35 handlers equals $36,590,857 per handler). Thus, the majority of handlers may be classified as large entities.

This final rule increases the minimum size requirements in the Order's handling regulation for all varieties, other than Rainier, Royal Anne, and other similar “light sweet cherries,” from 54/64 inch in diameter to 57/64 inch in diameter. Under the amended minimum size, at least 90 percent, by count, of cherries in any lot are required to measure not less than 57/64 inch in diameter, and not more than 5 percent, by count, could measure less than 54/64 inch in diameter. The Committee stated that 12-row (54/64 inch in diameter) cherries regularly make up only 1 to 2 percent of the market and are not readily accepted by wholesale buyers, nor do handlers often choose to pack and market such small cherries. The Committee further indicated that in years of weather-induced crop failure or yield reductions, crop insurance requires growers to harvest and deliver all the cherries produced, even if handlers prefer that growers forgo delivery of small size fruit and growers prefer to avoid the expense and burden of harvesting such small size fruit. With this final rule, sweet cherry growers will be able to harvest fruit that is more readily accepted by handlers and successfully market such fruit to consumers. This action is expected to facilitate growers' use of crop insurance in years when the industry experiences a crop failure.

Additionally, this action modifies the table in the Order's pack requirements by eliminating the 12-row count/row size designation, which corresponds to a minimum diameter of 54/64 inches, and by adding a 7 1/2 -row count/row size designation (88/64 inches in diameter) and a 7-row count/row size designation (92/64 inches in diameter). With this final rule, the minimum row count/row size designation will be 11 1/2 , with a corresponding minimum diameter of 57/64 inches. The Committee believes that adding these size designations will allow the industry to differentiate markets and facilitate marketing large size, premium sweet cherries.

This final rule will not impose any additional costs to industry. It is not expected to have a significant impact positively or negatively on the revenue of handlers or growers of Washington sweet cherries, as the quantity of small, 12-row size fruit produced is very small, the market currently does not readily accept 12-row size sweet cherries, and such cherries, when produced and marketed, command lower prices than larger size fruit. The quality of sweet cherries is not expected to be significantly affected by this change and increasing the minimum size of marketable cherries aligns with what the market already demands. In addition, the Order's minimum grade requirements will not be impacted by this final rule and the addition of the larger size designations in the Order's pack requirements is expected to have a neutral or positive impact.

The Committee considered alternatives to the recommended changes made at its May 2024 meeting, including taking no action and continuing to regulate according to the requirements currently in effect under the Order. The Committee considered increasing the minimum size requirement to 61/64 inch in diameter and raising the minimum row count/row size designation to 11-row, thereby eliminating both the 12 and 11 1/2 -row count/row size designations from the pack requirements. However, the Committee determined that the minimum size and minimum row count/row size designation, as established through this action, will be in the best interest of the growers, handlers, and consumers of Washington sweet cherries. As such, the Committee rejected all other alternatives.

Further, the Committee also discussed alternatives to the recommended changes made at the August 2025 meeting, including taking no action and continuing to regulate based on the recommended proposals presented at the May 2024 meeting. The Committee considered various options regarding defining larger size fruit in the table in the Order's pack requirements. However, the Committee ultimately determined that adding two additional row count/row size designations (7 1/2 -row (88/64 inches in diameter) and 7-row (92/64 inches in diameter)) will be in the best interest of the growers, handlers, and consumers of Washington sweet cherries and rejected all other alternatives.

Committee meetings are widely publicized throughout the Washington sweet cherry industry and designated area. All interested persons are invited to attend meetings and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 22, 2024, and August 27, 2025, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. This final rule does not require changes to the current information collection. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large sweet cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2026 (91 FR 11181). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all Washington sweet cherry handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending April 8, 2026, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received nine comments during the comment period. Of the nine comments received, six expressed support for the proposal. One of the six supporting comments also proposed that cherries imported into the production area should also be required to meet the same requirements as cherries produced in the production area. However, because the Order does not regulate cherries imported into the production area, this recommendation is not permissible under the Order and, accordingly, no changes have been made to the rule as proposed.

Of the three remaining comments, one did not address the merits of the proposal and two expressed neither support nor opposition for the proposal but instead provided additional recommendations. One of those two comments recommended further increasing the minimum size requirement by removing up to and including the 11-row count/row size designation from the Order's pack requirements. As previously noted, the Committee had considered increasing the minimum row count/row size designation to 11-row, thereby eliminating both the 12 and 11 1/2 -row count/row size designations from the pack requirements. Ultimately, however, the Committee determined that the 11 1/2 -row minimum size and minimum row count/row size designation, as established by this final rule, would be in the best interest of the growers, handlers, and consumers of Washington sweet cherries because 11 1/2 and 11-row sweet cherries remain marketable. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule as proposed based on this recommendation.

The second comment recommended that AMS establish an effective date of January 1, 2027, so as not to disrupt the industry with mid-season handling regulation changes and to provide industry adequate time to prepare, implement, and support compliance with the final rule. AMS agrees with this request to minimize mid-season disruptions to industry and has established an effective date of January 1, 2027 for this final rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee, public comments, and all other available information, AMS has determined that this final rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 923 as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), amending Marketing Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930; the Order), regulating tart cherries grown in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The Board locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area, and a public member.

This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This rule amends existing Marketing Order No 930, as amended (7 CFR part 930), Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, and is necessary for the continued operation of Marketing Order No. 930. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

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

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” Under the Order now in effect, free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries for the 2024-2025 crop year. This action establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2024-2025 crop year, beginning July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2024-2025 crop year which may be handled at 81 percent free and 19 percent restricted. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) has determined that designating free and restricted percentages of tart cherries for the 2024-2025 crop year effectuates the declared policy of the Act to stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. These recommendations were made by the Board at a public meeting on September 12, 2024.

Section 930.51(a) of the Order provides the Secretary authority to regulate volume by designating free and restricted percentages for any tart cherries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 930.50 prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply based on sales history and for calculating these free and restricted percentages. Free percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, be diverted, or used for exempt purposes as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162. Exempt purposes include, in part, the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and charitable contributions. Sections 930.55 through 930.57 prescribe procedures for inventory reserves. For tart cherries held in reserve, handlers would be responsible for storage and would retain title of the tart cherries.

Under § 930.52, only districts in which the average annual production of cherries over the prior three years has exceeded six million pounds are subject to volume regulation, and any district producing a crop that is less than 50 percent of its annual average processed production in the previous five years would be exempt from any volume regulation. The regulated districts for the 2024-2025 crop year are: District 1—Northern Michigan; District 2—Central Michigan; District 3—Southern Michigan; District 4—New York; District 7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) are not regulated for the 2024-2025 season.

Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable despite the variance in production volume that the industry may experience from year to year. Additionally, once processed, tart cherries can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year, further impacting supply. The Board is aware of this economic relationship and focuses on using the volume control provisions in the marketing order to balance supply and demand to stabilize industry returns.

Pursuant to § 930.50, the Board meets on or about July 1 of each crop year to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts, and market conditions for the upcoming season and, if necessary, to recommend preliminary free and restricted percentages if anticipated supply would exceed demand. After harvest is complete, but no later than September 15 of each crop year, the Board meets again to update its calculations using actual production data, consider any necessary adjustments to the preliminary percentages, and determine if final free and restricted percentages should be recommended to the Secretary.

The Board uses sales history, inventory, and production data to determine whether a surplus exists and how much volume should be restricted to maintain optimum supply. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year. The optimum supply value is calculated by determining the average free sales of the prior three years, reduced by average sales that represent dispositions of exempt cherries and restricted percentage cherries qualifying for diversion credit for the same three years, plus desirable carry-out inventory. Desirable carry-out is the amount of fruit needed by the industry to be carried into the succeeding crop year to meet market demand until the new crop is available. Desirable carry-out is recommended by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. Section 930.151 specifies that desirable carry-out can range from zero to a maximum of 100 million pounds.

In addition, § 930.50(g) specifies that in years when restricted percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years for market expansion. This requirement conforms with the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” ( http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders, pg. 12) which specifies that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved.

After the Board determines the optimum supply, desirable carry-out, and market expansion factor, it must examine the current year's available volume to determine whether an oversupply might occur. Available volume includes carry-in inventory (any inventory available at the beginning of the season) along with that season's production. If production plus the carry-in inventory is greater than the optimum supply (3-year sales average plus the targeted carry-out), then the difference is considered surplus. The 10 percent market expansion factor and any economic adjustments recommended by the Board are then subtracted from this surplus number to arrive at an adjusted surplus. This adjusted surplus tonnage is divided by the sum of production in the regulated districts to reach a restricted percentage. This percentage must be held in reserve or used for approved diversion activities, such as exports, new products, or new market activities.

The Board met on June 20, 2024, to discuss whether supply would exceed demand for the 2024-2025 crop year. After some discussion, the Board unanimously supported an estimated crop of 247.3 million pounds for the 2024-2025 season. Next, the Board computed an optimum supply of 268.3 million pounds for the 2024-2025 crop year using the three-year average of free sales (191.6 million pounds) plus a recommended desirable carry-out of 76.7 million pounds.

In determining the carry-out figure, the Board members discussed the findings of the committee established by the Board to review the way volume control is calculated, including carry-out. The committee looked at the five-year average movement for June (18.8 million pounds), July (19.3 million pounds), August (19.3 million pounds), and September (19.3 million pounds) for an average carry-out of 76.7 million pounds. It was also reported that the numbers were consistent from year to year, and based on the historical data, would be reflective of what would be needed for carry-out for the 2024-2025 season. One member questioned whether the industry really needed four months of inventory or if three or three and half months would be a better indicator of needed carry-out. Other members voiced concerns about how reflective these numbers were of the different market segments.

The Board also considered setting the 2024-2025 season's carry-out volume the same as the previous year at 85 million pounds. Several members expressed that 85 million pounds was too large for the 2024-2025 season's carry-out since the carry-in inventory was above 90 million pounds from last season. After considering a range of alternatives between 75 to 85 million pounds, the Board unanimously recommended a carry-out of 76.7 million pounds.

To calculate the production quantity needed from the 2024-2025 crop to meet optimum supply, the Board subtracted the carry-in inventory available on June 1, 2024, of 93.1 million pounds from the optimum supply (268.3 million pounds). This number, 175.2 million pounds, was then subtracted from the Board's estimated 2024-2025 total production of 247.3 million pounds (from regulated and unregulated districts) to calculate a surplus of 72.1 million pounds of tart cherries.

The Board then discussed whether this calculation would supply enough cherries to grow sales, account for the 2024-2025 season's economic demands, and fulfill orders that had not yet shipped. The Board discussed making an economic adjustment based on some fruit quality concerns from the weather in Michigan and reports of European crops being short this year which could increase demand for domestic fruit. After discussing multiple motions for an economic adjustment ranging from 0 to 10 million pounds, the Board recommended a preliminary economic adjustment of 5 million pounds at the June meeting.

The Board also complied with the market expansion factor requirement by removing 19.2 million pounds (average sales for the prior three years of 191.6 million times 10 percent) from the 72.1 million pounds of surplus. The adjusted surplus of 47.9 million pounds (72.1 million pounds −19.2 million pounds −5 million pounds for the economic adjustment) was then divided by the expected production in the regulated districts (245.5 million pounds) to reach a preliminary restricted percentage of 19.5 percent for the 2024-2025 crop year.

The Board met again on September 12, 2024, to consider final volume regulation percentages for the 2024-2025 season. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and demand information available in September.

The total production for the 2024-2025 season reported at the September meeting was 261.7 million pounds. This exceeded the Board's June production estimate by 14.5 million pounds. In addition, growers diverted 11.02 million pounds in the orchard, lowering the available production for market. As a result, 250.67 million pounds of production would be available to the market, 249.3 million pounds of which are in the seven districts subject to volume regulation.

At the September meeting, the Board revisited the recommended 5-million-pound economic adjustment to the optimum supply calculation made in June. The Board discussed that the yields from processing were lower than normal by approximately 10 percent due to poor fruit quantity throughout the industry. To address this issue, the Board recommended increasing the economic adjustment by 15 million pounds for a total economic adjustment of 20 million pounds. The Board agreed this increase should ensure sufficient inventory is available to meet demand.

The Board then recalculated the restricted percentage using the revised economic adjustment and the actual production numbers. The carry-in figure considered at the June meeting of 93.1 million pounds was subtracted from the optimum supply of 268.3 million pounds to determine 175.2 million pounds of 2024-2025 production would be necessary to reach optimum supply. The 175.2 million pounds were then subtracted from the actual production of 261.7 million pounds, resulting in a surplus of 86.5 million pounds of tart cherries.

The calculated surplus of 86.5 million pounds was reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 20 million pounds and the market expansion factor of 19.2 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted surplus of 47.3 million pounds. The Board then divided the adjusted surplus by the available production of 249.3 million pounds in the regulated districts (261.7 million pounds minus 11.02 million pounds of in-orchard diversion minus 1.33 million pounds from unregulated districts) to calculate a restricted percentage of 19 percent (47.3 million pounds) with a corresponding free percentage of 81 percent (202 million pounds) in the regulated districts for the 2024-2025 crop year, as outlined in the following table:

The final restriction of 19 percent is lower than the preliminary restriction percentage of 19.5 percent. The change is due to the increase in the economic adjustment at the September meeting. While actual production increased by a total of 14.5 million pounds over the June estimate, the economic adjustment increased from the 5 million pounds recommended in June to 20 million pounds at the September meeting. The economic adjustment roughly balanced out the additional production, keeping the final restriction close to the number estimated in June.

Establishing free and restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. Historically, if the primary market is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the implementation of the Order. The Board, based on its discussion of this issue and the result of the above calculations, believes the available information indicates that a restricted percentage should be established for the 2024-2025 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market with tart cherries.

Consequently, the Board recommended final percentages of 81 percent free, and 19 percent restricted by a vote of 17 in favor, and 1 opposed on September 12, 2024. The Board could meet during the crop year, and if conditions so warranted, recommend the release of additional volume. The Secretary finds, from the recommendation and supporting information supplied by the Board, that designating final percentages of 81 percent free and 19 percent restricted tends to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, and so designates these percentages.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique in that they are brought about through group action of typically small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 330 growers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 30 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural growers of tart cherries as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.5 million (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming). Small agricultural service firms, including handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34 million (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the 2023-2024 season average grower price for tart cherries utilized for processing was approximately $0.1922 per pound. With total utilization for processing at 196.5 million pounds for the 2023-2024 season, the total 2023-2024 value of the crop utilized for processing is estimated at $37.7 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of growers (330) yields an estimated average annual receipts per grower of approximately $114,240. This is well below the $3.5 million SBA threshold for small growers.

An estimate of the season average price per pound received by handlers for processed tart cherries was derived from USDA's purchases of dried tart cherries for feeding programs in 2023 and 2024, which had an average price of $4.72 per pound. The dried cherry price was converted to a raw product equivalent price of $0.94 per pound at an industry recognized ratio of five to one. Based on utilization, this price represents a good estimate of the price for processed cherries. Multiplying the raw product equivalent price above by the total processed utilization of 196.5 million pounds results in an estimated handler-level tart cherry value of $184.7 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers ($184.7 million divided by 30 handlers) yields estimated average annual receipts per handler of approximately $6.2 million, which is well below the SBA threshold of $34 million for small agricultural service firms. Assuming normal distributions, the majority of growers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by wide annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, the pounds of tart cherry production utilized for processing for the years 2021 through 2023 were 170.1 million, 239.0 million, and 196.5 million, respectively. Because of these fluctuations, supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely in balance.

Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply, and grower prices vary widely in response to the large swings in annual supply. Grower prices per pound for processed utilization have ranged from a low of $0.07 in 1987 to a high of $0.59 per pound in 2012 when a weather event substantially reduced supply. Grower prices per pound for processed utilization over the most recent three years (2021 through 2023) were $0.50, $0.22, and $0.19, respectively.

Because of this relationship between supply and price, oversupplying the market with tart cherries would have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. Aware of this economic relationship, the Board focuses on using the volume control authority in the Order to align supply with demand and stabilize industry returns. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages to bring supply and demand into balance. Free percentage cherries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in reserve, diverted, or used for exempted purposes.

This final rule establishes 2024-2025 crop year percentages of 81 percent free and 19 percent restricted. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. The action regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and New York. The authorities for this action are provided in §§ 930.50, 930.51(a), and 930.52. The Board recommended this action at its meeting on September 12, 2024.

This final rule results in some fruit being diverted from the primary domestic markets as authorized in the Order's marketing policy in § 930.50. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” ( https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders ) specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each crop year per § 930.50(g), before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. Under this rule, the available quantity of 296.4 million pounds (free production of 202 million plus a carry-in of 93.1 million plus 1.33 million pounds unregulated) is 155 percent of the average sales for the last three years (191.6 million pounds).

In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important role for the industry. The areas of new products, new markets, and the development of export markets utilize restricted fruit to develop and expand the markets for tart cherries.

Placing tart cherries into reserves is also a key part of balancing supply and demand. Although handlers bear the handling and storage costs for fruit in reserve, reserves stored in large crop years can be used to supplement supplies in short crop years. The reserves help the industry mitigate the impact of oversupply in large crop years, while allowing the industry to supply markets in years when production falls below demand. During the 2020-2021 season, the Board voted to release all fruit in the reserve into the primary market to increase supply.

In considering the establishment of free and restricted percentages, the Board recommended a carry-out of 76.7 million pounds to help ensure sufficient product is available to meet demand until the following year's crop is harvested and processed. The Board also recommended an economic adjustment of 20 million pounds. These numbers, along with carry-in, production in the unregulated districts, and free tonnage from the regulated districts, would make 296.4 million pounds of fruit available for the domestic market, which is nearly 105 million pounds more than the previous three years' average sales. Even with the recommended 19 percent restriction, the domestic market will have an ample supply of tart cherries. Further, should marketing conditions change, and market demand exceed existing supplies, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional reserves up to 50-million-pounds of tart cherries. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.

While this action could result in some additional costs for the industry, these costs would be outweighed by the benefits. The purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market (domestic) is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Without volume control, the primary market would likely be oversupplied, resulting in lower grower prices.

An AMS econometric model used to assess the impact volume control has on the price growers receive for their product estimates volume control should have a positive impact on grower returns for this crop year. With volume control, grower prices are estimated to be about three cents per pound higher than without a restriction. In addition, absent volume control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories, which in turn could have a depressing effect on grower prices.

Retail demand is assumed to be inelastic, which indicates changes in price do not result in significant changes in the quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales.

The free and restricted percentages established by this final rule provide the market with optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. As the restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs, when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden on small entities as compared to large entities.

The stabilizing effects of this rule benefit all handlers by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all growers and handlers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries will generate. Growers and handlers, regardless of size, will benefit from the stabilizing effects of the volume restriction.

As noted earlier, the Board discussed several carry-out inventory alternatives, ranging from 75 million pounds to 85 million pounds. The Board noted if the carry-out number was too large, it could add to the unsold free inventory and have a negative impact on grower returns, and if it was too small, it could negatively impact the supply processors need in the months prior to next season's harvest. Therefore, after consideration of the alternatives, the Board recommended a carry-out of 76.7 million pounds.

The Board also weighed alternatives when discussing the economic adjustment. At its June meeting, the Board recommended a 5-million-pound economic adjustment based on fruit quality concerns and a short crop in Europe, after considering making no economic adjustment or an economic adjustment of 10 million pounds. In September, the Board discussed that fruit quality throughout the industry was resulting in lower processing yields. Consequently, the Board recommended increasing the economic adjustment by 15 million pounds for an economic adjustment of 20 million pounds for the 2024-2025 season.

The Board considered recommendations that would result in a smaller restriction. However, after considering the larger than expected harvest and carry-in inventory, the industry recommended a 19 percent restriction for the 2024-2025 crop. Thus, the alternatives were rejected.

The Board's meetings are widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 20 and September 12, 2024, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes to those requirements would be necessary as a result of this final rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. AMS has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2025 (90 FR 51572). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all tart cherry handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending December 18, 2025, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received two comments during the comment period. One comment supported the proposal and one comment challenged the procedural sufficiency of the rulemaking, asserting that AMS did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Specifically, the commenter claimed that AMS procedurally bypassed notice and comment or waived the 30-day delayed effective date without adequate good cause and failed to present a clear analysis of the impacts on small businesses, and that the rule did not provide information regarding the reporting burden on handlers.

Contrary to the commenter's assertions on the Administrative Procedures Act, AMS did not bypass notice and comment or invoke good cause. Interested persons had numerous opportunities to review pertinent information, present their views, and participate in the rulemaking process. As noted above, AMS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on November 18, 2025, not an interim final rule as the commenter suggests. The proposed rule included a 30-day comment period for interested persons, ending December 18, 2025. The proposed rulemaking also included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that considered and detailed for the public's review, the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. AMS has provided adequate opportunity for interested persons to consider the proposal and provide comments and included the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. As noted above in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, growers and handlers, regardless of size, benefit from the stabilizing effects of the volume restriction.

In response to the commenter's request for clarification on the Paperwork Reduction Act, the proposed rulemaking and this final rule address the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) and related compliance. AMS reiterates that in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, and that no changes to those requirements would be necessary based on this action.

Lastly, and contrary to the commenter's assertion that AMS did not adhere to Executive Order 12866, AMS reiterates that this rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that OMB exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. After review of the comment, AMS determined that all the statutory and procedural requirements for rulemaking have been met regarding this action. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule as proposed.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Board and other available information, AMS has determined that this final rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), amending Marketing Order No. 932 (7 CFR part 932; the Order), regulating the handling of olives grown in California. The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives operating within the area of production.

This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This final rule amends existing Marketing Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR part 932), Olives Grown in California, and is necessary for the continued operation of Marketing Order No. 932. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

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

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” Under the Order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable olives for the 2025 fiscal year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608(c)(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule decreases the assessment rate for assessable olives handled under the Order from $28 to $24 per ton for the 2025 and subsequent fiscal years.

Sections 932.38 and 932.39 of the Order authorize the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and can formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2024 and subsequent fiscal years, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $28 per ton of assessable olives within the production area. That rate continues in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS.

The Committee met on December 19, 2024, and unanimously recommended, with a vote of 15 in favor and none opposed, 2025 fiscal year expenditures of $1,174,697 and an assessment rate of $24 per ton of assessed olives handled for the 2025 and subsequent fiscal years. In comparison, the 2024 fiscal year's budgeted expenditures were $1,100,151. The assessment rate of $24 per ton is $4 lower than the rate currently in effect. Although the recommended 2025 fiscal year expenditures are higher than those in 2024, the Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate due to the significantly higher crop size in 2024 (fruit that is marketed over the course of the 2025 fiscal year), and the need to maintain its reserve funds within a level authorized under the Order. The Committee estimated approximately 48,560 tons of olives from the 2024 crop year that would be assessable during the 2025 fiscal year. This amount is substantially higher than the 34,000 tons of olives that were harvested in 2023.

Olives harvested in 2024 will be marketed over the course of the 2025 fiscal year, which began on January 1, 2025, as the harvested olives are stored in brining tanks and processed over the subsequent year. The 48,560 tons of assessable olives from the 2024 crop would generate $1,165,440 (48,560 tons multiplied by $24 assessment rate) in assessment revenue over the 2025 fiscal year at the new assessment rate. The balance of funds needed to cover budgeted expenditures would come from the interest income and the Committee's financial reserve. The 2025 fiscal year assessment rate decrease is appropriate to ensure the Committee has sufficient revenue to fund the recommended 2025 fiscal year budgeted expenditures while also ensuring that funds in the reserve do not exceed approximately one fiscal year's expenses, the maximum reserve amount permitted by 7 CFR 932.40.

The Order has a fiscal year and a crop year that are independent of each other. The crop year is a 12-month year that begins on August 1 of each year and ends on July 31 of the following year. The fiscal year is the 12-month period that begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of each year. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop (2023) followed by a large crop (2024). For this final rule, the Committee utilized the estimated 2024 crop year receipts to determine the recommended assessment rate for the 2025 fiscal year.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated fiscal year expenses, the expected volume of assessable olives, and the level of funds available in the authorized financial reserve. The expected 48,560 tons of assessable olives is expected to generate $1,165,440 in assessment revenue at the new assessment rate (48,560 tons multiplied by the $24 assessment rate). The income generated from handler assessments, along with reserve funds and interest income, will be sufficient to meet the Committee's estimated program expenditures of $1,174,697 for the 2025 fiscal year. Funds available in the financial reserve (currently about $1,723,008) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal year's expenses as authorized by 7 CFR 932.40).

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2025 fiscal year budget, and those for subsequent fiscal years, will be reviewed approved by AMS.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique regulations in that they are brought about through group action of typically small entities acting on their own behalf.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural service firms, including handlers, as those whose average annual receipts are no greater than $34 million (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities). SBA defines small agricultural producers of olives as those having average annual receipts no greater than $3.5 million (NAICS code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming).

According to the Committee, there are two handlers subject to regulation under the Order. The volume of olives produced in the production area—a two-year average of 31,520 tons for crop years 2023 to 2024—would require large scale processing facilities for just two handlers to be able to process the entire California crop; therefore, it is likely that both handlers would exceed the SBA threshold of $34 million in annual receipts, and therefore, not be considered small businesses under the SBA definition of a small firm engaging in postharvest crop activities.

In the 2022 Census of Agriculture, the most recent to date, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports the existence of 1,613 olive-farming operations in California totaling 41,828 bearing acres. To estimate the number olive growers that would be considered to be “small” per the SBA definition, AMS calculates the acreage required to produce the volume of olives at an average price to reach the $3.5 million threshold. Due to the alternate-bearing nature of olives, a two-year average is used to estimate price and yield, based on the most recent NASS data for 2023 and 2024.

NASS reports 2023 and 2024 California grower prices for olives for canning at $1,080 per ton and $1,140 per ton, respectively. This results in a two-year average price received by California growers of olives for canning of $1,110 per ton ($1,080 plus $1,140, divided by 2). Olive yields in California measured 3.04 tons per acre in 2023 and 3.78 tons per acre in 2024, resulting in an average yield of 3.41 tons of olives per acre (3.04 tons plus 3.78 tons, divided by 2). These figures are utilized in the equations below to estimate the amount of acreage needed to produce the volume of olives sold at the average price to reach the SBA threshold of $3.5 million.

Dividing the SBA threshold for a small olive grower of $3.5 million by the $1,110 per ton average grower received price and by the estimated average yield of 3.41 tons per acre results in approximately 925 acres that would be required for an olive grower to reach $3.5 million in annual receipts. Therefore, AMS concludes that an olive grower would need 926 bearing acres to be considered “large” per the SBA definition.

According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, published by NASS in February 2024, of the 1,613 olive farms in California, four had bearing acreage between 750 and 999.9 acres, and three had bearing acreage equal to or exceeding 1,000 acres. This means that between 99.6 percent (1,613 minus 7 (4 plus 3), divided by 1,613) and 99.8 percent (1,613 minus 3, divided by 1,613) of farms, or growers, would be considered to be small businesses under the SBA definition.

This final rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handers for the 2025 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years from $28 to $24 per ton of assessable olives. The Committee unanimously recommended 2025 expenditures of $1,174,697 and an assessment rate of $24 per ton. The new assessment rate of $24 is $4 lower than the 2024 assessment rate. The 2024 crop is estimated to be 48,560 tons. The $24 per ton should provide $1,165,440 in assessment income (48,560 tons multiplied by $24 assessment rate). Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the authorized reserve, should be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses.

The Committee deliberated on many of the expenses, weighed the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased their expenses for inspection and marketing activities while increasing the expenses of their program administration and research activities. Overall, the 2025 budget of $1,174,697 is $74,546 more than the $1,100,151 budgeted for the 2024 fiscal year.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources including the Committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the increased olive production. The assessment rate of $24 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the high volume of assessable olives, the current balance in the monetary reserve, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of NASS historical and preliminary information indicates the two-year average producer price for California olives is approximately $1,180 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the recommended assessment rate of $24 per ton, assessment revenue for the 2024 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 2 percent ($24 divided by $1,180, multiplied by 100).

This final rule decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly to all handlers. Some of the assessment costs to handlers may be passed on to producers. Decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may also, therefore, reduce the burden on producers.

Committee meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 19, 2024, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes in those requirements are necessary because of this final rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2026 (91 FR 11184). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all California olive handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending April 8, 2026, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received one comment during the comment period. The comment did not address the merits of the proposal. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule as proposed.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, AMS has determined that this final rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 932 as follows:

On February 23, 2026, CCC published a final rule (91 FR 8360) announcing the FBA program, which provides up to $11 billion in one-time bridge payments to American farmers in response to temporary trade market disruptions and increased production costs. Corn is an eligible commodity for the FBA Program, and the final rule defined “corn” as, “only white, yellow, amylose, popcorn (excluding strawberry popcorn), waxy, and high amylase corn.” (7 CFR 1414.3). That definition inadvertently omitted blue and red corn, which are also eligible for the FBA Program. This document corrects that omission by adding those types of corn to the definition of “corn.”

The deadline to apply for the FBA Program was April 17, 2026. Due to the omission of blue and red corn from the definition of “corn”, those types of corn were not included on pre-filled FBA Program applications and producers of those commodities could not apply by the deadline. CCC is announcing that it will generate a CCC-555, Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program Application, for each eligible producer who timely reported eligible 2025 crop year acres of blue or red corn, as provided in § 1414.5. CCC is extending the deadline for producers to submit a CCC-555 for blue and red corn until September 28, 2026, as authorized under § 1414.6(b). As indicated in § 1414.6(c), producers must also submit all eligibility forms by April 19, 2027.

For the reasons discussed above, CCC amends the regulations in 7 CFR part 1414 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-25-06, Amendment 39-22908 (89 FR 100734, December 13, 2024) (AD 2024-25-06). AD 2024-25-06 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A320 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX, and -253NY airplanes. AD 2024-25-06 required repetitive inspections of the MLG door actuators and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, and prohibited the installation of affected parts. The FAA issued AD 2024-25-06 to address incorrectly assembled MLG door actuators, which, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the extension of the MLG, possibly resulting in significant damage to the airplane, and potentially causing a fire that would involve emergency evacuation of the passengers.

AD 2024-25-06 was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0216, dated November 15, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0216), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. In the preamble to AD 2024-25-06, the FAA explained it was considering further rulemaking to require replacement of each affected MLG door actuator with a serviceable part to terminate the repetitive inspections, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0216. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2025 (90 FR 30024). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's determination that replacement of affected MLG door actuators is necessary to address the unsafe condition. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2024-25-06 and require replacing affected parts with serviceable parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0216.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-25-06. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2026 (91 FR 30511). The SNPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0158, dated July 21, 2025, which in turn was revised by EASA AD 2025-0158R1, dated September 12, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0158R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that after EASA AD 2024-0216 was issued, the service information was revised to expand the list of serial numbers for the affected part, and that the applicability has been expanded to include new certified Airbus SAS Model A321-271NY airplanes, on which affected parts could be installed in service. The MCAI also added Airbus SAS Model A319-173N airplanes to the applicability. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2024-25-06. The SNPRM also proposed to require replacing affected parts with serviceable parts and expand the applicability and the definition of an affected part. 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-2025-1353.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the SNPRM without change.

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 SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2025-0158R1 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections for any discrepancy of each affected MLG door actuator, replacement of affected parts if any discrepancy is detected, and eventual replacement of all affected parts with serviceable parts. Discrepancy is defined as any MLG door actuator that does not meet all the results specified in the table in paragraph 5.6.2.2 in the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0158R1. EASA AD 2025-0158R1 also prohibits the installation of affected parts. EASA AD 2025-0158R1 also specifies that replacement of each affected part with a serviceable part, on the airplane, terminates the repetitive inspections.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,933 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition replacements that would be required based on the results of any required or optional actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this on-condition replacement:

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 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2026 (91 FR 12312). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that a Boeing investigation for manufacturing errors and excessive preload forces at the lower SOB splice plates common to the lower outboard wing skins concluded that shim gaps may have exceeded engineering allowances. High pull up forces on the components may cause fatigue cracks to form at the fastener holes. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, depending on configuration, UT inspections at certain splice plates, rear spar terminal fittings, lower chords, front spar terminal fittings, and jack pads for any cracks; repetitive DET of certain splice plates for any cracks; and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address improper shim gaps that may lead to fatigue cracks. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in undetected fatigue cracks that can grow to weaken primary wing structure until it cannot sustain limit load and result in subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

United Airlines commented that it had no objections to the proposed rule.

The FAA received additional comments from American Airlines (AAL) and The Foundation for Aviation Safety. The following presents those comments and the FAA's response.

AAL requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to allow simplified compliance time tracking for the initial and repetitive inspections for all tasks, such as by allowing the use of only total flight hours (TFH)/total flight cycles (TFC) for the initial inspections and only flight hours (FH)/flight cycles (FC) for the repetitive inspections. AAL stated that the compliance times specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570048-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 11, 2025, require the use of an equation based on a combination of TFH and TFC to determine the initial inspection compliance time, and an equation based on the initial inspection and a combination of FH and FC to determine the repetitive inspection compliance times. AAL noted that the use of an equation for the initial and repetitive inspections places a burden on the airline as its internal tracking system does not support equation-based compliance times, therefore requiring either manual tracking of the required inspections for the life of the aircraft or choosing a conservative hours or cycles limit that the airline stated would greatly reduce the airplane yield between inspections.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The affected splice plates are flight-length sensitive. The equation-based compliance times account for the effects of both flight hours and flight cycles and are relieving in nature compared to compliance times based solely on TFH/TFC or FH/FC limits. Allowing the requested “simplified” compliance time tracking would therefore be more burdensome for operators, and many airplanes could become immediately out of compliance. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety asked what the FAA is doing to hold Boeing accountable for ongoing manufacturing quality defects. The question did not request a change to this AD, and the FAA has not changed the AD as a result.

In the NPRM, the material citations inadvertently did not include “-00” as part of the bulletin number. The full citations are Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570048-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 11, 2025; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570048-00, Issue 001, dated August 11, 2025. The FAA has revised this AD accordingly.

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 B787-81205-SB570048-00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 11, 2025. This material specifies procedures for performing repetitive UT inspections, depending on configuration, at splice plate No. 1 and No. 2, rear spar terminal fittings, lower chords, front spar terminal fittings, and jack pads for any cracks; repetitive DET of splice plates No. 1 and No. 2 for any cracks; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include 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 17 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 specified in this AD.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this 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 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2026 (91 FR 23922). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0193, dated September 8, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0193) (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 during a fatigue test on a Model A320 airplane in support of the extended service goal (ESG) campaign, cracks were identified in the area of fastener holes at the forward and aft upper corner of the bulk cargo door at section 16 and 17, both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides. This condition, if not addressed, could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a rototest inspection for cracks and applicable on-condition actions, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0193. 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-2026-3879.

The FAA received and reviewed a comment that did not include a specific request to change the AD. This comment is outside the scope of this AD.

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, 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.

EASA AD 2025-0193 specifies procedures for a rototest inspection for cracks in the area of the fastener holes at the forward and aft upper corner of the bulk cargo door at section 16 and 17, both LH and RH sides, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions and doing the repair if cracks are detected, or modifying the affected area by cold working the fastener holes if no crack is detected.

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 1,069 airplanes 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 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issues a temporary scheduling order  1 (in the form of a temporary amendment) to add the following four synthetic opioids, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible, to schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA):

The CSA provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the evaluation requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b), if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 2 In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 3

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. 4 The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator). 5

The CSA requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of an intent to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA ( i.e., to issue a temporary scheduling order). 6 By letter dated April 1, 2026, the Administrator transmitted the required notice to place the four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary). 7 By letter dated April 10, 2026, the Assistant Secretary responded to this notice and advised that, based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there were currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, or spirochlorphine. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of these substances in schedule I of the CSA. These four synthetic opioids are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals under 21 U.S.C. 355 are in effect for these substances.

DEA has taken into consideration the Assistant Secretary's comments as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4). DEA has found the control of the four synthetic opioids—5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine—in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1)(A), DEA published a notice of intent in the Federal Register on July 1, 2026, to temporarily schedule 5,6-dichloro brorphine, 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine, N -propionitrile chlorphine, and spirochlorphine. 8 That notice discussed findings from DEA's three-factor analysis, which DEA made available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-1665.

To find that temporarily placing a substance in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, the Administrator must consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to public health. 9 This consideration includes any information indicating actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of these substances. 10

Substances meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 11 Substances in schedule I have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, 12 and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 13

In this interim final rule (IFR), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is adding cipepofol to schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

All comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. DEA will make comments available for public inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov, unless reasonable cause is given. Such information includes personal or business identifying information (such as name, address, State or Federal identifiers, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

Commenters submitting comments which include personal identifying information (PII), confidential, or proprietary business information that the commenter does not want made publicly available should submit two copies of the comment. One copy must be marked “CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” and should clearly identify all PII or business information the commenter does not want to be made publicly available, including any supplemental materials. DEA will review this copy, including the claimed PII and confidential business information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy should be marked “TO BE PUBLICLY POSTED” and must have all claimed confidential PII and business information already redacted. DEA will post only the redacted comment on https://www.regulations.gov for public inspection. DEA generally will not redact additional information contained in the comment marked “TO BE PUBLICLY POSTED.” The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received.

For easy reference, an electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this IFR are available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j)(3), an interested person may “request a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 1 Interested persons, as defined in 21 CFR 1300.01(b), may file requests for a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) and 1316.47(a), and such requests must:

(1) state with particularity the interest of the person in the proceeding;

(2) state with particularity the objections or issues concerning which the person desires to be heard; and

(3) state briefly the position of the person with regard to the objections or issues.

Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c), together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing. 2

All requests for hearings and waivers of participation, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in such hearing, must be sent to DEA using the address information provided above. The decision whether a hearing will be needed to address such matters of fact and law in the rulemaking will be made by the Administrator. If a hearing is needed, DEA will publish a notice of hearing on the interim final rule in the Federal Register . 3 Further, once the Administrator determines a hearing is needed to address such matters of fact and law in rulemaking, he will then designate an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to preside over the hearing. The ALJ's functions shall commence upon designation, as provided in 21 CFR 1316.52.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and 812, the purpose of a hearing would be to determine whether cipepofol meets the statutory criteria for placement in schedule IV.

Under the CSA, as amended in 2015 by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act (section 2(b) of Pub. Law 114-89), DEA is required to commence an expedited scheduling action with respect to certain new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As provided in 21 U.S.C. 811(j), this expedited scheduling is required where both of the following conditions apply: (1) The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has advised DEA that a New Drug Application (NDA) has been submitted for a drug that has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system (CNS), and that it appears that such drug has an abuse potential; and (2) the Secretary of HHS recommends that DEA control the drug in schedule II, III, IV, or V pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b). In these circumstances, DEA is required to issue an IFR controlling the drug within 90 days.

Subsection 811(j)(2) states that the 90-day timeframe starts the later of (1) the date DEA receives HHS's scientific and medical evaluation/scheduling recommendation, or (2) the date DEA receives notice of the NDA approval by HHS. Subsection 811(j)(3) specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an IFR without requiring DEA to demonstrate good cause therefore. Thus, the purpose of subsection 811(j) is to speed the process by which DEA schedules newly approved drugs that are currently either in schedule I or not controlled (but which have sufficient abuse potential to warrant control) so that such drugs may be marketed without undue delay following FDA approval. 4

Subsection 811(j)(3) further provides that the IFR shall give interested persons the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing. After the conclusion of such proceedings, DEA must issue a final rule in accordance with the scheduling criteria of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) through (d), and 812(b).

Cipepofol is a new molecular entity with CNS activity, acting as a positive allosteric modulator and agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABA A ) receptor, inducing chloride ion influx and reversing action potential generation in neuronal tissue. The chemical structure and mechanism of action of cipepofol are similar to those of the FDA-approved drugs propofol and fospropofol. Also, the mechanism of action of cipepofol is similar to certain FDA-approved neuroactive steroid products, which are controlled in schedule IV ( i.e., alfaxalone, brexanolone, and zuranolone) or schedule V ( i.e., ganaxolone).

On May 6, 2026, DEA received from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation entitled “Basis for the Recommendation to Control Cipepofol in Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act” and a scheduling recommendation. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), this document contained an eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability of cipepofol, along with HHS's recommendation to control cipepofol under schedule IV of the CSA.

In response, DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by HHS, along with all other relevant data, and completed its own eight-factor review pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). DEA concluded that cipepofol meets the 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4) criteria for placement in schedule IV of the CSA.

Pursuant to subsection 811(j), and based on HHS's scheduling recommendation, the approval of the NDA by HHS/FDA, and DEA's determination, DEA is issuing this IFR to schedule cipepofol as a schedule IV controlled substance under the CSA.

Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by HHS and DEA, and as considered by DEA in its scheduling action. Please note that both DEA and HHS analyses are available in their entirety under “Supporting Documents” in the public docket for this IFR at https://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number “DEA1713.” Full analysis of, and citations to, the information referenced in the summary may also be found in the supporting and related material.

Cipepofol is currently legally marketed in China, where data shows zero abuse or misuse cases. According to HHS, because cipepofol has not been legally marketed in the United States, the legitimate drug channels for cipepofol are limited to the research conducted with the drug, and to manufacturing facilities and the supply chain to produce cipepofol for legitimate drug research. HHS further notes because cipepofol has not been legally marketed in the United States, abuse of cipepofol in the United States would be limited to incidents following diversion of supplies from research or manufacturing activities of cipepofol. Both DEA and FDA are not aware of any such incidents of diversion or abuse related to cipepofol. Accordingly, DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)-Drug  5 data confirms there is no report of law enforcement encounters of cipepofol in the United States. Cipepofol targets GABA A receptors and shares a similar mechanism of action with both propofol (which has proposed schedule IV status due to its potential for abuse and dependence liability) and its prodrug, fospropofol (a schedule IV substance that can induce euphoria). It also shares a similar mechanism of action with certain controlled neuroactive steroids, including alfaxalone, brexanolone, and zuranolone (schedule IV), and ganaxolone (schedule V). Accordingly, both FDA and DEA concluded that cipepofol poses safety hazards and has an abuse potential similar to schedule IV substances.

Based on in vitro binding and functional reports, HHS noted that cipepofol acts as a selective GABA A receptor positive modulator and agonist that induces chloride ion influx to cause neuronal hyperpolarization and thus achieve CNS depression.

Functional Studies: Single intravenous doses of cipepofol (up to 6 mg/kg) in rats produced dose-dependent increase in duration and level of anesthesia with effect declining within 45 minutes. Neurobehavioral tests at 2 and 24 hours post-dose showed no residual treatment-related effects. 6

Conditioned Place Preference (CPP): A 6-day CPP study in rats compared cipepofol (1, 2, or 4 mg/kg) against vehicle and propofol. Data from the study showed that neither propofol nor cipepofol produced environmental preference or evidence of CPP. However, because literature shows propofol can induce CPP under different parameters, this negative result does not completely rule out the reward potential of cipepofol. HHS concluded these findings must be interpreted alongside broader abuse liability data.

Self-Administration: In rats trained to self-administer propofol (1.7 mg/kg/injection), substituting cipepofol (0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 mg/kg/injection) successfully maintained lever-pressing behavior. Higher doses caused a decrease in injection frequency but an increase in total drug intake. Response rates also likely fell due to the drug's sedative effects. HHS concluded that these data confirm cipepofol has rewarding and reinforcing properties.

Physical Dependence and Withdrawal: A 30-day study evaluated dependence in rats using titrated doses of cipepofol, propofol, morphine, or vehicle, followed by a 14-day abrupt withdrawal phase. The high dose of cipepofol (5.4 mg/kg/day) replicated human therapeutic exposure levels. Higher doses were omitted because profound sedation would impair the animals. Abruptly stopping cipepofol caused mild, intermittent withdrawal symptoms like temporary chewing and body shakes, mirroring the mild withdrawal profile of propofol. These findings indicate that cipepofol carries a low risk for physical dependence at therapeutic doses.

Human Abuse Potential (HAP) studies assess a drug's abuse liability by comparing a test drug to active controls and placebos. As described in HHS's scientific and medical evaluation, an intravenous HAP study was conducted by the drug sponsor to assess the abuse potential of cipepofol in participants who were non-dependent, recreational drug users. High scores on specific visual analog scales (VAS), such as “Drug Liking” and “High,” indicate abuse potential. Propofol served as the active control because both drugs share a similar mechanism of action. The dose selection phase (part 1) used 43 subjects to select safe doses, establishing cipepofol doses at 0.175 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg, and propofol at 0.725 mg/kg. The main study was a randomized, double-blind- and active-controlled, four-way crossover trial (part 2) with 42 participants, though 2 were excluded from the final analysis due to oversedation and invariant responses. Ultimately, 40 participants completed the entire trial.

Regarding the pharmacodynamic (PD) results, cipepofol showed an abuse potential similar to propofol. Both active drugs scored significantly higher than the placebo, but participants liked both active drugs equally. These comparable liking scores demonstrate a similar liability for misuse. Cipepofol demonstrated a statistically significant increase in drug-liking over placebo, establishing its abuse potential, though it did not surpass that of propofol. Its psychological profile mirrors the standard anesthetic control. Regarding the pharmacokinetic (PK) results, cipepofol plasma levels peaked rapidly at 2 minutes, reaching 226 ng/mL for the 0.175 mg/kg dose and 257 ng/mL for the 0.2 mg/kg dose. The drug clearance was rapid, with levels falling below the 5 ng/mL lower limit of quantification by 8 hours post-dose. Total drug exposure was similar between both doses. Half-life and peak times showed no meaningful differences, matching the drug's rapid-onset and short-duration profile.

For safety and adverse events (AEs), abuse-related side effects were rare. In Part 1 of the clinical trial, propofol users reported euphoria and sleepiness, while cipepofol users reported one instance of depressed mood. The Part 2 qualification phase saw one instance of euphoria from propofol. During the Part 2 treatment phase, one oversedation event occurred from cipepofol, but no other abuse-related adverse events were observed.

The analysis of pooled Phase 1 data across 13 healthy volunteer studies highlights the value of subtherapeutic dosing for evaluating abuse potential, as therapeutic doses induce too much sedation. Out of 322 cipepofol recipients, 69 received subtherapeutic doses (<0.4 mg/kg) and 253 received therapeutic doses (≥0.4 mg/kg), while 46 received propofol. Dizziness was the top CNS adverse event, hitting 15% of the propofol group but only 4% of the therapeutic cipepofol group. Restlessness and disorientation occurred at 2% or less, solely in the therapeutic cipepofol cohort.

An HHS safety review of pooled Phase 2 and 3 studies showed minimal abuse-related adverse events, with comparable safety profiles between cipepofol and propofol across multiple clinical settings. Across open-label sedation trials (219 patients), procedural sedation and non-endotracheal surgical procedures (848 patients), and general anesthesia induction trials (1,365 patients), dizziness was consistently the most common central nervous system event, occurring at nearly identical rates between the two drugs (4% to 6% for cipepofol vs. 6% to 7% for propofol). Other abuse-related adverse events including excessive talking, somnolence, anxiety, restlessness, agitation, confusion, disorientation, and emotional disorder were rarely observed, affecting 1% or less of participants in both cohorts.

Another HHS review of United States and European Union Phase 3 data covering 723 cipepofol and 357 propofol recipients found dizziness was the most common CNS event. Other abuse-related events—specifically anxiety, restlessness, agitation, confusion, disorientation, and somnolence—occurred at low rates (≤1%) in both groups, with further details on physical dependence assessments found in Factor 7.

In summary, HHS concluded that no adverse events involving actual abuse, misuse, diversion, intentional overdose, or physical dependence occurred during the cipepofol clinical trials. Abuse-related events were rare and balanced between the cipepofol and propofol groups. Frequent reports of dizziness in both cohorts were distinct from euphoria-related symptoms like elevated mood or feeling drunk, with the only instance of euphoric mood linked to cipepofol being a single report (verbatim term “agitated”) during procedural sedation. Based on this comprehensive review, intravenous cipepofol demonstrates reinforcing effects similar to propofol, indicative of its abuse potential.

Cipepofol, chemically known as 2-[(1 R )-1-cyclopropylethyl]-6-isopropylphenol, is a new molecular entity. The final cipepofol product is distributed as a 2.5 mg/mL oil-in-water emulsion for injection, provided in 20 mL single-use vials. An HHS review indicates intravenous cipepofol distributes rapidly, peaking within 1 to 2 minutes. Cipepofol exhibits extensive tissue distribution and is 99% protein-bound in serum. The major metabolite of cipepofol was identified as M4 metabolite, which was found to be pharmacologically inactive and thus poses a negligible abuse risk. At a 0.4 mg/kg dose, plasma half-life of cipepofol is 1 to 5 hours. Kidneys clear 85% of the dose of cipepofol, mainly as metabolites M4 and M5-1. As discussed in the background section, cipepofol has an accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

Because cipepofol is not marketed in the United States, domestic abuse data remains unavailable. Based on available postmarket data from China provided in the NDA submission, it is estimated that 14.5 million patients in China have received the drug and postmarket adverse event surveillance data shows no reports of abuse or misuse. Spontaneous reports in the Drug Adverse Event Reporting System (DAERS) noted side effects like dizziness, agitation, and hallucinations, but some published literature show no evidence of misuse. Furthermore, HHS noted that recent epidemiological data shows no documented instances of abuse. Population-level analyses from America's Poison Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS) and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance (NEISS-CADES) confirm this absence, suggesting that it is likely cipepofol currently shows no cases of abuse or misuse due to its lack of U.S. approval. Data from preclinical and clinical studies indicate that the abuse potential of cipepofol is similar to that of propofol. HHS notes that consistent with the recommendation made in 2010 to place propofol in schedule IV of the CSA, there continue to be reports of propofol abuse and misuse, primarily in healthcare professionals with occupational access to the drug. Although there is currently no available data on the abuse or misuse of cipepofol, the information on propofol, a closely related drug, may provide some evidence supporting the abuse potential of cipepofol.

In summary, pharmacological data on cipepofol shows that it produces abuse-related effects and has an abuse potential similar to that of propofol and other schedule IV CNS depressants.

Cipepofol has been marketed exclusively in China since 2021 and remains unavailable in the United States, resulting in limited domestic abuse data. Current HHS reviews indicate no documented instances of abuse, misuse, or diversion, though this finding is restricted by the drug's brief clinical history. Consequently, potential extra-medical use is projected to remain confined to healthcare professionals with direct occupational exposure. Nonclinical and clinical data demonstrate an abuse potential comparable to propofol, a substance recommended for schedule IV designation. Furthermore, DEA's NFLIS-Drug database confirms that cipepofol is entirely absent from the illicit United States drug market. Because preclinical and clinical studies showed that cipepofol has an abuse potential that is similar to that of propofol, it is likely that upon its availability in the market, cipepofol may be abused.

A drug's abuse potential is a key indicator of its overall risk to public health risk. Thus, HHS started that because cipepofol possesses an abuse potential comparable to propofol, it is anticipated that cipepofol will exhibit a similar abuse profile and present a comparable public health risk to that of propofol.

To evaluate cipepofol's public health risk, HHS analyzed clinical trials and overdose data for cipepofol across diverse patient populations. In patients receiving cipepofol for general anesthesia induction, the most frequent common side effects included hypotension, nausea, and procedural pain, with dizziness being the top CNS effect. Furthermore, HHS noted that cipepofol overdose may lead to potentially fatal cardiovascular and respiratory depression if not promptly and adequately managed.

HHS recommends advising patients against driving or operating heavy machinery after receiving cipepofol, as its anesthetic effects, including drowsiness, and impair mental alertness. In summary, data from nonclinical and clinical studies indicate that cipepofol's abuse potential and public health risks are comparable to propofol, suggesting a risk profile consistent with schedule IV substances.

Psychic (or psychological) dependence is a state similar to addiction and can be measured through animal self-administration studies, HAP studies, case reports, and epidemiological data. Rodent animal data shows that cipepofol is self-administered, providing evidence of cipepofol's reinforcing and rewarding properties. In propofol-trained rats, cipepofol maintained stable self-administration. Higher doses of cipepofol decreased injection counts but raised total drug intake. The response rate also decreased with higher doses of cipepofol, likely due to sedative effects. Similarly, HAP studies show cipepofol carries abuse potential that is comparable to propofol. Like propofol, cipepofol scored higher than placebo on the Drug Liking VAS E max scale. In addition, sedative doses of cipepofol exhibit clear reinforcing effects in humans. The secondary endpoints ( i.e., VAS E max for Overall Drug Liking and Take Drug Again) also support a risk for psychological dependence. Collectively, these findings show it is likely that cipepofol can produce psychological dependence.

Physical dependence develops from physiological adaptation to repeated drug use and manifests as withdrawal symptoms after abrupt drug discontinuation or reduction of a drug. HHS assessed the physical dependence liability of cipepofol in rats after repeated administration of cipepofol for 30 days followed by a 14-day abrupt discontinuation phase. In this study, cipepofol was compared to vehicle, morphine, and propofol. Morphine as the positive control was associated with a significant increase in withdrawal symptoms ( e.g., significant decrease in body weight, increased wet dog shakes, writhing, teeth chattering, chewing, and ptosis) following abrupt discontinuation of morphine. Abrupt cipepofol discontinuation was associated with limited, intermittent behavioral changes including withdrawal symptoms like weight loss and teeth chattering. Likewise, propofol discontinuation after 30 days of repeated administration showed a similar minimal withdrawal profile.

HHS noted that clinical trials did not systematically evaluate cipepofol's physical dependence. However, a limited subset of participants in some clinical trials were assessed for discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs). DEAEs occurred more than four hours after stopping cipepofol. Reported DEAEs included nausea, vomiting, insomnia, and palpitations, but these events occurred with low frequency.

Published literature notes withdrawal syndromes following continuous propofol infusions. Because cipepofol shares a similar chemical structure, mechanism, and abuse potential with propofol, it is anticipated that cipepofol, like propofol, may also experience physical dependence. Therefore, the overall data suggests that chronic administration of cipepofol may result in physiologic dependence.

Cipepofol is not an immediate precursor of any controlled substance, as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(23).

Conclusion: After considering the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by HHS, and its own eight-factor analysis, DEA has determined that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of cipepofol. As such, DEA hereby schedules cipepofol as a controlled substance under the CSA.

The CSA lists the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule (I, II, III, IV, or V). 7 After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS and review of all available data, the Administrator of DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(4), finds that:

(1) Cipepofol has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Cipepofol is an intravenous anesthetic for adults that modulates GABAA receptors to inhibit neurons. The drug produces dose-dependent anesthesia and shows reinforcing properties by maintaining self-administration in propofol-trained rats. In human abuse potential studies, subtherapeutic doses mimicked propofol's positive subjective effects. However, clinical trials showed a low (< 2%) incidence of abuse-related adverse events, matching propofol rates except for higher dizziness. Consequently, due to its similarities to propofol (schedule IV), cipepofol has a low abuse potential relative to Schedule III substances under the CSA.

(2) Cipepofol has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

Cipepofol was approved by FDA for the induction of general anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery. Thus, cipepofol has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(3) Abuse of cipepofol may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

A rat study showed limited behavioral changes upon abrupt cipepofol discontinuation, while clinical trials found that most post-discontinuation events mirrored common treatment effects, with rare instances of insomnia or palpitations. Research indicated that cipepofol's reinforcing properties in animal models are comparable to propofol. Furthermore, human abuse potential studies at subtherapeutic doses showed that subjective responses to cipepofol were statistically indistinguishable from those of propofol. Consequently, cipepofol is associated with a low risk of physical or psychological dependence relative to schedule III substances.

Based on these findings, the Administrator concludes that cipepofol warrants control in schedule IV of the CSA. 8

Cipepofol is subject to the CSA's schedule IV regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distributing, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) cipepofol must be registered with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. These registration requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess cipepofol pursuant to a lawful prescription.

2. Disposal of Stocks. Any person unwilling or unable to obtain a DEA registration must surrender all quantities of currently held cipepofol, or may transfer all quantities of currently held cipepofol to a person registered with DEA. Cipepofol is required to be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws.

3. Security. Cipepofol is subject to schedule III-V security requirements for DEA registrants and must be handled and stored in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.77, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, and 871(b). Non-practitioners handling cipepofol must also comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90-1301.93. These requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess cipepofol pursuant to a lawful prescription.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels and packaging for commercial containers of cipepofol must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e) and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of cipepofol must have an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including cipepofol) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

Any person who registers with DEA to handle cipepofol must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including cipepofol) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take inventory of all controlled substances (including cipepofol) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11. These requirements, however, are not applicable to patients (end users) who possess Cipepofol pursuant to a lawful prescription.

6. Records and Reports. DEA registrants must maintain records and submit reports for cipepofol, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, 832(a), and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and parts 1304, 1312, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317.

7. Prescriptions. All prescriptions for cipepofol, or products containing cipepofol, must comply with 21 U.S.C. 829, and be issued in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1306 and 1311, subpart C.

8. Manufacturing and Distributing. In addition to the general requirements of the CSA and DEA regulations that are applicable to manufacturers and distributors of schedule IV controlled substances, such registrants should be advised that (consistent with the foregoing considerations) any manufacturing or distribution of cipepofol may only be for the legitimate purposes consistent with the drug's labeling, or for research activities authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as applicable, and the CSA.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of cipepofol must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving cipepofol not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

The APA (5 U.S.C. 553) generally requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, 21 U.S.C. 811(j) provides that in cases where a certain new drug is (1) approved by HHS, under section 505(c) of the FDCA, and (2) HHS recommends control in CSA schedule II-V, DEA shall issue an IFR scheduling the drug within 90 days. As stated in the legal authority section, the 90-day time frame is the later of: (1) the date DEA receives HHS's scientific and medical evaluation/scheduling recommendation, or (2) the date DEA receives notice of the NDA approval by HHS. Additionally, subsection 811(j) specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an IFR without requiring DEA to demonstrate good cause.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866 and accordingly has received a waiver under E.O. 14192.

DEA scheduling actions are not subject to E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.

This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

This rule would require compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, and 1117-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, applies to rules that are subject to the notice-and-comment requirements the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553. The RFA's requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this IFR.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., DEA has determined and certifies that this proposed action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year . . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this IFR to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On August 24, 2026, OFAC issued GL AA to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 of January 10, 2020, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran” (85 FR 2003, January 14, 2020) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions, or maintenance of operations, involving certain entities through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, October 23, 2026. OFAC also issued GL BB to authorize, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, September 8, 2026, certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 CFR part 560, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions that were previously authorized by the general licenses listed in GL BB. These GLs were made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when they were issued. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction, or the maintenance of operations, contracts, or other agreements in effect as of August 24, 2026, involving La Nivernaise De Raffinage SAS (“LNR”), or any entity in which LNR owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, October 23, 2026.

(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by E.O. 13902, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902 other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), all transactions prohibited by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (the ITSR), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction previously authorized by one or more of the following general licenses are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, September 8, 2026, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked interest-bearing account located in the United States in accordance with the ITSR:

(1) 31 CFR 560.544 (“Certain educational activities by U.S. persons in third countries authorized”);

(2) 31 CFR 560.550 (“Certain noncommercial, personal remittances to or from Iran authorized”);

(3) 31 CFR 560.554 (“Importation and exportation of services related to conferences in the United States or third countries authorized”);

(4) Iran General License F (“Authorizing certain services in support of professional and amateur sports activities and exchanges involving the United States and Iran”); or

(5) Iran General License G (“Certain academic exchanges and the exportation or importation of certain educational services authorized”).

(b) This general license does not authorize any other transactions or activities prohibited by the ITSR, any other Executive order, or any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, unless separately authorized.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On January 10, 2020, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 of January 10, 2020, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran” (85 FR 2003, January 14, 2020). Among other prohibitions, section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State to operate in the construction, mining, manufacturing, or textiles sectors of the Iranian economy, or any other sector of the Iranian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

On August 24, 2026, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Department of State and pursuant to 31 CFR 560.802, determined that section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 shall apply to the aviation, digital asset, gold, shipping, and technology sectors of the Iranian economy. This determination took effect on August 24, 2026.

The determination was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov/ ) when it was issued. The text of the determination is provided below.

Section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 of January 10, 2020 (“Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran”) imposes economic sanctions on any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to operate in such sectors of the Iranian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

To further address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States described in E.O. 13902, and in consultation with the Department of State and pursuant to 31 CFR 560.802, I hereby determine that section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 shall apply to the aviation, digital asset, gold, shipping, and technology sectors of the Iranian economy. Any person determined to operate in these sectors shall be subject to sanctions pursuant to section 1(a)(i).

This determination shall take effect on August 24, 2026.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on September 18, 2026. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the USCG East District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the Delaware River adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-feet radius of the fireworks barge position. On September 18, 2026, the approximate position will be 39°56′53.65″ N, 75°08′03.43″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard has received multiple requests from event sponsors to host aerial displays in remembrance of the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001. Risks associated with aerial displays, including drone and skydiving demonstrations, include but are not limited to falling equipment and collisions between aerial objects and sailboat masts or commercial vessel pilothouses. Sector New York has a permanent rule to accommodate drone displays in the Hudson River. See 33 CFR 165.166. Unfortunately, the displays which this temporary rule address are outside the boundaries of that safety zone.

The Captain of the Port, Sector New York (COTP) is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect persons, 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 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) because it is impracticable. 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 allows the COTP to establish a temporary safety zone for aerial displays from September 01, 2026, through September 30, 2026. The safety zone will only be subject to enforcement as needed during times of limited duration for aerial displays. The safety zone will be identified and activated (made subject to enforcement) to accommodate specific aerial displays within the effective dates of the rule and within the geographic boundaries of the designated zone described below in this paragraph. The COTP will provide notice of the exact dates and times and locations in advance of each enforcement period to the local maritime community through marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, or by on-scene oral notice. The safety zone may have a radius of up to 500-yards within the designated zone. The coordinates defining the center of the designated zone shall lie within the navigable waters of the Upper New York Bay bounded by the following points: Point One at 40°42′20.9″ N, 74°02′05.7″ W, thence to Point Two at 40°42′05.8″ N, 74°00′58.5″ W, thence to Point Three at 40°41′35.7″ N, 74°00′14.3″ W, thence to Point Four at 40°40′46.5″ N, 74°01′09.7″ W, thence to Point Five at 40°41′26.2″ N, 74°03′17.3″ W; thence returning to Point One via the adjoining shoreline. These coordinates are based on the North American Datum 83 (NAD 83).

Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. Requests to enter the zone will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at (718) 354-4356 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in entry 7 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506 from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 5, 2026, or on a rain date of September 6, 2026, with the same times. This enforcement period varies from the July dates provided in the table, but the enforcement periods for each safety zone in paragraph (h) of § 165.506 are subject to change, as noted in 33 CFR 165.506(c).

Activating the enforcement period is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after a barge-based fireworks display in Little Egg Harbor, NJ. The regulated area includes all waters of Little Egg Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the barge is latitude 39°34′09.32″ N, longitude 074°14′31.67″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notification in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notice of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our September 5, 2025, proposed action (90 FR 43030). In that document, we proposed approval of the 2022 Arkansas Regional Haze Planning Period II SIP revision (2022 Planning Period II SIP), submitted August 8, 2022, and clarified on July 29, 2025, as meeting the applicable regional haze program requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g)(1) through (5), and (i).

On May 4, 2026, DEQ submitted a supplemental package to the EPA to finalize the 2022 Planning Period II SIP and address any concerns with Arkansas' SIP revision and its July 29, 2025, clarification letter regarding opportunity for public comment and FLM consultation. The supplemental package contained the July 2025 letter, as well as required documentation of FLM consultation and public notice with opportunity to comment. The State did not receive any public comments nor comments from FLMs or State agencies through this process.

We find that the 2022 Planning Period II SIP revision meets the statutory and specific regulatory requirements of the regional haze second planning period as discussed in the preamble of this final action ( see sections II and III), the accompanying response-to-comments document (RTC Document), and in our September 2025 proposed action. 1

In this final action, we are approving the 2022 Planning Period II SIP and affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a State are below the uniform rate of progress (URP) and that State has considered the four statutory factors, then that State will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. We acknowledge that this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believe that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and the RHR for achieving “reasonable” progress toward natural visibility. As described in the September 2025 proposed action, 2 we have discretion and authority to change our policy. 3

In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), we established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000 through 2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated natural conditions (in deciviews) for the 20 percent most impaired days in 2064. From this calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. We developed the URP to address the diverse concerns of Eastern and Western States and account for the varying levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas around the Country while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area, States must calculate the URP for the end of each planning period ( e.g., in 2028 for the second planning period). 4 See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A). States may also adjust the URP to account for impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or impacts from certain wildland prescribed fires. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). Then, for each Class I area, States must compare the RPG for the 20 percent most impaired days to the URP for the end of the planning period. If the RPG is above the URP, then an additional “robust demonstration” requirement is triggered for each State that contributes to that Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).

In the 2017 RHR revisions, 5 we addressed the role of the URP as it relates to the development of a State's second planning period SIP. Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” that relieves States of any obligation to consider the four statutory factors, we explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe harbor. 6 “Some commenters stated a desire for corresponding rule text dealing with situations where RPGs are equal to (“on”) or better than (“below”) the URP or glidepath. Several commenters stated that the URP or glidepath should be a “safe harbor,” opining that States should be permitted to analyze whether projected visibility conditions for the end of the implementation period will be on or below the glidepath based on on-the-books or on-the-way control measures, and that in such cases a four-factor analysis should not be required.”  7 Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as “a somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' ” by suggesting that if current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required. 8 We stated in our response that we did not agree with either of these recommendations. “The CAA requires that each SIP revision contains long-term strategies for making reasonable progress, and that in determining reasonable progress States must consider the four statutory factors. Treating the URP as a safe harbor would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that States assess the potential to make further reasonable progress toward natural visibility goal in every implementation period.”  9

Importantly, our recently adopted policy does not make the URP a safe harbor. The policy merely creates a presumption that a State's second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I area if a State has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of CAA section 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.

The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Arkansas are all below their 2028 URP values, and Arkansas' SIP submittal demonstrated that the State took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors  10 listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) with respect to an adequate number of emissions sources selected for analysis. Thus, we have determined that 2022 Planning Period II SIP revision is fully approvable under the Agency's new policy. Indeed, we think this policy better aligns with the statutory goal because it recognizes the considerable improvements in visibility impairment made by a wide variety of State and Federal programs in recent decades.

The public comment period for our proposed approval  11 of the 2022 Planning Period II SIP revision expired on October 6, 2025. We received four total sets of comments. We received two adverse comment letters submitted on October 6, 2025—one collectively from Conservation Organizations (Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks), and another from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU). Both adverse commenters asserted that the new URP policy violates the plain language of the CAA and RHR; that it violates the procedural requirements of the CAA when announcing and applying it in State-specific regional actions; that it is inconsistent with different aspects of the RHR; and that the 2022 Planning Period II SIP does not meet the new URP policy for presumptive approval. The Conservation Groups also specifically asserted that removal of the Independence retirement order was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; that DEQ's cost effectiveness thresholds were based on incomplete data; that Flint Creek's reasonable progress determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; and that the EPA should have analyzed impacts of Arkansas pollution on local communities.

We also acknowledge two other comment letters received on October 6, 2025, from Entergy Services LLS on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, LLC; and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP on behalf of Ameren Missouri, American Electric Power, Inc. and its operating companies, and Nebraska Public Power District (collectively referred to as “the utilities”) that were largely in support of our proposed action. Specifically, Entergy supported the determinations that Arkansas made in its second implementation period regional haze SIP and that EPA proposed to approve. The utilities specifically supported EPA's new URP policy stating that the policy implements EPA's original understanding of the regional haze program and its fundamental purpose; that it implements the Congressional design of cooperative federalism; and that it implements the plain text of the CAA and the RHR.

We evaluated the 2022 Planning Period II SIP submission against the statutory and regulatory regional haze requirements and determined that it satisfies those requirements. As detailed at length in the RTC document associated with this rulemaking, we explained that our new policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR, and the 2022 Planning Period II SIP met the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in accordance with the new policy. In addition, we detailed that the 2022 Planning Period II SIP without the Independence Administrative Order (LIS No. 22-085) demonstrates reasonable progress under the RHR and the CAA and addresses all required elements of 40 CFR 51.308(f). We explained that the May 4, 2026, supplement addressed any concerns with the 2022 Planning Period II SIP regarding opportunity for public comment and FLM consultation. We further explained in the RTC document that the State reasonably considered the cost effectiveness for the different equipment types and analyzed the four factors based on complete cost data that was appropriate for the second planning period. We also detailed that DEQ adequately considered the four statutory factors in its assessment of potential additional controls for the Flint Creek Power Plant and demonstrated reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal for the second planning period. We clarified that the State reasonably documented all cost calculations and provided appropriate assumptions and parameters in its analyses for Flint Creek. Lastly, regarding analyzing impacts to local communities, we explained that neither the CAA nor the RHR requires States or the EPA to consider the impact of pollution on communities near potentially affected facilities when developing or reviewing a regional haze SIP.

We provide the complete comments with our detailed responses to the full range of significant issues raised in the associated RTC document included in the docket of this action. After careful consideration of the public comments received, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

We are finalizing approval of the Arkansas 2022 Regional Haze Planning Period II SIP revision submitted August 8, 2022, clarified on July 29, 2025, and further supplemented on May 4, 2026, as meeting the applicable regional haze program requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g)(1) through (5), and (i).

We are finalizing approval of the State's determination for FutureFuel Chemical Company to require a fuel switch from coal with 3 percent sulfur content by weight to a low sulfur coal that has 1.5 percent sulfur content (equating to 2.93 lb/MMBtu SO 2 ) for its three coal-fired boilers (SN:6M01-01). This requirement has been made enforceable by the State through an Administrative Order (LIS No. 22-085) dated August 3, 2022, and is included as part of the 2022 Planning Period II SIP submittal. We are finalizing approval of all requirements set forth in this Administrative Order for FutureFuel Chemical Company included as part of the 2022 Planning Period II SIP submittal as a source specific revision to be incorporated into the Arkansas SIP.

In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Arkansas source specific requirements described in section IV of the preamble of this final action. We have made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials are approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, and have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into the plan, are fully federally enforceable under CAA sections 110 and 113 as of the effective date of our approval of this final rulemaking, and will be incorporated by reference into the next update to the SIP compilation.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because State Implementation Plan approvals under the CAA are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this final rule, the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple abbreviations and terms in this final rule. While this list may not be exhaustive, for ease of reading and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

The EPA is approving changes to the Florida SIP submitted by the State on August 15, 2023, regarding Chapter 62-210, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Stationary Sources—General Requirements. Specifically, Florida requested that the EPA approve the removal of Rule 62-210.360, F.A.C., Administrative Permit Corrections, in its entirety and approve changes to Rule 62-210.370, F.A.C., Emissions Computation and Reporting, and Rule 62-210.900, F.A.C., Forms and Instructions. 1 Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 21, 2026 (91 FR 29924), the EPA proposed to approve these changes to Florida's SIP. The details of Florida's submission, as well as the EPA's rationale for approving the changes, are described in more detail in the May 21, 2026, NPRM. Comments on the May 21, 2026, NPRM were due on or before June 22, 2026. No comments were received on the May 21, 2026, NPRM, adverse or otherwise.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-210.370, Emissions Computation and Reporting, state effective August 25, 2014, and Rule 62-210.900, Forms and Instructions, with the exception of numbered paragraphs 1 through 4 and 7, state effective July 3, 2018, which add, update, and rename forms; renumber and update the effective dates of various forms to reflect programmatic changes; update the process for submitting forms in several of Florida's rules; and make other minor revisions. 2 Also in this document, the EPA is finalizing the removal of Rule 62-210.360, Administrative Permit Corrections, state effective November 23, 1994, from the Florida SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA has made and will continue to make the State Implementation Plan generally available at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, the revised materials as stated above, have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under CAA sections 110 and 113 as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

The EPA is approving the August 15, 2023, SIP revision submitted by Florida consisting of changes to Rule 62-210.370, Emissions Computation and Reporting, state effective August 25, 2014, and Rule 62-210.900, Forms and Instructions, state effective July 3, 2018. The EPA is also approving the removal of Rule 62-210.360, Administrative Permit Corrections from the Florida SIP. The EPA is approving these changes pursuant to the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 4 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 26, 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. 5

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

The EPA is approving various revisions and additions to MAPCR Parts 6 and 8 into the Michigan SIP as described in the Preamble above. The EPA is approving these revisions as meeting the Moderate VOC and NO X RACT requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), respectively, for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard. EPA is also approving MAPCR Rules 336.1660 and 336.1662, which limit VOC emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, as SIP strengthening measures for the areas. SIP revisions to Rules 336.1801, 336.1802, 336.1803, 336.1810, 336.1818, 336.1841(8), 336.1842(10), and 336.1844(9) are responsive to different CAA requirements and will be considered in a separate rulemaking.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (Michigan or EGLE) submitted the VOC SIP revisions on March 7, 2024, supplemented on May 2, 2024, and NO X SIP revisions on May 5, 2025, supplemented on August 6, 2025. On February 27, 2026 (91 FR 9793), the EPA proposed to approve revisions and additions to MAPCR Parts 6 and 8 to meet the Moderate VOC and NO X RACT requirements for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard. The EPA also proposed to approve rules that limit VOC emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, as SIP strengthening measures for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard.

The EPA is incorporating by reference Michigan rules R 336.1601, except for R 336.1601(a); R 336.1602; R 336.1606; R 336.1607; R 336.1608; R 336.1609; R 336.1610; R 336.1610a; R 336.1611; R 336.1618; R 336.1620; R 336.1620a; R 336.1621; R 336.1621a; R 336.1622; R 336.1623; R 336.1624; R 336.1624a; R 336.1625; R 336.1627; R 336.1628; R 336.1629; R 336.1630; R 336.1631; R 336.1632, except for R 336.1632(9); R 336.1633; R 336.1634; R 336.1635; R 336.1636; R 336.1637; R 336.1638; R 336.1639; R 336.1640; R 336.1641; R 336.1642; R 336.1643; R 336.1644; R 336.1660; R 336.1661 (Rescinded); R 336.1662; effective April 18, 2023; R 336.1840; R 336.1841,except for R 336.1841(8); R 336.1842, except for R 336.1842(10); R 336.1843; R 336.1844, except for R 336.1844(9); R 336.1845; and R 336.1846; effective April 28, 2025.

An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for this action in the proposal. The comment period ended on March 30, 2026. The EPA reopened the 30-day comment period on April 23, 2026, and this extension ended on May 26, 2026. The EPA received eleven comments in total—one supportive, six not relevant, and four adverse.

The six comments that are not relevant to this action covered a variety of topics including: a general statement regarding the ozone layer, information on a VOC control technology intended to reduce VOC emissions from open containers. All of the comments received are included in the docket for this action. We do not consider these six comments to be germane or relevant to this action and therefore not adverse to this action. These comments lack the required specificity to the proposed SIP revision and the relevant requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, none of these comments address a specific regulation or provision in question or recommend a different action on the SIP submission from what the EPA proposed.

Comment: The commenter asserts that the EPA requires States to adopt the “best available controls” when determining RACT and cites more stringent requirements in other States for the following categories:

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of RACT. The EPA has long defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting through application of control technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979).

RACT is distinct from Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which applies under the New Source Review (NSR) program (see CAA section 169(3) and 40 CFR 51.166). RACT applies to existing sources and reflects a different statutory standard.

The existence of more stringent emission limits in other States does not establish that such limits are reasonably available in Michigan. The examples cited by the commenter are from areas classified as Serious or Extreme nonattainment; these areas may choose to go beyond RACT for attainment planning purposes. The Michigan rules in this action are to address Moderate requirements in the West Michigan nonattainment areas, for which RACT is the applicable control level under CAA section 182(b)(2).

Therefore, EPA finds that differences in emission limits across other States are expected and consistent with the CAA.

Comment: That commenter argues Michigan must justify any deviation from the most stringent controls and has failed to demonstrate technological or economic infeasibility.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of the RACT requirement. The CAA does not require States to adopt the most stringent controls implemented anywhere in the country. Rather, States must demonstrate that their selected controls meet the RACT standard, which is based on reasonable technological and economic feasibility.

Michigan conducted a due diligence review consistent with the EPA's guidance, including evaluation of Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs), existing SIP-approved rules, and controls implemented in other States. Differences in requirements reflect variation in source characteristics and feasibility considerations.

The EPA finds that Michigan has provided an adequate basis for its RACT determinations.

Comment: That commenter asserts that Michigan failed to provide sufficient justification for higher exemption thresholds, did not include sufficient detail—such as facility-specific data—in its five percent equivalency analysis to enable meaningful public input or the EPA review, and relied on assumptions that the commenter asserts affect the analysis.

Response: The EPA finds that Michigan's submittal satisfies applicable CAA requirements and adequately addresses the issues raised by the commenter.

First, Michigan has adopted the more stringent exemption threshold of 15 pounds per day (2.7 tons per year) for the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard through rules R 336.1610a, R 336.1620a, R 336.1621a, and R 336.1624a. These rules implement VOC RACT for the relevant source categories. Therefore, Michigan has met Moderate VOC RACT requirements for these categories in those areas.

Second, the exemption threshold SIP revisions commenter references apply to areas outside of the Western Michigan nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone standard where RACT and a five percent equivalency analysis are not required. Although Michigan submitted a five percent equivalency analysis, the EPA is evaluating and approving these revisions under CAA section 110(l). The EPA is not approving rules R 336.1610, R 336.1620, R 336.1621, and R 336.1624 as RACT.

Under CAA section 110(l), the relevant inquiry is whether the SIP revision will interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement. Michigan's analysis demonstrates that the revised exemption thresholds will not result in an increase in VOC emissions that would interfere with these requirements.

Because the EPA's approval is based on CAA section 110(l), the commenter's concerns regarding the level of detail in the five percent equivalency analysis, including the absence of facility-specific data and assumptions used in that analysis, do not affect the approvability of the revision. The EPA finds that the record contains sufficient information to conclude that the revisions will not interfere with applicable CAA requirements.

The EPA therefore concludes that Michigan's analysis provides an adequate basis for approval.

Comment: That commenter states that the EPA should clarify that the approval of EGLE's proposed SIP submission to apply only to the West Michigan nonattainment areas as the title of the proposed rule is highly misleading if it is intended apply to the whole State.

Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns; however, this proposed and final action only approves this SIP submission as meeting the RACT requirement for the West Michigan areas. Michigan would have to make a new submission to meet RACT requirements for other nonattainment areas in the State.

Comment: Two commenters allege that the technical support documentation (TSD) was not adequately available during the public comment period.

Response: The EPA acknowledges these commenters' concern regarding availability of technical support documentation. In response, the EPA extended the public comment period to ensure that the TSD was available for a full 30-day review period.

The EPA finds that providing the TSD for a full 30-day public comment period afforded adequate opportunity for meaningful public participation consistent with the CAA and Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, the EPA concludes that the extended comment period addressed both commenters' concerns and provided sufficient opportunity for review and comment.

Comment: The commenter asserts that the EPA's proposal fails to document CAA 110(a) SIP approval criteria under 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Response: CAA 110(a) contains infrastructure SIP (iSIP) requirements, and the EPA has taken action on infrastructure requirements and approved iSIP elements for Michigan in separate actions; therefore, it is not relevant to address in this action.

Comment: That commenter states that the EPA's proposal fails to document source-specific RACT determinations, comparison to EPA CTGs, or evaluation against current best available control measures (BACM).

Response: The EPA finds that Michigan's submittal satisfies applicable CAA requirements for RACT and adequately addresses the issues raised by the commenter. Michigan provided source-specific RACT analyses and conducted a due diligence review consistent with the EPA's guidance, including evaluation of CTGs, existing SIP-approved rules, and controls implemented in other States. RACT is distinct from BACM, which applies under CAA 189(b)(1)(B) and does not apply to ozone nonattainment areas. RACT applies to existing sources and reflects a different statutory standard. Therefore, The EPA finds that Michigan has provided an adequate basis for its RACT determinations.

Comment: That commenter claims the EPA's proposal fails to document RFP demonstrations to comply with CAA 172(c)(2)

Response: The EPA has taken action on and approved RFP requirements in a separate action (91 FR 9453, February 26, 2026).

Comment: That commenter claims the EPA's proposal fails to document an anti-backsliding analysis to comply with CAA 193.

Response: The EPA finds that Michigan's submittal does not trigger a need for an anti-backsliding analysis under CAA 193 as no control requirements are being removed but rather added or strengthened.

Comment: That commenter insists the EPA's proposal fails to document a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) significance determination or a basis for any claimed exemption.

Response: The EPA determined that this action is not a “major federal action” that significantly affects the quality of the human environment as it is approving State choices as meeting the CAA and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those required by State law.

Comment: That commenter alleges that the EPA's proposal does not document an environmental justice analysis under Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 and E.O. 14008.

Response: An environmental justice analysis is not required as both E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14008 were rescinded.

Comment: That commenter claims the EPA's proposal fails to document a children's health analysis for ozone under E.O. 13045 and fails to provide a reasoned explanation under State Farm, Encino, West Virginia v. EPA, and Loper Bright.

Response: This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 and these court decisions because it merely approves State choices as meeting the CAA and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those required by State law.

Comment: That commenter states that the EPA's proposal fails to document Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175.

Response: This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

Comment: That commenter insists the EPA's proposal fails to document an E.O. 13132 federalism analysis.

Response: This action does not have federalism implications as specified in E.O. 13132.

Comment: That commenter asserts that the EPA should develop an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) or revised certification with supporting evidence to demonstrate a lack of significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Response: An RFA is inapplicable to this rulemaking because the regulatory analysis provisions of the RFA are only triggered by a threshold determination by the Agency that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Agency has certified this rule will not have a significant economic impact, section 603 and 604 of the RFA do not apply to this rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Comment: That commenter states that the proposal does not provide an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) analysis as to whether this action imposes a Federal intergovernmental mandate.

Response: The EPA has already complied with any UMRA obligation by including in the proposed rulemaking its determination that this rule will not result in expenditures exceeding $100 million in any one year, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). The Agency need not complete any further statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532.

Comment: That commenter alleges the proposal fails to document Centralized Regulatory Review Under E.O. 12866 section 3(f) and E.O. 14094.

Response: This action does not require this documentation as SIP actions are exempt from review under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 14094 was revoked.

Comment: That commenter insists the EPA's proposal fails to document the basis for re-opening the comment period.

Response: The EPA is not required to document the basis for re-opening a comment period; however, the public was made aware that the public comment period was reopened in response to a comment.

Comment: That commenter claims the EPA's proposal does not comply with E.O. 13272 as it does not document consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

Response: This action will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and merely approves State choices as meeting the CAA and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those required by State law, therefore consultation with the SBA is not warranted.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan Regulations described in section II of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under CAA sections 110 and 113 as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 26, 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, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

During the public comment period for the direct final action (91 FR 14648) and proposed rule (91 FR 14673), the EPA received two separate comments. The comments are provided in the docket for this action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2025-1577 at www.regulations.gov. A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The first commenter supported the EPA's authorization of revisions to Florida's hazardous waste program, stating that the EPA's authorization of the Florida hazardous waste program is beneficial in safeguarding human health and the environment.

Response: Because this comment is supportive of the authorization, the EPA determined that there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on this comment.

Comment 2: The second commenter supported the EPA's authorization of revisions to the Florida hazardous waste program but posed several clarifying questions as to the EPA's authorization decision as set forth below.

Comment 2.a.: The commenter notes that the Florida hazardous waste program largely incorporates the Federal hazardous waste regulations by reference but also includes additional State provisions that are either in addition to, or more stringent than, the Federal provisions incorporated by reference. The comment requests clarification of how that determination is reflected in the structure of the State rules.

EPA Response to Comment 2.a.: For purposes of this authorization, most of the provisions being authorized were incorporated by reference. In some cases, the State adds additional regulatory language stating that certain Federal provisions are excluded from that incorporation by reference or adopts another definition from its statutes (for example, the definition of “lamp”). The EPA reviews the totality of the incorporated by reference provisions and any additional State language, to evaluate equivalency.

Comment 2.b.: The commenter requests clarification on whether, for Checklists 181 and 244, the authorized provisions are incorporated by reference in whole or in part or implemented through independently codified State text.

EPA Response to Comment 2.b.: The State provisions being authorized for Checklists 181 and 244 incorporate the Federal regulations by reference. The authorized State provisions list any Federal regulations that are excluded from that incorporation by reference.

Comment 2.c.: The commenter requests confirmation as to whether any substantive differences exist between the Florida provisions and the corresponding Federal requirements.

EPA Response to Comment 2.c.: As documented in the direct final action, for the Federal rules being authorized, there are no substantive differences between the Federal requirements and the State requirements.

Comment 2.d.: The commenter requests that the EPA identify which import/export functions listed in Checklist 244 remain under Federal implementation and explain how they interact with Florida's authorized program.

EPA Response to Comment 2.d.: Checklist 244 makes conforming changes to regulations related to twelve hazardous waste import/export recovery and disposal operations used in hazardous waste export and import notices submitted to the EPA by exporters and importers in the United States, and in movement documents that accompany export and import shipments. These Federal changes were needed to reflect changes to regulations related to Canadian import/export recovery and disposal operations that Canada promulgated in 2021. State programs are required to adopt the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program under 40 CFR 271.10(e); however, the import and export requirements are administered by the Federal government as a matter of foreign policy.

Comment 2.e.: The commenter notes that in the direct final action the EPA stated that it authorized Checklist 181 for completeness. The commenter requested clarification as to the effect of this statement.

EPA Response to Comment 2.e.: As noted in the direct final action, Florida added hazardous waste lamps as a category of universal waste prior to the EPA adding them as a category of universal waste. Florida adopts the federal universal waste lamp regulations by reference but was never specifically authorized for Checklist 181 because lamps were already a part of the Florida universal waste program when Checklist 181 was promulgated. The authorization of Checklist 181 clarifies any ambiguity as to whether Florida is authorized for Checklist 181.

Because this commenter asked clarifying questions only, to which the EPA has responded above, the EPA determined that there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on this comment.

In the direct final action and proposed rule, the EPA stated that if it received adverse comments, we would either publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final action in the Federal Register informing the public the authorization will not take effect, or we would publish a notification containing a response to comments that either reverses the decision or affirms the final action will take effect. As stated above, the EPA determined that the comments received were not adverse; therefore, there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on the comments received. However, the EPA publishes this notice in the Federal Register responding to the comments and acknowledging that the direct final action took effect on May 26, 2026, as provided in the direct final action.

In FR Doc. 2026-15598 appearing on page 48700 in the Federal Register of Friday, July 31, 2026, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 48700, in the second column, in the DATES section, “instruction 17 § (27.14(x)(3))” is corrected to read “instruction 17 (§ 27.14(x)(4))”.

2. On page 48708, in the third column, in paragraph 60, the second sentence is corrected to read as follows: “Specifically, if a licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark ( i.e., providing reliable signal coverage and offering service to at least 45% of the population in the license area no later than two years after the relevant Transition Deadline), it will accelerate its second performance benchmark by one year.”

3. Beginning on page 48708, in the third column, in paragraph 60, the third sentence is corrected to read as follows: “If a licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark ( i.e., providing reliable signal coverage and offering service to at least 80% of the population in the license area no later than six years after the relevant Transition Deadline) in any license area, its authorization for that particular license area will terminate automatically without Commission action.”

4. Beginning on page 48738, in the third column, paragraph 241 is corrected to read as follows: “ It is further ordered that the rules and requirements as adopted herein are adopted, effective sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register , and that the Order of Proposed Modification is effective as of the date of publication in the Federal Register ; provided, however, that §§ 25.138(a)-(b); 25.147(a)-(c); 27.14(x)(4); 27.1412(b)-(c); 27.1412(e); 27.1412(g); 27.1413(a)(3); 27.1413(c)(1); 27.1413(c)(9); 27.1413(e)-(f); 27.1414(e); 27.1415; 27.1416; 27.1417; 27.1419; 27.1421; 27.1422(c); 27.1424 of the Commission's rules, which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, will not become effective until the effective date for those information collections is announced in a document published in the Federal Register after the Commission receives OMB approval. The Commission directs the Bureau to issue such document and to cause §§ 25.138(a) and (b); 25.147(a) through (c); 27.14(x)(4); 27.1412(b) and (c); 27.1412(e); 27.1412(g); 27.1413(a)(3); 27.1413(c)(1); 27.1413(c)(9); 27.1413(e)-(f); 27.1414(e); 27.1415; 27.1416; 27.1417; 27.1419; 27.1421; 27.1422(c); 27.1424 to be revised accordingly.”

The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish FMP by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management areas, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through Southern New England and into the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina.

The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the target total allowable landings (TAL) and the annual catch target (ACT), which is the TAL plus an estimate of expected discards, for each management area.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS approves, disapproves, or partially approves measures that the Council recommends, based on consistency with the Act and other applicable law. NMFS reviews proposed regulations for consistency with the fishery management plan, plan amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, and publishes the proposed regulations, solicits public comment, and promulgates the final regulations. NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework 17 on April 23, 2026 (91 FR 21779), with a 30-day comment period that ended on May 26, 2026. Based on information provided in the SIR and considered during the preparation of this action, and after consideration of comments, NMFS has approved all the measures in Framework 17 recommended by the Councils, as described below. The measures implemented in this final rule:

• Set specifications for the NFMA and SFMA for fishing year 2026 and projects specifications for fishing years 2027 and 2028;

• Streamlines the implementation of AMs in the event of an ACL overage; and

• Adds default specifications for the monkfish fishery, previously approved in Framework 13.

This action sets the NFMA and SFMA quotas for fishing year 2026 and projects quotas for fishing year 2027 and 2028, based on the Councils' recommendations.

On August 19, 2025, the New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels in the NFMA and SFMA for fishing years 2026-2028 based on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's 2025 Data Update for Northern and Southern Monkfish and information provided by the New England Council's Plan Development Team.

The Councils' recommended specifications include status quo ABCs and ACLs in both management areas relative to 2023-2025 values. Expected discards, calculated using the median of the most recent 10 years of data, slightly increased in the NFMA and marginally decreased in the SFMA. After accounting for discards, the Councils recommended a 3-percent decrease in the TAL for the NFMA and a less than 1-percent increase in the TAL for the SFMA. Table 1 includes the approved catch limits for 2026-2028 and the change relative to the 2023-2025 specifications.

At the end of each fishing year, NMFS evaluates catch information and determines if the quota has been exceeded. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.96(d) require revision of the monkfish ACT if it is determined that the ACL was exceeded in any given year. If an overage occurs, NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register of any revisions to these specifications. NMFS has determined, based on final 2024 year-end accounting, that no adjustment is necessary for fishing year 2026. NMFS will provide notice of the 2027 and 2028 quotas prior to the start of each respective fishing year.

Under regulations defining the ACL Overage AMs at § 648.96(d)(2), if it is determined that the ACL for a stock was exceeded in a given year, then the Councils are required to take action to deduct the amount of the ACL overage from the ACT for that stock in the second fishing year following the overage. Only if the Councils fail to take action to implement this revision is the Regional Administrator required to take action to implement the AM in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

Framework 17 removes the requirement that the Councils trigger the ACL Overage AMs, making only the Regional Administrator responsible for implementing the AMs. This change simplifies and streamlines the procedure for implementing AMs and minimizes disruption to Council workplans. Shifting responsibility for implementing AMs to the Regional Administrator eliminates these disruptions; NMFS already provides notice of annual monkfish quotas in the Federal Register and would be able to implement any ACT revisions as part of that process. The regulations included in this final rule clarify this process.

This rule implements no other changes to the ACL Overage AMs.

This rule implements regulations that define default OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs that would go into place if no specifications for a fishing year are in place at the start of that fishing year.

Default rollover specifications were originally included in the Councils' submission of Framework 13 to the Monkfish FMP. After reviewing Framework 13 for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and applicable law, NMFS approved Framework 13 and published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 11, 2023 (88 FR 54495) (2023 Final Rule). However, during the development of Framework 17 and in discussions related to potential changes that might be considered under the New England Council's Omnibus Management Flexibility Amendment, NMFS discovered that changes to the monkfish regulations to clarify rollover and default specifications in § 648.96 were inadvertently omitted from the 2023 Final Rule. As such, these regulations were never put in place. This action adds regulations to define default specifications and corrects this omission.

NMFS received two comments during the public comment period for the proposed rule. Of these comments, one was not relevant to the proposed measures and will not be addressed here. The other comment received opposed publication of the final rule for Framework 17 on procedural grounds.

Comment 1: One member of the public stated that, in 15 separate instances, the proposed rule for Framework 17 failed to comply or document compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (including the 10 National Standards), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and several Executive Orders. The commenter stated that NMFS should not approve the action or issue the final rule for Framework 17 until these “procedural and substantive defects” are addressed.

Response: NMFS disagrees that Framework 17 or the proposed rule is out of compliance with the MSA, applicable law, or applicable Executive Orders. NMFS has approved Framework 17 on the basis that it is in compliance with the Monkfish FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and all applicable law.

The Supplemental Information Report submitted by the Councils in support of Framework 17 includes an in-depth discussion of the action's compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and applicable laws that the commenter states are not adequately addressed. Specifically, the Framework 17 document includes a summary of how the Framework is consistent with all 10 National Standards, 15 required provisions for FMPs found in section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ESA, the MMPA, CZMA, and applicable Executive Orders. The proposed rule for Framework 17 provided instruction in the ADDRESSES section on how to obtain copies of the Framework 17 document, including the draft Supplemental Information Report, prepared by the Councils. This included instructions on how readers could access the documents via the internet. NMFS again directs the commenter and the public to the Framework 17 document by following the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

In addition, the proposed rule clearly documents that the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule includes a detailed description of the entities regulated by this action, whether they are large or small, and the long-term impacts of the action on small entities.

Finally, some of the remaining deficiencies that the commenter claims regarding Framework 17 and/or its proposed rule are not relevant ( e.g., Executive Orders 12898 and 14008, which have been rescinded).

NMFS made one change to the proposed rule. This final rule made a minor adjustment to the regulatory text regarding the implementation of an AM due to an ACL overage to clarify the Regional Administrator's role in the process.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 because it is a routine fishing action.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

NMFS has determined that this action would 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; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under Executive Order 13175 is not required, and the requirements of section (5)(b) and (c) of Executive Order 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2) of Executive Order 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Although NMFS received a comment simply stating that the certification was not defensible, this comment did not provide additional data or information that contradicts the factual basis for this certification. This comment and NMFS's response is included in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows: