The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B, EC225LP, AS 365 N3, and AS332L2 helicopters; all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, and EC635T2+ helicopters; all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, MBB-BK 117 D-2, and MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters; and all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139, AW109SP, AW139, AW169, and AW189 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2025 (90 FR 52008). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0051R1, dated May 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0051R1) (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 the manufacturer of the affected rescue hoists reported that certain rescue hoist assemblies may have been equipped, during manufacturing or maintenance, with a non-conformant overload clutch assembly. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rescue hoist assembly, which could result in injury to a person being lifted or to persons on the ground.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing each affected rescue hoist assembly with a serviceable rescue hoist assembly and prohibiting installation of an affected rescue hoist assembly unless certain requirements are met.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-3986.

The FAA received comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exception to bypass notice and comment along with the 30-day delayed effective date and must, at a minimum, provide an explanation why a brief comment period was impracticable. The commenter requested that the FAA place in the docket the accident/incident data, risk models, engineering analyses, and any flight-hour exposure calculations used to justify good cause and the shortened effective date. If those data do not demonstrate justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, the commenter requested that the FAA either convert this action to an NPRM allowing comment on non-emergency portions, or limit immediate effectiveness to the subset of configurations and operating environments showing elevated risk.

The FAA notes that the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA clarify whether the proposed AD requires reporting. If reporting is required, the commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to comply with the PRA or suspend the reporting requirement until PRA requirements are satisfied.

The FAA notes that paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR of service information fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to provide all IBR materials freely and electronically to the public. Alternatively, the commenter requested that complete copies of all IBR materials be placed in the rulemaking docket and that physical locations where those copies may be inspected be identified. Further, the commenter requested that the FAA confirm that the Director of the Federal Register's approval of materials incorporated by reference was predicated on actual reasonable availability in practice.

The FAA's practices comply with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act and 1 CFR part 51. The FAA also provides summaries and access details in the preamble and regulatory text, makes materials available for inspection at FAA and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) offices, offers publisher contact information, and obtains formal IBR approval from the Office of the Federal Register. These efforts are intended to ensure that all IBR materials meet the “reasonably available” standard required by 1 CFR part 51.

The FAA notes that this AD incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0051R1, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0051R1 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0051R1 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0051R1 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that takes into account parts, labor, aircraft downtime, and specific small entity impacts. Additionally, the commenter requested that the FAA adopt less burdensome alternatives for small operators, such as conditional AMOC alternatives, phased compliance, and flexible compliance intervals. Further, the commenter requested that the FAA add an explicit statement whether the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) applies to the proposed AD.

The FAA has considered the AD's impact on small entities and provides the following factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.

SBA has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts. The SBA definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity. The following table provides the SBA size standards for all industries with at least one impacted entity. Note that the FAA does not have entity data on 3 of the 858 affected helicopters, and those helicopters with missing entity data are excluded from this analysis.

To identify small entities, the FAA first identified the primary NAICS of the entity or parent company, and then used data from different sources ( e.g., company annual reports, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) to determine whether the entity meets the applicable size standard. The FAA provides the estimated number of small entities affected by this AD:

The FAA estimates the affected entities will incur a compliance cost of $46,913 per helicopter. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The following table displays the estimated compliance costs per small entity.

FAA evaluated the alternative of not promulgating this AD but ultimately deemed that this alternative would create a significant safety hazard. This AD was prompted by reports that certain rescue hoist assemblies may have been equipped with, during manufacturing or maintenance, a non-conformant overload clutch assembly. This AD requires replacing each affected rescue hoist assembly with a serviceable rescue hoist assembly. This AD also prohibits installing an affected rescue hoist assembly unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket a revised cost analysis of the proposed AD that includes downtime, mission disruption, and reasonable scheduling/operational impacts and organize the analysis by type certificate holder or mission profile, as appropriate.

The FAA's practice is to add the regulatory evaluation of the proposed AD in the NPRM, not as a separate document in the AD docket.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM, the FAA disclosed the estimated number of work hours, the number of helicopters affected on the U.S. registry, estimated parts cost, and the aggregate costs for the U.S. fleet. The FAA has further clarified those costs in this final rule. The FAA recognizes that operators might incur additional costs, such as helicopter downtime. However, the FAA cannot quantify these costs. Since the FAA provided the total known costs in the NPRM, as further clarified by this final rule, and the commenter did not provide additional information for the FAA to consider in its analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0051R1. This material identifies the affected rescue hoist assemblies and specifies procedures for replacing the affected rescue hoist assembly with a serviceable rescue hoist assembly. EASA AD 2025-0051R1 also prohibits installing an affected rescue hoist assembly unless certain requirements are met. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC 175 B helicopters, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, and EC635 T3 helicopters, and Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3m helicopters, whereas this AD does not because those models do not have an FAA type certificate.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 858 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. The FAA recognizes that operators might incur additional costs, such as helicopter downtime. However, the FAA cannot quantify these costs. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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 Pilatus Model PC-12 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2026 (91 FR 2512). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0182, dated August 25, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0182) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition on certain Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The MCAI states there was a report that the emergency exit door could not be opened from inside an airplane. Further investigation revealed that incorrect installation of the PSU trim panel, which is installed above the emergency exit door, could block the opening of the emergency exit if the PSU trim panel is positioned too far inboard.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a visual inspection of the PSU trim panel for dual lock fastener tapes and modification if dual lock fastener tapes are not installed. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2026 (91 FR 27878). The SNPRM was prompted by the FAA's determination that the applicability of the NPRM referenced the incorrect airplane model. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the NPRM to correct the affected airplane from Model PC-12 to Model PC-12/47E. 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-2026-0018.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International. The commenter supported the SNPRM without change.

Since issuance of the SNPRM, the FAA has determined that the inspection proposed in the SNPRM is not necessary and the reference to the instructions in the definition of “Affected part” in EASA AD 2025-0182 is adequate. This change also affects the Costs of Compliance section.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0182, which specifies procedures for modifying the PSU trim panel if dual lock fastener tapes are not installed. EASA AD 2025-0182 also prohibits the installation of an affected part. EASA AD 2025-0182 also refers to instructions to determine whether dual lock fastener tapes are installed on a PSU trim panel. 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 276 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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 all Leonardo S.p.A. Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, and certain A109S and AW109SP helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2026 (91 FR 31675). The NPRM was prompted by an MCAI, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2025-0148, dated July 11, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0148) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there was a report of improper installation of bearing part number 109-0110-35-3. The MCAI further states that relevant investigation determined that the affected bearing was improperly installed during production.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the bearing and depending on the result, corrective action. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to prohibit the installation of an affected bearing unless certain requirements are met. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the bearing and loss of control of the helicopter. 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-2026-4647.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0148, which specifies procedures for a one-time visual inspection for proper installation of the bearing. EASA AD 2025-0148 also prohibits installation of the bearing on any helicopter unless the part is new (never previously installed) or has passed an inspection using certain material. 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.

Where the MCAI specifies to contact Leonardo for corrective actions, this AD requires repairing an affected part in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or EASA, or Leonardo S.p.A. EASA Design Organization Approval.

The MCAI applies to Leonardo S.p.A. Model A109LUH helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 227 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The extent of repairs that may be needed could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no way of determining the cost to correct or repair each helicopter or the number of helicopters that may require repair.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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 invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2026-8789; Project Identifier AD-2026-00678-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Ramanpreet Singh, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA received reports from Lycoming of metal particulates found in the engine oil during oil change and two non-detectable engine failures on Lycoming Model O-235, O-540, and IO-540 engines. A manufacturer investigation revealed that certain thin-wall piston pins were manufactured with microcracks and inclusions in the base metal due to honing and tooling process changes from the piston pin supplier, making the pins more susceptible to failure. Piston pin failure can cause metal debris to circulate throughout the engine, which can damage bearings and other cylinders and can block oil passages and lead to oil starvation. As a result, Lycoming Engines published updated service material with a list of affected engines and instructions for replacement of the affected piston pins and inspection of the oil for metal particulates. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the piston pins. This condition, if not addressed, could result in engine failure, loss of thrust control, in-flight shutdown, damage to the airplane, and loss of control of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin No. (MSB) 667A, dated March 12, 2026 (Lycoming MSB 667A), which identifies affected engine serial numbers and specifies procedures for the replacement of affected piston pins with a part eligible for installation. Lycoming MSB 667A also specifies procedures for oil change and visual inspection of the engine oil filter, oil pressure screen, and oil suction screen for metal particulates. The FAA also reviewed Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1009BE, dated April 24, 2020, which identifies the compliance times between overhauls for certain Lycoming Model engines. 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.

This AD requires replacement of the affected piston pin with a part eligible for installation and, for certain engines, oil change and visual inspection of the engine oil filter, oil pressure screen, and oil suction screen for metal particulates. This AD also prohibits the installation of an affected piston pin on any engine.

This AD requires oil change and visual inspection of the engine oil filter, oil pressure screen, and oil suction screen for metal particulates within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) unless done within last 10 hours TIS, while Lycoming MSB 667A does not have this requirement.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because piston pin microcracks and inclusions are difficult to detect prior to failure, and can result in internal damage to the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane. The FAA has determined that affected engines will need to be inspected and have affected piston pins replaced within 25 hours time-in-service or earlier after the effective date of this AD depending on the engine model. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 957 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some 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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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 all RRD Model Trent7000-72 and Trent7000-72C engines. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2026 (91 FR 29391). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0029, dated January 29, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0029) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been reports of engine IFSDs prompted by low oil pressure indications. An investigation revealed that these events were caused by early-life failure of the internal eccentric ring/gerotor in certain affected lubrication/scavenge oil pumps due to eccentric contact between the ring and gerotor causing wear on the components. To address this potential unsafe condition, the manufacturer published service material that provides installation criteria for the affected oil pumps.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require prohibiting the installation of certain lubrication/scavenge pumps unless certain installation criteria are met. 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-2026-4640.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. Commenters included the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and Delta Air Lines, Inc (DAL). ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to prohibit the operation of an affected part unless the installation criteria defined in RRD Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2023 (RRD NMSB TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3) are met. DAL stated that two of the installation criteria defined in RRD NMSB TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3 require knowledge of the cycles since repair (CSR), cycles since overhaul (CSO), and cycles since new (CSN) of the oil pump on the opposite engine. DAL noted that during installation of an affected part on a spare engine or during an engine shop visit for maintenance, it is not always known which aircraft an engine will be installed on. DAL further noted that in such cases, it is impossible to determine the CSR, CSO, or CSN of the oil pump on the opposite engine, and the installation criteria defined in RRD NMSB TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3 cannot be complied with prior to pump installation.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA infers that the intent of the request is to prohibit the operation of an engine having an affected part installed unless the installation criteria from RRD NMSB TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3, are met. The FAA clarifies that this operation prohibition is already required by the AD because 14 CFR 39.7 specifies that once an AD is issued, no person may operate a product to which the AD applies except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. The intent of this AD is to prevent the installation of affected parts unless they meet the installation criteria from RRD NMSB TRENT 1000 79-AK868, Revision 3. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to state that documentation of the accomplishment of RRD NMSB TRENT 79-AK868, Revision 3, is not required. Delta noted that RRD NMSB TRENT 79-AK868, Revision 3, requires operators to record accomplishment of the completed work in the engine logbook. DAL further noted that they do not use engine logbooks to document engine maintenance performed while the engine is installed on an airplane and should be permitted to incorporate the installation criteria into the DAL Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Program instead. DAL stated that requiring a logbook entry creates unnecessary administrative burden to operators.

The FAA agrees to clarify. An operator may record the accomplishment of RRD NMSB TRENT 79-AK868, Revision 3, in a document or system other than an engine logbook, or an equivalent record, including their continuing airworthiness maintenance program. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0029, which specifies installation criteria for affected oil pumps each time an affected part is installed or reinstalled on an engine. 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 98 engines installed on 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 necessary screening tests that would be required based on the results of the installation criteria verification. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these screening tests:

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

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

For the purposes of this rule the Department refers to civil aircraft that are subsequently modified to incorporate certain aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) as survivability-enhanced aircraft. ASE is a term generally used to refer to systems and equipment designed to reduce an aircraft's susceptibility and vulnerability to manufactured threats by detecting, alerting on, and mitigating threats. For purposes of this preamble, ASE specifically refers to directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) and infrared or ultraviolet missile warning systems necessary for the operation of DIRCM. Survivability-enhanced aircraft are often used to mitigate risk in the transport of passengers or goods, in various threat environments. These aircraft incorporate ASE described on the USML to protect the aircraft and its occupants from man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and other guided weapons that can pose a serious threat to aircraft. Foreign governments also utilize civil aircraft incorporating ASE to transport heads of state and other persons, and some airlines have incorporated ASE to protect passengers traveling in higher risk areas.

ASE is described in the subparagraphs of USML Category XI(a)(4), which describes electronic warfare (EW) systems and equipment; thus, survivability-enhanced aircraft are currently described in USML Category VIII(a)(8), as aircraft specially designed to incorporate a defense article for the purpose of performing an EW function. The Department notes that aircraft modified to facilitate incorporation of ASE are currently described in paragraph (a)(8) even when the ASE is not physically present in the aircraft. Since such modifications are properties peculiarly responsible for the incorporation of the ASE, they satisfy the specially designed definition at § 120.41(a)(1).

Based on its assessments and the discretion afforded it, and to facilitate the operation and maintenance of certain aircraft that have been modified to incorporate ASE, the Department is amending USML Category VIII(a)(8), adding corresponding definitions to § 121.0, and adding two new entries to § 120.54 to expand the definition of “activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports.” Activities listed in ITAR § 120.54 do not require an authorization from DDTC.

The Department is revising USML Category VIII(a)(8) to exclude certain aircraft that have been modified to incorporate ASE. To concisely implement this exclusion, the Department is also adding new definitions of secured ASE and survivability-enhanced aircraft, and the acronyms “ASE” and “USML,” to § 121.0.

Furnishing assistance to a foreign person in maintaining, repairing, or operating an aircraft described in paragraph (a)(8) is a defense service even for repairs limited to an aircraft component otherwise subject to the EAR, such as brakes controlled in the EAR's Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 9A991.d, while that item is incorporated into the aircraft. This is because such activities furnish assistance to the foreign person in maintaining the aircraft, which is a defense article.

Servicing activities for aircraft described on the USML continue to warrant control under the ITAR because maintenance of an aircraft helps maintain the foreign person's access to the capabilities of the aircraft. However, the Department assesses that incorporating secured ASE to protect an aircraft and its occupants should not, by itself, subject an otherwise civil aircraft to regulation under the ITAR. Such regulation of maintenance services, when not directly related to the incorporated ASE, may place U.S. companies at an unnecessary competitive disadvantage due to the widespread availability of such services and a lack of similar foreign regulation. The Department assesses that, when incorporated into an otherwise civil aircraft without modifications to incorporate other defense articles, ASE supports a purely protective function. For this and other reasons, the Department assesses commercial servicing and maintenance of survivability-enhanced aircraft does not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage that warrants continued ITAR control.

Following the changes in this rule to remove certain aircraft from paragraph (a)(8), ASE will still be described on the USML in Category XI. The Department has determined that ASE, and directly related technical data and defense services, continue to provide a critical military or intelligence advantage and therefore should remain on the USML. ITAR § 120.11(c) will continue to apply to ASE incorporated into an aircraft, regardless of the export jurisdiction of the aircraft. As a result, servicing ASE for a foreign person continues to be a defense service. Furthermore, assisting a foreign person in the modification of an aircraft to facilitate incorporation of ASE is a defense service described in USML Category XI(d) even before the ASE is installed. Such assistance is directly related to the ASE and, at a minimum, assists the foreign person in the use of the ASE. Similarly, assisting a foreign person in maintaining or repairing portions of the aircraft modified for the purpose of incorporating ASE ( e.g., upgraded power supplies, dedicated wiring) are defense services described in USML Category XI(d). Even when such services are performed on aircraft components subject to the EAR, they both directly relate to the ASE and assist the foreign person in the use of the ASE.

The new definition of secured ASE in § 121.0 limits the scope of that term to specific types of defensive EW equipment. The Department considered further limiting the scope of the exclusion to ASE designed to provide protection against MANPADS; however, the Department's review of civil aircraft losses concluded that the threat is no longer limited to MANPADS. The new definition of secured ASE also specifies that certain anti-tamper protections must be in place when the ASE is incorporated into the aircraft.

The new definition of survivability-enhanced aircraft specifically excludes unmanned aircraft, aircraft that did not start out as civil aircraft (as described in paragraph (1) of the new definition for “survivability-enhanced aircraft”), and aircraft described in USML Category VIII(a)(8) or elsewhere on the USML for reasons other than incorporating secured ASE.

The Department is adding two new paragraphs to § 120.54(a) to remove the ITAR authorization requirement for certain reexports and temporary imports of defense articles that meet the new § 121.0 definition of secured ASE. Pursuant to § 120.11(c), ASE retains its status as a defense article following incorporation or integration into an aircraft, regardless of the jurisdiction of the aircraft. For example, an ITAR license or other authorization type is currently required for all exports of ASE out of the United States and for all temporary imports of ASE into the United States, including instances in which the ASE is incorporated into an aircraft not described on the USML. Similarly, when ASE is subject to the reexport or retransfer restrictions of the ITAR ( e.g., U.S.-origin defense articles and defense articles subject to ITAR § 124.8(a)(5)), an ITAR authorization is currently required for all reexports and retransfers, including when an aircraft incorporating secured ASE travels to a third country.

The Department determined ASE provides a critical military or intelligence advantage such that it warrants description on the USML. ASE is military technology, regardless of its use by civilian entities. In providing notifications of guided missile threats and assisting pilots in defending against those threats, ASE provides a critical advantage—including during contested airspace operations. However, standard ITAR requirements impose an unnecessary compliance burden on international partners using secured ASE to protect dignitaries and commercial passengers, particularly when traveling to a country identified in ITAR § 126.1. The requirements also place U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign manufacturers whose products are not subject to ITAR regulation of reexports.

The Department assesses that, when ASE has previously been authorized for export from the United States pursuant to a license issued under the ITAR (and thus subjected to a U.S. national security review), for incorporation into a survivability-enhanced aircraft, and continues to be utilized only for its authorized use by an authorized end user, it is not necessary for the Department to review the operational movements of that aircraft. Similarly, the Department assesses that temporary imports of secured ASE incorporated into survivability-enhanced aircraft, without other modifications that make the aircraft described on the USML, do not require its review while the ASE remains incorporated.

For these reasons, the Department is adding two new paragraphs to § 120.54(a) to exclude what would otherwise be a reexport or temporary import of secured ASE while it is incorporated into survivability-enhanced aircraft, under specified conditions. Defense services directly related to ASE and transfer to a foreign person of technical data directly related to ASE remain controlled events, regardless of the ASE status.

The primary purpose of the new § 120.54(a)(8) is to remove certain restrictions on otherwise civil aircraft temporarily entering and exiting the United States with secured ASE installed. Similarly, the primary purpose of the new § 120.54(a)(9) is to remove certain restrictions on the movement of aircraft that incorporate secured ASE already approved for export from the United States pursuant to a license and remaining under the control of users already authorized to possess the ASE. Such aircraft may include those operated by civilian airlines or those maintained or operated for the benefit of heads of state, international organizations like the United Nations, and humanitarian organizations. New paragraphs (a)(8) and (9) apply only to the physical movement of the secured ASE while it is incorporated into a survivability-enhanced aircraft; these paragraphs do not authorize any defense services or release of technical data directly related to the ASE (including removal of the ASE from the aircraft). New paragraph (a)(9) applies only to ASE previously authorized for export from the United States pursuant to a license; it does not apply to ASE that has only been exported pursuant to an exemption.

Retransfer of ASE to a foreign person while outside the United States remains a controlled event in all cases. The new § 120.54(a)(8) does not enable temporary imports that involve transfers of the aircraft or the incorporated ASE to a different foreign person while inside the United States. If the ASE has been authorized for export under a separate ITAR authorization, for use by a particular organization and its employees, then a transfer of control of the aircraft and secured ASE between employees of the same organization must be completed using that ITAR authorization.

The Department is implementing an effective date of October 13, 2026, in making the revisions described in this interim final rule. The Department's website ( www.pmddtc.state.gov ) includes guidance for practitioners on the treatment of items removed from the USML.

In reviewing the clarifications provided by this rule, if you identify a potential violation of the ITAR, you may submit a voluntary disclosure to DDTC, consistent with the procedures outlined in ITAR §  127.12. For potential violations of the EAR, persons are encouraged to disclose violations to BIS, including through the submission of voluntary self-disclosures, consistent with the procedures outlined in EAR §§ 764.4 and 764.5. For potential violations of both the EAR and the ITAR, persons are encouraged to submit disclosures to both agencies.

The Department is requesting public comments on the revisions described in this rulemaking. The Department encourages the public to provide comments related to this rule, as well as comments specifically responsive to the five questions described in this section. To facilitate timely review and assessment of the comments, comments should be provided in a concise sentence or paragraph, followed by supporting explanatory paragraphs and examples, with each distinct comment treated separately (as opposed to multiple comments in one paragraph or section). The Department requests comments focused on the following questions:

1. How much would practitioners benefit from the Department defining the terms for the eligible types of ASE?

2. Are there commodities, services, or technical data closely related to these revisions that warrant ITAR control, but are currently either not described on the USML, or not described with sufficient clarity? If so, please provide examples and a concise explanation.

3. Are there commodities, services, or technical data closely related to these revisions that do not warrant ITAR control? If so, please provide examples and a concise explanation.

4. Are there specific functions, performance levels, or characteristics related to these revisions that could better:

a. Distinguish between the commodities that do, and do not, warrant ITAR control; or

b. Align with the constructions or language used elsewhere in the ITAR?

5. Can any of these revisions be more clearly or concisely stated?

Include the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (1400-AG17) for all submissions related to this rule. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by submitting their comments via www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields that would identify the commenter blank and including no identifying information in the comment itself. Commenters are cautioned not to include proprietary, export-controlled, personal, or other sensitive information in their comments that they would not want to be made public. If such information would provide useful insight to the comment: (1) assemble that information in a separate document with proprietary markings; (2) include “Proprietary supplement on file with: [provide POC]” as the first line in the body of the email submission; (3) submit the public portion of the comment via email; and (4) call DDTC at (202) 663-1282 to coordinate submission of the proprietary supplement.

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. Nevertheless, and without prejudice to this determination, the Department seeks certain public comments in this rule.

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and affirmed by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department specifically welcomes public comment on the effects, including costs and benefits, of this rule. After review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this rule has been deemed a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

This rule was undertaken pursuant to a statutory directive to periodically review the items on the USML. The Department generally determines which items warrant addition to, or removal from, the USML by assessing whether each provides a critical military or intelligence advantage based on national security and foreign policy considerations. Because the costs and benefits of changing what is controlled focus on the effect or utility of the item or service, rather than its market prevalence or economic value, quantitative analyses cannot be usefully estimated and are not available, particularly since the global prevalence or availability of the item or service are not known. Qualitatively, the rule was assessed for costs and benefits. These revisions are also informed by confidential commodity jurisdiction determination and advisory opinion requests, submitted by industry. The Department takes into account common questions and strives to streamline and simplify USML entries based on how it understands industry experience with certain parts of the USML.

This rule moves the export regulation of certain aircraft from the ITAR to the EAR, and it excludes from ITAR authorization requirements certain transfers of defense articles while they are incorporated into those aircraft. These actions reduce the regulatory burden on those who transfer, repair, or maintain such aircraft. The Department assesses that continuing to regulate these modified aircraft under the ITAR is unnecessary and that removing them will add options for U.S. participation in improving aviation safety. The Department assesses the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh any costs, that modifying the USML in this manner is the most cost-effective method to achieve the Department's regulatory objectives on this matter, and that doing so will result in a net reduction of the burden on the regulated community.

The alternative to this rule was inaction or delay. The Department could have waited to amend larger parts of the USML at once or continued to gather data to evaluate the controls affected by this rule. These alternatives were rejected. Statutory requirements, including section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), and section 1345 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, require a periodic review of the USML for edits like those made by this rule. While the Department continuously reviews the entire USML, it aims to focus on particular USML revisions in cycles, as it has done in implementing this rule.

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

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

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

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

For reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR parts 120 and 121, the United States Munitions List, as follows:

On July 1, 2014, the Department published a final rule revising Category XI of the USML, 79 FR 37536, effective December 30, 2014. That final rule, consistent with the two prior proposed rules for USML Category XI (78 FR 45018, July 25, 2013 and 77 FR 70958, November 28, 2012), revised paragraph (b) of Category XI to clarify the extent of control and maintain the existing scope of control on items described in paragraph (b) and the directly related software described in paragraph (d). The Department later determined that exporters may read the revised control language to exclude certain intelligence-analytics software that has been and remains controlled on the USML.

Section 126.2 of the ITAR provides that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls may order the temporary suspension or modification of any or all provisions of the ITAR when in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, the Department determined that it was in the interest of the security of the United States to temporarily revise USML Category XI paragraph (b), pursuant to the provisions of 22 CFR 126.2, while a long-term solution was developed. The Department previously published a final rule on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 37974) that temporarily modified USML Category XI(b) until December 29, 2015. The Department subsequently published a series of rules that had the effect of continuing the modification, the most recent ending on August 30, 2026 (86 FR 48021).

The scope of control in existence prior to December 30, 2014 for USML Category XI paragraph (b) and directly related software in paragraph (d) remains in effect. This clarification is achieved by reinserting the words “analyze and produce information from” and by adding software to the description of items controlled with the modification of the regulations.

The Department extends the temporary modification of USML Category XI(b) for two years, to August 30, 2028, while the Department, with its interagency partners, continues to review the U.S. Munitions List as mandated by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(f) and every three years as mandated by section 1345 of the National Defense Authorization Act FY24.

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.

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

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

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has found that this rulemaking is not a major rule within the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and affirmed by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking is deemed a not significant rule under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

In FR Doc. 2026-11140 of June 4, 2026 (91 FR 33900), there were typographical errors and omissions that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.

On page 34047, in amendatory instruction 6.a. for § 54.9816-6, we did not specify “introductory text” after paragraph (a) and therefore, regulation text was inadvertently omitted.

On page 34054, § 54.9816-8(c)(5), we inadvertently omitted regulation text for paragraphs (c)(5)(vii)(A)( 1 ) and ( 2 ) after paragraph (c)(5)(vii)(A) introductory text.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(1), we inadvertently included the word “revised”.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(3), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (c)(1) of that section.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(4), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) and paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), and (c)(4) of that section.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(5), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) and (c)(5)(vii)(B) and (C) of that section.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(9), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (g) of that section.

On page 34057, § 54.9816-8(h)(10), we inadvertently used the word “section” instead of the word “requirements” in a cross-reference to that section.

On pages 34059 through 34060, in amendatory instructions 13.a. through 13.h. for § 2590.716-8, we included instructions for individual revisions to paragraph (b) rather than stating that paragraph (b) was being revised in its entirety.

On page 34060, in amendatory instruction 13.l. for § 2590.716-8, we included instructions for individual revisions to paragraph (c)(4) rather than stating that paragraph (c)(4) was being revised in its entirety, and we inadvertently omitted the revision to paragraph (c)(5)(iii).

On page 34063, § 2590.716-8(c)(1)(i), we incorrectly formatted the cross-reference to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)( 11 ) of that section.

On page 34065, § 2590.716-8(c)(4)(i), we incorrectly formatted the cross-reference to that paragraph.

On page 34066, § 2590.716-8(c)(5)(ii)(A), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (c)(5)(i) of that section and inadvertently omitted a closing parenthesis.

On page 34066, § 2590.716-8(c)(5)(ii)(B), we incorrectly formatted the cross-reference to paragraph (c)(5)(vi) of that section.

On page 34066, § 2590.716-8(c)(5)(iii)(D), we inadvertently referenced “(c)(4)(v)” rather than “(c)(5)(v)”.

On page 34066, we inadvertently omitted the text of § 2590.716-8(c)(5)(vii)(A)( 1 ) and ( 2 ).

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(1), we inadvertently included the word “revised”.

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(3), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (c)(1) of that section.

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(4), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) and paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), and (c)(4) of that section.

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(5), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) and (c)(5)(vii)(B) and (C) of that section.

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(9), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (g) of that section.

On page 34068, § 2590.716-8(h)(10), we inadvertently used the word “section” instead of the word “requirements” in a cross-reference to that section.

On page 34069, § 2590.716-9(c)(2), we inadvertently referenced “2590.716A-6” rather than “2590.716-6A”.

On page 34076, § 149.510(c)(4)(i) we stated “of this section” to an already cross-referenced paragraph and inadvertently included an asterisks placeholder.

On page 34076, § 149.510(c)(5)(i) we inadvertently included an asterisks placeholder.

On page 34077, § 149.510(c)(5)(ii)(B), we inadvertently omitted the word “paragraph”.

On page 34077, § 149.510(c)(5)(iii)(D), we inadvertently referenced “(c)(4)(v)” rather than “(c)(5)(v)”.

On page 34077, § 149.510(c)(5)(vii)(A), we inadvertently included an asterisks placeholder.

On page 34077, § 149.510(c)(5)(vii)(C), we inadvertently italicized “(c)(5)(vii)( C )”.

On page 34078, § 149.510(c)(5)(vii), we inadvertently included an asterisks placeholder.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(1), we inadvertently included the word “revised”.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(3), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (c)(1) of that section.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(4), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) and paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), and (c)(4) of that section.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(5), we incorrectly formatted the cross-references to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) and (c)(5)(vii)(B) and (C) of that section.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(9), we incorrectly formatted the second cross-reference to paragraph (g) of that section.

On page 34079, § 149.510(h)(10), we inadvertently used the word “section” instead of the word “requirements” in a cross-reference to that section.

Due to the errors noted in this correcting amendment for § 149.510(c) and incomplete regulations text in the IDR final rule, we are including the regulations text for paragraph (c) in its entirety.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq. ), a general notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment is generally required before the promulgation of regulations. The APA also generally requires that a final rule be effective no sooner than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register .

Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. Similarly, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where good cause is found and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it.

The Departments are publishing this technical correction without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because notice and comment would be unnecessary under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Departments are also waiving the 30-day delay in effective date for these corrections because a delayed effective date would be contrary to the public interest under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

This document corrects technical and typographical errors made in the final rules, which were published in accordance with the APA after the Departments proposed the rules and provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposals. The corrections contained in this document do not make any substantive changes to the policies adopted in the final rules. Where this document makes technical and typographical corrections to the amendatory instructions of the regulations text and regulatory text, it makes no changes to any substantive requirements. Where this document makes substantive changes to the regulatory text to correct typographical errors, the changes reflect the policies described in the proposed and final rules which were subject to notice and comment as required under the APA. If the corrections in this document were proposed and subjected to notice and comment, there would be nothing of substance on which the public could comment. Therefore, the Departments find that notice and comment would be unnecessary and there is good cause to waive the notice and comment requirement under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The Departments are also waiving the 30-day delay in effective date for these corrections. It is in the public interest to ensure that the final rules setting forth requirements for group health plans, health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage, providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services relating to participation in the Federal IDR process accurately describe the Departments' policies as of the date they take effect. Therefore, the Departments find that delaying the effective date of these corrections beyond the August 3, 2026, effective date of the final rules would be contrary to the public interest. In doing so, the Departments find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 29 CFR part 2590 by making the following correcting amendments:

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR part 149 by making the following correcting amendments:

FMCS administers a Roster of Arbitrators and provides arbitration-related services under 29 CFR part 1404. Those regulations provide that voluntary arbitration and fact-finding are important means of resolving labor disputes and that OA administers requests for labor arbitration services. Current § 1404.9(b) states that a panel request, “whether joint or unilateral, will be honored,” while also stating that FMCS does not adopt any position on the status of an arbitration agreement, arbitrability of a dispute, or the terms of the parties' contract by issuing a panel or appointing an arbitrator. Current § 1404.10 similarly provides that the Office of Arbitration will not decide that a dispute is not subject to arbitration.

FMCS's authority is administrative and facilitative. Current § 1404.9(c) provides that FMCS has no power to compel parties to appear before an arbitrator, enforce an agreement to arbitrate, compel parties to arbitrate any issue, influence or set aside an arbitrator's decision, or compel, deny, or modify payment of compensation to an arbitrator. Current § 1404.9(d) also recognizes that the OA may decline to submit a panel or appoint an arbitrator if the request is overly burdensome or otherwise impracticable.

FMCS has determined that the current sentence stating that every joint or unilateral panel request “will be honored” could be misread as requiring FMCS to provide panels even where doing so would be inconsistent with law, a court order, or FMCS's statutory or regulatory authority. That was not the intended effect of the regulation. The proposed rule clarifies that FMCS retains authority to make limited threshold determinations concerning whether FMCS may lawfully provide the requested service.

FMCS's statutory authorities support that clarification. Section 203 of the Labor Management Relations Act authorizes FMCS to make services available to assist in the resolution of labor disputes and, in subsection (f), to make its services available to Federal agencies to aid in the resolution of disputes under subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, including by maintaining rosters of neutrals and arbitrators. Those services are subject to provisions in 5 U.S.C. 572(a) and 572(c) making clear that alternative dispute-resolution procedures are voluntary and require mutual consent. In the Federal-sector collective-bargaining context, 5 U.S.C. 7121 separately governs negotiated grievance procedures and provides that unresolved grievances under such procedures are subject to binding arbitration invoked by either the exclusive representative or the agency.

Recent executive orders excluding certain agencies or subdivisions from Federal labor-management relations have increased the likelihood that FMCS will receive requests for arbitration panels in circumstances where one party asserts that participation in the requested arbitration process is prohibited by law, court order or otherwise outside FMCS's statutory or regulatory authority. Executive Order 14251 excluded identified agencies and subdivisions from coverage under chapter 71 of title 5 based on the President's national security determinations, and directed agencies covered by the exclusion, upon termination of applicable collective-bargaining agreements, to terminate agency participation in any pending grievance proceedings under 5 U.S.C. 7121. FMCS recognizes that litigation concerning these matters may affect particular requests and that FMCS must administer its arbitration services consistent with applicable law and any court orders.

This rule therefore clarifies the limited screening role FMCS may perform before issuing a panel or making an appointment. Where a request presents a threshold question about FMCS's authority to provide the requested service, FMCS may seek information from the parties and may decline the request, hold the request in abeyance, or take another administratively appropriate action. FMCS's action on such a threshold question does not adjudicate the parties' underlying contractual, statutory, or arbitrability dispute. These changes reflect the longstanding principle that arbitration is voluntary and correct confusing and potentially misleading language in FMCS's current regulation.

This interim final rule amends 29 CFR part 1404, subpart C, which governs FMCS arbitration services, to clarify OA's authority to screen arbitration-panel and appointment requests before providing FMCS services. The rule preserves FMCS's existing role as an administrative provider of arbitration panels and appointments, but makes clear that FMCS is not required to issue a panel, make a direct appointment, or provide related arbitration services where doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law, a court order, or FMCS's statutory or regulatory authority.

The rule revises § 1404.9(b). Current § 1404.9(b) provides that, although parties are encouraged to make joint requests, a panel request “whether joint or unilateral, will be honored,” while also stating that issuance of a panel does not signify any FMCS position on the arbitration agreement, arbitrability, or contract terms.

The revised text retains the basic rule that, upon request, OA will refer a randomly selected panel of seven arbitrators to parties to an arbitration or fact-finding agreement, or where labor arbitration or fact-finding may be provided by statute. It also retains the requirement that each panel member's biographical sketch include the background, qualifications, experience, and fee information furnished to FMCS by the arbitrator.

The rule clarifies when a panel request may be unilateral and when joint authorization is required. Under the revised text, a request for a panel may be joint or unilateral unless part 1404, applicable law, or the parties' agreement requires joint authorization for the requested service. Requests for a panel of other than seven names, for direct appointment of an arbitrator, or for special qualifications or other special service continue to require joint submission or authorization by both parties pursuant to mutual agreement.

The rule adds a new limited threshold-inquiry provision. OA may conduct a limited threshold inquiry to determine whether issuing a panel, making a direct appointment, or providing related arbitration services would be inconsistent with applicable law, a court order, or FMCS's statutory or regulatory authority. In conducting that inquiry, OA may request the parties' agreement, a statutory provision, regulation, court order, written authorization, or other information needed to determine whether FMCS may provide the requested service.

Following that limited threshold inquiry, FMCS may issue the panel or appointment, decline to provide the requested service, hold the request in abeyance, or take another administratively appropriate action. The revised text further clarifies that FMCS's issuance of a panel or appointment, refusal to issue a panel or appointment, or decision to hold a request in abeyance does not decide the validity of any collective-bargaining agreement, the merits of any grievance, the arbitrability of any dispute, or the parties' rights or obligations under any agreement or law.

For example, the doctrine of sovereign immunity requires statutory authorization before an agency can engage in binding arbitration. Without such authorization agencies cannot be brought before an external tribunal. 1 Congress has provided statutory authorization for agencies to engage in binding arbitration in a number of contexts involving both private parties and Federal employees. 2 However, in situations where statutory authorization is not available, the executive branch's obligation to take care that the law is faithfully executed precludes FMCS from providing panels for unlawful arbitration proceedings. FMCS cannot facilitate constitutional violations.

Coast Guard regulations define “regatta or marine parade” as an organized water event of limited duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule. 33 CFR 100.05(a). And, as explained in 33 CFR 100.15, Coast Guard requires that an organization planning to hold a regatta or marine event apply for a permit if the event, by its nature, circumstances, or location, will introduce extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States. These permits may be approved by the Coast Guard, or by the state in which the event is to take place, if there is a Coast Guard-State agreement in place. See 33 CFR 100.10. Upon the approval of an application, the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) may promulgate such “Special Local Regulations” (SLR's) as he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the event. See 33 CFR 100.35(a).

On April 10, 2026, the Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Williamsburg Boat Club for a Marine Event Permit to host a 4-kilometer-long rowing event. The event will be held from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. on September 20, 2026, in Williamsburg, VA. The event will include approximately 400 participants.

The Captain of the Port Virginia (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the rowing event include the possibility of participants rowing within the navigable channel, as well as the possibility that participants will interfere with boaters within the Chickahominy River, and collisions between participants and nonparticipants. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, such as spectators and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to do so in the time since we received sufficient information to be able to publish a proposed rule, consider comments, issue a final rule, and leave thirty days after that for the rule to take effect by September 20, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.

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

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. on September 20, 2026. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the Chickahominy River between the Highway 5 Chickahominy River Bridge and Shields Point. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Alabama, and northwest Florida has the potential to be affected by hurricanes, tropical storms or other severe weather events on a yearly basis, especially between the months of June and November. These storms and other events create hazardous conditions in the port, including but not limited to damaging winds, storm surge and heavy waves, inaccurate or off-station aids-to-navigation, and the potential for navigational obstructions. The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish a permanent safety zone regulation to allow for quick activation of limited access areas needed to protect mariners, port infrastructure, and the environment before, during, and after extreme weather events. The COTP is establishing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation on June 5, 2026 (91 FR 34183). During the comment period that ended on July 6, 2026, we received zero comments.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone to be activated and enforced as needed to respond to hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events on navigable waters of the Coast Guard Sector Mobile COTP zone. This rule establishes actions to be completed by local industry and vessels in the Mobile COTP zone prior to landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events threatening the Mobile COTP zone. The safety zone consists of all navigable waters of the Mobile COTP zone, as prescribed in 33 CFR 3.40-10. However, for each particular hurricane or tropical storm, the specific restricted areas may be smaller and comprise only a portion of the Sector Mobile COTP zone. The area being enforced, along with the enforcement dates and times, would be announced to the public in advance by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other public advisories.

There are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this final rule from the NPRM. There is a technical change in the regulation number from 165.847 in the NPRM to 165.849 in this final rule.

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to operate within the safety zone area, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The restrictions associated with this regulation will only be enforced for short periods of time during heavy weather when vessel operations are already restricted primarily by environmental factors.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

This rule involves a safety zone that will require certain actions from vessel and facility operators, during period prior to, during, and following hurricanes, tropical storms, or other severe weather events. 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 Event 1, in Table 4 to § 165.929, on September 5, 2026, from 10:15 p.m. to 11 p.m. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this land-based fireworks display. Our regulation for annual marine events requiring safety zones within the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone specifies the location of the safety zone, which encompasses a portion of Milwaukee Harbor and Lakeshore Inlet. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.929(a), vessels may not enter, move within, or exit the safety zone unless granted permission by the Captain of the Port or designated representative.

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.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . . ” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider, among other things, “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0286 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 27, 2026.

EPA's Administrative Law Judges Division (ALJD), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,” dated December 3, 2025, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-12/2025-12-03-order-urging-electronic-filing-and-service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the ALJD electronically, a person should utilize the e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab/eab-alj_upload.nsf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

In the Federal Register of July 3, 2025 (90 FR 29515) (FRL-12474-05-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11962) by TSG Consulting on behalf of Elicit Plant S.A.S, 1 Passage de la Croix, Lieu-dit le chataignier, 16220 Moulins-sur-tardoire, France. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates (CAS Reg. No. 84066-95-5) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre-harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Elicit Plant S.A.S, which is available in the docket. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is establishing an exemption limiting the concentration of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates to no more than 12% of the final pesticide formulation to decrease any potential for surfactant effects on the respiratory system.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates, including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

The toxicological database of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates is supported by data regarding several other mixtures of sucrose esters of fatty acids which have similar compositions and are manufactured by inter-esterification of sucrose with fatty acids derived from edible vegetable oils and fats (stearic acid and palmitic acid). These include fatty acids, C16-18 (even numbered), mono diesters with sucrose; Ryoto Sugar Ester S-570; and Ryoto Sugar Ester S-1170. EPA has determined that it is appropriate to bridge data from these three compounds to assess alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates due to similarities in the manufacturing processes and composition.

Based on the available toxicity studies, alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates is anticipated to have low overall toxicity. Physico-chemical properties suggest low potential for dermal toxicity. Studies with surrogate chemicals showed low acute toxicity via the oral route, and low potential for skin irritation or sensitization. Alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates may be irritating to the eye.

There is a general concern regarding the disruption of natural surfactants in the lungs from inhalation of chemicals with surfactant properties. EPA lacks acute inhalation toxicity data for alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates to determine whether it may cause such effects. However, the chemical's physico-chemical properties suggest low potential for inhalation toxicity. Moreover, EPA is establishing a tolerance exemption with a 12% concentration limitation to reduce exposure, which EPA believes will also reduce any potential for such effects.

Read-across information did not identify adverse effects in a subchronic study, a combined developmental/reproductive toxicity study, or a chronic/carcinogenicity study. There was also no evidence of mutagenicity. Therefore, concern for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity is low. Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies are not available for review. However, no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was observed in the available studies.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level, generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose or a reference dose, and a safe margin of exposure. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.

The hazard profile of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates is adequately defined. Overall, alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates is of low acute, subchronic, and developmental toxicity. No systemic toxicity is observed up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of toxicity were not observed, no toxicological endpoints of concern or PODs were identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment for alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates can be performed.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and existing uses. EPA assessed dietary exposures from alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates in food as follows:

Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from their use in accordance with this exemption. Dietary exposure also may occur following ingestion of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates when used as a food additive. Although alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates itself is not a food additive authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, similar sucrose esters of fatty acids, meeting the criteria outlined in 21 CFR 172.859 and 21 CFR 172.869, are authorized for use as emulsifiers, stabilizers, and texturizers in various food products ( e.g., chewing gum, coffee, beverages, sauces, meat, and seafood). However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

Alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates may be present in pesticide and non-pesticide products ( e.g., cosmetics) that may be used in and around the home. However, a quantitative residential exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Based on the lack of toxicity in the available database, EPA has not found alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Based on an assessment of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects associated with alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates that may be used in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 12% alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates in the final pesticide formulation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of alpha-d-glucopyranoside, beta-d-fructofuranosyl, mixed palmitates and stearates (CAS Reg. No. 84066-95-5) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920 at no more than 12% of the final pesticide formulation.

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

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to the APA but is subject to FFDCA section 408(d), which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action in response to a petition.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (see Unit IV.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

However, EPA's 2026 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide-specific registration review documents, located in the applicable docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This document and all comments may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Improvement of regulations is a continuous focus for DOT and MARAD. For that reason, DOT and MARAD regularly and deliberately review their rules in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Oct. 4, 1993), section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 49 CFR part 5, and DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings. That process is summarized in Appendix D of DOT's semi-annual regulatory agenda. In addition, E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025), directed agencies to scrutinize their regulations to reduce unnecessary costs, clear barriers to emerging technology, and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.

MARAD is evaluating the continued accuracy of its rules and determining whether they address current issues and provide the regulated public with sound guidance. Accordingly, MARAD has identified its Title XI Program regulations governing applications and administrative procedures for consideration.

The Maritime Administrator is authorized to provide guarantees of debt (loan guarantees) to finance all types of U.S.-flagged vessel construction (except for fishing vessels) and shipyard modernization and improvement. The Title XI Program was established under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, Public Law 74-835, as amended, and codified at 46 U.S.C. ch. 537 (the Act). The Title XI Program provides for the full faith and credit guarantee of the United States, acting by and through the Maritime Administrator, for the payment of debt obligations to: (1) U.S. shipowners for the purpose of financing or refinancing U.S. flag vessels constructed, reconstructed, repaired, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S. shipyards for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology and modern shipbuilding technology of a privately-owned shipyard facility located in the U.S. Because the Title XI Program guarantees full payment of the obligation's unpaid principal and interest in the event of a default by the borrower, both the statute and regulations contain several criteria and requirements intended to reduce the risk of a loan default.

This interim final rule revises the Title XI regulations found at 46 CFR part 298. To assist owners and operators of United States flagged vessels and shipyard owners, MARAD is revising the entire regulation, which has remained substantially unchanged since 1978. The rule modernizes the regulations and is intended to provide clarity to improve administrative efficiencies and result in net cost savings to the public and the Federal Government. A summary of the changes includes the following:

Revisions to correct numerous citations in accordance with the codification of the Act into 46 U.S.C. ch. 537, improve accessibility by modernizing text, remove obsolete references, improve processing times for projects, and provide a mechanism to prioritize applications for expedited application approval.

Updates to the Title XI Program regulations are intended to simplify application requirements and provide applicants and participants with a better understanding of MARAD expectations for program participation. The interim final rule eliminates 14 of the current rule's 34 sections. Moreover, the current rule does not conform to modern credit standards or accurately reflect the current process for evaluating applications. At the time the Title XI Program regulations were first promulgated in 1978, Federal credit standards for agencies did not exist. This interim final rule incorporates modern Office of Management and Budget (OMB) credit program requirements  1 that mitigate the U.S. Government's risk associated with a credit default.

MARAD loan agreements provide for a variety of applicants and projects and include a number of component documents. Terms and conditions found in the regulations are being removed and instead provided for in MARAD's published loan agreement documents. The application forms (MA-163 and MA-163A), and the borrower loan agreement documents are found on MARAD's website at https://www.maritime.dot.gov/grants-finances/title-xi/title-xi-applications.

Fee reductions have been made to encourage greater program participation. The current regulation has a $5,000 application fee. MARAD believes that a reduced application fee of $1,000 will lower barriers to entry for certain participants with limited resources for capital investment. In addition, changes in the rule include the restructuring of the former investigation fee (renamed the commitment fee), which will benefit applicants by eliminating unnecessarily high initial costs for larger projects.

Lastly, MARAD is removing text that is no longer supported by statutory authority. For example, MARAD no longer performs financing of eligible export vessels. Thus, the related regulatory text is being removed.

MARAD has analyzed this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) and determined that it has good cause to waive the prior opportunity for notice and comment and delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). MARAD nonetheless seeks comment on this interim final rule and will consider comments received in issuing any final rule.

Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), an agency may waive the requirements for notice and public procedure when it finds, for good cause, that such procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” MARAD finds that the notice and comment process is unnecessary in this instance. The revisions do not impose new, substantive requirements on the public; rather, they codify existing administrative processes, statutory updates, and established Federal fiscal practices. The changes largely involve:

• Clarification and Modernization: Relocating existing information to provide a more logical and accessible guide for program applicants.

• Statutory Alignment: Updating the rule to reflect legislative changes.

• Fiscal Safeguards: Incorporating standard OMB credit program requirements, which are necessary to mitigate the risk of default and protect the U.S. Government's interests. These standards represent universal best practices in Federal financing.

Because the rule merely conforms existing regulations to current statutory requirements and adopts standard Federal credit oversight practices, it does not represent a discretionary policy shift that would benefit from public input. These substantive policy choices, as the parameters of these updates, are driven by law and government-wide fiscal standards. Accordingly, MARAD finds that notice and comment are unnecessary and the application of the 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) “good cause” exception is warranted. For similar reasons, MARAD finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this rule to take immediate effect.

Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, MARAD seeks comment in response to this interim final rule in determining how to proceed with any final rule. Any final rule may differ from today's rule in response to comments received. Comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule. MARAD is interested in information concerning whether the rule will be comprehensive and effective at ensuring that all qualified vessel operators may overcome potential obstacles to admission.

Comments must be submitted on or before the date indicated in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. MARAD believes that the 60-day comment period will allow commenters sufficient time to address any issues raised by the interim final rule and still meet the national security demands contemplated. See “Public Participation” section below.

We are providing a 60-day comment period.

To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.

Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto http://www.regulations.gov. Search using the docket number and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above-entitled heading ADDRESSES .

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage commenters to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/02/22/R2-59/guidelines-for-ensuring-and-maximizing-the-quality-objectivity-utility-and-integrity-of-information. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/513/dot-information-quality-guidelines-2019.pdf.

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

MARAD will consider all comments that the Docket Management Office receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under the DATES section of this rule. To the extent possible, MARAD will also consider comments received after that date. If the Docket Management Office receives a comment too late for MARAD to consider in developing this action, MARAD will consider that comment as an informal suggestion in future rulemaking actions.

You may read the comments received by the Docket Management Office at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket Management Office are indicated above in the same location. However, you may also see the comments posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Go to the website and follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that, even after the comment closing date, MARAD will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

MARAD is redesignating the section numbers and making updates to incorporate statutory changes; apply current credit lending best practices; and modernize regulatory language intended for simplicity, clarity, and brevity.

The interim final rule revises 46 CFR part 298 into 20 consecutive sections and removes subpart headings. Where noted, the rule identifies sections to be eliminated as obsolete or burdensome, or where MARAD no longer administers relevant statutory authority. In addition, static and duplicative language found in the regulations is removed and instead provided for in MARAD's published forms of application or as terms within the borrower loan agreement documents. The applications and the borrower loan agreement documents are found on MARAD's website at https://www.maritime.dot.gov/grants/title-xi/closing-documents.

Section 298.1 Purpose.

Identifies the purpose of the regulation for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.3 Definitions.

Groups all definitions into one section to improve overall readability.

Section 298.5 General Credit Standards and Requirements. (Formerly, Section 298.3 Applications)

Identifies the credit standards and eligibility requirements for loan guarantee applications and summarizes the credit standards and eligibility requirements into one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.7 Qualifications.

Consolidates qualification requirements ( e.g., citizenship requirements) for loan applications into one section for clarity and improved accessibility. Also details the requirements for applying for a Title XI loan guarantee.

Section 298.9 Prioritization of application.

Explicitly defines the prioritized application process for clarity and improved accessibility. Defines objectives of the program to clarify the intention of the statutory provision.

Section 298.11 Initial due diligence and approval

Defines MARAD's due diligence approval process for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.13 Closings.

Defines loan closing requirements; consolidates loan closing language into one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.15 Vessel project requirements.

Consolidates vessel project language into one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.17 Shipyard projects requirements.

Consolidates shipyard project language into one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.19 Actual Cost. (Formerly, Section 298.110 Citizenship).

Defines actual cost for vessels and shipyards to improve clarity and accessibility.

Section 298.21 Foreign components. (Formerly, Section 298.11 Vessel Requirements).

Transfers the foreign component reporting and waiver requirements into a separate section for clarity and improved accessibility and inserts modern language for conformity to the statute. Also, to ensure that guarantee approvals are not delayed pending the review of waivers, the new regulation provides that a foreign component waiver may be granted post approval.

Section 298.23 Fees. (Formerly, Section 298.12 Applicant and operator's qualifications).

Consolidates all fees into one section. The commitment fee replaces the investigation fee. It also aligns the guarantee fee with the credit subsidy fee, both of which are calculated the same way.

Section 298.25 Dual-use CCF. (Formerly, Section 298.13 Financial requirements).

Sets forth the dual-use Capital Construction Fund (CCF) as a standalone section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.27 Refinancing. (Formerly, Section 298.14 Economic soundness).

Modernizes language for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.29 Financing a vessel more than a year after delivery. (Formerly, Section 298.15 Investigation fee).

Modernizes language for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.31 Advances. (Formerly, Section 298.16 Substitution of participants).

Makes minor and non-substantive revisions for clarity.

Section 298.33 Recourse against parties. (Formerly, Section 298.17 Evaluation of applications).

Incorporates language from the statute within one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.35 Mortgage. (Formerly, Section 298.18 Financing Shipyard Projects).

Modernizes language for clarity and improved accessibility.

Section 298.37 Vessels of national interest. (Formerly, Section 298.19 Financing Eligible Export Vessels).

Defines vessels of national interest for conformity to the statute.

Section 298.39 Default and liquidation. (Formerly, Section 298.20 Term, redemptions, and interest rate).

Consolidates default and liquidation language into one section for clarity and improved accessibility.

Former Section 298.21 Limits.

Cost basis requirements were transferred to section 298.3 for ease of readability and accessibility.

Former Section 298.22 Amortization of obligations.

Certain requirements were transferred to section 298.3 for ease of readability and accessibility.

Former Section 298.23 Refinancing.

The rule moves refinancing language to section 298.14.

Former Section 298.24 Financing a vessel more than a year after delivery.

Section eliminated because language pertaining to financing a vessel more than one year after delivery was relocated to section 298.15.

Former Section 298.25 Excess interest or other consideration.

Text is obsolete, outdated, and does not conform to current Title XI Program general credit standards and Federal Financing Bank (FFB) lending requirements. Risk premium language has been added to the rule's definition of interest stated within section 298.2.

Former Section 298.26 Lease payments.

Lease payment language relocated to the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.27 Advances.

Language pertaining to advances relocated to section 298.16.

Former Section 298.30 Nature and content of obligations.

Text is obsolete and unnecessary because lease payment language is in the borrower loan agreement. Additionally, the Title XI Program uses FFB as the preferred lender.

Former Section 298.31 Mortgage.

The rule transfers mortgage language to section 298.35.

Former Section 298.32 Required provisions in documentation.

Required provisions are found in the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.33 Escrow fund.

Escrow fund language is in the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.34 [Reserved].

Removes all sections titled “Reserved” throughout text for simplicity and brevity.

Former Section 298.35 Title XI Reserve Fund and Financial Agreement.

Title XI Reserve Fund and Financial Agreement language is found in the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.36 Guarantee fee.

Removed obsolete language and redundancy. Within the rule, all Title XI Program fee language is consolidated into section 298.12 for clarity and improved accessibility. The fee language aligns the guarantee fee with the credit subsidy fee; both calculated using similar methodology.

Former Section 298.37 Examination and audit.

The examination and audit language is found in the Title XI Program loan agreement.

Former Section 298.38 Partnership agreements and limited liability company agreements.

Language pertaining to partnerships and limited liability companies has been partly relocated to section 298.7 and partly incorporated into the Title XI Program loan agreement.

Former Section 298.39 Exemptions.

Current text language is outdated and unnecessary.

Former Section 298.40 Defaults.

Loan default language is transferred to section 298.20.

Former Section 298.41 Remedies after default.

The “remedies after default language” is found in the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.42 Reporting requirements-financial statements.

Reporting requirements pertaining to the financial statements are found in the borrower loan agreement.

Former Section 298.43 Applicability of the regulations.

Text was deleted as obsolete and unnecessary.

This interim final rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and therefore the rule was reviewed by the OMB. The rule is not considered a major rule for purposes of congressional review under the Congressional Review Act. This rule is limited to updating administrative criteria, conforming to statutory requirements, updating citations, addresses, and modernizing text.

A complete revision of the regulations is necessary to address the effects of time for an implementing regulation that has remained substantially unchanged for 40 years. Through this proposed revision, MARAD also incorporates changes to reflect statutory changes from the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020 (NDAA 2020). Specifically, the NDAA 2020 repealed 46 U.S.C. 53732, removing eligible export vessels from Title XI participation. The NDAA 2020 also added 46 U.S.C. 53719, which established the use of best practices. In addition, the NDAA 2020 updated 46 U.S.C. 53703(c)(1)(C) and (D) to require MARAD to recommend that certain financial covenants or financial ratios are met by applicants. These updates represent important changes that will better reflect how MARAD administers the program in the modern era.

Under the no action baseline, applicants may overlook the Title XI program as a financing option because the existing regulations are out of step with typical Federal credit programs.

The revised rule does not impose any new or additional compliance requirements or costs. The rule will not create new substantive requirements. Many of the revisions are intended to conform with statutory updates and some are simply incorporating best business practices. The revised rule will apply current credit lending best practices and use modern regulatory language intended for simplicity, clarity, and brevity. Improvements are expected to result in administrative efficiencies and welcomed parity with other Federal credit programs which together should build applicant confidence in the program.

Improved administrative efficiency and modern best practices will make the rule and the program more accessible and attractive to industry. As a result, the Title XI program should garner better prepared program participants that can best use the program for the benefit of the maritime sector.

This rule will reduce application fees from $5,000 to $1,000. These application fees are transfer payments and are not classified as benefits or costs.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule is a de minimis action and is therefore neither regulatory nor deregulatory under E.O. 14192.

MARAD analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, Federalism, and has determined that it has no substantial effect on the States, on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, MARAD did not consult with State and local officials on this rulemaking and did not prepare a Federalism summary impact statement.

This rulemaking, in which MARAD revises its regulations implementing the Title XI Program financial and programmatic requirements to implement statutory changes and update the existing financial requirements imposed on Title XI Program participants, will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., rules that are exempt from notice and comment under the APA are also exempt from the RFA analytical requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Because, as discussed above, this rule is exempt from the APA notice and comment requirements, MARAD is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rulemaking improves participation by incorporating modern credit best practices, defining Program participation fees, and reducing the application fee. It does not result in personally identifiable information (PII) being collected or maintained in a Government-run website or IT system. Therefore, MARAD did not conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $206 million or more (as adjusted for inflation in 2025) in any one year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This action will not result in additional expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the Agency has not prepared an assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The regulation provides Title XI Program applicants with a restructured regulation with modernized language for clarity to improve administrative efficiencies for both the applicant and Title XI Program staff, resulting in net cost savings to the public and the Government.

MARAD believes the interim final rule reduces an applicant's paperwork burden by: (1) eliminating obsolete application submission requirements; (2) providing updated language that organizes and clarifies the text of both the vessel and shipyard applications to mitigate the risk of an incomplete or erroneous application submission; and (3) including the expedited application approval process for applicants wishing to receive prioritization of an application. MARAD collects Title XI Program applicant data using a vessel application (MA-163) and shipyard application (MA-163A) when performing the OMB approved information collection. The applications were most recently approved in April 2025 (OMB Control Number 2133-0018 [Title XI Program Obligation Guarantees—46 CFR part 298]; expiration Apr. 30, 2028). During FY 2024, MARAD modernized the application language and modernized the data collection process by incorporating electronic submission capability. Information submitted by applicants to the Program will continue to be used to evaluate an applicant's project and capabilities, make the required determinations, and administer any agreements executed upon approval of loan guarantees. Therefore, the rulemaking relies on the existing information collected under OMB control number 2133-0018.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number.

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

The initial fishing periods for the 2026 fishery occurred June 23-25 and July 7-9, 2026, with fishing period limits ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 lb (0.907 to 2.268 mt), varying by vessel size class. Third and fourth fishing periods were added through inseason actions on July 20, 2026 (91 FR 45224) and August 6, 2026 (91 FR 50726), respectively. The third fishing period occurred between July 21 and 23, 2026 and the fourth occurred between August 18 and August 20, 2026. Both periods had 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) fishing period limits for all vessels. Landings information to date indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant another additional fishing period without exceeding the allocation. Approximately 209,796 lb (71 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 261,211 lb (118 mt) allocation (80 percent), through August 25, 2026, leaving 51,415 lb (47 mt) remaining (20 percent).

NMFS is implementing an additional fishing period via inseason in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Consistent with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(ii), and the final rule for the 2026 fishery, fishing period limits for any additional fishing period(s) implemented through inseason action will be equal across vessel size classes and developed based on the estimated remaining allocation to date, projected participation, and catch rates.

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

This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning September 1, at 8 a.m. PDT and ending on September 3, at 6 p.m. PDT. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes, during this fishing period.

On August 25, 2026, notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected public.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this inseason action because the public had an opportunity to comment on the final rule implementing the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A. The final rule specifically provided that additional fishing periods and fishing period limits may be set through inseason action during the 2026 fishing season, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), if another fishing period(s) is deemed necessary to attain the 2026 allocation. The final rule further specified that NMFS would implement additional 58-hour fishing periods every 2 weeks, and that if a fishing period could not be scheduled in time it would take place on the next 2-week interval. The fifth fishing period would follow this pattern, beginning 2 weeks after the fourth fishing period on September 1, 2026, at 8 a.m. PDT and closing on September 3, 2026, at 6 p.m. PDT. The final rule for the 2026 non-Tribal directed commercial fishery was subject to notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, the public had specific notice and an opportunity to comment on NMFS' intent to implement inseason action to open this fifth fishing period for the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery during that rulemaking process.

Additionally, the California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provide estimated harvest data to NMFS in season, tracking the estimated catch of Pacific halibut within the fishery to date. As of August 25, 2026, the Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery caught an estimated 80 percent of the fishery's 2026 allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years, to determine whether additional fishing periods are necessary to reach the fishery's annual allocation, and to set fishing period limits for any additional fishing periods set through inseason action. Given that harvest in the first four fishing periods for the 2026 fishery is estimated to be below the allocation, a fifth fishing period is considered necessary to maximize the opportunity and likelihood that the fishery will attain its 2026 allocation.

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

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

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

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2026 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 721 mt as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026) and reallocation (91 FR 16583, April 2, 2026).

The 2026 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI is 234 mt as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026).

The 2026 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 3,272 mt as established by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026) and reallocation (91 FR 16583, April 2, 2026). NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) effective February 3, 2026 (91 FR 5244, February 5, 2026).

The Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 711 mt of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear will not be able to harvest 224 mt of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 3 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and (a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS reallocates 711 mt of Pacific cod from the jig vessels to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), NMFS reallocates 224 mt of Pacific cod from the catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

The harvest specifications for 2026 Pacific cod included in final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026) and reallocation (91 FR 16583, April 2, 2026) are revised as follows: 10 mt to vessels using jig gear, 10 mt to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear, and 4,207 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

As a result of the reallocation of Pacific cod to catcher vessel less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, NMFS has determined that as of August 25, 2026, approximately 422 mt of Pacific cod remain in the 2026 Pacific cod allocation for catcher vessel less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), NMFS is terminating the previous closure to prevent the underharvest of TAC and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI to allow for the full use of the available Pacific cod TAC in the BSAI. The Regional Administrator considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of Pacific cod, including by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI; (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery; and (3) the remaining Pacific cod TAC available for harvest in the fishing year.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data on Pacific cod catch in a timely fashion, would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and would not allow for the full harvest of the Pacific cod TACs by the sector with harvesting capability in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data for Pacific cod catch by those sectors harvesting Pacific cod in the BSAI, as well as the potential capability to harvest reallocated Pacific cod this fall, only became available as of August 25, 2026.

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the BSAI prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2026 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 480 metric tons by the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (91 FR 11750, March 10, 2026).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that this directed fishing allowance has been or will be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery to prevent exceeding this sector's allocation of Pacific ocean perch in the CAI. While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishing in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on Pacific ocean perch harvest in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access sector only became available as of August 25, 2026.

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.