This final rule affecting the Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order (7 CFR part 1212) (Order) is authorized by the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act).

This action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This rule amends an existing research and promotion program and is necessary for the continued operation of the Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order. Additionally, this action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

This action was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions will have Tribal implications. AMS determined this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, or the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This action was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” The Act provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

Under section 519 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) stating the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order, is not established in accordance with the law and requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the order. Any petition filed challenging the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order, shall be filed within 2 years after the effective date of the order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the Secretary will issue a ruling on the petition. The Act provides the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the Secretary's final ruling.

Under the Order, the National Honey Board (NHB or Board) administers a nationally coordinated program of research, promotion, and information designed to strengthen the honey industry's position in the marketplace, and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for honey and honey products. To fund the program, § 1212.52 authorizes the Board to collect assessments on first handlers and importers who handle and/or import more than 250,000 pounds of honey or honey products per calendar year.

Currently, first handlers and importers who handle and/or import more than 250,000 pounds per calendar year pay $0.015 per pound of assessable honey and honey products. The Order specifies that first handlers are responsible for paying the assessment to the Board on all domestically produced honey and honey products the first handler handles. Producers who are first handlers are responsible for paying the assessment to the Board. Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on all honey and honey products imported into the United States through the United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP).

The assessment rate has changed only once since the program was established in 2008. In 2015, the assessment rate increased from $0.01 to the current rate of $0.015. Pursuant to § 1212.52(f), the Board may recommend to the Secretary an assessment change as it deems appropriate by at least two-thirds vote of members present at a meeting of the Board. Additionally, the Order specifies the recommendation may not increase the assessment by more than $0.02 per pound and by more than $0.0025 in any single fiscal year.

This final rule amends § 1212.52(a) by increasing the assessment rate from $0.015 per pound to $0.0175 per pound, effective September 1, 2026, and establishes an increase to $0.02 per pound, effective January 1, 2027.

The Board first discussed this recommendation at their spring 2024 meeting. In June 2024, the Board shared the potential of an assessment increase at the National Honey Packers and Dealers Association (NHPDA) meeting. The NHPDA voted to request NHB raise the assessments to $0.02. The Board met on October 25, 2024, and voted 9 in favor to 1 opposed to recommend the assessment increase from $0.015 cents to $0.02 cents per pound of assessable honey.

Since the last assessment change in 2015, inflation in the U.S. has risen 36%. When applying this increase across costs for staffing, promotion, and research, it significantly affects the Board's budget and contracts with agency partners. Although NHB's assessment revenue has only increased slightly since 2023, inflation and the cost of conducting business have outpaced it. Consequently, the Board's effectiveness is compromised due to the loss of purchasing power, which limits implementation of necessary promotion and research projects.

The Board's budget also continues to be constrained by rising reimbursement requests on imported organic honey. Pursuant to § 1212.53(c), products that are 100 percent organic, as defined by the National Organic Program, may be exempt from assessments under the Order. Customs collects assessments on all imported honey and honey products, meaning importers must request a reimbursement from the NHB for any certified organic honey that was assessed. Aside from the costs incurred to process these reimbursement requests, the Board must set aside substantial funds for reimbursements requested throughout the fiscal year and 90 days into the next fiscal year as required in § 1212.53(e)(1). This causes the Board to be more conservative with promotion and research efforts to ensure funds are available to reimburse these assessments. By increasing assessments, the Board will fund promotion and research efforts with less concern of having to move funds to cover reimbursement requests for certified organic honey.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate on importers and handlers of honey to $0.02 per pound of honey. Based on the calculated volume of honey assessed in 2024, described below, the increased assessment rate would add $2.99 million to the program's budget, with $2.42 million being paid by importers and $567,782 paid by handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly to all first handlers and importers who handle or import an amount of honey above the de minimis threshold of 250,000 pounds. This action increases the assessment imposed on first handlers and importers but does not disproportionately burden small domestic first handlers and importers.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small agricultural producers of honey as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.25 million (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS code 112910, Apiculture)) (13 CFR 121.201), and small agricultural service firms (first handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34 million (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities except Cotton Ginning). 1

The Board reported there were 95 importers and 34 first handlers of honey and honey products covered under the program during the 2024 fiscal period. Total assessments for 2024 were $8.96 million, of which 81 percent was paid by importers and 19 percent was paid by first handlers. This data can be used to estimate the average annual revenue from honey sales of importers and first handlers along with determining the number of these considered to be small businesses based on the SBA definitions.

Of total paid assessments in 2024, importers paid $7.26 million, and first handlers paid $1.70 million. The amount of honey assessed in pounds can be calculated by dividing 2024 assessment values by the 2024 assessment rate of $0.015 per pound. This results in assessed honey volumes of 484.11 million pounds for importers and 113.56 million pounds for first handlers. Based on analysis of the CBP Automated Customs Entry (ACE) importer data, the 2024 average importer price for honey was $5.34 per pound. Little data is available regarding handler prices; therefore, USDA used this estimated importer price as a proxy for handler price for the purposes of this RFA. Multiplying the estimated importer and handler price of $5.34 per pound by the 2024 assessed volumes results in estimated 2024 total revenues for assessed entities of $2.59 billion for the 95 assessed importers and $606.39 million for the 34 assessed handlers. Assuming equal distribution of revenues, per entity annual receipts would be $27.21 million per importer and $17.83 million per handler, both of which are below the SBA threshold for a small business, which calls for annual receipts no greater than $34 million.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Order have been approved under OMB control number 0581-0093. This final rule does not require changes to the current information collection. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or requirements on either small or large importers or first handlers of honey. As with all Federal research and promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

Regarding alternatives, the Board considered not making these changes to the Order and leaving it as-is. If the Order were left unchanged, operational costs and services provided by the Board would have continued to be issues that could have resulted in the Board failing to cover its expenses through assessments as prescribed in § 1212.52(a). After considering these potential issues, the Board decided against leaving the Order unchanged.

Regarding outreach efforts, the Board discussed the assessment rate change at its meetings throughout 2024. Board staff also traveled to industry events, like the NHPDA meeting, to garner feedback and gauge support. On October 25, 2024, the Board voted to recommend the assessment rate change to the Secretary. The members who voted represent producers, handlers, importers, and the industry marketing cooperative.

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2026 (91 FR 11189). A copy of the proposed rulemaking was also made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending April 8, 2026, was provided for interested parties to respond to the rule as proposed. AMS received 58 comments, and of the 58 comments received: one comment remains unposted as it is both out of scope of this rulemaking and contains sensitive personally identifiable information; 39 opposing comments were from industry members not known to be subject to the Order; 13 supportive comments were from stakeholders subject to the Order and members of the public; one opposing comment was from a first handler subject to the Order; one was neutral; and a further three submissions had no written comment.

Some commenters asserted that the Board's promotional activities, including materials featuring foreign honey origins, disproportionately benefit imported honey and therefore harm domestic beekeepers. AMS reviews all promotional materials to ensure compliance with legislative authority, USDA policy, and the Guidelines for AMS Oversight of Commodity Research and Promotion Programs. AMS must deny any promotion seen as disparaging to any market segment, producer, importer, handler, competing product, or other agricultural commodity. Additionally, promotion that is false or misleading to consumers and anything outside the scope of Board-authorized activities is prohibited. As required by § 1212.47(e), the Board must generically promote honey and create a favorable image of honey and honey products to the public and food industry as part of its mission to maintain, develop, and expand domestic and foreign markets. AMS therefore concludes that generic promotion, as required under the Act and Order, effectuates the purpose, mission, and goal of the program.

Some commenters claimed the assessment rate increase will harm domestic beekeepers who are already facing market pressures, rising labor costs, pest pressures, and low honey prices. It is important to note that most small-scale and hobbyist beekeepers are not subject to the Order and therefore do not pay assessments to the Board. Beekeepers' economic burden argument does not reflect a regulatory burden imposed by the assessment increase, because they do not pay assessments unless they are also a first handler subject to the Order, which none of the 39 opposing commenters indicated. Therefore, AMS does not expect domestic beekeepers to be harmed by this rule.

Several commenters request AMS remove the organic exemption or apply assessments only to imported honey. The exemption of organic products, established in § 1212.53(c), is in accordance with USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) (7 CFR part 205), as amended by Exemption of Organic Products from Assessment Under a Commodity Promotion Law, 80 FR 82006 (Dec. 31, 2015), effective February 29, 2016. The amendment was required by section 10004 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79). Therefore, removing or changing the exemption is outside the scope and authority of this rule.

Several commenters argued, unrelated to the merits of the rule, that promotional activities should cease and funds instead be diverted to bee health research, sustainability, or authenticity testing. The Board currently funds nutrition, market, and production research and is required to invest no less than five percent (5%) of their anticipated annual assessment revenue into production research per the Order. The Board has full discretion, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to allocate funds.

Several commentors discussed increasing Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) testing for all imported honey, and destruction of fraudulent products. These recommendations are outside the scope of this action.

One neutral comment was submitted by the National Honey Board and offered an alternative effective date if the June 1, 2026, date was not met by the USDA and AMS. Their suggestion is to execute the first increase on first day of the following month after publication in the Federal Register , for example July 1st, 2026, August 1st, 2026, and so on, and keeping the second increase effective date of January 1, 2027. AMS agrees with this approach. Accordingly, after review and consideration of all comments received, AMS makes changes to the effective date of the initial assessment rate increase.

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1212 as follows:

I. Background

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires, before an agency promulgates a regulation through informal rulemaking, a “notice of proposed rule making” to be published in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The agency then must “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation.” 5 U.S.C. 553(c). These strictures, however, do not apply to matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

In 1974, the Small Business Administration (SBA) promulgated a regulation at 13 CFR 101.9 titled “Public participation in rulemaking” that provided, in part, that, “SBA is governed as a matter of policy by the public participation provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, notwithstanding the exemptions given by such section 553 for matters relating to agency management or personnel, or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” See 39 FR 43815, December 19, 1974. This rule was subsequently redesignated and revised in 1996 to § 101.108 titled “Has SBA waived any of the public participation exemptions of the Administrative Procedure Act?” which states, “Yes. Despite these exemptions, SBA will follow the public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, in rulemakings relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” See 61 FR 2394, January 26, 1996.

The SBA has decided to rescind the policy in § 101.108. Upon reconsideration and in the Agency's discretion, the SBA has decided that it is proper to return to the text of the APA regarding its enumerated exceptions for matters relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. The SBA has a new policy of acting more nimbly in response to changing circumstances and this rescission will allow for that. To the extent public participation is determined to be advantageous, the SBA may still request public comments through notices of proposed rulemaking. The SBA will continue to comply with the APA's notice and comment requirements where required and otherwise has discretion to seek public input through whatever means it determines appropriate.

This rule is exempt from the prior notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is a general statement of policy. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This policy was originally published in the Federal Register as a notice from the Administrator, 36 FR 16716 (August 25, 1971), and only subsequently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations as an organizational matter, 39 FR 43815 (December 19, 1974). Alternatively, it is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice because it is not binding on outside parties and only affects the manner in which they may present their views to the agency. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Further, because it is not a substantive rule, and because it relieves a restriction, this rule is exempt from the APA's requirement of a 30-day delay in the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Office of Management and Budget determined that this rule will be a “significant regulatory action,” and therefore, is subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, dated September 30, 1993. Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to OMB for review.

This rule rescinds 13 CFR 101.108, an SBA policy that voluntarily imposed APA notice-and-comment procedures even where such procedures were not legally required. The rescission returns the SBA to the default rulemaking requirements of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), aligning internal procedure with statute and eliminating SBA's self-imposed procedural burden. The rule has the primary benefit of increasing regulatory efficiency and responsiveness by removing an internal requirement that is not required by law, which slows down regulatory and deregulatory actions. Specifically, removing the requirement to solicit comments on rulemakings involving public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts:

• Allows policy changes and their associated benefits to be implemented more quickly, enhancing agility in responding to evolving programmatic or operational needs in areas where Congress has given the SBA broad discretion.

• Streamlines agency decision-making for programs relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.

• Saves staff time and resources that would otherwise be devoted to preparing, publishing, and responding to public comments.

The benefits of more quickly adopting new policy changes cannot be quantified as they will depend on the impact of future rules which are unknown. Depending on the nature of future proposed rules, quicker policy adoption may benefit the Administration, the general public, or both. The benefits of the rule are also expected to result in streamlined decision-making and meaningful reductions in implementation costs and time burdens for the SBA, some of which are difficult to quantify. The cost savings of reducing agency resources expenditures, however, can be quantified. Between 2021 and 2025, the Administration proposed 33 rules. 1 Assuming response to comments on a proposed rule requires an average of 40 hours of an employee at GS-13 Step 5 this will be $4,247 per avoided proposed rule. 2 Assuming the Administration will continue rulemaking at a similar rate as before this change, the annual cost savings of this change would be $28,029. The general public will also see cost savings in avoided time drafting and submitting public comments. Assuming the public spends an average of 20 hours writing comments on each rule and their time is valued at the average U.S. hourly wage of $32.66, 3 the public will be expected to save $4,311 per year. In total, the quantified annual cost savings of this rule is $32,340.

There may be potential disbenefits of avoiding the public comment period, if the public comments offer information and suggestions that improve the SBA's regulations. The associated disbenefits are expected to be minor as the SBA can still solicit public comments on a case by case basis whenever it perceives the benefits of doing so are expected to exceed the costs.

The SBA has considered maintaining the current policy or replacing it with a narrower procedural commitment ( e.g., limiting it to certain programs). However, the SBA believes its rescission offers a clearer legal and operational baseline in line with the APA.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, reduce burden, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

This rule does not have Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 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, as specified in the Executive Order. As such, it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This final rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action with a quantified annualized net savings of $32,340 in 2026 dollars. This rule will remove 13 CFR 101.108 in its entirety.

On February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative, which further emphasized the goal of the Administration to alleviate the regulatory burdens placed on the public. Under Executive Order 14219, agencies must evaluate their existing regulations to determine which ones should be repealed, replaced, or modified. SBA has engaged in this process and has identified 13 CFR 101.108 as appropriate for removal in accordance with Executive Order 14219.

The SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. SBA will submit a report containing this rulemaking and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has reviewed this rulemaking and found that it does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As discussed above, SBA is not required to publish the rule for notice and comment in accordance with Section 553(b)(A) of the APA. Accordingly, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis and is publishing this rule as a final rule without advance notice and public comment.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 101 as follows:

FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2025, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations § 71.1, effective September 15, 2025, through September 15, 2026. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order JO 7400.11K in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register , unless there was good cause to forego notice and comment. Likewise, all amendments of these listings were published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register . This rule reflects the periodic integration of these final rule amendments into a revised edition of FAA Order JO 7400.11M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11M in § 71.1, as of September 15, 2026, through September 15, 2027. This rule also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the airspace designations incorporated by reference in part 71. This rule also updates §§ 71.5, 71.15, 71.31, 71.33, 71.41, 71.51, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.901 to reflect the incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11M.

This document incorporates by reference FAA Order JO 7400.11M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 30, 2026, and effective September 15, 2026, in § 71.1. FAA Order JO 7400.11M is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order JO 7400.11M lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order JO 7400.11M, effective September 15, 2026, through September 15, 2027. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order JO 7400.11M in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register , unless there is good cause to forego notice and comment. Likewise, all amendments of these listings will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register . The FAA will periodically integrate all final rule amendments into a revised edition of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and submit the revised edition to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in § 71.1.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

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

The goal of this rulemaking is to amend two sections of the First Step Act (FSA) Time Credits regulation to accord with the best reading of the FSA and to conform with recent case law trends. On January 19, 2022, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) codified its procedures regarding the earning and application of time credits as authorized by the FSA (hereinafter, “FSA Time Credits” or “Time Credits”), which provides that eligible inmates earn Time Credits toward prerelease custody or early transfer to supervised release for successfully completing certain approved programs or activities assigned to each inmate based on the inmate's risk and needs assessments.

On February 19, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” which directs all executive agencies to identify certain “classes of regulations” enumerated in Section 2(a) of the E.O. and subject to certain exemptions in Section 7. 90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025). Pursuant to that executive order, BOP reviewed its regulations and identified two sections of its FSA Time Credits regulation as ones to which revisions should be made to ensure the regulatory scheme is based on the best reading of the underlying statutory authority.

The first change removes the parenthetical clause from 28 CFR 523.42(a), which provides that a “term of imprisonment commences” (and thus an inmate may begin to earn Time Credits) on “the date the inmate arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated Bureau facility where the sentence will be served.” BOP believes this portion of the paragraph should be removed to accord with the best reading of the FSA and to conform with recent court decisions that have concluded this language conflicts with the FSA. See, e.g., Miles v. Bowers, 173 F.4th 372, 379 (1st Cir. Apr. 27, 2026) (finding the regulation's view of when a sentence commences “plainly conflicts with the text of the FSA”); Sharma v. Peters, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1281-82 (M.D. Ala. 2024) (concluding that 28 CFR 523.42 “adds a layer of eligibility not found in the statute” and thus “conflicts with its express language”); Davidovic v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Low, No. 24-cv-86, at 5 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2025) (“Thus, the BOP's regulation that adds a layer of eligibility not found in the statute conflicts with its express language.”); Heath v. Knight, No. 22-CV-7270, 2024 WL 5198863, at *5 & n.9 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2024) (concluding that “BOP's interpretation in 28 CFR 523.42(a) . . . conflicts with the plain meaning of the statute,” and citing district court decisions holding the same from the Central District of California, District of Minnesota, District of Massachusetts, Eastern District of California, Western District of Washington, District of Hawaii, and the District of New Hampshire); Anderson v. FPC Yankton, No. 4:23-CV-04136-ECS, 2024 WL 4993680, at *2 (D.S.D. Nov. 26, 2024) (collecting cases and “tending to agree” but not ruling until jurisdiction was resolved).

With the parenthetical clause removed, the paragraph provides that “[a]n eligible inmate begins earning FSA Time Credits after the inmate's term of imprisonment commences.” This change aligns the regulatory text with the long-established rule that a sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or voluntarily arrives at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served. 18 U.S.C. 3585(a). The underlying principle of § 3585(a) is that a federal sentence commences when the defendant is received by the Attorney General of the United States  1 for service of his federal sentence, whether through remand immediately after federal sentencing, or upon the date on which the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the official detention facility where the sentence is to be served. Rashid v. Quintana, 372 F. App'x 260, 262 (3d Cir. 2010) (“A federal sentence commences when the defendant is received by the Attorney General for service of his federal sentence.”). A sentence cannot begin prior to the date on which it is imposed. United States v. Gonzalez, 192 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 1999); see United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[A] federal sentence cannot commence prior to the date it is pronounced, even if made concurrent with a sentence already being served.”); United States v. Tancil, 817 F.App'x 234, 237 (7th Cir. 2020) (“[A] district judge may not backdate a sentence.”). Therefore, by removing the parenthetical, we leave intact the understanding that a term of imprisonment begins either (1) on the date the defendant is received in custody pending transportation to the designated facility where the sentence will be served, or (2) on the date the defendant voluntarily surrenders at the institution where the sentence will be served.

This change furthers the FSA's goal of providing inmates access to programs and activities proven to reduce their likelihood of recidivating. Specifically, removing the parenthetical allows inmates awaiting transportation to their designated facilities to begin FSA-approved programming, the successful completion of which may earn eligible inmates Time Credits. However, this change does not mean that every eligible inmate will automatically begin earning Time Credits immediately after their sentence is imposed. In accordance with the FSA and its implementing regulations, to earn Time Credits, the inmate must still complete evidence-based recidivism reduction (EBRR) programming or productive activities assigned to them based on their assessed needs. 18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4)(A); 28 CFR 523.42(b)(3).

The second change addresses the eligibility of prisoners transferred to BOP custody from foreign countries to earn Time Credits. 2 This change adds a concluding sentence to 28 CFR 523.44(a)(3), which addresses “[s]erving a term of imprisonment pursuant to a conviction for an offense under laws other than the U.S. Code . . . .” The new sentence clarifies that Time Credits can be applied for inmates serving a term of imprisonment imposed in a foreign country so long as the U.S. Parole Commission has determined an equivalent U.S. Code sentence exists under 18 U.S.C. 4106A. At least one federal court agrees that inmates serving a foreign sentence that, when evaluated for its equivalent U.S. Code section and qualifies as eligible, is eligible for Time Credits. Martinez v. Rosalez, No. 23-50406, 2024 WL 140438 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2024). BOP's current practice is consistent with the regulatory change, so the amendment would codify that practice and ensure the regulation accords with the best reading of the FSA.

This change also furthers the FSA's goal of preparing inmates to successfully re-enter their communities within the United States by allowing treaty transfer inmates—who must be a citizen or national of the United States under 18 U.S.C. 4100(b)—the same resources as other inmates under the FSA so they can reintegrate back into society. Through treaties, U.S. citizens or nationals who commit crimes and are sentenced in foreign countries may serve their terms of imprisonment in BOP custody so they can avail themselves of programming and reentry-related activities that strengthen ties to their local communities and reduce the risk of recidivism. Therefore, by no longer excluding treaty transfer inmates from FSA eligibility based solely on their foreign convictions, we are improving public safety by incentivizing risk-reduction programming.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under subsection 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”. Accordingly, this interim final rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This interim final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” subsection 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” subsection 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

As shown in the table below, BOP projects that expansion of Time Credits will result in net savings of millions of taxpayer dollars because less time in a BOP institution or in a Residential Community Center (RRC) or on Home Confinement (HC) equates to cost savings. Current estimates show that thousands of inmates will benefit from eligibility expansion and be able to leave a BOP institution and transfer to an RRC or HC sooner than they would without these regulatory changes.

The time an inmate spends in transit before arriving at their designated BOP facility, after the federal sentence is imposed, can vary widely based on the difference between the starting and ending locations as well as the capacity and availability of air and bus routes. An analysis of the transit times for newly committed inmates with sentences starting from 2023 through 2025 found the average length of time from sentencing to arrival at the designated facility to be 66.06 days. At the time of sentencing, inmates are in the custody of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) and may be housed in local, county, and regional jails or federal detention centers. The above analysis of transit time included all facilities utilized by USMS.

Inmates accrue Time Credits at a rate of 10 or 15 days for every 30 days of successful participation in EBRR programming or productive activities based on their individual calculated recidivism risk level. Inmates determined to be at a minimum or low risk for recidivating and maintain or decrease their risk level over two consecutive assessments earn 15 Time Credits for every 30 days of participation. Inmates with a medium or high risk for recidivating or who have not maintained a low risk for two consecutive assessments earn 10 days of Time Credits for every 30 days of participation. Based on the current risk levels in the BOP population, the average time of 66.06 days spent in transit would result in 23.81 days of Time Credits.

For inmates with a low or minimum risk of recidivism, the first 365 days of accrued Time Credits are applied to an inmate's calculated statutory release date for early release to supervision if the sentencing court included a requirement that the inmate be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment as part of the inmate's sentence. For inmates with a low or minimum risk of recidivism without a term of imprisonment, and/or for Time Credits accrued in excess of 365 days, inmates can be transferred to prerelease custody in a RRC or HC when the Time Credits are equal to the remainder of the imprisonment term.

As shown in the above table, an analysis of inmates earning Time Credits who were released from BOP custody from 2023 through 2025 identified three categories of application of Time Credits for transfer and release: (1) Time Credits applied toward transfer to prerelease custody (RRC or HC) for inmates without a term of supervision (which averaged 7,554 inmates annually); (2) Time Credits applied toward supervised prerelease custody and early supervised release (which averaged 11,258 inmates annually); and (3) Time Credits applied toward early supervised release whereby inmates release from a typical BOP facility (which averaged 6,486 inmates annually). The expansion of Time Credits would result in savings by allowing inmates to transfer to prerelease custody (RRC or HC) an average of 23.81 days earlier, or result in inmates releasing to a term of supervised release earlier.

According to BOP's 2024 Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF), the average per capita cost for an inmate in a secure facility is $130.34 and the per capita cost for prerelease custody is $119.73. The savings for transferring inmates from secure facilities to RRCs or HCs is $10.61 per day. Applying these per capita amounts to the three categories of inmates receiving an additional 23.81 days of Time Credits results in the following potential savings: (1) $1,908,322 for additional Time Credits applied toward transfer to prerelease custody at $10.61 reduced cost for 23.81 days for 7,554 inmates annually; (2) $32,093,983 for additional Time Credits applied toward early supervised release from an RRC at $119.73 reduced cost for 23.81 days for 11,258 inmates annually; and (3) $20,128,623 for additional Time Credits applied toward early supervised release from a typical BOP facility at $130.34 reduced cost for 23.81 days for 6,486 inmates annually. Accordingly, far from increasing costs, the expansion of Time Credits is projected to reduce overall costs in the estimated amount of $54,130,928.

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. Although this rule would be a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it would not count as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it has total costs less than zero. This rule expands the accrual period of Time Credits and reduces the amount of time inmates spend in BOP facilities, producing cost savings. BOP therefore expects this rule to qualify as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero).

Executive Order 14294 “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” directs agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. For the purposes of Executive Order 14294, the phrase “criminal regulatory offense” means a regulation that purports to impose a penalty of imprisonment without a connection to a statute that itself authorizes such a penalty. The phrase does not include regulations implementing a statutory scheme in which a statute contains a criminal penalty ( i.e., imprisonment) and authorizes an agency to define by regulation what specific conduct is prohibited. This rule does not impose a penalty of imprisonment that is not authorized by statute and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14924 requirements.

This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this interim final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This interim final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to specify provisions in clear language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this interim final rule or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this interim final rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B)) allows exceptions to notice-and-comment rulemaking “when the agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Further, 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides an exception to the usual requirement of a delayed effective date for a substantive rule that relieves a restriction, or when the agency finds “good cause” that the rule be made immediately effective. This rulemaking is exempt from normal notice-and-comment procedures because advance notice in this instance is unnecessary. The first change conforms to recent court decisions that have concluded the excised language conflicts with the FSA, and the second change codifies a non-controversial practice already in place and thus is insignificant in nature and impact.

Further, these two changes are purely beneficial to the inmate population by expanding the time frame of when Time Credits begin to accrue and who may be eligible to earn them. As such, they “relieve a restriction.” (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

Accordingly, BOP finds good cause for exempting this interim final rule from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring prior notice of proposed rulemaking and delay in effective date. Nevertheless, BOP is accepting post-promulgation public comments.

This interim final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Director has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and has determined that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is limited to Bureau-appropriated funds and affects individual inmates only, not small entities. Further, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when the agency is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, as is the case here. 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a).

This regulation is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Accordingly, under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, the Bureau amends 28 CFR part 523 as follows:

The Department promulgated the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 (Part 42) in 1980 to improve coordination among its component agencies in enforcing protections for migrant farmworkers. 1 The purpose of the regulations is to coordinate activities of the component agencies and to ensure effective enforcement efforts under “the protective statutes,” which included the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA) (later repealed), 2 the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, in order to “maximize . . . effectiveness, yet minimize unnecessary duplication.” 29 CFR 42.2. Specifically, the regulations require the Department to establish and maintain several processes and structures, including: (1) a National Farm Labor Coordinated Enforcement Committee (National Committee) with membership by the Under Secretary of Labor (now the Deputy Secretary), 3 the Solicitor of Labor, ETA, OSHA, and the Employment Standards Administration (ESA, a now-defunct agency that incorporated WHD at the time the Department promulgated Part 42), 4 and supported by a staff level working group, to review the subagencies' policies and enforcement strategies; (2) Regional Farm Labor Coordinated Enforcement Committees (Regional Committees); and (3) the development of enforcement strategies and coordination plans, both regionally and nationally. In addition, the regulations require the Department to designate Farm Labor Specialists in WHD and Compliance Officers in OSHA to serve as farm labor contact persons, and to collect and review specific data pertaining to enforcement of protective statutes to be reviewed by the National Committee and to be used to inform future agency efforts. The regulations also prescribe specific frequency of meetings for the National Committee and the Regional Committees, and public attendance at certain of these meetings.

For at least a decade after promulgating Part 42 in 1980, the Department maintained a National Committee and Regional Committees as prescribed in the regulations. The Department subsequently largely ceased maintaining those formal committees, although available records do not establish precisely when that occurred. Rather, as explained in more detail later in this preamble, the Department has since implemented more effective mechanisms that do not rely on the specific structures of Part 42 to ensure coordinated enforcement of the current migrant farmworker laws by WHD, ETA, and OSHA.

In 2024, a number of advocacy organizations—including commenter Sin Fronteras Organizing Project—filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department had failed to comply with Part 42. That litigation resulted in a settlement agreement in which the Department agreed to take certain steps to reconstitute the National Committee and Regional Committees and hold public meetings “for as long as the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 are in effect and unchanged.”  5 The settlement agreement does not bar the Department from rescinding or modifying the regulation through the rulemaking process. The Department has complied with the settlement agreement since its effective date.

On July 1, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind Part 42 because the regulation imposed outdated, unnecessary, and duplicative internal procedures; limited the Department's discretion; and prevented the Department's agencies from coordinating with regard to migrant farmworkers in more efficient, effective ways. 90 FR 28247. As detailed in the NPRM, the Department determined that Part 42 imposed stilted procedural mandates and organizational requirements that were outdated, had not been utilized in decades, and no longer reflected how the Department coordinated enforcement activity across its agencies. For instance, Part 42 referenced historical entities such as ESA, which was eliminated in 2009, imposed duties on the abolished offices of the Assistant Secretary for ESA and the ESA Regional Administrator, relied on repealed statutes such as the FLCRA (repealed in 1983), and mandated formal structures—such as national and regional enforcement committees, quarterly meetings, and designated contact personnel—that had long ago fallen into disuse.

Notwithstanding the dormancy of some structures and components set forth in Part 42, the Department has continued to conduct robust and effective enforcement related to migrant farmworkers through modern coordination mechanisms, including interagency working groups, task forces, and new statutory frameworks under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act's H-2A nonimmigrant visa program for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 1812, 1852; 8 U.S.C. 1188.

As described in the NPRM, OSHA has regularly hosted an agriculture task force that has engaged with agricultural concerns and issues in coordination with representatives from WHD and ETA. The task force was designed to identify, review, update, and develop OSHA's agricultural guidance products, including regulations and web pages. The task force contributed to several new agricultural guidance products over the years, including a 2017 update to OSHA's Agricultural Operations Safety and Health Topics web page with links to information ranging from heat illness prevention to youth employment in agriculture. 6 Likewise, the NPRM stated that other Departmental initiatives reflect the Department's ongoing commitment to cross-agency coordination at the national and regional levels. For example, ETA Regional Monitor Advocates often host meetings for the relevant State Workforce Agencies, which representatives from WHD attend.

Additionally, the NPRM stated that the Department maintains contact and exchanges information with farm labor groups and the public on issues relating to the employment of migrant and seasonal farmworkers on an ongoing basis. As part of the Department's regular stakeholder engagement, OSHA, WHD and ETA all maintain contacts and meet with farmworker groups, as part of public outreach, roundtables, and conferences, at both the national and the regional level. The ETA National Monitor Advocate regularly meets with farmworker groups and, each year during harvest season, visits States with high numbers of migrant and seasonal farmworkers to meet with State Workforce Agencies and organizations that represent farmworkers.

Part 42 reflects an outdated legal landscape and depends on a bygone Departmental structure that made it increasingly difficult to implement the requirements of the regulation, as drafted. The Department further believes that the current coordination efforts of OSHA, ETA, and WHD more effectively address the employment-related problems faced by migrant farmworkers; are coordinated to maximize their effectiveness and minimize unnecessary duplication; and assure that employers of migrant farmworkers are complying with the laws that the Department enforces. Therefore, the Department suggested in the NPRM that Part 42 imposed bureaucratic obligations that did not allow for effective and efficient coordination outcomes, and that its continued presence in the Code of Federal Regulations was no longer necessary.

Accordingly, the Department proposed to rescind the rule in its entirety under its general housekeeping and procedural authority at 5 U.S.C. 301 and consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025), which directs agencies to eliminate unnecessary or obsolete regulations. As discussed later in this preamble, after reviewing all eight comments received, the Department is finalizing the rule as proposed.

The NPRM invited comments from the public concerning this rescission of regulations for coordinated migrant farmworker labor law enforcement activities; the comment period closed on September 2, 2025. During the 60-day public comment period, the Department received a total of eight comment submissions. The comments received on the NPRM may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov by entering docket number ETA-2025-0003.

The Department has considered these comments and has decided to finalize the rescission of Part 42 as proposed. After reviewing the rule's history, the regulatory record, and the considerations raised by commenters, the Department concludes that Part 42 no longer serves a meaningful operational purpose, it imposes unnecessary duplication of efforts and outdated procedural requirements, and it is not needed to ensure effective enforcement of labor protections for migrant farmworkers.

Eight comments were submitted in opposition to the proposed rescission. These included submissions from legal advocacy organizations, a State interagency committee, nonprofit worker advocates, a State Workforce Agency, and one individual. While the commenters expressed concern that rescinding Part 42 might weaken enforcement or coordination, the Department finds that its proven ability to coordinate enforcement for decades without reliance on Part 42, as described later in this preamble, allays any concern that rescinding Part 42 might weaken enforcement or coordination.

Commenters such as the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP), the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), the National Employment Law Project (NELP), Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), and Michigan's Interagency Migrant Services Committee (IMSC) asserted that Part 42 is essential to protect farmworkers and ensure cross-agency enforcement coordination. The Department disagrees, particularly because the commenters did not acknowledge or take into account certain activities and practices that the Department has developed over time, as set forth in this rule, or the substantive inefficacy of the bureaucratic requirements required. As noted in the NPRM and reiterated here, for several years the Department has not relied on some of the functions enumerated in Part 42 as it has successfully fulfilled the intended purposes of those engagements, both internal to the Department and with external stakeholders, through other more effective avenues. Although commenters cited a 2017 Midwest regional meeting as the most recent example of activity under the rule, the Department did not consistently implement these structures until the settlement agreement required some activities similar to those named in the regulation. The National Committee and Regional Committees, coordination plans, and required public meetings were not maintained in practice. Instead, the Department has played a key role in carrying out the types of enforcement and coordination activities intended by the Department when first creating these regulations. Examples of Departmental coordination include, but are not limited to, participation in monthly Departmental Agriculture Taskforce meetings in which component agencies share information about enforcement as well as education and outreach activities in agriculture; quarterly Regional Agriculture Coordination calls that include regional and national representation of each component agency for information sharing; and recurring coordination calls among agencies to discuss ongoing and emerging issues. Additionally, each agency engages in planning enforcement strategies, conducting stakeholder outreach and engagement, developing and reviewing policies, providing referrals to appropriate agencies, and conducting deconfliction to prevent overlap, resolve conflicts, and ensure coordinated, efficient operations.

For example, OSHA continues to maintain and regularly update its Agricultural Operations Safety and Health Topics web page, which provides employers and workers with information regarding agricultural hazards, OSHA standards applicable to agriculture, hazard controls, publications, training materials, and compliance assistance resources. OSHA's agricultural guidance addresses hazards including heat exposure, grain bins and silos, hazardous machinery, falls, chemicals, respiratory hazards, noise exposure, vehicle hazards, and youth worker safety. These resources include materials addressing tractor and harvester hazards, grain handling hazards, heat illness prevention, confined-space hazards on farms, electrocution hazards, emergency preparedness, personal protective equipment, and youth worker protections in agriculture. OSHA makes these resources available in multiple formats, including fact sheets, QuickCards, hazard alerts, training materials, and multilingual publications.

Furthermore, the Department's approach to rulemaking in this space reflects its commitment to ongoing coordination. ETA and WHD regularly issue joint regulations addressing the needs of farmworkers, and in the process meet with stakeholders about the implementation and enforcement of those regulations. For example, in 2025, ETA and WHD jointly proposed to amend the regulations governing the certification of agricultural labor or services performed by H-2A workers and the enforcement of the obligations applicable to employers of such nonimmigrant workers. See 90 FR 28919 (July 2, 2025). In 2022, WHD and ETA issued a joint report to Congress about the Department's enforcement related to farm labor contractors. See https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/h2a/H-2A_Report2022.pdf. Additionally, WHD regularly hosts a Virtual Agricultural Seminar that is open to the public, provides guidance on Federal labor rules pertaining to the agricultural industry, and has at times included representatives from ETA.

Despite the dormancy of some structures and components set forth in Part 42, the Department has continued to conduct enforcement actions  7 ( e.g., investigations, audits, inspections, site visits) and coordinate effectively across WHD, OSHA, and ETA through mechanisms that do not rely on Part 42, including those provided by statutes and regulations that did not exist when Part 42 was promulgated. These include informal working groups, joint investigations, strategic referrals, and targeted interagency initiatives, none of which are dependent on or enhanced by the mandates in Part 42. The Department continues to carry out effective enforcement to safeguard the nation's workforce as illustrated by the high violation rate yielded by its enforcement actions, many of which involve targeted initiatives to focus limited investigative resources on employers that commit egregious violations.

Since Part 42 was promulgated in 1980, Congress has enacted major statutory frameworks specifically aimed at protecting migrant farmworkers. These include MSPA, which established comprehensive labor protections for farmworkers and significantly expanded the enforcement authority of WHD. Congress also enacted the H-2A visa program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, creating a formal process for the employment of temporary foreign agricultural workers subject to Department-administered labor standards, which necessarily involves close collaboration between ETA on the certification side and WHD on the enforcement side of the H-2A program. In response, the Department has developed detailed regulations, enforcement strategies, and staffing structures under both MSPA and H-2A that did not exist when Part 42 was adopted. The Department has successfully relied on these regulations and programs—that is, the MSPA and H-2A regulations, not Part 42—including related outreach, to protect migrant farmworkers. The Department maintains its commitment to stakeholder engagement and outreach as essential to obtaining meaningful feedback, building trust, maintaining strong relationships, and strengthening outcomes. In furtherance of those efforts, the Department's activities include, but are not limited to, component agencies participating in recurring conferences; ad hoc meetings with farmworker advocacy groups and other stakeholders; and agricultural initiative outreach work. For example, WHD hosts and participates in hundreds of outreach events each year where most are led by Community Outreach and Resource Planning Specialists (CORPS). CORPS are the primary contacts for stakeholders and public engagement and outreach. They schedule in-person and virtual events regularly throughout the nation. ETA's Employment Service regulations continue to require several coordination points, including the referral of complaints to enforcement agencies, cross-referencing debarment lists, and discontinuation due to final determinations from enforcement agencies.

Several commenters, including AFOP, CLASP, and IMSC, urged the Department to retain and revise Part 42 by updating outdated statutory and organizational references ( e.g., replacing outdated references to the FLCRA or ESA) rather than eliminating the regulation entirely. The Department considered this approach but concluded that revision is not appropriate. The problems with Part 42 are not limited to terminology; they extend to the entire regulatory framework. The rule mandates organizational structures and processes that do not reflect the way the Department has operated for decades. Nor do these processes account for new statutes enacted by Congress to protect farmworkers. Updating outdated names would not address the fact that the core features of the regulation have not been needed in decades and are not relevant to current enforcement operations. In fact, the rescission of Part 42 enables the Department to minimize unnecessary duplication, and to adapt to evolving processes, program demands, and realities inherent to the cross-agency coordination and engagements with public stakeholders without being limited by processes and structures designed over 40 years ago.

Some commenters, notably TRLA and CLASP, argued that rescinding Part 42 could violate the terms of the Department's 2024 court-approved settlement agreement in Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Su. The Department disagrees. The settlement agreement expressly states that its terms apply only “for as long as the regulations at 29 CFR part 42 are in effect and unchanged.” Therefore, the settlement agreement explicitly preserves the Department's discretion to modify or rescind the regulation through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Department has complied with all terms of the settlement agreement since its effective date and is under no legal obligation to retain Part 42. Rescission is therefore fully consistent with the settlement agreement.

NELP, TRLA, and others argued that rescission of Part 42 is arbitrary and capricious, stating that the Department did not sufficiently justify in the NPRM how the regulation posed insurmountable restrictions on the Department's enforcement capabilities and suggesting that the Department update and revise Part 42 instead of removing it in its entirety. The Department disagrees. As the NPRM and this final rule make clear, the rescission is based on a reasoned and well-documented determination: Part 42 has not been consistently implemented for decades; its structures are outdated and inconsistent with current agency operations, which are centered around statutes and regulations that protect migrant farmworkers and were enacted after Part 42 was promulgated; it has not contributed to enforcement outcomes for decades; and coordination among ETA, WHD, and OSHA continues to occur effectively without it. The Administrative Procedure Act does not require agencies to retain outdated and unnecessary procedural regulations, particularly where enforcement activities are demonstrably robust in the regulation's absence. Agencies may amend or repeal a rule so long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016). Here, where the Department has determined that Part 42 was outdated, overly bureaucratic, and unnecessary, and where the Department has demonstrated its commitment to robust and effective enforcement through modern coordination mechanisms outside of Part 42, the Department believes that rescission of Part 42 is reasonable.

Some commenters, including CLASP and IMSC, expressed concern that rescission would eliminate public regional meetings and diminish opportunities for stakeholders to engage directly with the Department. While the Department values public input and stakeholder engagement, mandating a specific meeting structure codified in 1980 is not necessary to ensure meaningful communication. Instead, the Department has increasingly relied on more flexible and inclusive forms of engagement, including stakeholder roundtables, listening sessions, direct outreach, electronic communications, and virtual forums. These modern approaches reflect current communication practices, enhance accessibility, and allow for more timely and responsive interaction with farmworker advocates and other stakeholders than formalities born of a meeting structure with roots in pre-digital practices. Current methods of engagement will continue regardless of the rescission of Part 42. Further, the Department's representatives at these engagements include personnel from its Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy who can hear firsthand from stakeholders and effectively implement policy changes consistent with the Department's priorities and objectives. Moreover, advocacy groups and any other third party have always had, and continue to have, access to the Department, including the potential to file a complaint on a worker's behalf. In the Department's district offices throughout the nation, many stakeholders have collaborative working, symbiotic relationships at the local level.

The comments opposing rescission were considered in full but do not provide a compelling basis for retaining a regulation that is unnecessary and no longer reflects the Department's internal structure or enforcement strategy. The Department finds that rescinding Part 42 will promote administrative clarity, eliminate obsolete and unused procedural mandates, and support modernized enforcement coordination, allowing the Department to continue to be flexible and nimble in addressing new challenges and opportunities.

Accordingly, the Department is finalizing the rescission of Part 42 in its entirety.

E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Department reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The regulation the Department is rescinding pertains to procedures within the Department for the coordination of enforcement activities by WHD, OSHA, and ETA relating to migrant farmworkers, so there is no impact on small entities. Therefore, the Department concludes that the impacts of the rescission would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.

This rescission imposes no information collection or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

The Department has examined this rescission and has determined that it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

The Department examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

The Department has reviewed this final rule under the terms of E.O. 13175 and the Department's Tribal Consultation Policy and has concluded that the changes to regulatory text will not have Tribal implications. These changes do not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, nor the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribal governments.

E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 (Plain Language in Government Writing), direct executive departments and agencies to use plain language in all rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register . The goal is to make the government more responsive, accessible, and understandable in its communications with the public. Accordingly, the Department drafted this final rule in plain language.

The U.S. Department of Labor makes the following correction to the final rule (FR Doc. 2026-17116) published on August 21, 2026 (91 FR 54234):

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to amend some of the requirements in part 214 to reduce burdens, to make technical or conforming changes, to repeal aged-out regulations, or otherwise to adjust to advancing technology or recent incidents, without any adverse effect on railroad safety. 90 FR 28629 (July 1, 2025). During the comment period that closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED)  1 and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). 2

In summary, BMWED and TTD generally supported most proposals FRA made in the NPRM, including the proposed special approval procedure for alternative bridge worker safety systems in section 214.119. Both commenters recommended that this proposed procedure be amended to require third-party verification of proposed alternative safety systems and direct consultation with labor representatives, and that FRA issue formal guidance on its review process for petitions requesting special approval of alternative bridge worker safety proposals. In addition, both commenters expressed concern with the repeal of section 214.515(b), arguing that if machines in service lack adequate overhead protection, workers should retain the right to request such protection. FRA disagrees with the recommended changes to the proposed special approval procedure, but the agency agrees with the concerns about eliminating section 214.515(b). FRA discusses the comments it received further in the Section-by-Section Analysis. FRA finalizes the NPRM as proposed, except FRA retains existing 49 CFR 214.515(b), based on BMWED's and TTD's comments.

This section-by-section analysis addresses only the specific sections that were commented on directly and that FRA is amending in a way that differs from FRA's proposal in the NPRM. Please reference the NPRM's section-by-section analysis for further information regarding the sections FRA is adopting as proposed in the NPRM—that is, sections 214.331, 214.333, 214.335, 214.347, 214.513, 214.517, and 214.533.

Because 49 CFR part 214, subpart B is highly prescriptive and therefore discourages innovation or the deployment of advancing technology in bridge worker safety systems, this final rule adds a new section 214.119 that provides for a special approval procedure similar to the procedure provided in 49 CFR 238.21. The special approval procedure enables a regulated entity, after public notice and FRA approval, to utilize an alternative approach to bridge worker safety that provides for an equivalent or better level of safety. The comments received from BMWED and TTD both recommended that FRA revise the proposed rule to require third-party safety verification of proposed alternative bridge worker safety systems. FRA notes that the final rule, in paragraph (b)(3), requires a railroad to include in its petition appropriate data or analysis, or both, establishing that the alternative will provide at least an equivalent level of safety. A railroad could include, as part of its petition, a third-party safety verification of the railroad's proposal. To provide a petitioner with appropriate flexibility to establish that its proposal would result in at least an equivalent level of safety, FRA declines to revise the proposal as suggested.

BMWED and TTD also recommended that FRA require the proposing railroad to consult with the affected labor representatives directly, including to solicit input, not only to notify the affected labor representatives, as the NPRM proposed. FRA disagrees. This special approval procedure generally mirrors other special approval procedures used elsewhere in FRA's regulations ( e.g., 49 CFR 238.21), and FRA sees no need to deviate from this consistent framework. A railroad must provide notice of the petition to the designated representatives of its employees, under new paragraph (b)(4), and a railroad may coordinate with such representatives earlier, including during the development of the railroad's proposed alternative bridge worker safety standard.

This final rule amends paragraph (b) of this section to clarify that the required training for operators of roadway maintenance machines equipped with a crane includes specific aspects such as maintaining vertical clearance. FRA expects that issues such as vertical clearance should be addressed in the employer's training and qualification program. Under current section 214.357(b), employers are required to include procedures for determining that the operator of such crane machines has the skills and knowledge to operate safely. However, FRA expects that highlighting issues such as vertical clearance in the regulatory text may help to avoid future incidents of crane machines striking structures, such as bridges. FRA does not expect this clarification to result in any additional burdens.

Comments from BMWED and TTD supported the proposed clarification. In addition, BMWED and TTD generally urged FRA to refer 49 CFR 213.357 to the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee for review and modernization. FRA will take this recommendation under consideration.

This final rule amends paragraph (a) of this section to remove reference to the date (March 28, 2005) that overhead covers must be repaired or reinstalled on existing on-track roadway maintenance machines currently or previously equipped with such covers. That date has long passed.

In addition, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to remove paragraph (b) and redesignate existing paragraph (c) as new paragraph (b). Comments from BMWED and TTD opposed the removal of paragraph (b), arguing that this provision may still apply, and that if machines currently in service lack adequate overhead protection, workers should continue to have the right to request such covers. FRA agrees, and the final rule makes no changes to existing paragraphs (b) and (c).

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 3 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule simplifies the regulation by creating a special approval procedure in new section 214.119 consistent with a similar procedure in existing section 238.21; removes certain regulations rendered irrelevant by the passage of time in sections 214.331, 214.333, 214.335, 214.347, 214.513, 214.515, and 214.517; clarifies training requirements in section 214.357; and simplifies record retention rules in section 214.533.

A railroad carrier may take advantage of the voluntary flexibility of the special approval procedure in new section 214.119; if this were to occur, the cost savings to that railroad carrier would outweigh the minimal time required for submitting the petition. This rule provides additional clarity to regulated entities and eliminates unnecessary, outdated requirements while continuing to ensure workplace safety, substantive compliance, and availability of information related to railroad maintenance activities. This rule will provide cost savings to regulated entities. In addition, this rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. Government by creating a special approval procedure, eliminating outdated requirements from part 214, clarifying training requirements, and simplifying record retention rules.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  4 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 5

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996, 6 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 government jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., FRA is seeking approval from OMB to revise the information collection estimates in previously approved OMB Control Number 2130-0539, corresponding to part 214. On May 31, 2022, OMB approved FRA's last information collection request (ICR) corresponding to part 214, containing 5,619 burden hours. 7

With this final rule, the burden will increase by 10 hours annually, to 5,620 hours annually. The table below details the new information collection requirements that will apply when this final rule becomes effective, and the estimated time to fulfill each new requirement.

All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone: 757-897-9908.

OMB is required to decide concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this document. FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if required.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  9 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, and will not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 214 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to address a request from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to incorporate regulatory relief currently granted through an FRA waiver  1 into part 215 by allowing freight cars with an EOCC that has leaked clearly formed droplets to remain in service if the cushioning unit is otherwise operational and equipped with a UCI that shows the unit has adequate pressure despite the presence of leaked oil on the exterior of the unit. 90 FR 28636 (July 1, 2025).

An EOCC is a device installed on the ends of railroad freight cars designed to absorb shocks and forces during rail operations (similar in purpose to shock absorbers on motor vehicles). An EOCC must contain sufficient oil for the unit to function as designed ( i.e., for the unit to absorb energy adequately from in-train forces and potential impacts). Accordingly, FRA's Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 215, prohibit a rail car from continuing in service if its EOCC is broken or inoperative (§ 215.129), which is a requirement that remains in force. FRA is removing § 215.127(c), which prohibits a freight car continuing in service if the EOCC is leaking “clearly formed droplets,” even though the EOCC may still be operational. FRA is making conforming changes to § 215.129, to address the difference between EOCCs that have a UCI and those that do not and apply this approach to both EEOCs and center-of-car cushioning units (COCCs). As amended in this final rule, § 215.129 now applies the same standards to both EOCCs and COCCs, specifically when evaluating whether there is a fluid leak indicative of a defective cushioning unit.

FRA received six comment letters responding to the NPRM. In support of the amendments proposed in the NPRM, Amsted Rail Company, Inc. (Amsted Rail)  2 stated that it is the largest manufacturer of EOCCs for the North American freight railroad industry. Amsted Rail observed that EOCCs are typically installed in railcars carrying expensive or fragile lading and that approximately 16.75 percent (over 274,000 cars) in the overall railcar fleet are equipped with EOCCs. According to Amsted Rail, UCIs now in service meet AAR specification M-921H and, thus, provide a reliable indication of whether cushioning units to which they are applied are acceptable for rail service or require maintenance. Unnecessary EOCC removals from service are costly to both the railroad and the freight car owner, and Amsted Rail supports codifying the regulatory relief provided by waiver since 2013 because UCIs have been proven reliable over time.

AAR and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) filed comments jointly. 3 AAR and ASLRRA commented that UCIs operate as a gauge of sufficient internal pressure to monitor the condition of a railcar's EOCC. The use of UCIs allows railroads to make more accurate determinations than relying on visual observations of “clearly formed droplets” when assessing if the EOCC is defective. AAR data shows that, since the waiver allowing railroads to rely on UCIs for the determination that an EOCC lacks sufficient pressure has been in place, the number of EOCCs removed from service has increased. AAR and ASLRRA commented that effective use of UCIs protects railroad employees from needless exposure to switching hazards and hazards related to jacking freight cars and removing and replacing heavy cushioning units because railroads can leave fully functioning cushioning units in place. They also noted that the regulatory relief proposed in the NPRM would relieve the associations from the costs of submitting waiver petitions every five years.

Four organizations filed comments in opposition to the regulatory relief proposed in the NPRM: the Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division of the Transportation Communications Union (BRC), 4 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET), 5 the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), 6 and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD). 7 Each of these organizations raised concerns with allowing EOCCs to remain in service despite the presence of clearly formed oil droplets. The organizations generally challenged the effectiveness of UCIs as accurate indicators of EOCC condition and highlighted the safety issues associated with defective EOCCs.

BLET commented that an EOCC leaking oil in any amount indicates that the seal has degraded and there is less oil in the cylinder to cushion in-train forces. According to BLET, while a single drop of leaked oil may not degrade the condition of the EOCC to an unacceptable level, it does indicate that the EOCC is deteriorating and that additional steps are necessary to test the device to ensure it is safe. Similarly, SMART-TD stated that when an EOCC leaks oil, it signals a loss of sealing integrity and a degradation of its designed ability to absorb forces. TDD stated that a single drop of leaked oil indicates the EOCC is deteriorating, the seal within the device has degraded, and there is less oil in the cylinder. BRC stated even minor oil leakage can indicate internal seal degradation or pressure loss, both of which compromise the cushioning system's shock absorption ability. In sum, the commenters believe that EOCC effectiveness should be confirmed as soon as oil droplets are detected.

Each organization opposing the NPRM argued that UCIs are imperfect indicators of EOCC condition under particular operating conditions, or that they do not confirm the safety of the equipment under all conditions. BRC stated that UCIs only verify minimum hydraulic pressure and do not measure dynamic performance under load, temperature, or stress. BRC also asserts that its members have found defective in-train EOCCs with UCIs that fail to indicate discharged pressure in the EOCC. TTD adds that UCIs can fail to function, so the use of a UCI does not necessarily prove that an EOCC is safe. TTD believes that no EOCC leaking oil should be allowed to remain in service ( i.e., that it “should be proven safe prior to leaving the initial terminal—not leaking”).

Each organization commenting in opposition to the NPRM also highlighted the importance of functioning EOCCs for safe train handling. TTD commented that EOCC malfunction can lead to cascading mechanical issues and that an EOCC without the proper amount of oil pressure can cause abnormal wear on the other coupler components. In addition, normal slack and tension motion during travel or coupling without a properly functioning EOCC may result in freight load shifts. SMART-TD commented that a degraded EOCC will allow more violent run-ins/outs, amplified slack action that will break knuckles, drawbars and trigger derailments, and a loss of predictable train dynamics, and conductors riding equipment during switching may be exposed to sudden shocks that will increase the risk of injury. BRC commented that trains are longer and heavier than ever, and that these extended consists produce intense longitudinal forces during braking, acceleration, and slack action. BRC added that an EOCC that leaks and operates marginally under these conditions can elevate the risk of in-train derailments, coupler separations, or car body damage.

FRA agrees that a defective EOCC is a safety issue. However, 12 years of experience under the current waiver allowing the use of UCIs as a primary indicator of EOCC condition has shown that visible oil droplet seepage does not accurately identify a defective EOCC. Hydraulic seals within EOCCs require a lubricating film of fluid across the piston rod interface to ensure low friction and extended service life. The appearance of small amounts of weeping oil is considered normal.

This final rule maintains the prohibition on placing a freight car in service if it is equipped with a broken or inoperative EOCC, even if the UCI indicates acceptable internal pressure. For example, a unit is broken or inoperative if the front or rear lugs are broken or missing, or if it is otherwise not performing its intended function of absorbing shocks and impacts. A striker casting that exhibits fresh “batter marks” is generally an indication of a defective draft system component.

The UCI is the means of testing the EOCC to ensure it has adequate internal pressure, despite the observation of oil droplets. The hydraulic fluid and the nitrogen gas pre-charge operate within a single, sealed chamber in the EOCC. An impairment of the sealing system that permits the escape of the nitrogen gas charge will concurrently allow the loss of hydraulic fluid. Therefore, the indication of the unit's inability to maintain adequate internal gas pressure, as confirmed by the UCI, serves as the confirmation that the system has failed containment, and that excessive fluid loss has occurred. The UCI allows this test to be completed without setting the car out of a train and adds a more reliable means of determining EOCC condition than visual observation for the presence of leaked oil, which is not itself a dispositive indicator of EOCC functionality.

FRA has also considered that railroad operating rules generally guide the placement and number of cars with EOCCs based on train length and territorial conditions. FRA agrees with comments that average train length on some railroads has increased over time and that defective EOCCs can contribute to other mechanical failures or adversely affect in-train dynamics. However, the regulatory relief provided by this rule will not permit defective EOCCs to remain in service.

This rule is focused on allowing the use of UCIs as a more reliable means of testing internal pressure than visual observation of oil droplets. Commenters opposing this rule have correctly observed the importance of operational EOCCs without supporting their predictions that the continued use of UCIs, consistent with FRA's longstanding waiver on this subject, will cause more defective EOCCs to continue in service. To the contrary, data provided by AAR indicates that more EEOCs have been removed from service annually in the years since the waiver incorporated by this rule was issued in 2013. 8 EOCCs are removed for several reasons, including that they are broken or that the UCI indicates that they are defective or, in some cases, because they are leaking. These and other indicators are all valid indicators or reasons to remove an EOCC. The presence of a small number of oil droplets on the EOCC is not.

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the NPRM, FRA is adopting the revisions to sections 215.127 and 215.119 as proposed in the NPRM. See the Section-by-Section Analysis in the NPRM for further information.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 9 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. Railroads will benefit from this regulatory relief because they will not be obligated to withhold cars from service based solely on the presence of oil on the exterior of an EOCC. This will reduce costs associated with those freight cars equipped with a UCI that have safe and operational EOCCs by eliminating unnecessary downtime and unnecessary replacement of EOCCs that still have a useful service life. In addition, railroads or their industry associations will no longer be required to submit periodic, repetitive waiver requests related to the current regulatory requirement. By making the waiver permanent, stakeholders will see a cost savings in opportunity costs associated with the time previously spent completing and submitting waiver requests. The Government will also see some cost savings by no longer having to allocate resources to process these waivers.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  10 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 11

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and it will therefore be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 12 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule contains no new information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ). Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  13 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 215 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) intended to reduce the burden on railroads associated with FRA's approval process for placing or continuing in service freight cars more than 50 years of age or equipped with any design or type of component listed in appendix A to part 215. The NPRM proposed to rescind the requirement for FRA approval for those cars and to replace the approval process with special inspection and testing requirements (90 FR 28633, July 1, 2025). The proposed requirements were based on FRA's longstanding practice of requiring such inspections and tests as part of the approval process.

FRA received nine comment letters during the 60-day NPRM public comment period. 1 Two comment letters were also received after the comment period closed. FRA has considered all comments received to date and docketed any that were not directly filed by the commenters at www.regulations.gov. Four organizations opposed the regulatory relief proposed in the NPRM in its entirety and advocated for FRA to maintain the current requirements in § 215.203. These commenters included the Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division of the Transportation Communications Union (BRC) (joined by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)); the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD); and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD).

Other commenters supported FRA's elimination of the special approval requirement for freight cars over 50 years old but recommended that FRA completely exclude such cars from coverage under § 215.203. These commenters oppose the requirements that FRA proposed as the conditions necessary to place or to keep overage cars in service: a shop inspection, brake testing, and certification by the owner that overage cars are safe for service. They include the Association of American Railroads (AAR); the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);  2 AITX Corporation, GATX Corporation, Intermodal Association of North America, National Grain and Feed Association, and National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association;  3 The Greenbrier Companies (Greenbrier); and Herzog Railroad Services, Inc. (Herzog).

In addition, FRA received comments from the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which are addressed with other comments below.

After consideration of all comments, FRA has adopted its proposal with some changes, as detailed in the below Section-by-Section Analysis. FRA finds that repealing the special approval process and replacing it with a uniform notice requirement provides equivalent safety outcomes while reducing burdens on railroads and eliminating the added delay involved in petitioning FRA for a special approval.

Commenters seeking the withdrawal of this rulemaking in its entirety argued that FRA should maintain oversight through its existing special approval process due to potential safety concerns related to older cars—for example, “the risks of structural fatigue, outdated component designs, and catastrophic mechanical failures increase with age” (SMART-TD); “[a]ging cars often experience corrosion and internal deterioration” such as cracking in the frame and bolster structures or corrosion of underframes and weld seams (TTD); and older cars are subject to microcracking and brittle fractures in frame and bolster structures, corrosion of underframes and weld seams, issues with the structural integrity of handholds, and other exterior safety appliance securing points, oversized bolt holes, and brake connection points causing binding and fouling (BRC/BLET). TTD and BRC/BLET also believe that retrofitting older cars can cause problems, such as weakening frames when drilling and welding to make modifications. In addition, commenters stated that the NPRM made no provision for mandatory speed or load restrictions on older cars, independent verification of inspections, or public reporting of inspection results.

FRA appreciates the comments provided by each of the labor organizations. However, after considering the comments and reevaluating the proposals in the NPRM, FRA determined that a streamlined notification process, as opposed to specific inspection requirements, will not compromise safety and will enable FRA to provide sufficient oversight.

All freight cars in service must be inspected for compliance with FRA's Freight Car Safety Standards during routine pre-departure mechanical inspections under § 215.13. These inspections include, at a minimum, examination of each car in a train for any condition likely to cause an accident or casualty before the train arrives at its destination, including the conditions listed in appendix D to part 215. If an older car has any condition not in compliance with part 215, it may not be placed or continued in service.

Though frequent pre-departure inspections are intended to identify freight car defects, railroads are not relieved of liability for non-compliance by virtue of completing the inspection. Though FRA inspectors have inspected cars routinely that are the subject of special approval applications under the existing regulation, those examinations are not a substitute for a railroad's obligation to ensure that any freight cars in service on a railroad are in compliance with part 215. FRA understands that ensuring the compliance of older freight cars or freight cars equipped with components identified in appendix A to part 215 often requires those cars to be inspected and maintained with heightened care. At any rate, part 215 defects found in-train may be cited by FRA inspectors at any time the cars are in service, and railroads must repair any such defects that they or FRA identifies.

To ensure older freight cars remain in compliance with part 215, FRA anticipates that railroads and car owners will inspect older freight cars as needed for issues that are potentially more likely to develop due to the age of the cars. A comprehensive shop inspection may be appropriate to identify concerns related to the structural integrity of older cars, but FRA is not mandating the specific schedule or frequency of such inspections because part 215 compliance is a constant requirement for freight cars in service.

For cars that are interchanged among railroads, AAR Field Manual Rules 88 and 90 are more comprehensive than FRA's own regulations. The AAR application for approval for increased life status (ILS) requires proof of compliance and verification that the units do not have any structural defects or weaknesses. A thorough structural inspection is performed, including but not limited to the superstructure, underframe (including car bodies, body bolsters, side sills, center sills, draft sills, and draft pockets), and truck castings. FRA understands AAR Rule 88 also requires that railroads obtain FRA's authorization to operate freight cars beyond 50 years from the date originally built. FRA assumes this requirement is intended to reflect the historical requirement for FRA approval under 49 CFR 215.203, which is being rescinded in this rule.

In response to commenters' concern that this rule does not include speed and load limitations, FRA notes that railroads will be required to provide to FRA all the same types of information that have been required in petitions for special approval prior to this rule. Based on a review of FRA special approvals, FRA has determined that the speed and load restrictions in those approvals have generally corresponded to the existing use of the car at the time of the application. Railroads will most often designate overage cars for a particular type of service, accounting for operating conditions and allowable speeds on the territory. FRA anticipates that will remain industry practice. Moreover, with the information this rule requires railroads to provide, FRA will be able to monitor usage of the cars effectively and target inspections for compliance with part 215 requirements.

In their jointly filed comment letter, AAR and ASLRRA stated that current regulations were developed to address a transitional era when many freight cars featured wooden structural elements, and fragile cast iron or otherwise obsolete components were still in operation. They also stated that overage cars today are safe and suitable for service because AAR's technical committees have developed the technical standards necessary for the safe operation of railroad rolling stock under AAR Field Manual Rule 88 and prohibited specific components in interchange, including on older cars, under AAR Rule 90. Therefore, the associations recommended that FRA repeal § 215.203(a)(1) (listing cars 50 years old or older as restricted cars) because it places what they consider to be unnecessary burdens on railroads, car owners, and shippers “that would otherwise use cars more than 50 years old.”

The associations also commented that FRA may not have considered all the burdens associated with the rulemaking in its analysis, citing the requirements for a “comprehensive shop inspection” every two years and the cost of a single-car air brake test (SCABT). The associations noted that “all freight cars are inspected frequently while in service,” and that “any car that has been in service for many years has undergone regular maintenance and upgrades, including upgrades required by the car owner and/or by the AAR.” Commenting on the proposed requirement that overage cars receive an SCABT every two years, the associations asserted that AAR Rule 90 requires air brake components to meet current interchange requirements, so these components would be expected to be newer than 50 years old. Therefore, they do not believe there is a safety justification to require an older car to undergo an SCABT more frequently than other, newer cars.

In supplemental comments, ASLRRA stated that its joint comments with AAR focused on cars in interchange service subject to AAR Rules 88 and 90, but that many short line railroads utilize rail cars in captive service, meaning they are not interchanged. ASLRRA stated that FRA did not provide the detailed elements of the comprehensive shop inspection proposed in the NPRM but, if the inspection would require a car to go to a freight car shop facility where the trucks can be removed, short line railroads would have to deliver the car to a Class I railroad, which would then transport the car to a shop facility because many short line railroads do not have such facilities. ASLRRA also commented that requiring an SCABT every two years is unnecessary because SCABT intervals are already established by 49 CFR 232.305 and “[b]ecause brake control valves and other components are changed out when needed, a 50-year-old railcar often has newer brake components than a younger car.”

In response to the associations, FRA agrees that cars meeting AAR Rule 88 ILS standards are generally safe for service, provided they pass pre-departure inspection requirements like all other freight cars. With respect to older cars in captive service, FRA has determined that these cars are also generally appropriate for the type of captive service that is common in the industry, often at lower speeds over limited territories, based on FRA's experience from decades of reviewing special approvals. Therefore, this rule does not impose speed and load limit restrictions on older cars. Generally, speed and load limitations will be determined in accordance with the type of car, type of commodity, class of track, terrain, intended routes, and railroad operating rules. FRA reminds railroads, however, that part 215 sets the minimum standards for freight cars and any freight car not meeting those minimum standards, whether it is operated under capacity, at slow speed, or over a limited territory, must comply with part 215.

Seven companies and associations submitted a joint comment letter stating that freight cars are already subject to frequent inspections, modern defect detection systems, and strict component standards that ensure safety regardless of age. 4 They maintain that additional requirements for older cars are unnecessary, that AAR Rules 88 and 90 ensure that older cars meet modern safety standards before being allowed to continue in service, and that the safety standards in part 215 also govern the safe movement and handling of freight cars, regardless of age.

Herzog joined in the above comment letter and submitted a separate comment  5 in support of the rule as proposed in the NPRM but requested that FRA consider full repeal of § 215.203, rather than requiring inspections and related recordkeeping for overage cars. Herzog stated that railcars today are built of high-strength, corrosion-resistant materials and are subject to rigorous, routine inspection and maintenance under FRA regulations and industry standards. Herzog also requested that FRA “make it clear through the proposed changes to the 50-year ban that Maintenance-of-Way (MOW) modified freight cars are explicitly included in the rule's scope, including ballast cars, tie gondolas, rail-handling equipment, and other infrastructure support assets, as this will [be] very beneficial when they are interchanged between distinct railroads.”

In addition, Greenbrier commented in detail that AAR rules and industry practices already provide sufficient standards for overage cars, making FRA inspection and reporting requirements redundant and unnecessary. Greenbrier recommended that instead of the rule that FRA proposed, it would be better to establish a procedure to approve an existing industry safety standard, similar to the process available for safety appliances in 49 CFR 231.33. Alternatively, Greenbrier proposed incorporating by reference AAR Rule 88 ILS standards.

In response to Greenbrier's suggestions, FRA believes that the special approval process for adopting an industry safety standard related to safety appliances in § 231.33 is not an appropriate process to address the restricted freight cars that are the subject of this rule. FRA's intent is to remove the burden of seeking special approval for overage freight cars.

With respect to Herzog's comment that MOW cars should be included in the rule's scope, FRA directs attention to § 215.3(c)(3), which provides that MOW equipment (including self-propelled MOW equipment) is excluded from coverage by part 215 if that equipment is not used in revenue service and is stenciled in accordance with § 215.305. Otherwise, this rule requires notice to FRA with the information specified in § 215.203 for all freight cars over 50 years old and freight cars with restricted components.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy is an independent office that seeks to ensure small business concerns are heard in the Federal regulatory process. FRA staff met with an SBA representative on August 28, 2025, as documented in the docket for this rulemaking. SBA submitted written comments on the NPRM on September 15, 2025. SBA stated that it hosted a small business regulatory roundtable on April 14, 2025, to hear directly from small businesses and their representatives about which DOT regulations are most burdensome and in need of review, and it met with ASLRRA on August 27, 2025.

Consistent with its work on behalf of small businesses and its outreach to stakeholders, SBA commented that “a 50-year limit is not distinctly special from some other age limit, does not account for modern technology and maintenance practices, and does not factor existing regulatory provisions (such as 49 CFR 215.13) that already require that freight cars be inspected every time they are placed in service. Further, the modern rail industry operates on comprehensive industry consensus standards which dictate that all rail cars must be inspected and repaired before they can be placed in service.” Therefore, SBA advised that FRA should adopt the approach proposed by ASLRRA, removing any regulation specific to 50-year-old cars from § 215.203.

SBA also disagreed with FRA's certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) that the NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBA believes that the NPRM would impose a new, de facto mandatory process and, therefore, would not be voluntary. SBA recommended FRA evaluate the cost of the proposed regulation compared to the existing baseline and answer the question “what does a regulated entity do now and what would they be required to do if the proposed rule was finalized?” SBA commented that FRA should consider “repeal[ing] the 50-year threshold in [section] 215.203(a)(1)” and that it believes the proper test under the RFA to be whether an impact is significant, regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative. SBA suggested that FRA consider the status quo (what regulated entities must do before this rule is finalized) and compare those impacts to regulatory requirements after § 215.203 has been amended.

FRA maintains that it did indeed consider this no-action baseline in the NPRM and continues to consider this no-action baseline in this final rule. FRA is confident that this rule reduces burdens on industry in meaningful ways, and to a greater extent than the NPRM. Repealing the special approval process and replacing it with a notice requirement provides equivalent safety outcomes while reducing burdens on railroads and eliminating the added delay involved in petitioning FRA for a special approval. FRA reaffirms that these qualitative factual statements assess a no-action baseline and provide the basis for FRA's certification.

A regulatory flexibility analysis is required when an NPRM or final rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We certified the regulatory flexibility analysis in the NPRM because the rule will not have a significant impact (positive or negative) on a substantial number of small entities. Though some small entities may be impacted by this final rule, FRA does not believe that impact will be significant. FRA did consider both the positive and negative impacts for significance consideration. Railroads that were previously required to follow the existing special approvals process will have reduced costs under this rule. For those that have not previously sought special approval, or that avoided the special approval process due to its costs or any other reason, FRA expects the costs of providing the information required by this rule to be minimal. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis in this final rule (section III.D) also supports this certification. The PRA analysis states that the rule does not add any new information because the information collected is not changing and the PRA analysis corrects for a reduction in burden. The cost in the PRA analysis per railroad is approximately $133. A total of $133 is not likely to have a significant impact on any small railroad. As SBA did not provide any quantitative data to support the significant impact on small entities, FRA continues to maintain that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and therefore a certification is appropriate to comply with the RFA.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Committee), in a letter dated November 24, 2025 and signed by the Chair of the Committee, expressed support for the NPRM. 6 The Committee also urged FRA to “remove new and separate requirements, such as biennial shop inspections and redundant air brake tests.” FRA appreciates the Committee's attention to this rulemaking and its comments and notes that this rule adopts the recommendation to repeal the special approval process without adding new or redundant inspection requirements.

Prior to this rule, § 215.203 restricted the operation of any railroad freight car that is more than 50 years old, and any car of a design or equipped with a component listed in appendix A to this part, by prohibiting its placement or continuance in service, except under conditions approved by FRA. A railroad was required to petition FRA to obtain the required special approval.

This final rule revises § 215.203 to provide uniform notice requirements for all freight cars more than 50 years old. Accordingly, because they are otherwise covered by the rule due to their age, the rule removes as unnecessary the specific identification of railroad freight cars that are “[e]quipped with a Duryea underframe constructed before April 1, 1950, except for a caboose which is operated as the last car in a train” as a type of restricted freight car under former § 215.203(a)(3), as proposed in the NPRM. In addition, the appendix C defect code associated with § 215.203 has been updated to reflect the changes made by this rule.

FRA recognizes that there are many restricted cars now in service under previously issued special approvals. Each special approval has an expiration date, generally five years from issuance. At the same time, this rule allows railroads to operate restricted cars with notice to FRA, rather than special approval. Therefore, railroads may continue to operate restricted cars under the terms of an existing special approval, or they may comply with the new notice requirement in § 215.203. FRA has added subsection (c) to make clear that existing special approvals may still be relied on after this rule is effective. If a railroad chooses to comply with the new notice requirement for any restricted car now in service under a special approval, the existing special approval and its associated conditions will be superseded by this rule, but only as to conditions that relate to the car's restricted status under § 215.203. Any other FRA approvals or waivers and their associated conditions that are not directly based on the car's age or the presence of restricted components under appendix A to part 215 are not affected by this rule and remain in effect. FRA invites railroad car owners to contact FRA should they have any questions about the requirements applicable to any car or the car's regulatory status.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT's rulemaking procedures, 49 CFR part 5, subpart B. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. Railroads will benefit from this regulatory relief because they will be able to keep certain older cars in service, provided they submit notice to FRA with information about those cars. This notice includes readily available information and can be provided via email, so the associated costs will be minimal. Currently, cars over 50 years old are subject to the special approval process and must comply with the conditions of approval in addition to the general requirements of part 215. Under this final rule, following notice to FRA, these older cars will only have to comply with the general requirements of part 215. Therefore, railroads will avoid the compliance costs associated with the special approval conditions. Further, railroads will avoid the costs associated with filing petitions for special approval with FRA, including the time and expense required to complete the petitions and have employees present for FRA inspections prior to FRA's decision. The Government will avoid costs associated with processing special approvals, including the time and expense required to do so.

Cars that are interchanged are subject to AAR Interchange Rules regardless of FRA's regulation of overage cars and railroads with cars that are approved under AAR's ILS process will avoid all costs of compliance with § 215.203 for up to 65 years from the date of original construction (15 years beyond the age of 50).

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  7 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 8

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule is expected to have net benefits, and it will therefore be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.

The RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 9 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). FRA received an SBA comment letter and has addressed SBA's comments in section I.C.3 of this preamble.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This final rule replaces the special approval process for cars over 50 years old with a requirement that railroads provide notice to FRA with specific information. The general requirements of part 215 continue to apply to these cars. Therefore, railroads will see a cost savings: they will no longer have to navigate the special approvals process or comply with the associated conditions of a special approval for overage cars. Though they must submit notice to FRA including information about the relevant cars, this notice includes readily available information and can be provided via email, so the associated costs will be minimal. In addition, the PRA analysis of this final rule states that the rule does not add any new information because the information collected is not changing and the PRA analysis corrects for a reduction in burden. The cost in the PRA analysis per railroad is approximately $133. A total of $133 is not likely to have a significant impact on any small railroad. Overall, FRA expects the minimal costs of compliance to be outweighed by the avoided costs of navigating the special approval process and subsequent compliance with the conditions of that approval, resulting in cost savings for small entities. Therefore, some small entities may be impacted by this final rule, but FRA does not anticipate significant impacts. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 10 FRA is seeking OMB approval to revise the information collection estimates in OMB Control No. 2130-0519, corresponding to part 215, which was last approved April 24, 2023. 11

This rule does not add any new information collection requirements because the type of information collected under § 215.203 is not changing. Information that was previously required to be included in petitions for special approval will now be required in notices to FRA. However, FRA has determined that the information collection request associated with OMB Control No. 2130-0519 should be updated to reflect anticipated burden changes, including reductions in burden, associated with § 215.203 as revised by this rule. The table below contains the revised information collection requirements associated with § 215.203 and the estimated time to fulfill the requirement.

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

The requirements related to the use of locomotive horns by FRA-regulated entities are established in 49 CFR part 222, “Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.” Although part 222 focuses on the use of locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade crossings, it also provides clarification regarding the use of locomotive horns in emergencies and other situations.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to clarify that no Federal regulation requires a railroad to sound a locomotive horn because of the presence of a passenger station and that a railroad has discretion to determine policies for sounding a locomotive horn at a passenger station through railroad operating rules. In addition, if a railroad decides to sound a locomotive horn at a passenger station, the minimum sound level requirements in FRA's Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards would not apply to the sound produced by the horn. 90 FR 28643 (July 1, 2025).

In response to the NPRM, FRA received comments submitted by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)  1 and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD). 2 Although BLET supports the proposed rule and encourages FRA to implement a rule that is clear and unambiguous, BLET expresses concern whether permitting an exception to the locomotive horn sound level requirements in 49 CFR 229.129(a) would allow use of noncompliant locomotive train horns. In its comments, SMART-TD opposes the proposed rule and contends that the rule would increase the likelihood of public safety incidents, resulting in train crew trauma and psychological harm, as well as increased operational and economic costs. SMART-TD also contends that the rule would allow railroads to shield themselves from financial and other liability in the event of pedestrian strikes around passenger stations.

In response to this feedback, FRA notes that the rule is intended to clarify existing discretion for railroads over locomotive horn use at passenger stations; it imposes no change on this existing discretion. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect any increase in public safety incidents in connection with railroads' exercise of this discretion whether to sound the locomotive horn at passenger stations under their own operating rules. Nor will a railroad's exercise of this discretion when sounding the locomotive horn under their operating rules make a railroad non-compliant with the requirements of 49 CFR 229.129(a) if a railroad chooses to use a locomotive horn that emits a sound below the decibel level in § 229.129(a). FRA clarifies that the locomotive must still be equipped with a horn that produces a minimum sound level in compliance with the requirements of § 229.129(a).

As noted in the NPRM, railroads have sounded the locomotive horn at passenger stations as one method of warning passengers of approaching trains and safeguarding passenger movements at passenger stations. The railroad industry has developed additional methods for providing such warning to passengers and safeguarding their movements at passenger stations, including advancements in station design, providing physical separation of passengers from train movements, and providing other forms of warnings and measures for increasing situational awareness, including both audible and visual station announcements. It is in the context of this more robust array of methods to warn passengers of approaching trains and to safeguard passenger movements at passenger stations, and in consideration that different methods may be employed depending on whether trains are stopping at a station, moving through a station without stopping, or moving over tracks adjacent to a station, that the rule will enhance a railroad's discretion in using the locomotive horn at passenger stations—not diminish railroad safety.

Please refer to the discussion in the NPRM, as FRA has generally adopted the rule text as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28643 (July 1, 2025).

In § 222.23(d), FRA modified the proposed regulatory text by adding the words “at a passenger station” in the second sentence to clarify that the decision to sound a locomotive horn at a passenger station is subject to railroad discretion and railroad operating rules, as opposed to other locations where train horn sounding is required by FRA regulation. The final rule text is otherwise as proposed in the NPRM.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 3 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule will provide transparency regarding Federal locomotive horn sounding requirements and eliminate any confusion to the public, rail labor organizations, and the rail industry by clarifying that no Federal regulation requires the sounding of a locomotive horn because of the presence of a passenger station. In addition, this final rule clarifies that railroads may exercise discretion to sound a locomotive horn in accordance with railroad operating rules without being subject to the minimum sound level requirement for locomotive horns in 49 CFR 229.129(a). This rule provides railroads greater clarity regarding existing flexibility to operate their businesses without adversely impacting railroad safety.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  4 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 5

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and it will therefore be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 6 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing existing practices that comply with part 222 or another Federal regulation; it merely offers flexibilities that could result in cost savings, if a small entity or other regulated entity chooses to utilize those flexibilities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 222 became effective when it was approved by OMB on January 19, 2026. The OMB Control Number is 2130-0560, and OMB approval expires on January 31, 2029.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  7 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, and will not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 222 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

The requirements related to the use of locomotive horns by FRA-regulated entities are established in 49 CFR part 222, “Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.” On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to amend 49 CFR 222.21(d) to provide regulatory relief from the required horn sounding pattern of two long blasts, one short blast, and one long blast for locomotive engineers operating trains, locomotive consists, or individual locomotives that have stopped in close proximity to a public highway-rail grade crossing. 90 FR 28641 (July 1, 2025).

Currently, paragraph (d) of § 222.21 permits locomotive engineers operating trains, locomotive consists, or individual locomotives that have stopped in close proximity to a public highway-rail grade crossing to approach the nearby crossing and sound the locomotive horn for less than the 15-second minimum horn sounding duration required by paragraph (b)(2) of that section. However, engineers operating this equipment that have stopped in close proximity to a public highway-rail grade crossing are not permitted to vary the horn sounding pattern of two long blasts, one short blast, and one long blast, unless the engineer is at a location where public highway-rail grade crossings are spaced closely together. 1 Therefore, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to allow engineers operating trains, locomotive consists, or individual locomotives that have stopped in close proximity to a public highway-rail grade crossing to vary the required locomotive horn sounding pattern (to include providing one single blast of the locomotive horn) as they enter the nearby public highway-rail grade crossing.

FRA received 12 comments in response to the NPRM. 2 Nine comments were submitted anonymously  3 and eight of these anonymous comments supported the flexibility provided by the NPRM. One anonymous comment opposed the NPRM, expressing concern with the adequacy of the warning provided by a single blast of the locomotive horn. FRA also received a comment from an individual, self-described as a person who has been living near a gated crossing for more than 30 years, in full support of the changes proposed in the NPRM. 4

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) submitted comments in support of the flexibility proposed in the NPRM. Although BLET recommended that FRA retain the locomotive horn sounding pattern required by § 222.21(a) as the default rule for use in most situations, BLET also commented that its locomotive engineer members “would welcome the allowance to use discretion to use one single horn blast when they enter onto a crossing at grade, after being stopped in close proximity.”  5

The Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD) submitted comments opposing the NPRM. SMART-TD noted that the horn sounding pattern required by § 222.21(a) provides motorists, pedestrians, and communities with a predictable and recognizable warning that a train is approaching. The comment asserted that the proposed flexibility would introduce ambiguity and reduce the clarity of the warning provided at grade crossings. Further, SMART-TD challenged FRA's assertion that the NPRM would reduce burdens on railroads and surrounding communities, contending that the existing horn sounding pattern requirement carries no meaningful cost to railroads and that the changes proposed in the NPRM would weaken FRA's safety regulations and result in social and economic costs from increased collisions, injuries, fatalities, and subsequent litigation. 6

In response, FRA notes that § 222.21 currently allows locomotive engineers to sound the locomotive horn for less than 15 seconds in two very different scenarios. Locomotive engineers are permitted to sound the locomotive horn for less than 15 seconds when initiating movement after having been stopped in close proximity to a public highway-rail grade crossing. 7 Locomotive engineers are also permitted to sound the locomotive horn for less than 15 seconds when traveling at speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour (mph) on approach to a public highway-rail grade crossing. 8 Moreover, a commuter railroad obtained regulatory relief similar to the proposal through an FRA waiver permitting its train crews to vary the locomotive horn sounding pattern required by § 222.21(a) when initiating train movement after having stopped at certain specified passenger stations located in close proximity to public highway-rail grade crossings. 9 This waiver has been in effect since 2009 without negatively impacting public safety or the safety of railroad operations.

FRA disagrees with SMART-TD's assertion that the horn sounding pattern required by § 222.21(a) carries no meaningful cost to railroads. Without the regulatory flexibility proposed, each entity seeking to vary the required locomotive horn sounding pattern by train crews would be required to prepare and submit a waiver petition for regulatory relief.

SMART-TD also noted concern that the proposed language may create liability for locomotive engineers, who might be scapegoated in the event of a grade crossing collision. In response, FRA is amending § 222.21(d) to clarify that FRA is authorizing locomotive engineers to exercise their discretion when determining whether to vary the locomotive horn sounding pattern if the engineer can determine that the nearby public highway-rail grade crossing is not obstructed and, in the locomotive engineer's sole judgment, at least one of the conditions set forth in § 222.21(d)(1) and (2) has been met.

Please refer to the discussion in the NPRM, as FRA is generally adopting the rule text as proposed in the NPRM. 90 FR 28641 (July 1, 2025). However, as noted above, in this final rule, FRA is adding the phrase, “in the locomotive engineer's sole judgment” to § 222.21(d) to clarify that FRA is authorizing locomotive engineers to exercise their discretion when determining whether to vary the locomotive horn sounding pattern when entering a nearby public highway-rail grade crossing, after having stopped in close proximity to the crossing.

FRA is also replacing the reference to “conflicting highway movements” in § 222.21(d)(2) with “conflicting motorist or pedestrian traffic” to clarify that FRA expects locomotive engineers to look for motorists and pedestrians who may be approaching the nearby public highway-rail grade crossing. Thus, prior to exercising the discretion authorized by § 222.21(d), locomotive engineers must determine that either the crossing gates at the nearby unobstructed public highway-rail grade crossing are fully lowered (in compliance with the condition set forth in § 222.21(d)(1)) or there is no conflicting motorist or pedestrian traffic approaching the nearby unobstructed public highway-rail grade crossing (in compliance with the condition set forth in § 222.21(d)(2)).

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 10 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule and concluded that it reduces the burden on railroads and communities by providing greater flexibility in rules concerning train horns near public highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, this final rule eliminates the need for railroads seeking to vary the mandatory locomotive horn sounding pattern to prepare and submit a waiver petition for regulatory relief to FRA.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  11 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 12

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore it is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule will provide additional flexibility for the use of train horns near public highway-rail grade crossings, and waivers will no longer be necessary for those railroads that otherwise would petition FRA for relief from such rules.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 3 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will allow for regulatory relief in certain situations from the pattern of horn soundings in FRA train horn regulation. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience benefits. Some small entities will experience cost savings from no longer having to submit waivers. Although some small entities may be impacted by this final rule, FRA does not anticipate that those impacts will be significant.

Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 222 became effective when it was approved by OMB on January 19, 2026. The OMB Control Number is 2130-0560, and OMB approval expires on January 31, 2029.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  13 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 222 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and updating requirements that are outdated.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed miscellaneous amendments to FRA's accident reporting regulations which included promoting the submission of documents to FRA electronically, eliminating redundant regulations, and allowing railroads additional time to complete certain forms. 1

FRA received four comments. An individual commenter commended FRA for promoting the electronic submission of documents, removing redundant regulations, and providing railroads with more time to complete certain forms to ensure comprehensive accident reporting. 2 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), 3 the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD), 4 and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)  5 (collectively, “the labor organizations”) each submitted a comment opposing the NPRM. The labor organizations expressed concerns that the changes proffered in the NPRM would reduce transparency and cause confusion without providing a safety benefit. They also alleged that giving railroads additional time to complete certain accident reporting forms would lead to the forms being less accurate which would harm safety.

In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it proposed in the NPRM. FRA discusses these comments further in the Section-by-Section Analysis.

Except as otherwise noted below, FRA has adopted the rule text as proposed, and readers may refer to the NPRM's Section-by-Section Analysis for extensive discussion of FRA's rationale for the revisions.

In the NPRM, FRA stated that the definitions of “railroad” and “railroad carrier” are duplicative and proposed revising the definition of “railroad” and removing the definition of “railroad carrier.” All three labor organizations opposed this change stating that it would create confusion by providing a definition that conflicts with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). SMART-TD argued that removing the word “carrier” from part 225 would allow railroads to exploit gray areas and decide when they wanted to be subject to the RLA's protections and when they wanted to be immune from the RLA. SMART-TD described this change as “deregulation by stealth” and said it would allow railroads to “chip away at worker rights” and undermine labor protections in the rail industry. 6

FRA is unconvinced that this change would cause confusion or adversely affect labor protections in any meaningful way. This change maintains the status quo as this section currently states that “ [r]ailroad means a railroad carrier.” The logical conclusion from that statement is that the two terms are interchangeable for purposes of part 225. Thus, FRA is eliminating confusion by removing a term (“railroad carrier”) that has the same meaning as another term in part 225 (“railroad”). Furthermore, since FRA is not making any substantive change to the definition of “railroad,” it is not creating any new conflict with the RLA.

FRA also notes that SMART-TD did not offer any specific explanation for how removing the word “carrier” from this part would adversely affect worker rights and would allow railroads to exploit gray areas in the law. Instead, SMART-TD only provided vague assertions. However, there are several other parts in FRA's regulations that contain a definition of “railroad,” but not a definition of “railroad carrier.” For example, 49 CFR part 240 has included a definition of “railroad,” but not “railroad carrier,” since 1991. As the labor organizations have not provided any specific evidence that the change will result in harmful effects, FRA amends § 225.5, as proposed.

FRA proposed reducing FRA's review period for consolidated reporting requests from 90 day to 60 days. BLET opposed this change stating that it created unnecessarily tight deadlines for the agency, especially if those deadlines do not accommodate the need to request additional information. BLET also alleged that no safety justification had been provided for expediting this review process. 7

In response, FRA notes that BLET's comment is, in part, based on the false premise that FRA's deadline for deciding such requests will not be delayed if FRA requests additional information from the railroad. However, proposed paragraph (d) of this section in the NPRM states this 60-day period “will be tolled pending any FRA requests to the parent corporation or subsidiary railroads for missing or additional information needed for the agency to reach a decision.” Further, FRA, through its experience in reviewing these requests, has concluded that 60 days is sufficient time for the agency to perform a thorough review of the request and to issue a decision without being rushed.

FRA, however, is making a minor change to the proposed language in the NPRM for paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. FRA is changing “and/or” in the NPRM to “or” in this final rule.

The NPRM proposed removing paragraph (a) of this section which explains how to obtain accident/incident reports by making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. BLET objected to removing this paragraph as it claimed this change reduces transparency while not meaningfully reducing any burden. BLET argued this change would make the public less aware of how to request copies of these reports.

FRA finds BLET's argument unconvincing. Existing paragraph (a) is duplicative as its main purpose is to direct readers to DOT's FOIA regulations in 49 CFR part 7. FRA does not find that removing this paragraph reduces transparency as the information in this paragraph is readily available in part 7. Further, if individuals or organizations are seeking information about making a FOIA request, they are more likely to search for such information on FRA's website as opposed to in the CFR. Thus, removing this information from this section should eliminate redundancy in FRA's regulations without harming transparency. In addition, current paragraph (a) contains a mailing address and a web address which are subject to change. By removing this paragraph, FRA is reducing the likelihood of having outdated information in its regulations and reducing the potential future burden of having to amend this section if these addresses change. Therefore, FRA amends § 225.7, as proposed.

FRA proposed revising paragraph (h)(2) of this section to remove the fixed $5,000 fine amount and instead state that such persons be subject to a fine under title 18 of the U.S. Code. BLET expressed its opposition to this change as it would increase the potential penalty for employees without any justification. BLET contended that title 18 provides for up to five years in prison and does not provide a maximum fine amount which is a significant departure from the current practice of limiting the fine amount for false statements. In addition, BLET claimed that FRA has not provided evidence that employees making false statements is such a considerable issue that stronger penalties are needed. In summary, BLET is concerned that “FRA is relying on [t]itle 18 of the U.S. Code for enforcement of civil and criminal penalties when these infractions are inherently transportation related and [t]itle 49 of the U.S. Code already contains adequate remedies and methods for addressing civil and criminal actions.” BLET predicted that this change could lead FRA to shift the enforcement of other sections to title 18 as well.

As an initial matter, BLET is incorrect that this change would increase the maximum prison sentence as the proposed text in the NPRM maintains two years as the maximum period of imprisonment for knowingly and willfully filing a false supplemental statement. Next, BLET's concern that this revision will lead FRA to rely on title 18 instead of title 49 is misguided as FRA already relies on title 18. The current text of paragraph (h)(2) cites 49 U.S.C. 21311 as authority for assessing a fine, imprisonment, or both, and 49 U.S.C. 21311 states such fines shall be assessed under title 18. In 1994, Congress amended 49 U.S.C. 21311(a) to state that a person shall be “fined under title 18” instead of “fined not more than $5,000.” The proposed change in the NPRM simply makes paragraph (h)(2) of this section consistent with the statute it references. FRA also notes that the $5,000 fine amount has been in this paragraph since 1990, and finalizing this paragraph as proposed allows for inflationary adjustments to this figure without having to amend the regulation.

In conclusion, BLET's claim about the overall impact of this proposed change is overstated as title 18 already serves as the basis for issuing fines in accordance with this paragraph. Thus, FRA amends § 225.12, as proposed.

FRA proposed revising this section to instruct railroads to submit their late reports via email. An individual commenter commended FRA for this proposed change stating that promoting electronic submissions improves efficiency and data accuracy. 8 FRA amends § 225.13, as proposed.

Paragraph (f) of this section states that railroads must enter each accountable injury and illness and each accountable rail equipment accident/incident on the appropriate record no later than “seven working days” after receiving information or acquiring knowledge that such accident/incident occurred. The NPRM proposed extending this deadline to “15 calendar days.”

An individual commenter supported this proposed change noting that allowing railroads additional time to complete certain forms will help ensure comprehensive reporting, which will improve safety. However, the labor organizations uniformly opposed this change. BLET, SMART-TD, and TTD all argued that completing these forms as soon as possible after an accident/incident will ensure accuracy. SMART-TD noted that giving railroads more time to complete these forms will give more time for memories to fade, facts to become muddled, and paperwork to be lost. The labor organizations also contended that providing additional time for the railroads to complete these forms will delay FRA's receipt of important safety information, which will harm railroad worker safety and weaken the public's ability to remedy concerning data trends.

In addition, BLET argued that FRA did not provide evidence that these reports had declined in accuracy, and if the reports have declined in accuracy, the labor organization would like to work with FRA to determine the root cause and a solution. SMART-TD stated its concerns that this proposed change would give railroads more time to pressure injured workers into not reporting their injuries. In support of this argument, it asserted that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has put railroads under heightened scrutiny for what SMART-TD called a long record of whistleblower retaliation and intimidation. SMART-TD also said giving railroads more time to complete these forms would be hypocritical because railroad workers live under threat that if they do not report their injury on the same day it occurs, their credibility will be challenged. Lastly, TTD objected to this change because it said there was no recent evidence that railroads needed more time to complete these forms. 9

The overriding concern from the labor organizations is that this change would delay FRA's receipt of important safety information in these forms. However, this concern is misguided. This proposed extension of time only applies to a railroad's completion of Form FRA F 6180.97 (Form 6180.97) and Form FRA F 6180.98 (Form 6180.98) (or the alternative railroad-designed records for these forms). Railroads are not required to submit these forms to FRA. While an FRA representative may ultimately view these forms, such as during an audit, this viewing does not happen typically until months, or even years, after an accident or incident occurred. Therefore, providing railroads with a short amount of additional time to complete these forms will not result in any delay of FRA receiving safety information.

Regarding the labor organizations' concerns that this change would diminish the accuracy of these forms, FRA is unpersuaded. This change would only give railroads approximately an additional week to complete these forms, which should not significantly impact the memories of those persons involved in an accident or incident. However, this additional time should be helpful to railroads in obtaining relevant medical records and cost estimates, which will lead to these forms containing more accurate data. Although SMART-TD contended this will give railroads additional time to pressure workers into not reporting injuries, this is incorrect because the timeline to complete these forms, whether it is “seven working days” or “15 calendar days,” does not begin to run until after the railroad receives information or acquires knowledge that an injury or illness occurred. Therefore, this change does not give railroads additional time to pressure workers into not reporting an injury, because the injury has already been reported.

FRA also concludes this change is beneficial because it removes ambiguity over how to calculate “seven working days” properly. Different railroad workers have different work schedules and paragraph (f) of this section does not specify whether “working days” refers to the work schedule of the injured worker, the reporting officer, or someone else. By amending this deadline to “15 calendar days,” FRA establishes a clear standard that is easy for the railroads to apply. Thus, FRA amends § 225.25, as proposed.

Lastly, FRA will revise the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports in accordance with the changes to part 225 finalized in this rulemaking.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 10 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule makes administrative changes such as revising definitions, allowing railroads to submit information to FRA electronically, and removing redundant regulations. Therefore, this final rule will impose no additional burdens on regulated entities. Moreover, this final rule will provide some qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. government by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of part 225. This final rule will also provide flexibility to regulated entities by increasing the time given to railroads for completing certain forms from seven working days to 15 calendar days, and remove ambiguity over how to calculate working days. In addition, this final rule will expedite the speed at which documents are delivered while reducing costs that would otherwise exist from having to print, mail, and process documents.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  11 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by the OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 12

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 13 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small businesses and other small entities, and to minimize any significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency, or an appropriate designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory relief provided by this rule will result in cost savings for many regulated entities, including small entities. This rule clarifies and simplifies regulations, as well as reduces the need to print or mail documents. FRA does not expect that this impact to small entities will be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not impose any new information collection requirements. Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements already contained in part 225 were approved by OMB on December 5, 2023. The information collection requirements thereby became effective when they were approved by OMB. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0005, and OMB approval expires on December 31, 2026.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  14 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the U.S.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 225 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed retiring Form 6180.107 and Form 6180.150 and changed the record retention period for most accident reporting forms to three years. 1

FRA received four comments. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (in a joint comment)  2 and Fort Worth & Western Railroad (FWWR) in a separate comment  3 wrote in support of this NPRM. They contended that these forms are rarely used and that this rule would eliminate an unnecessary administrative burden that did not produce any safety benefit. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)  4 and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD)  5 (collectively, “the labor organizations”) both submitted a comment opposing the NPRM. The labor organizations asserted that even if these forms are rarely used, they can still provide important data, and the elimination of these forms could reduce the accuracy of the safety data FRA receives.

In response to this feedback, FRA is proceeding with the changes it proposed in the NPRM. FRA discusses these comments further in the Section-by-Section Analysis.

In the NPRM, FRA proposed retiring Form 6180.107 which is an alternate form railroads can use to record illnesses that are claimed by an employee to be work-related, but where there is insufficient information for the railroad to determine work-relatedness. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR supported FRA retiring this form. They all commented that retiring this form would reduce redundancy and they agreed with FRA that the form had not achieved its desired goals as it is rarely used. 6 They also noted that under 49 CFR 225.21(h), railroads are allowed to use alternative designed forms from the Form FRA F 6180.98, “Railroad Employee Injury and/or Illness Record” (Form 6180.98). Therefore, if a railroad wanted to use Form 6180.107 after the form is retired, it could create a form that is designed like the Form 6180.107.

In contrast, both BLET and SMART-TD opposed retiring this form. BLET asserted that even if the form is rarely used, there is no rationale for removing an option for workers to document injuries and illnesses, and in doing so, this proposed change would reduce the accuracy and reliability of FRA safety data. 7 BLET also contended that if FRA intends to permit the use of railroad-designed forms in lieu of Form 6180.107, it should maintain the regulatory text found in 49 CFR 225.21(j) and 225.25(i) and (j) to facilitate such reporting. SMART-TD asserted that the low use of this form does not equate to a lack of value and is more likely due to railroad resistance or a lack of training about this form. 8 In addition, SMART-TD lauded Form 6180.107 as a neutral way to record illnesses where work-relatedness is undetermined and to preserve an auditable trail for FRA.

FRA finds the labor organizations' arguments unconvincing. As FRA noted in the NPRM and AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR mentioned in their comments, if railroads find Form 6180.107 helpful with their accident reporting, they are welcome to continue using a variation of this form even after it is retired. Although some railroads may continue to use a variation of Form 6180.107 after this final rule goes into effect, the fact that one railroad and two associations representing railroads commented in support of retiring this form is illustrative. Further, after this final rule goes into effect, if railroads wish to refer to the regulatory text addressing Form 6180.107 (49 CFR 225.21(j) and 225.25(i) and (j)), as BLET suggested, they can find this language in previous versions of the CFR. FRA sees no reason to maintain regulatory text for a form the agency is retiring.

Next, BLET's contention that this change reduces the accuracy and reliability of FRA safety data is not supported by any evidence. With respect to SMART-TD's comment that this form preserves an auditable trail for FRA, FRA's part 225 audit team has found that because this form has more onerous requirements (as described in 49 CFR 225.25(i)) than the Form 6180.98, it is rarely used by railroads. Thus, the Form 6180.107 has minimal value during part 225 audits and retirement of the form is warranted. Although SMART-TD's comment that the low use of this form is more likely due to railroad resistance or lack of training, unless FRA were to mandate the use of this form, any railroad resistance to this form would be difficult to overcome. As FRA has found very limited benefits to this form, the agency sees no reason to mandate its use or to apply resources towards training railroads about this form.

FRA also proposed retiring Form 6180.150, which railroads are required to send to highway users that are potentially injured in highway-rail grade crossing accidents. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR supported retiring this form. They agreed with FRA that the purported goals of this form (making it easier for railroads to determine whether a highway user incurred a reportable injury) have not been attained. AAR and ASLRRA noted that their member railroads advised them that they very rarely, if ever, receive a response from the highway user. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR stated that this form does not provide any safety benefit and retiring the form will reduce paperwork and administrative burdens for railroads.

Both BLET and SMART-TD opposed retiring this form. BLET asserted that even if only one percent of highway users return the form, that one percent is providing valuable safety information. BLET also alleged that FRA has not provided any evidence that these forms are overly burdensome or provide inaccurate data, and the labor organization would discuss with FRA additional ways to capture more data. SMART-TD commented that Form 6180.150 ensures railroads make diligent efforts when making reportability determinations and that FRA should modernize how highway users can access and submit the form. Specifically, SMART-TD asserted that FRA should allow highway users to access the form through a Quick Response code, have fillable web forms, and submit the form electronically. In addition, the form should be multilingual and railroads should have to document their outreach attempts and report them to FRA. SMART-TD alleged that eliminating this form will make it more difficult to hold railroads accountable for highway-rail grade crossing accidents.

After reviewing the comments on FRA's proposal to retire Form 6180.150, FRA determined retiring this form is warranted. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR all supported FRA's argument in the NPRM that this form is rarely returned by highway users and the labor organizations did not dispute this contention. BLET asserted that despite a low response rate, such forms provide valuable safety information, but FRA must be mindful of the burden it places on railroads and the safety benefit that results from such burden. Currently, railroads must hand deliver, or send by first class mail, this form to every potentially injured highway user, or their representative, involved in a highway-rail grade crossing accident. Railroads must also maintain records of their efforts to contact highway users. This represents a significant burden for railroads with very little safety benefit. During part 225 audits, FRA representatives have reviewed some of the forms that highway users returned and based on that review, FRA has determined that even when these forms are returned, they do not provide a substantial enough safety benefit to warrant the continued burden on the railroads.

SMART-TD suggested that instead of eliminating this form, FRA should modernize the form by allowing highway users to complete the form electronically and making the form multilingual. FRA is unaware of any evidence that such changes would lead to a significant increase in returned forms. FRA would also have to expend substantial resources towards modernizing this form and making it multilingual. Without any confidence that such efforts would provide a tangible safety benefit, the agency declines to proceed in this manner. FRA is also unpersuaded by SMART-TD's argument that eliminating this form will make it more difficult to hold railroads accountable for highway-rail grade crossing accidents. Even after the Form 6180.150 is retired, railroads will still be required to report any highway-rail grade crossing accident on Form FRA F 6180.57, “Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report.” Therefore, it is unclear how this change will harm railroad accountability.

FRA also received general comments both in support of and in opposition to retiring these forms. AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR stated that retiring these forms is consistent with the President's deregulatory agenda as it reduces unnecessary administrative burdens that do not produce any safety benefits. FRA agrees and is proceeding with retiring these forms.

SMART-TD expressed concern that these proposed changes will give railroads more control over the content and format of their forms which may lead to the suppression of information that FRA and workers rely upon. The labor organization also stated that this will degrade the ability to compare part 225 data across railroads which will adversely affect trend analysis, research, rulemaking efforts, and worker safety. SMART-TD contended that while the NPRM overstated the cost savings of these proposed changes, it also failed to consider the costs that will accrue from eliminating these forms due to underreporting of accidents, litigation exposure, and delays to hazard abatement.

FRA disagrees that these changes will give railroads more control over the content and format of their forms because this rule is simply eliminating two forms; it is not providing railroads greater discretion with respect to the forms they use. Since most railroads were not using Form 6180.107, the only change for most railroads will be not having to send Form 6180.150 to highway users, but this will have no bearing on the “content and format” of the other forms the railroads still use. FRA also finds SMART-TD's argument that this will degrade the ability to compare part 225 data across railroads unavailing for two reasons. First, railroads were not required to submit these two forms to FRA; thus, FRA was typically only privy to the data in these forms during audits where FRA's main purpose in reviewing the forms was to ensure compliance with part 225, not to use the data for research purposes or trend analysis. Second, since Form 6180.107 was rarely used and Form 6180.150 was rarely returned by highway users, these forms provided minimal data. Thus, retiring these forms will have minimal costs, and SMART-TD's claim that there will be an adverse effect on safety is unsupported. Even though SMART-TD argued that FRA overstated the cost savings, AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR all agreed with FRA that these forms impose administrative burdens on railroads and their elimination will lower costs for railroads.

Lastly, SMART-TD argued that retiring these forms will shift a railroad's burden from completing these forms to performing ad hoc correspondence and follow-up. Instead of retiring these forms, SMART-TD seemed to suggest FRA should impose more stringent requirements if a railroad chooses to use an alternative-designed form. In particular, SMART-TD stated FRA should only allow alternative-designed forms if the railroad could demonstrate equal or better response rates and data completeness compared to the FRA forms. FRA does not agree that retiring these forms will lead to railroads spending more time performing ad hoc correspondence and follow-up, but even if that was true, this additional time spent would pale in comparison to the time railroads will save by not filling out these forms and not mailing the Form 6180.150 to highway users. If this rule was likely to increase the paperwork and administrative burden on railroads, it is unlikely AAR, ASLRRA, and FWWR would have submitted comments in support of this rule. Since FRA is proceeding with retiring these forms, it is not adopting SMART-TD's suggestion of imposing more stringent requirements on alternative versions of these forms. Thus, FRA amends §§ 225.21 and 225.25 as proposed.

In the NPRM, FRA proposed creating a three-year retention period for all forms listed in paragraph (a) of this section. SMART-TD asserted that shortening the retention period will increase the burden on small contractors and short line railroads who must navigate non-uniform carrier demands while still satisfying FRA audits. SMART-TD requested that FRA keep the retention period at five years for illness/injury and human factor records. FRA is unclear how this change will increase the burden on small contractors and short line railroads as SMART-TD did not elaborate on this claim. ASLRRA, who represents short line railroads, did not raise this concern in its comment, and if any railroad finds a shorter record retention period will somehow increase its administrative burden, that railroad can always choose to retain its records longer than the FRA-imposed minimum requirement. In response to SMART-TD's request that FRA keep the retention period at five years for certain forms, FRA notes that this final rule increases the retention period for human factor forms from two years to three years. 9 As for illness/injury forms, SMART-TD did not provide any explanation for why these forms should be retained for five years. FRA finds this burden unnecessary as a retention period of three years is sufficient to meet FRA's audit needs. Thus, FRA amends § 225.27 as proposed.

Since FRA proposed retiring Form 6180.107, and paragraph (a)(11) of this section pertains to that form, FRA proposed removing this paragraph. SMART-TD commented that FRA should keep this paragraph to maintain clear accountability for contested illness records and it should update the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports “to reinforce the neutral status and required content for contested-illness documentation.” Because FRA is proceeding with retiring Form 6180.107, there is no need to adopt these suggestions from SMART-TD. Thus, FRA amends § 225.33 as proposed.

Lastly, FRA will revise the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports in accordance with the changes to part 225 finalized in this rulemaking.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 10 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this rule and considered comments from the public. FRA concluded that this rule may impart minimal additional burden on regulated entities, but overall would provide greater relief to railroads. Regulated entities may see a minimal increased burden to retain certain forms for an additional year under the final rule. However, those same entities would also see a decreased burden by other forms that have a shorter retention period (three years instead of five years). FRA expects any potential additional burden to be outweighed by the benefits of this final rule, and therefore estimates the rule to be overall cost beneficial. Because this rule would retire two FRA forms and change the retention period under § 225.27(a), this rule would provide qualitative benefits by requiring regulated entities to complete fewer forms and require less storage and retention. This rule will also provide flexibility by clarifying, simplifying, and updating the language of part 225.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  11 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 12

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 13 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may impart minimal additional burden under part 225 to some railroads, but overall would provide greater relief to railroads. This rule offers flexibilities that would result in cost savings. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience a cost savings.

A commenter mentioned that Form 6180.107 provides a neutral way to record illnesses claimed as work-related when work-relatedness is undetermined, especially for the short line railroads (which may be considered small entities). FRA restates that this rule reduces redundancy because under § 225.21(h), railroads are allowed to use alternative designed forms from the Form 6180.98. Therefore, if a railroad wanted to use Form 6180.107 after the form is retired, it could create a form that is designed like the Form 6180.107.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and elsewhere in this rule, while some small entities may be impacted by this final rule, FRA does not anticipate any of the impacts to be significant. Consequently, FRA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., FRA is seeking approval from OMB to revise the information collection estimates in previously approved OMB Control Number 2130-0500, corresponding to part 225. On December 5, 2023, OMB approved FRA's last information collection request (ICR) corresponding to part 225, containing 30,284 burden hours.

With this final rule, the paperwork burden in 49 CFR part 225, by retiring Form 6180.107 and Form 6180.150, will reduce the currently approved total burden of 30,284 by 877 hours for a revised estimate of 29,407 hours.

All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email: joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone: 757-897-9908.

OMB is required to notify the agency involved of its decision on the collection of information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this document. FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if required.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal Governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  14 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 225 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to amend 49 CFR 229.73(b) to expand the maximum permitted variation in diameter for locomotive wheel sets using alternating current (AC) technology. 90 FR 28658 (July 1, 2025). During the comment period, which closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the following five entities: the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);  1 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET);  2 the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union);  3 the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD);  4 and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). 5

In summary, ASLRRA supports the proposed regulatory change, whereas BLET, IAM Union, SMART-TD, and TTD oppose the rulemaking. FRA discusses the comments it received further in the Section-by-Section Analysis of this final rule.

As proposed in the NPRM, in this final rule, FRA is amending paragraph (b) of this section to expand the maximum permitted variation in diameter for locomotive wheel sets using AC technology. In May 2019, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) submitted a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR part 209 on the basis that “[n]ew technology with individual axle control developed and placed in service after 1980 provides the basis for change which will result in better customer service through a reduction of locomotive out of service time and increased wheel life without impacting safety.”  6

Existing paragraph (b) of § 229.73 specifies that the maximum variation in the diameter between any two wheel sets on different trucks on a locomotive that has three-powered-axle trucks may not exceed 1 1/4 inches. This final rule separates the existing requirement in current paragraph (b) into new paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), generally continuing the current 1 1/4 -inch maximum variation for wheel sets on, for example, older locomotives equipped with direct current (DC) traction motors. This final rule adds a new paragraph (b)(3), generally allowing a 1 1/2 -inch maximum variation for wheel sets on newer locomotives equipped with AC traction motors that utilize individual truck or single axle control technology. New paragraph (b)(3) eliminates the wheel set variation requirement of this section for wheel sets on non-powered axles on locomotives equipped with AC traction motors that utilize individual truck or single axle control technology because FRA does not expect wheel variation to have a significant impact on truck dynamics in that case. FRA modified the final rule text from the NPRM to simplify the language and address a potential regulatory gap in the proposed framework.

Specifically, FRA decided not to include the proposed reference to DC traction motors in paragraph (b) in this final rule. The revised language is intended to help clarify that the existing requirement ( i.e., the default 1 1/4 -inch maximum variation)—now in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)—continues to apply to wheel sets in general, unless the wheel sets meet the criteria in new paragraph (b)(3).

In its comments, ASLRRA offers support for this regulatory change and states that it “agrees with FRA that this proposal would better accommodate new technology while maintaining current levels of safety.” In addition, ASLRRA notes that short line railroads expect the change to “save a tremendous amount of time and additional wheel cuts on 24-wheel sets in the industry's new fleets of AC traction systems.”

In its comments, BLET opposes this rulemaking and UP's 2019 petition for rulemaking. BLET expresses concerns about the potential risks associated with excessive wheel size variation. For example, BLET states that uneven weight distribution on the trucks can cause an uneven load and increase the risk of derailment simply due to the difference in wheel diameters, and that can lead to more wheel slip as there may be fewer contact points with the rail. BLET states they have seen documentation from manufacturers recommending less than one inch of variation in wheel diameters, in contrast to UP's proposed 1 1/2 inches. BLET expresses interest in the safety studies UP, other Class I railroads, or FRA, conducted to support an increase in wheel diameter variation beyond what the manufacturer recommended. BLET indicates its members believe the current practice at multiple railroads is for AC locomotives to have a smaller variation in wheel diameter than DC locomotives.

In its respective comments, the IAM Union and TTD assert that FRA's existing limit of 1 1/4 inches reflects sound engineering practice and remains necessary for safe operation, and raising the limit to 1 1/2 inches or eliminating it for non-powered axles introduces additional mechanical risk, contravenes manufacturer specifications, and lacks evidentiary justification.

FRA notes that Appendices A and B to UP's petition for rulemaking include a white paper and presentation by General Electric (GE), the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The document in Appendix A to UP's petition is titled, “Expanding the limits of CFR 49 Part 229.73 Wheel Sets for GE AC Traction Single Axle Locomotives (AC4400CW, ES44AC, ET44AC models),” and it supports the expanded wheel diameter variation in this final rule, based on a detailed technical analysis. 7 GE presented various simulations of extreme curving examples and concluded that the derailment coefficients (L/V), 8 after increasing the wheel diameter difference from 3/4 of an inch to 1 1/2 inches, were still within FRA's Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits for GE AC locomotives with individual axle control. 9 It is not clear what documentation from other manufacturers BLET, the IAM Union, and TTD are referencing in their comments, and it is possible that documentation refers to the existing standards regarding DC-powered locomotives, which are still applicable and are not rescinded in this rulemaking.

IAM Union asserts that increasing the permissible wheel size variation to 1 1/2 inches disregards operational hazards, involving truck dynamics, bearing and gearbox stress, wheel wear, and adhesion and control systems, as further described in its comments. 10 FRA disagrees that the amendment to 49 CFR 229.73(b) will amplify side-to-side imbalance, as IAM Union and TTD contend because the amendment does not modify the standard for wheel diameters on the same axle. Furthermore, FRA does not understand IAM Union's argument about bearing and gearbox stress because the diameter of the wheel has no bearing on lateral tolerances. IAM Union presents no data that the regulatory amendment will create more wear, rather than less wear and unnecessary wheel truing, as presented in GE's white paper. The only indication in GE's white paper that the expanded wheel diameter variation could cause instability is if the smallest wheelset is the lead wheelset, and the general practice is never to place the smallest wheelset in the lead position.

In its comments, SMART-TD urges FRA to withdraw the proposal and reinstate the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to provide a rigorous safety analysis on this subject. FRA appreciates SMART-TD's support in general for RSAC and agrees that RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders to exchange information about certain issues relating to the safety of rail operations in the future.

In its comments, SMART-TD highlights that FRA acknowledged in the NPRM that excessive wheel size variation poses risks to wheel slip, truck dynamics, and ultimately derailment potential. SMART-TD contends that those risks do not disappear simply because newer locomotives are equipped with AC traction motors, stating that allowing greater tolerance in wheel set variation will increase lateral forces, create more vibration, and cause greater truck instability. According to SMART-TD, this instability translates directly into a rougher ride in the locomotive cab, amplifying shocks and lateral motion that its members endure for long hours on duty.

FRA disagrees with SMART-TD's comment because it fails to consider the safety benefit of axle control technology on wheel slip and truck dynamics. Section 229.73(b)(3) in this final rule permits increased wheel variation for only wheel sets “on locomotives equipped with alternating current traction motors that utilize individual truck or single axle control technology.” As explained in GE's white paper, the axle control technology mitigates any safety risks caused by the small increase in wheel size variation permitted in this final rule. GE asserts that its traction “locomotives with individual axle control utilize a wheel slip control system which includes one speed sensor per traction motor. Each traction motor is powered by an exclusive inverter which applies a frequency and voltage appropriate for the wheel diameter and vehicle speed.”  11 GE explains further that the “inverter for each axle regulates tractive effort regardless of the other axles so variation in axle to axle wheel diameters do not result in tractive effort or current imbalance risk nor a shift in the thermal duty toward any traction motors due to its axle's wheel diameter.”  12

FRA's Motive Power and Equipment (MP&E) Compliance Manual reiterates that § 229.73, Wheel sets, applies only to three-powered-axle trucks. 13 FRA's MP&E Compliance Manual also acknowledges that the wheel slip control system brings into play either manual sanding by the engineer or automatic sanding triggered as the response to arrest the wheel slip, and in either case, sanding may substantially increase the ratio of lateral to vertical forces creating a derailment possibility. However, GE maintains that “variation in axle to axle wheel diameters do not impair the wheel slip control system nor influence the automatic sanding in a manner which would increase the use of this sand.” FRA believes this also would not influence the ratio of lateral to vertical forces. FRA continues to rely on GE's analysis and is adopting the rule text as proposed.

SMART-TD's comment also asserts that increases to lateral forces, vibration, and truck instability will result in a rougher ride, but does not provide any details showing how, or to what extent, these changes will occur, or explain how any such changes would impact safety or result in noncompliance with current safety regulations. FRA expects that any increase in lateral forces, vibration, or truck instability will be consistent with current levels of railroad safety and is adopting the rule text as proposed.

In its comments, TTD echoes the comments from BLET, the IAM Union, and SMART-TD, including opposing the rulemaking and requesting that FRA withdraw the NPRM. In TTD's view, to increase variation in wheel set diameter is arbitrary and not based on practical applications in railroading. TTD argues that FRA has not provided test data, peer-reviewed studies, or operational safety analyses demonstrating that the proposed increase to a 1 1/2 -inch wheel diameter variation poses no additional risk.

Generally, excessive wheel size variation is a safety concern due to the potential impact on wheel slip and truck dynamics. For older locomotives equipped with DC traction motors, excessive wheel size variation causes current imbalance and triggers wheel slip corrections, including unnecessary sanding, removing tractive effort, and removing power. These corrections can have adverse effects on the equipment and efficiency of operations but are necessary to prevent more serious safety hazards like damage to the rail ( e.g., rail burn) that can lead to rail failure. Newer locomotives equipped with AC traction motors utilize single axle control technology to apply voltage and control current more precisely to each wheel set based on operating conditions. As such, the AC traction motors function as an independent wheel slip correction system that does not use wheel size variation as a trigger for correction.

Despite the improvements to prevent wheel slip, wheel sets on locomotives equipped with AC traction motors still need to minimize wheel size variation to help maintain proper truck dynamics. Excessive wheel size variation can decrease the effectiveness of weight distribution from corresponding trucks, and the trucks' inability to help absorb the impact of a shifting load could lead to a derailment.

FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 14 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA has considered the potential costs and benefits of this final rule. This final rule amends FRA's locomotive safety regulations to expand the maximum permitted variation in diameter for wheel sets using alternating current technology. FRA expects that this final rule will result in cost savings to the industry as it will increase a maximum threshold for certain locomotives under 49 CFR 229.73(b) due to innovations in traction motor control. This will, in turn, result in a reduction of locomotive out-of-service time and increased wheel life without impacting safety. The increased allowable variation will help reduce the regulatory burden on the railroad industry while maintaining proper truck dynamics. FRA does not anticipate any costs associated with this final rule.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  15 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 16

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore, it is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996, 17 requires a Federal agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. 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 government jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).

In the NPRM, FRA certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on this certification.

This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing practices that comply with part 229; it merely offers flexibilities that will result in cost savings, if a small entity or other regulated entity chooses to utilize those flexibilities. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities, will experience benefits. FRA does not expect these impacts to be significant. Consequently, FRA holds to its previous certification that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not impose any new information collection requirements or modify any existing information collection requirements. Therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This final rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.”  18 FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 229 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.

On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update brake maintenance and inspection requirements contained in 49 CFR parts 229, 232, and 238 by codifying certain waivers to make permanent the safety benefits of these waivers and eliminate uncertainty about potential extensions. 90 FR 28660 (July 1, 2025).

FRA received ten comments in response to the NPRM. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, 1 the Commuter Rail Coalition (CRC), 2 the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), 3 and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)  4 commented in support of the proposed rule, acknowledging that: codification of the provisions reflects years of equipment testing that demonstrates improved safety and reliability under the waivers; advancements in brake technology reduce the opportunities for development of the types of contaminants that presented reliability challenges for early generation brake valves; and the proposed rule reduces uncertainty and provides cost savings to railroads through the elimination of waiver applications required for railroads to continue utilizing safe and efficient industry standards.

Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR 10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and updating requirements to reduce unnecessary burdens without compromising transportation safety.

Under 49 CFR part 232, FRA prescribes Federal safety standards for freight and other non-passenger train brake systems and equipment. On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to allow railroads to use “three-dimensional virtual simulation” to satisfy the hands-on portion of periodic refresher training under FRA's brake system training requirements, consistent with waivers FRA has granted to date. See 90 FR 28667 (July 1, 2025).

During the comment period that closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the following six entities: the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (jointly filed);  1 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET);  2 the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen Division (BRC) of the Transportation Communications Union;  3 the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division (SMART-TD);  4 and the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). 5 For information on those comments, and FRA's response, please review the Section-by-Section Analysis below.

FRA is amending paragraph (b)(8) of this section to permit railroads to use instructor-led, computer-based 3D simulation  6 to meet the hands-on portion of the periodic refresher training requirement. Such a simulation alone would not be considered sufficient for initial training required by the remainder of this section, which generally requires railroads to adopt and comply with a training, qualification, and designation program for employees who perform brake system inspections, tests, or maintenance. Currently, paragraph (b)(8) of this section specifies, in part, that a railroad's program must require periodic refresher training that includes classroom and hands-on training. Paragraph (b)(8) further provides that observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties may be used to meet the hands-on training requirement.

In the NPRM, FRA proposed amending paragraph (b)(8) specifically to include “three-dimensional virtual simulation” as another way to meet the hands-on refresher training requirement, in addition to observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties.

Generally, BLET, BRC, SMART-TD, and TTD oppose the rule as proposed, with many of them asserting that computer-based training cannot replace real-world, hands-on training and does not support environmental exposure to unpredictable elements, such as weather or physical and sensory inputs.

BLET asserts that even if the proposal promotes consistent training, it does not assure an equivalent level of quality or educational benefit. BLET also expresses a concern that computer-based training may be rushed, either with completion deadlines or under the threat of discipline, which could lead to a lack of understanding and retention. BLET notes that one Class I railroad did not continually provide feedback during the computer-based refresher training, but only a final score was generated at the end of the training. When discussing its members' previous experience with computer-based refresher training, BLET underscores the importance of an instructor's involvement throughout the training to ensure, for example, interaction with the instructor and transfer of expertise.

In the final rule, FRA adopts its proposal from the NPRM but clarifies that an instructor qualified under 49 CFR part 232 must lead any three-dimensional simulation under paragraph (b)(8). This approach is generally consistent with waivers FRA has previously granted to several Class I railroads, 7 and FRA alluded in the NPRM to the fact that an instructor would lead the three-dimensional simulation training. For example, in the NPRM, FRA indicated that one of the benefits of three-dimensional simulation training is it facilitates real-time feedback on an employee's performance of duties. 90 FR 28667-68 (July 1, 2025). FRA agrees with BLET's position that an instructor's active involvement is essential to any computer-based training. In addition, in this final rule, FRA is adding the phrase “computer-based” to reflect better the current simulated training being used in accordance with the referenced waivers.

BLET and BRC state that computer-based training should only complement, not replace, hands-on training. According to BRC, brake system work is inherently physical, and a keyboard and mouse cannot provide the same experience as manipulating and inspecting equipment in person. Moreover, BRC notes that virtual training often generalizes brake system features, thus failing to reflect differences between railroads, and does not usually keep up with updated rail car designs. BRC expresses concerns about new hires with no prior field experience being especially vulnerable and about experienced carmen facing “skill atrophy” through primarily virtual training.

SMART-TD and TTD also oppose the NPRM and urge that it be rescinded, as railroading is a physical craft, not a virtual exercise. SMART-TD contends that hands-on training is important because the consequences of incorrect brake inspections or maintenance are catastrophic. According to SMART-TD, virtual tools can serve as supplements, not as adequate substitutes. Similarly, TTD asserts that virtual training cannot replicate hands-on training, including factors like weather conditions or physical and sensory inputs, and brake system inspections, tests, and maintenance involve physical work by nature. TTD contends that once virtual training becomes a regulatory standard, the burden will fall on workers to prove why real-world training remains necessary.

In their joint comments on the NPRM, AAR and ASLRRA cite to CSX's 2025 petition to renew its waiver, wherein CSX asserted that “attendees have reiterated their approval of exposing students to scenarios and conditions not easily [ ] replicated in the real world. . . . To date, there have been zero employees who have elected to opt-out of the detailed air brake simulation.”  8 FRA clarifies that computer-based 3D simulation training under paragraph (b)(8) must be as effective as other “hands-on” training methods under paragraph (b)(8). If any employee fails to demonstrate the requisite knowledge or abilities during any simulation method of refresher training, FRA expects that the railroad will supplement the simulation training with other refresher training that, for example, involves “manipulating and inspecting equipment in person,”  9 as the labor organizations stated may be necessary for certain employees. FRA expects this approach will help ensure a railroad is providing sufficient, effective refresher training under paragraph (b)(8).

AAR and ASLRRA, on behalf of themselves and their member railroads, submitted comments, supporting the rule as proposed and stating that the use of simulation for refresher training is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety, based on the waivers FRA has granted to date. AAR and ASLRRA assert that such training allows railroads to provide consistent, step-by-step, and content-based tools that can evaluate knowledge regarding a variety of rail cars and situations. AAR and ASLRRA note that virtual training provides opportunities to include situations in a low-stress environment that cannot be easily replicated in a physical environment without exposing employees to potential injuries in an active work setting.

AAR and ASLRRA assert that simulation training is not new to FRA, which has permitted railroads to use locomotive simulators to test knowledge, examine skills, and monitor locomotive engineer performance for purposes of engineer certification since 1991. 10 Also, they flag that virtual simulation training is not unique to railroading, as it is widely used in the aviation, marine, and trucking sectors. 11

AAR and ASLRRA contend that the feedback for railroads' virtual simulation training programs has been “almost uniformly positive across the railroads,” evidenced by the experience of some employees expressing more comfort in asking questions and by the receipt of positive feedback, including via exit surveys. Specifically, employee trainees have reported in their exit surveys to railroads, following such training, that they viewed the simulation experience favorably over the traditional means of demonstrating proficiency. Those survey results also indicate that the current and incoming generation of railroad employees connect easily with digital technology and willingly embrace simulations to reinforce existing skills.

FRA's final rule is generally consistent with waivers FRA has granted to several Class I freight railroads to use computer-based 3D simulation to meet the hands-on refresher training requirement. 12 FRA first granted this relief in 2012 in a waiver allowing BNSF to use web- and desktop-based three-dimensional virtual simulation software, called the Air Brake System Virtual Training Environment (ABSVTE), to satisfy the hands-on portion of the periodic refresher training requirement for train, yard, and engine service employees. 13 Since that time, BNSF reports having provided such virtual refresher training using ABSVTE in over 72,000 training events, representing training provided to over 25,000 employees.

The data collected from that experience, and recent FRA research and analysis, show that the relief as proposed would be consistent with railroad safety and benefit the public interest. 14 FRA has found that web-based or low-fidelity simulated brake system refresher training effectively encourages knowledge retention, skill transfers, and performance outcomes. Computer-based 3D training also provides students with randomized scenarios that may not be readily available for hands-on training, as well as real-time performance feedback. Computer-based 3D training may also be more consistently applied to all employees and help reduce the risk of hazards or potential injury that may happen in a field training setting. FRA believes that, while the labor organizations raise worthy concerns, this final rule's limitation to refresher training provides adequate mitigation.

Different types of freight equipment move across the nation's rail network, freely interchangeable between railroads. As a result, FRA has found that instructor-led, computer-based 3D simulation provides employees with randomized scenarios on equipment types that may not otherwise be readily available for hands-on training, as well as allows for real-time feedback on employee performance of duties. Computer-based 3D simulation training may also provide for more consistent training across employees and reduce the risk of hazards or potential injury that may occur in a field training setting.

FRA notes that the existing data, including those under a more expanded inclusion of accident cause codes, show a downward trend across most critical safety metrics, including air brake-related accidents and incidents. For instance, operational test data provided by BNSF is consistent with the smaller sample size of data to which FRA had access. Notwithstanding the fact that BNSF used a narrower scope of search criteria that resulted in a slightly more positive accident outcome, FRA finds that the data still indicate safety improvement. Moreover, FRA's accident analysis shows significant improvement when compared to pre-waiver statistics.

In their joint comments, AAR and ASLRRA explain that since the railroads have implemented their simulation training programs, at least one Class I railroad has noted a reduction in certification revocations and brake testing failures. More specifically, AAR and ASLRRA claim the last decade was the safest on record, with virtual simulation being one tool driving accident and employee injury rates down. 15

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues this interpretive rule as part of its comprehensive effort to reset its fuel economy program to comply with the law. 1 NHTSA has reconsidered the scope of its authority to set fuel economy standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks. As NHTSA sets forth in this interpretation, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires NHTSA to set fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks but did not authorize NHTSA to set standards for engines on a standalone basis. In contrast to the Clean Air Act (CAA), which specifically authorizes EPA to set separate standards for engines, EISA specifically requires NHTSA set standards for vehicles, and authorized separate standards for different classes of vehicles, but did not authorize standalone engine standards. A related decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit further confirms that NHTSA's authority was limited to setting vehicle standards. 2

This interpretation will help ensure the efficient functioning of the market for these commercial vehicles by limiting regulation to its legally authorized scope. This interpretation will also help ensure that manufacturers have flexibility in how best to meet the standards and needs of their sophisticated commercial customers, who make business decisions that account for their own fuel economy needs. NHTSA will review its regulations for consistency with this interpretation in a separate rulemaking.

EISA established a statutory requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program, commonly known as the MDHD program. 3 EISA requires NHTSA, by delegation from the Secretary of Transportation, 4 to prescribe “average fuel economy standards for . . . work trucks and commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles in accordance with subsection (k).”  5 Subsection (k) requires NHTSA to establish “a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program.”  6 EISA defines “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle” as “an on-highway vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more,” and “work truck” as “a vehicle that—(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle . . . .”  7 Pursuant to these definitions, medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks are all “vehicles” with certain specified characteristics.

To inform the fuel efficiency improvement program for these vehicles, EISA instructed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to publish a study “evaluating medium-duty and heavy-duty truck fuel economy standards,” including elements such as “an assessment of technologies and costs to evaluate fuel economy for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.”  8 After NAS completed its study, the EISA directed NHTSA to “examine the fuel efficiency of commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.”  9 Among other things, EISA required NHTSA to determine “the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for measuring the fuel efficiency of such vehicles and work trucks” and “the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency performance.”  10

EISA then required NHTSA to “determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.”  11 As part of that program, NHTSA “shall adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.”  12 The statute specifies that NHTSA “may prescribe separate standards for different classes of vehicles under this subsection.”  13 The statute also requires that “the commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy standard adopted pursuant to this subsection shall provide not less than—(A) 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time; and (B) 3 full model years of regulatory stability.”  14

NHTSA first established the MDHD program through a September 2011 final rule, known as Phase 1, issued jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 15 NHTSA and EPA generally set standards for the same vehicles and engines in the Phase 1 rule. 16 Relying on its EISA authority, NHTSA adopted standards for different classes of commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks and separate standards for engines used for certain of those vehicles (combination tractors and vocational vehicles). 17 NHTSA's standards generally were mandatory for Model Years 2016 and later. 18 EPA also set separate emissions standards for vehicles and engines. EPA relied on its CAA authority to set air pollutant standards for “any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.”  19

NHTSA offered several explanations for its authority to set engine standards during the Phase 1 rulemaking despite the absence of the word “engine” in NHTSA's standards-setting authority. In both the proposed and final rules, NHTSA asserted that its express authority to set “separate standards for different classes of vehicles” also allowed it to set standards for engines. 20 NHTSA recognized that it was interpreting the statutory language “broadly.”  21 In a footnote in the proposal, NHTSA also cited the statutory requirement to set maximum feasible standards as a basis for its authority to set engine standards. 22 After several industry commenters argued that NHTSA lacked this claimed authority, the agency asserted that the statute “grants NHTSA broad authority to regulate this sector” and “does not . . . preclude[ ] the regulation of engines, but rather explicitly leaves the regulatory approach to the agency's expertise and discretion.”  23

NHTSA and EPA issued a second, Phase 2, joint final rule for the MDHD program in October 2016. 24 In the Phase 2 rule, both agencies increased the stringency of the standards applicable to the vehicles and engines addressed by the Phase 1 rule and set separate standards for trailers designed to be drawn by a motorized tractor. 25 NHTSA's Phase 2 standards generally applied to Model Years 2021 and later. 26 In a legal challenge to the agencies' trailer standards, the D.C. Circuit ruled the agencies exceeded their authorities under their respective enabling statutes to establish fuel economy or emissions standards for various categories of “vehicles.”  27

“Start[ing] with the statutory text,”  28 NHTSA's standards-setting authority speaks only of setting fuel economy standards for vehicles and not their component parts. As part of NHTSA's “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program,” EISA instructs NHTSA to “prescribe separate average fuel economy standards for . . . work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.”   29 A “work truck” is “a vehicle that—(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle . . . .”  30 In setting these vehicle standards, NHTSA must evaluate these vehicles as a whole. NHTSA must determine: “the appropriate test procedures and methodologies for measuring the fuel efficiency of such vehicles and work trucks”; “the appropriate metric for measuring and expressing commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency performance”; and factors and conditions that may affect vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency. 31 And NHTSA must establish “compliance and enforcement protocols for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks,”  32 not for various sub-components of those vehicles.

Indeed, nowhere in NHTSA's standards-setting authority does Congress instruct NHTSA to set fuel economy standards for component parts. In addition to setting standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, NHTSA is also instructed to prescribe separate average fuel economy standards for “passenger automobiles” and “non-passenger automobiles,”   33 but not their component parts. And, unlike commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, NHTSA has never asserted authority to set standards for component parts of passenger and non-passenger automobiles when establishing fuel economy standards for those automobiles.

Congress has demonstrated that it understands the difference between vehicles and engines, and that when it wants an agency to have authority to regulate one or both, it says so. 34 For example, EISA mentioned engines in several unrelated statutory provisions. 35 The absence of any reference to engines in NHTSA's standards-setting authority confirms that NHTSA's authority was limited to setting standards for the types of vehicles referenced: work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles. The Supreme Court has explained that when “Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”  36 NHTSA must give meaning to the fact that Congress did not mention engines in its standard-setting authority at the same time it enacted other engine-related provisions.

NHTSA must also give weight to the fact that Congress expressly granted authority to set engine standards to another Federal agency: the EPA. In the CAA, Congress expressly authorized EPA to set air pollutant standards for “any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.”   37 The differences in authority granted to the two agencies are not arbitrary. The CAA was designed to provide EPA with broad authority to address harmful air pollutants, which originate from vehicle engines as well as tailpipes. The EISA provisions described above were designed to provide the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, with different tools to achieve feasible petroleum conservation from motor vehicles, which is a function of a vehicle's entire design and construction. The CAA was not designed to require energy conservation, and EISA was not designed to mandate environmental improvements. 38 EPA is not a fuel economy regulator, and NHTSA is not an environmental regulator. The CAA and EISA granted EPA and NHTSA specific statutory authority appropriate to accomplish their respective goals. A desire by the agencies to achieve regulatory harmonization does not empower NHTSA to expand its statutory authority.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 39 the United States Supreme Court explained that “statutes . . . do—in fact, must—have a single, best meaning.”  40 Interpreting a statute requires “determin[ing] the best reading of the statute,” and not a so-called “permissible” interpretation. 41

Consistent with Loper Bright, NHTSA asserts the best reading of the statute is that it lacks the authority to set fuel economy standards for engines of work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles on a standalone basis. EISA commands NHTSA to set fuel economy standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks (which are defined as “vehicles”  42 ). The statute permits “separate standards for different classes of vehicles.”  43 The statute did not, however, authorize separate standards for components of a vehicle, including a vehicle's engine. In contrast, Congress expressly granted authority to set engine standards to EPA.

NHTSA's interpretation is also supported by recent case law. As noted above, the D.C. Circuit found NHTSA's attempt to set fuel economy standards for trailers as a type of vehicle unlawful. 44 The court found that trailers are not vehicles “when that term is used in the context of a vehicles' fuel economy”; trailers “have no motor,” and “motorless vehicles use no fuel.”  45 Therefore, NHTSA's delegation of authority to set fuel economy standards for vehicles did not include trailers.

Nor does it include engines. An engine is not a vehicle. To be sure, a vehicle's engine necessarily impacts its fuel economy. So do tires, transmissions, and tailpipes. However, that does not grant NHTSA authority to set fuel economy standards for those components individually or separately from the entirety of a vehicle of which they comprise a part. 46 If that were the case, like NHTSA's theory in TTMA that was rejected, “there is no principled limit to NHTSA's theory.”  47 If NHTSA could set fuel economy standards for engines, NHTSA could also set standards for any component of a vehicle that impacts fuel economy, including tires, transmissions, and tailpipes. 48

The D.C. Circuit similarly rejected EPA's argument that it could regulate significant components of a vehicle: “Perhaps sensing that it needs to offer a limiting principle, the EPA claims that it can regulate only `significant' vehicle components. But that limit is atextual. . . . [W]e cannot endorse a hazy line mentioned nowhere in a statutory provision that allows the EPA to regulate `motor vehicles,' not motor-vehicle components.”  49 The same argument applies to NHTSA's claim of authority to set separate engine standards.

The D.C. Circuit set forth several other reasons why NHTSA could not set fuel economy standards for trailers as vehicles that inform NHTSA's interpretation here. For example, the court stated that because the term “vehicles” in NHTSA's standard setting authority is preceded by three other types of vehicles, all of which have engines and burn fuel—“passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles,” and “work trucks”—the term “vehicles” should be given a meaning similar to those other words with which it is associated. A vehicle trailer, the court explained, did not have any meaningful similarity to passenger and non-passenger automobiles because trailers are not propelled by fuel, and trailers are not like work trucks that both “have an engine and burn fuel.”  50 Here, engines have no meaningful similarity to vehicles or passenger and non-passenger automobiles. They are not a type of vehicle or automobile. 51

Because engines are not vehicles, NHTSA's justification for regulating them separately has relied on the assertion that the agency is vested with broad discretion by EISA. NHTSA's argument during its Phase 1 rulemaking—that its mandate to “set separate standards for different classes of HD vehicles” should be “interpret[ed] broadly to allow regulation of HD engines in addition to HD vehicles”—pushes the text beyond its natural reading. 52 The ability to set standards for a vehicle does not logically include the authority to set standards for parts of a vehicle. 53

In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemakings, NHTSA also identified other aspects of its standard setting authority, including the requirement to set maximum feasible standards and parts of the rulemaking mandate, to argue that the statute conferred broad discretion on the agency. 54 While NHTSA has the ability to exercise discretion in setting standards and other aspects of the MDHD program, NHTSA did not explain how standalone engine standards were consistent with its mandate to “prescribe separate fuel economy standards for . . . work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.”  55 The general authority to establish various aspects of “a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency program” is insufficient to confer standard-setting authority on NHTSA beyond the plain text of the statute. EISA did not direct NHTSA to establish a MDHD vehicle and engines fuel efficiency program, and NHTSA cannot simply assume that authority through regulation. 56

Upon further consideration, NHTSA has determined that the statute did not authorize it to set separate standards for engines. Unlike EPA, NHTSA lacked express authority to set engine standards. The desire to have harmonized requirements is insufficient for NHTSA to exercise regulatory authority not given by statute. 57 It is insufficient to assert, as NHTSA has, that EISA did not “preclude[] the regulation of engines,” given that the statute refers expressly and repeatedly to NHTSA's authority to establish fuel economy standards for specific categories of “vehicles.”

EISA requires NHTSA to set standards for vehicles, authorized separate standards for different classes of vehicles, set lead time and regulatory stability limits for those vehicle standards, and otherwise addressed the parameters of a regulatory program for improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles. For the reasons stated above, NHTSA does not have authority to set fuel efficiency standards for engines separately from vehicles.

As NHTSA explained in its June 2025 interpretive rule, Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program, a reset of the MDHD program is necessary to ensure the regulations are consistent with law. NHTSA will reconsider the engine standards consistent with this interpretive rule as part of its reset of that program and ensure that vehicle manufacturers have practicable means to comply in the absence of separate engine standards. 58

Resetting the MDHD program in compliance with law will help prevent market distortions. Commercial vehicle purchasers make business decisions that account for their own fuel economy needs. Focusing the MDHD program on vehicle standards, as the law requires, will help ensure that manufacturers have flexibility in how best to meet the standards and the needs of their customers.

The interpretation set forth in this rule clarifies the appropriate scope of NHTSA's authority to set fuel economy standards for the MDHD program. This interpretation does not change existing standards or any rights or obligations under the MDHD program. Instead, this interpretation lays the groundwork for notice-and-comment rulemaking to reset the agency's regulatory program as determined necessary to bring it into compliance with applicable substantive statutory requirements as codified in Chapter 329 of title 49 of the United States Code and Administration policy. NHTSA will also consider other issues as appropriate in resetting the MDHD program, including whether any adjustments to the vehicle standards are warranted. Among the matters under review is the relationship between potential NO X emission reductions arising from EPA's 2023 NO X emission standards (taking effect in model year 2027)  59 and fuel consumption. 60

In light of the legal interpretation set forth in this interpretive rule, NHTSA will reset the MDHD program consistent with the law. Pending the rulemaking process, NHTSA will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to affected standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule.

NHTSA issues this interpretive rule to explain the statute the agency administers and how the agency will apply its interpretation to subsequent substantive rules. This interpretive rule does not amend or alter the meaning of any regulations, and any costs and benefits of any subsequent proposed changes to regulations will be analyzed in a future rulemaking. As such, notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required for this interpretive rule, 61 and the rule similarly is not subject to a 30-day delay in effective date. 62

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), provides for determining whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process and to the requirements of the E.O. This is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, NHTSA submitted this action to OMB for review. However, there are no costs or benefits associated with this interpretive rule. Any costs and benefits of rules implementing the interpretation will be analyzed in those subsequent rulemakings.

E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. As discussed above, there are no costs or benefits associated with this interpretive rule. However, this interpretive rule, which sets forth NHTSA's interpretation of its statutory authority for the MDHD program ensures that, going forward, NHTSA will not regulate beyond its statutory authority. The costs and benefits of future MDHD rules will be analyzed in those rulemakings.

E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” requires agency heads to review their regulations and identify regulations that, among other things, are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition, or that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority. NHTSA has identified its MDHD engine standards as falling within an enumerated category or categories of E.O. 14219. NHTSA is issuing this interpretive rule to set forth the agency's interpretation that it lacks the authority to regulate engines. This rule describes NHTSA's interpretation of its authority to establish the necessary legal foundation for bringing the MDHD program into compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” NHTSA has determined that this interpretive rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this interpretive rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996), requires that agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations take steps to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burdens on the regulated public. NHTSA has reviewed this interpretive rule and determined that this action conforms to the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

This interpretive rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. UMRA addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2025) or more in any 1 year. As discussed above, this interpretive rule by itself results in no expenditures and therefore the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply. Any costs and benefits will be analyzed in future rules subject to the principles laid out in this notice.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule where the agency is required by law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. 63 NHTSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis because, as discussed previously, this action is not subject to notice and public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  64 or any other law.

This interpretive rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336, “[a]n agency is not required to prepare an environmental document with respect to a proposed agency action if the proposed agency action is not a final agency action within the meaning of such term in chapter 5 of title 5 [of the United States Code].” As discussed above, this action is not a final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5. Any environmental effects will be analyzed in a future rulemaking resetting the MDHD program subject to the principles laid out in this notice.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, Dec. 8, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 552a note)), requires certain parties (Federal agencies and any non-Federal entity that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program) to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this interpretive rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information, NHTSA is not required to conduct a privacy impact assessment.

The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921, Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this interpretive rule. Accordingly, NHTSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

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

On July 31, 2026, NHTSA published an IFR to amend NHTSA's general exemption regulations in 49 CFR part 555 to remove language limiting the application of temporary exemptions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and the bumper standard to motor vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date of an exemption, and to align the regulations with the Administrator's statutory discretion to determine the vehicle population covered by a temporary exemption. 1 The IFR also removed the requirement that applications for exemption be submitted in three copies and specified an electronic means for submission. The notice stated that although the amendments were effective immediately, NHTSA will publish a final rule following the comment period responding to any comments received and making any appropriate changes to the IFR. The notice provided a 30-day comment period which closes on August 31, 2026.

On August 10, 2026, NHTSA received a request from Auto Innovators for a 30-day extension of the comment period. 2 Auto Innovators stated that “the proposal raises significant legal, technical, and policy issues that warrant careful evaluation.” Auto Innovators said a 30-day extension of the comment period would facilitate technical analysis and stakeholder coordination and allow more comprehensive comments.

NHTSA is granting the request to extend the comment period by 30 days. NHTSA has determined that the requestors have shown good cause for an extension and that the extension is consistent with public interest. A 30-day extension appropriately balances NHTSA's interest in providing the public with sufficient time to comment on the notice with its interest in obtaining specific feedback from stakeholders in a timely manner. Accordingly, NHTSA is extending the comment period until September 30, 2026. 3

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Migratory game birds are species designated in the conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of migratory birds. The conventions restrict migratory game bird hunting to the fall-winter period (1 September-10 March) and not more than 3.5 months (interpreted as 107 days) for any species. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine when and to what extent “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place compatible with the terms of the conventions, and to adopt regulations for this purpose (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). The Secretary is authorized and directed to give “due regard to the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.

The Service established regulations governing migratory game bird hunting at title 50 part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 20). Currently, the Service publishes regulations (50 CFR 20 subpart K) to authorize seasonal migratory game bird hunting each year. These regulations set the parameters for open seasons including season dates, season lengths, shooting hours, daily bag and possession limits, areas where hunting may occur, and other restrictions based on biological data. The annual regulations ensure that harvest occurs at levels compatible with migratory game bird population demographics, including production and survival, which vary in space and time with habitat conditions. These conditions may differ over North America, and within the United States. (For purposes of our regulations, and in this final rule, the term “States” includes the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, consistent with 50 CFR 10.12).

Migratory game birds use four primary migratory routes in North America. Because of the unique biological characteristics and the relative number of hunters in these routes, the Service adopted the flyway structure for administering migratory bird resources within the United States, referred to as the flyways (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific). The current annual migratory bird hunting regulations at 50 CFR part 20 subpart K establish regulations for each administrative flyway including all or portions of States in the 48 conterminous United States. We may have separate regulations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Each administrative flyway has a Flyway Council, a formal organization established through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Flyway Councils are administrative bodies that forge cooperation among public wildlife agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory birds that inhabit North America. Flyway Councils are composed of one member from each State within the Flyway, as well as States in Mexico and Provinces in Canada that share migratory bird populations. The Flyway Councils coordinate and collect information on the status of migratory game birds, establish regulatory decision frameworks, review available biological information, and make recommendations for appropriate parameters for migratory game bird hunting regulations. However, voting members are only those representing States and Territories within the United States. Service representatives participate in the Flyway Councils. Meetings typically occur every March and September and are open to the public.

To support the annual regulation process, Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. The Service considers abundance of migratory game birds and other biological factors; and therefore, undertake several surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife management agencies. To determine the appropriate annual regulations authorizing hunting for certain game bird species and populations, we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, reproductive capacity, condition of breeding and wintering habitat, number of hunters, and anticipated harvest.

The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Councils recommend to the Service appropriate parameters for State and Tribal migratory game bird hunting regulations. The SRC conducts meetings, generally in the spring and fall, to review and discuss information on the status of migratory game birds and recommendations from the four Flyway Councils and the Service. The SRC then develops recommendations for parameters for annual State and Tribal migratory game bird hunting regulations. In accordance with current regulations at 50 CFR 20.153, these meetings are open to public observation, and observers may submit written comments to the Service on the matters to be discussed. The SRC then submits recommendations to the Service for review. If approved, they are published in one of the several annual rulemaking documents for public comment.

The current administrative process for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting requires annual promulgation of State-specific Federal regulations to open the hunting season. These annual regulations expire at the end of the hunting season. The process involves publishing a series of at least four proposed and final rulemaking documents in the Federal Register including the following:

(1) A proposed rule (preliminary) that provides the process, regulatory schedule, and initial proposals for seasons, limits, and other regulations for annual migratory game bird hunting.

(2) A proposed rule that proposes the parameters within which States may select hunting seasons. The parameters specify season dates, season lengths, shooting hours, daily bag and possession limits, areas where hunting may occur, and other restrictions.

(3) A final rule that establishes the final parameters within which States and Tribes may select hunting seasons, including season dates, season length, shooting hours, daily bag and possessions limits, areas where hunting may occur, and other restrictions. This final rule incorporates public comments received on the proposed frameworks rule and recommendations from the Flyway Councils.

(4) A final rule that sets forth the annual regulations in subpart K of 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the migratory game bird hunting seasons in each State. This final rule is developed based on a process where each State submits their selection of annual hunting seasons within our parameters.

The process of establishing annual migratory game bird hunting regulations is both complex and time intensive. It begins with extensive data collection from May through December of the preceding calendar year, followed by several months of coordination with state agencies through the Flyway Councils. These efforts culminate in regulatory decisions made by the SRC. Each phase of this process is tightly sequenced, limiting flexibility in the timing of regulatory actions. Additionally, the targeted opening date of September 1 for hunting seasons imposes a hard deadline under which regulations must be finalized through the federal rulemaking process before any seasons can legally begin. This provides only a few months to complete a 4-publication rulemaking process every year. The Service has narrowly met publication deadlines in the last 8 years (2018-2025 hunting seasons; average publication of final rule 7 days prior to the start of the hunting season), placing undue strain on States, the public, and the Service. We provided a detailed overview of the current process and administrative schedule in our August 6, 2015, proposed rule for the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting season (80 FR 47388).

To alleviate the time constraint issues, the Service is changing the process for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting. This rule will codify in Federal regulations a streamlined process for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting. This will replace the need for annual Federal regulation promulgation and reduce the need for future rulemaking in the Federal Register . The process will be codified in our regulations at 50 CFR part 20, subparts H and K, and include the following:

(1) The process for determining the parameters (“authorization conditions”) within which States and Tribes may establish their annual regulations;

(2) The process for communicating the authorization conditions to States and Tribes through a Migratory Game Bird Hunting (MGBH) memorandum and notice of availability in the Federal Register ; and

(3) Authorization for States and Tribes to establish migratory game bird hunting regulations in accordance with the authorization conditions set forth in the MGBH memorandum and regulations at 50 CFR part 20.

Federal regulation of migratory game bird hunting has been in place since 1918 under the MBTA, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to authorize hunting based on periodic assessments of bird population status and habitat conditions. The original regulatory process was straightforward due to limited biological information and relatively low hunter participation. As scientific understanding, data availability, and hunter participation increased, the regulatory process expanded in complexity to ensure resultant regulations were based on sound biological principles for conservation and hunting opportunities.

Over time, the annual rulemaking process has become increasingly burdensome for States, the public, and the Service due to compressed publication timelines, administrative inefficiencies, and the growing volume of technical material required to support annual updates. These challenges have constrained transparency and limit the ability of States, Tribes, and the public to plan effectively.

The new process maintains all statutory obligations under the MBTA while improving administrative efficiency. Section 704(a) grants the Secretary broad discretion to issue regulations governing take and does not require annual rulemaking. Likewise, section 704(c)(3) imposes no annual requirement and ensures consistency with amendments enacted in the Dingell Act of 2019, including the January 31 framework closing date for hunting ducks, mergansers, and coots. Together, these provisions allow continued flexibility in how regulatory decisions are issued while fully adhering to statutory direction. The new approach retains annual biological assessments and decision-making but eliminates unnecessary repetition in the administrative process, thereby enhancing timeliness, clarity, and public accessibility.

By codifying these provisions in regulations, annual rulemaking will no longer be required to authorize seasonal migratory game bird hunting. Future rulemaking will be infrequent and undertaken only if changes to the underlying process are warranted. The process is similar to that established for Tribes (50 CFR 20.110) where Tribes are authorized to establish hunting regulations within our basic regulations and annual parameters. The process also aligns with the regulations at 50 CFR 92 authorizing Alaska subsistence hunting, where the regulations do not expire and thus do not have to be established annually before seasonal hunting may occur.

We are not making any changes to the biological approach or the process used to determine the appropriate parameters from which States and Tribes may establish their migratory game bird hunting regulations. The Service will continue biological monitoring and assessment consistent with the programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139).

This rulemaking changes the administrative process for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting. We are making these changes to increase efficiency; better meet Federal, State, and Tribal rulemaking constraints; and reduce the complexity and costs associated with promulgating annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. Our goal is to better serve State and Tribal partners and the hunting public while continuing to meet the legal and conservation purposes of the MBTA.

The nationwide economic effects generated by migratory game bird hunting are substantial, as detailed in the most recent annual rulemaking, estimated at about $2.7 billion in associated economic activity. Small, incremental adjustments made to Federal migratory bird hunting authorization conditions (limits) are not expected to materially alter those underlying economic inputs nor impose additional Federal costs. As a result, preparing a full Regulatory Impact Analysis for every annual MGBH memorandum would provide limited additional value for Federal decision-making. Annual adjustments to season lengths and bag limits do not substantially impact migratory bird hunters' choices on how many days to hunt, and available evidence shows hunter participation remains unchanged by these adjustments. As all previous annual rulemakings under the current administrative process have been “economically significant” actions under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, we intend to continue preparing a regulatory impact analysis for the primary MGBH memorandum issued every 3 years under the new process. The analysis will ensure continued sustainable harvest levels while also minimizing negative economic impacts following the directives in E.O. 12866 for economically significant actions and the guidelines in Circular A-4.

Table 1 provides a comparison between the existing and new processes for each major component in the process of authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting. The following sections describe the changes in greater detail.

This rulemaking changes 50 CFR 20 subparts H, K, and N. In subpart H, we revise §§ 20.71 and 20.72 to provide that a violation of our regulations or of any State or Tribal law or regulation for migratory game bird hunting constitutes a violation of Federal law. However, we retain existing language in subpart H that prohibits take of migratory game birds except as provided in Federal, State, and Tribal hunting regulations.

In subpart K, we remove the regulations at §§ 20.100-20.107 (annual seasons and limits) and replace them with the procedures and provisions most recently adopted in earlier rules for establishing annual regulations for migratory game bird hunting, and we will no longer establish these through an annual rulemaking process. We retain in subpart K the current regulations in § 20.108 (nontoxic shot zones) and § 20.110 (regulations for certain Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands), as the regulations in these sections are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. We also codify in our regulations at § 20.109 (extended seasons for taking migratory game birds by falconry) the unchanged parameters for special falconry seasons previously specified annually in preambles to rulemaking documents since at least the 2000-01 season. For the most recent final rule adopting the season parameters see 89 FR 68500 at 68518 (under Q. Special Falconry Regulations, August 26, 2024).

We eliminate subpart N by moving the existing regulations regarding the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Councils to subpart K, which describes the administrative process for authorizing States and Tribes to establish their regulations for migratory game bird hunting.

We are also making minor, nonsubstantive terminology changes to subpart B at § 20.11, subpart C at § 20.21 and § 20.23, and subpart K at § 20.110 to align with the new process. At § 20.11, we are making additional nonsubstantive edits to correct two typographical errors. We further update subpart C at § 20.21 to recognize the split of cackling goose ( Branta hutchinsii ) from Canada goose ( Branta canadensis ) as separate species (see 85 FR 21282, April 16, 2020, and 85 FR 51854 at 51860, August 21, 2020) and to clarify the regulatory language consistent with the final rule on hunting methods for resident Canada geese (73 FR 65274, November 3, 2008).

The Service will publish a notice in the Federal Register making available on our website the Migratory Game Bird Hunting (MGBH) memorandum setting forth the authorization conditions from which States and Tribes may establish their seasonal migratory game bird hunting regulations. Authorization conditions include season dates, season lengths, shooting hours, daily bag and possession limits, areas where hunting may occur, and other restrictions for migratory game bird hunting.

The MGBH memorandum will authorize seasonal hunting for certain designated migratory game bird groups or species of in the conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Migratory game birds are defined in regulations at 50 CFR part 20, subpart B, at § 20.11 as those species included in the terms of the Conventions for the protection of migratory birds and belonging to five families of birds and for which open seasons are authorized in 50 CFR part 20. Open hunting seasons may include certain designated members of the avian families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (shorebirds including woodcock and snipe). The Service maintains a list at 50 CFR 10.13 of all species considered migratory birds and protected by the MBTA, and we review and update this list regularly (see 88 FR 49310, July 31, 2023, for the most recent update). There are currently 185 migratory game bird species that may be subject to open hunting seasons based on the game bird families identified in § 20.11 and associated species at § 10.13. The regulations for the 2024-25 hunting seasons established open hunting seasons in at least some part of the United States for 93 of these species. We will not authorize hunting through the MGBH memorandum for any migratory game bird species group ( e.g., ducks) or specific species that was not authorized in the 2024-25 hunting season (89 FR 68500, August 26, 2024) without initiating a rulemaking. We do not currently expect that there will be a need to add any species to the list of game birds with open hunting seasons as this has generally been unchanged for decades.

To determine the authorization conditions, we will annually apply the most current information on game bird demographics and habitat conditions to the decision frameworks previously adopted through rulemaking or notice published in the Federal Register to establish the authorization conditions. Decision frameworks are the structured set of procedures, rules, models, and information criteria that govern the selection of appropriate annual regulations from a set of alternatives based on the status of migratory game bird populations and habitat conditions. Decision frameworks are described in more detail below under “Determination of the Authorization Conditions for Migratory Game Bird Hunting.” This rulemaking does not change the decision frameworks or their use in making determinations, consistent with the MBTA and the four associated conventions.

The Federal Register notice will include references to the supporting biological data we used in preparing the MGBH memorandum and announce availability of the memorandum at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds. The MGBH memorandum will include recommendations from the Flyway Councils, if applicable. The Service will issue the MGBH memorandum to set the authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting once every 3 years on or before February 28. The Service will continue to make annual decisions on harvest levels and will update the memorandum sooner than 3 years if changes are prescribed by our decision frameworks. In this case, we will publish an updated notice and MGBH memorandum on or before February 28 with the specific changes. With respect to the 2026-27 season, the MGBH memorandum will be available shortly after the publication of this final rulemaking, no later than August 31 (and the provision at § 20.121(b) will become effective for the next season); the comment period will still be 30 days.

The notice of availability of the MGBH memorandum in the Federal Register will provide for a comment period of at least 30 days. We will consider all comments received but may not respond in detail to nonsubstantive comments. Consistent with our current process, we will summarize all relevant, substantive comments that we receive during the comment period. If comments warrant changes to the MGBH memorandum or if administrative or nonsubstantive corrections are identified, we will update the memorandum clearly identifying such changes without further public comment. Substantive comments that are determined by the Service to not warrant changes may be responded to after the closing date in any subsequent notice or MGBH memorandum.

States and Tribes will establish regulations for migratory game bird hunting seasons through their own development processes that are within the Federal authorization conditions set forth in the MGBH memorandum and in accordance with Federal regulations. State and Tribal regulations for migratory game bird hunting will be federally authorized provided they are within the Federal authorization conditions provided in the MGBH memorandum and notice in the Federal Register , our regulations at 50 CFR part 20, and any other applicable Federal regulations.

The Service will no longer continue the current practice of publishing State annual hunting regulations as Federal regulations. We recognize that this may be a transition for some states. Therefore, the Service will continue to publish State annual hunting regulations for as long as there is a demonstrated need for those few (less than 6) States that do not currently have their own processes for issuing annual migratory game bird hunting regulations and request that we do so. These State annual regulations will be published as a Federal MGBH memorandum, separate from the memorandum with the authorization conditions, available at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds when they become available in about July each year.

The Service will continue to have public Flyway and SRC meetings, public review of notifications in the Federal Register , and public review of the MGBH memorandum. The schedule will continue to be based on the current (2013) “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds” (see full reference in Required Determinations, National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) ). The substantive process for biological monitoring and assessment to determine the appropriate parameters from which States and Tribes may establish their migratory game bird hunting regulations will remain unchanged and will still occur annually whether a new MGBH memorandum is due to be published that year.

• April-May: SRC meeting for proposed changes to the decision frameworks or hunting regulations.

• April-June: Spring game bird population surveys.

• August: Completion of game bird population status reports and hunter activity and harvest report.

• September: Biological data are applied to federally established decision frameworks. Preliminary outcomes from the decision frameworks are prepared as the draft authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting.

• September: Flyway Council meetings.

• October: SRC meeting for proposed deviations and changes to the decision frameworks or hunting regulations.

• December- January: Winter game bird population surveys.

• January: The draft annual authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting are updated to account for new data.

• On or before February 28 (every 3 years): The authorization conditions for annual migratory game bird hunting are set forth and communicated via the MGBH memorandum and notice of availability is published in the Federal Register with a public comment period of not less than 30 days. An off-year MGBH memorandum may be published if changes are prescribed by our decision frameworks.

• March: Flyway Council meetings.

• April: If warranted, the MGBH memorandum may be revised for administrative corrections.

• May: Each State's proposed annual regulations for migratory game bird hunting is due to the Service by May 31.

• July: Federal policy memorandum with State annual hunting regulations posted on the Service website annually for up to 3 years after the final rule, upon request by the States.

• February-August: States and Tribes develop their regulations for annual migratory game bird hunting.

• 1 September-10 March: Annual migratory game bird hunting occurs.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the new process and timing for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting including biological assessment, regulatory meetings, announcing the authorization conditions, and establishment of State and Tribal hunting seasons.

Like the current administrative process, we will determine authorization conditions using decision frameworks based on the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations or adopted in the Federal Register as a final rule or notice. Decision frameworks refer to principles, processes, and practices that inform actions and outcomes (Lockie and Rockloff, 2005). In general, a decision framework identifies key components necessary for an organization or individual to make a decision and provides an overview of the process and transparency in decision making. By adhering to decision frameworks, decisionmakers can improve consistency, reduce biases, and ensure alignment with overarching goals and values. Our decision frameworks account for our goals and objectives, are developed in cooperation with State and Tribal governments, foster healthy and productive populations of game birds, and provide appropriate opportunities for the public to hunt those species. Some of our decision frameworks are complex, while others are simple, due to varying amounts of data and our understanding of population demographics and relationships to environmental conditions. In this final rule, we define a decision framework as a structured set of procedures, rules, models, and information criteria for selecting the appropriate authorization conditions from a fixed set of regulatory alternatives, each with a different expected harvest level, based on the harvest management objectives and status, demographics, and environmental conditions of the applicable migratory game bird population.

The authorization conditions for 24 species or species groups are currently established based on 16 decision frameworks, and some have been in use for about 32 years. For example, adaptive harvest management (AHM) decision frameworks for duck harvest management, a specific kind of decision framework including a formal mechanism for reducing uncertainty over time, were first implemented in 1995. The decision frameworks for determination of authorization conditions for hunting migratory game birds are listed in table 2 below. We will maintain a list of current decision frameworks used to determine authorization conditions and post these on the Service's website https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds with the MGBH memorandum setting forth the authorization conditions.

Currently, determination of some authorization conditions depends on Flyway Council recommendations based on formal Council harvest strategies ( e.g., goose and swan seasons) and ad hoc decisions ( e.g., coot and gallinule seasons). These Flyway Council harvest strategies and ad hoc decisions have been consolidated into five general decision frameworks, one for each of the four flyways and one for seasons that span multiple flyways. These five decision frameworks are being adopted by the Service in this final rule. These general decision frameworks prescribe authorization conditions that generally do not change among years and are based on the authorization conditions most recently published as a final rule in the Federal Register (89 FR 68500, August 26, 2024). These authorization conditions have been demonstrated to be sustainable over the range of migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions. A copy of the Service's general decision frameworks is available at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , or at https://www.regulations.gov, or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds.

As with the current administrative process, this new process applies biological data ( e.g., game bird abundance, habitat conditions, hunter activity, and harvest information) to decision frameworks to inform appropriate selections of regulatory alternatives for the authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting. We will adopt the outcome of the decision frameworks as the authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting. In circumstances where urgent biological considerations arise, selecting more conservative authorization conditions may be necessary to support resource protection. In such instances, we would coordinate closely with the Flyway Councils and SRC and provide explanations through the MGBH memorandum, all which are open for public comment. These situations are expected to be infrequent and would inform subsequent updates to the decision frameworks through the formal rulemaking process. Examples provided below illustrate how such circumstances have been infrequent and addressed historically.

We note that the Service and Flyway Councils have not recommended deviation from the prescriptions of the general duck season decision frameworks since they were first implemented in 1995. Thus, for about 32 years, we have applied current biological data to established decision frameworks and accepted the outcomes as the authorization conditions for the general duck seasons. However, a notable example of a more restrictive deviation from a species-specific decision framework occurred for the northern pintail season in 2002 (67 FR 59110, September 19, 2002) and 2003 (68 FR 55784, September 26, 2003), when unforeseen circumstances (record low numbers, combined with the poor production forecast) indicated that a departure from the pintail decision framework was justified and consistent with the Council recommendations we received in those years. The Councils and Service revised the decision framework for northern pintails in 2004 to incorporate the new information (69 FR 52970, August 30, 2004). Also, the Atlantic Flyway Council and Service recommended more restrictive authorization conditions for the Atlantic Flyway population of Canada geese for the 2022-23 hunting season in deviation from the Council's harvest strategy (87 FR 42598 at 42603 (Atlantic Flyway Council recommendations under 4.B.), July 15, 2022). This restrictive deviation was based on unforeseen circumstances including an unusually high degree of uncertainty in the population estimate that year (95 percent confidence interval of 92,000-235,000 pairs), lack of population status data in 2020 and 2021 due to the coronavirus, and the lack of productivity data.

The two cases of restrictive deviations from decision frameworks in the last 32 years indicate that such departures are unlikely. Restrictive deviations are unlikely because unforeseen circumstances rarely occur given the long-term nature of monitoring programs, some since 1955, and our decision frameworks are developed based on observed long-term demographic data. If the Councils and SRC recommend any liberalization beyond the authorization conditions prescribed by the decision framework, those changes will be reviewed by the Service, and, if supported, we will initiate a rulemaking to revise the decision framework.

In some cases, for reasons outside our control, we may need to temporarily and minimally deviate from our decision frameworks to address missing data. For example, due to the coronavirus pandemic and associated travel restrictions and human health concerns in the United States and Canada, certain migratory bird monitoring surveys were cancelled in 2020 and 2021. As such, the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, which provides status information for many species of waterfowl, including those used in our AHM decision frameworks, were cancelled during those years. When unforeseen data gaps occur, as in 2020 and 2021, the Service may need to use time series forecasting tools and population and habitat models to make inference to current population status as needed in established decision frameworks. Such deviations would be limited to those necessary to determine appropriate authorization conditions in existing decision frameworks. Any deviation would be described in the MGBH memorandum, with any longer-term adjustments to decision frameworks addressed through future rulemaking. Temporary deviations from decision frameworks to address data gaps fall within the scope of existing regulatory authority and maintain intent of established decision frameworks. These temporary adjustments apply the best available data and scientific methods within the established framework and are critical to making informed decisions about appropriate authorization conditions for the current season when this would otherwise not be possible in the case of missing data. The compulsory, minimal, and urgent nature of these temporary deviations are appropriately communicated through the MGBH memorandum rather than through a separate rulemaking.

Any technical updates or adjustments to the federally established decision frameworks will be published in a notice in the Federal Register to allow for public review and comment. This is similar to the current process for determining authorization conditions and hunting regulations, pursuant to which technical updates to decision frameworks are not adopted through rulemaking; rather, they are recommended by the SRC and supported by the Flyway Councils. In a recent example, the Service approved technical updates to the AHM decision framework for mid-continent mallards in 2020 (85 FR 51854 at 51855-51856 (under 1.A.), August 21, 2020) and the national mourning dove harvest strategy for the Eastern Management Unit in 2023 (SRC transcripts; May 31, 2023), Central Management Unit in 2024 (SRC transcripts; May 14, 2024), and Western Management Unit in 2024 (SRC transcripts; November 19, 2024) based on recommendations from the Flyway Councils with application in the same regulatory cycle. All four of these decision framework technical updates involved replacement of the predictive population models with updated state-of-the-art models cooperatively developed by the Service, Flyway Councils, and university researchers.

These technical updates are discussed at public meetings including the Flyway Council and SRC meetings and are open to public comment. After receiving support from the Flyway Councils and SRC, technical updates or changes to decision frameworks will be published in a Federal Register via notice or rulemaking and in the MGBH memorandum and made available for public comment. We expect changes to decision frameworks to be infrequent and will consider timing of Federal Register publication based on urgency and possible combination with other actions to minimize need for future publications.

We periodically publish reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of certain migratory game bird species. These reports contain descriptions of species population segments referenced in status assessments. These reports are available at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/population-status, https:// www.fws.gov/library/collections/migratory-bird-hunting-activity-and-harvest-reports, and https://www.fws.gov/project/adaptive-harvest-management.

We will use the most recently published reports in the development of annual authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting. These reports currently include the following:

• Adaptive Harvest Management;

• American Woodcock Population Status;

• Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status;

• Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest;

• Mourning Dove Population Status;

• Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations; and

• Waterfowl Population Status.

Additional information, status reports, and special assessments may be provided by the Service and each of the four Flyway Councils.

Our long-term objectives continue to include providing opportunities to harvest portions of certain migratory game bird populations and to limit harvests to levels compatible with each population's ability to maintain healthy, viable numbers. The Service's goals and objectives for migratory game bird harvest management are specified in a 2013 supplemental environmental impact statement (notice of availability published at 78 FR 32686, May 31, 2013) and the proposed rule that published at 52 FR 7900, March 13, 1987. Migratory game bird hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and sustenance, and aid Federal, State, and Tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds.

We periodically receive recommendations on the authorization conditions and other policies and regulations for migratory game bird hunting from the four Flyway Councils at the SRC meetings, generally held in spring and fall. We may also receive public comments from the SRC meetings and notices published in the Federal Register . We consider all comments we receive but may provide detailed responses only to substantive comments. Based on such comments, and any additional information we receive, we may change the authorization conditions, particularly for administrative corrections, or we may defer any changes until the next MGBH memorandum. Any administrative corrections to the authorization conditions will be made immediately through the MGBH memorandum available at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Service's Migratory Bird Program website. These corrections will be identified either in the response to public comments or published in a revised notice if warranted based on the nature of the public comments. These corrections will include any errors made in the authorization conditions based on the application of biological data to established decision frameworks or significant typographical errors. Any recommendations for changes to regulations will be considered through a rulemaking process with at least a 30-day public review and comment period.

We will continue to use our AHM decision frameworks to determine appropriate regulatory alternatives for annual duck hunting as described in earlier rulemaking for annual migratory game bird hunting regulations (89 FR 68500, August 26, 2024). AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. We use an AHM decision framework to evaluate four regulatory alternatives, each with a different expected harvest level, and choose the optimal alternative for duck hunting authorization conditions based on the status and demographics of mallards for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways, and based on the status and demographics of four duck species (green-winged teal, common goldeneye, ring-necked duck, and wood duck) in the Atlantic Flyway. We have species-specific AHM decision frameworks that guide appropriate authorization conditions for species of special concern, including black ducks, scaup, northern pintails, and mallards in the Atlantic Flyway (eastern mallards), within the general duck hunting regulations. These protocols have species-specific regulatory alternatives but share some aspects of the regulatory alternatives for the general duck seasons.

We currently use independent optimizations to determine the appropriate regulatory alternative based on the status of mallards in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways and status of the four duck species mentioned above in the Atlantic Flyway. This means that we develop authorization conditions for mid-continent mallards, western mallards, and eastern ducks independently based on the breeding ducks that contribute primarily to each Flyway. These species-populations are a surrogate for the status of ducks in general in each flyway. We provided an overview of the AHM decision frameworks for general duck hunting authorization conditions in each Flyway in an August 26, 2024, rule (89 FR 68500).

The regulatory alternatives considered in the general duck season AHM decision frameworks associated with each flyway were described in a January 21, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 7056). Regulatory alternatives include opening and closing dates, season lengths, daily bag limits, and shooting hours. Current regulatory alternatives for each of the four flyways include restrictive (relatively short seasons and low daily bag limits), moderate (intermediate season lengths and daily bag limits), liberal (longer seasons, higher daily bag limits), and closed seasons. The authorization conditions within each of these alternatives may vary by flyway. The differences in season lengths and daily bag limits among flyways reflect the historic differences in waterfowl abundance and hunter numbers in these regions. Each regulatory alternative has an associated target harvest rate for one or more species as a representative of all duck species.

AHM decision frameworks are used with the most current population status, habitat, and harvest survey data to govern the selection of one of the regulatory alternatives ( i.e., closed, restrictive, moderate, or liberal). These regulatory alternatives apply to all duck species except those for which species-specific decision frameworks exist or, in some cases, for species or population segments in which additional restrictions have been established. For example, additional restrictions within the general duck seasons are used to limit the harvest of certain less abundant species ( e.g., scaup, northern pintail, black duck, eastern mallards, canvasback, redhead, wood duck, and mottled duck).

The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM was adopted in 1997 (beginning with the 1997-98 general duck hunting season; 62 FR 31298, June 6, 1997). Changes to these alternatives have been infrequent and are detailed in the January 21, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 7056). The alternatives were last revised beginning with the 2021-22 hunting season based on recommendations of the Flyway Councils (85 FR 51854, August 21, 2020).

We anticipate that, under the AHM approach, the regulatory alternatives will remain the same over time, because the optimization process assumes that the expected harvest rates resulting from the various alternatives remain constant over long-term (about 100 years) forecasting. That process accounts for the uncertainty resulting from the difference between projected harvest rates and actual harvest rates in any given year. Recognizing that constituents may favor periodic adjustments to the regulatory alternatives, we will adopt a regular process to review and incorporate possible modifications.

Although in the past the Service adopted the regulatory alternatives annually, that process does not account for the need to maintain predictable harvest projections for the optimization step in the current AHM process. We expect annual changes to the regulatory alternatives to have a negative impact on our ability to predict the harvest associated with each regulatory alternative. This approach would result in greater uncertainty in forecasting the impacts of the regulatory alternatives for a given set of environmental and biological conditions.

We will adopt in regulations the same regulatory alternatives for the general duck seasons that have been in effect since the 2021-22 season. (See 90 FR 17300 at 17302 (under B. Regulatory Alternatives), April 24, 2025, for the most recent rulemaking document that adopted the alternatives used prior to this final rule and 90 FR 7056 at 7061 (under B. Regulatory Alternatives), January 21, 2025, for a description of the alternatives and their history.) We also will codify in regulations restrictions on the frequency of changes to these regulatory alternatives because of the need to maintain predictable harvest projections for the optimization step in the AHM decision frameworks. We intend to have the first open review and possible modification of these regulatory alternatives no sooner than 2026. The last modification occurred in 2021. Establishing duck regulatory alternatives for 5-year periods was the preferred alternative in the “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds” (see full reference in Required Determinations, National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) ).

The intent for open review and possible modification of these regulatory alternatives should begin with an announcement of the intent by either the Service or Flyway Councils at an SRC meeting at least 1 year prior to possible adoption of modifications. The modification of the regulatory alternatives for general duck seasons will be a rulemaking process with both proposed and final rules. We will include a regulatory impact analysis as part of these periodic rulemakings and continue work to expand the robustness of the analyses we completed in earlier rulemaking actions under the current hunting regulations process (see the 2025-26 hunting season final rule, 90 FR 40178 at 40192, August 18, 2025, and economic analysis at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127).

We note that we are codifying the alternatives for general duck hunting in regulations. However, regulatory alternatives from other decision frameworks are specified only in the preambles to rulemaking documents, not in the Code of Federal Regulations. We are codifying the duck hunting alternatives because the alternatives for general duck hunting apply in some aspects to multiple decision frameworks including those for duck species of special concern ( e.g., black ducks, canvasbacks, eastern mallards, northern pintail, scaup), some brant and goose seasons, special youth and veterans-active military personnel waterfowl hunting days, merganser seasons, and some webless species ( e.g., snipe, coots). Also, regulatory alternatives for general duck hunting have in part been prescribed by Congress in an amendment to the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 704(c); 84 FR 42996, August 19, 2019), and because we are codifying in regulations restrictions on the frequency of changes to these regulatory alternatives to facilitate the AHM process.

Zones and split seasons are designed to distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to temporal, geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and other migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been allowed the option of splitting their allotted hunting days into two or three temporal segments to take advantage of species-specific peaks of abundance or to satisfy hunters in different areas who want to hunt during the peak of waterfowl abundance in their area. However, the split-season option does not fully satisfy many States that wish to provide a more equitable distribution of harvest opportunities. Therefore, we also have allowed the establishment of independent seasons in up to four geographic zones within States for the purpose of providing more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters throughout the State.

In 1978, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the use of zones to set duck hunting regulations. A primary tenet of the 1978 EA was that zoning would be used to provide equitable distribution of duck hunting opportunities within a State or region. The intent was not to increase total annual waterfowl harvest in the zoned areas; target harvest levels were to be adjusted downward if they exceeded traditional levels because of zoning.

In 1990, we conducted a review of the use of zones and split seasons. We determined that the ability to detect the impacts of zones and splits on waterfowl demographics and harvest was poor because of the absence of adequate study designs and experimental controls, limitations in monitoring capacities, imprecise parameter estimates, and low power to detect changes in parameter estimates. Substantial concern remained about the unknown consequences of zones and split seasons on duck populations and harvest redistribution among States and flyways, potential reduced effectiveness of regulations (season length and bag limit) to reduce duck harvest if needed, and the administrative burden associated with changing regulations annually. Consequently, we established guidelines to provide a framework for controlling the proliferation of zones and split seasons. The guidelines identified a limited number of zone and split-season configurations that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of changes in State selection among these configurations to the first year of each 5-year interval ( e.g., 2021 for the 2021-25 hunting seasons). The first hunting season that States could change their zone and split-season configurations was in 1991, with subsequent opportunities in the 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011-2012, 2016-2017, and 2021 hunting seasons. The Service approved extension of the general 1-year period for States to change their zone and split-season configurations in 2011 and 2016 to 2 years due to special circumstances.

In 2011, we prepared a new EA analyzing proposed changes to the guidelines for zones and split seasons. Revised guidelines were finalized in the preamble to a 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 53536, August 26, 2011). In 2020, at the request of the four Flyway Councils, we modified the existing guidelines for duck zones and split seasons to allow an additional configuration including two zones with up to three season segments per zone for use beginning with the 2021 duck hunting season (85 FR 51854, August 21, 2020). States that select this new configuration must conduct an evaluation of impacts to hunter dynamics ( e.g., hunter numbers, satisfaction) and harvest during the 5-year period it is implemented ( e.g., 2021-25 hunting seasons) and need to involve human dimensions specialists in the assessment. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information to allow the Service and States to better understand how the additional zone and split-season configurations might influence hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation (also known as R3) efforts, and whether additional options run counter to our mutual objectives including the desire to simplify regulations and waterfowl population concerns.

Previously, we established guidelines for duck zones and split seasons for each 5-year period via rulemaking (proposed and final rules) regardless of changes to the guidelines. We now will codify the existing guidelines for duck zones and split seasons (85 FR 51854, August 21, 2020), with minor clarifications, in our regulations. By codifying existing guidelines in regulations, we will need to undertake rulemaking only if we decide to modify the guidelines. To modify the guidelines for duck zones and split seasons, we will initiate a new rulemaking and issue proposed and final rules. Any changes to the guidelines will apply beginning the first year of the subsequent 5-year interval to maintain consistency in configurations within the intervals. At least 1 year prior to the possible adoption of any modifications, either the Service or Flyway Councils will announce at an SRC meeting their intent to review and possibly modify the guidelines.

When we first implemented guidelines for duck zones and split seasons in 1991, several States had completed experiments with zone and split-season arrangements different from our original options. We offered those States a one-time opportunity to continue those arrangements, with the stipulation that only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries. If any of those States now wish to change their zone and split arrangement:

(1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the currently allowable configurations; and

(2) The State may not revert to the special case arrangement that it previously had in place.

The following guidelines for zones and split seasons apply only for the regular duck season:

(1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for the regular duck season.

(2) States wishing to change their duck zone and split-season configurations may do so the first year of the 5-year period that it would apply ( i.e., 2026, 2031, 2036, 2041, and continuing at 5-year intervals).

(3) Once a zone and split-season configuration is selected, it must remain in place for 5 consecutive years.

(4) Only minor (less than one county in size) zone boundary changes are allowed for any special case arrangement, and such changes are allowed only the first year of the 5-year period during which it would apply.

(5) Minor (less than one county in size) zone boundary changes may be allowed for any State to resolve law enforcement or other boundary clarification issues resulting from implication of a new configuration. Changes will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the respective Flyway Council and the SRC.

(6) Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and split seasons for ducks.

Any State may continue their zone and split-season configuration used in the previous 5-year period. If changes are made, the zone and split-season configuration must conform to one of the following five options:

(1) One zone (same as no zones) with up to three season segments;

(2) Two zones with up to two season segments in each zone;

(3) Two zones with up to three season segments in each zone;

(4) Three zones with up to two season segments in each zone; or

(5) Four zones with a continuous season ( i.e., no segments) in each zone.

Because the two zones and three season segments configuration is new, States that select this configuration must conduct a one-time evaluation of impacts to hunter dynamics ( e.g., hunter numbers, satisfaction) and harvest during the 5-year period it is implemented ( e.g., 2021-25 period).

For the States that have a recognized management unit (Columbia Basin Management Unit in the Pacific Flyway, High Plains Management Unit in the Central Flyway) and include a non-management unit portion, an independent two-segment duck season with no zones can be selected for the management unit. The remainder of the State in the non-management unit portion can be zoned and have split seasons according to existing guidelines. In the Central Flyway, additional duck season days afforded to the management unit must occur on or after the Saturday nearest December 10.

States wishing to change their duck hunting zone and split-season configuration selection from within our established guidelines must provide their selected configuration and zone descriptions to the Service's Migratory Bird Program by the end of August in the year prior to the first year of the 5-year period that the selection would apply. However, we encourage States to submit their selections and zone boundaries as soon as possible. The Service's Migratory Bird Program will approve State selections once they are determined to be consistent with the above guidelines and zones and split-season configurations and boundary descriptions are complete. Any discrepancies between the State selections and the zone and split-season guidelines and configurations will be addressed by the SRC at their fall meeting, generally held in October. States may continue their zone and split-season configuration used in the previous 5-year period, and we will assume this is the case unless we receive configuration selections and zone descriptions from the State by the deadline for requesting configuration changes. We will publish State-selected duck zone and split-season configurations and zone descriptions in the MGBH memorandum.

In 2004, we recognized the need to work with the States to review our current policy regarding zoning for dove hunting (69 FR 52970, August 30, 2004). We asked the Flyway Councils and Mourning Dove Management Unit Technical Committees to review the current policies regarding the use of zones and split seasons for dove hunting, with a view toward establishing guidelines for the use of these harvest-management tools, as has been done for ducks. Items considered included the number of zone and split-season configurations among which each State may choose, the frequency with which each State may change their configuration selection, and the need for a restricted framework opening date in southern zones. In 2006, we adopted a set of guidelines for dove zones and split seasons applicable in the Eastern and Central Mourning Dove Management Units (EMU and CMU) based on recommendations of the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils for use beginning with the 2007 hunting season and conforming to those 5-year periods used for ducks, for example, 2021-25 hunting seasons (71 FR 51406, August 29, 2006). These guidelines were not extended to the Western Management Unit (WMU) at the time because they were not endorsed by the Pacific Flyway Council and no dove zones occurred in the WMU. Furthermore, the framework season length in the WMU was 30 consecutive days, except in Arizona and California where the season length was 60 days and could be split into two segments.

The season length in the WMU was expanded to 60 days beginning with the 2014 hunting season (78 FR 52658 at 52662, August 23, 2013, and 79 FR 51402 at 51405, August 28, 2014). The Pacific Flyway Council requested the same flexibility for zones and split seasons that we have afforded the EMU and CMU, with the exception that the WMU would be allowed only two season segments in one or both zones rather than three. Thus, in 2020, we extended the guidelines for dove zones and split seasons to the WMU, with the exception that seasons may be split into no more than two segments (85 FR 51854, August 21, 2020).

Similar to the situation for ducks, described above, we previously established guidelines for dove zones and split seasons for each 5-year period via rulemaking (proposed and final rules) regardless of changes to the guidelines. We now adopt the existing guidelines for dove zones and split seasons (85 FR 51854, August 21, 2020), with minor clarifications, in our regulations. By codifying existing guidelines in regulations, we will need to undertake rulemaking only if we decide to modify the guidelines. To modify the guidelines for dove zones and split seasons, we will initiate a new rulemaking and issue proposed and final rules. Any changes to the guidelines will apply beginning the first year of the 5-year interval to maintain consistency in configurations within the intervals. At least 1 year prior to the possible adoption of any modifications, either the Service or Flyway Councils will announce at an SRC meeting their intent to review and possibly modify the guidelines.

When we first implemented the guidelines for dove zones and split seasons in 2006, some States had completed experiments with zone and split-season arrangements different from our original options. We offered those States a one-time opportunity to continue those arrangements (special case), with the stipulation that only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries. If any of those States now wish to change their zone and split arrangement:

(1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the currently allowable configurations; and

(2) The State may not revert to the special case arrangement that it previously had in place.

The following guidelines for zones and split seasons apply only for the regular dove season:

(1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which independent seasons may be selected for the regular dove season.

(2) States wishing to change their dove zone and split-season configurations may do so the first year of the 5-year period that it would apply ( i.e., 2026, 2031, 2036, 2041, and continuing at 5-year intervals).

(3) Once a zone and split-season configuration is selected, it must remain in place for 5 consecutive years.

(4) Only minor (less than one county in size) zone boundary changes would be allowed for any special case arrangement, and such changes are allowed only beginning the first year of the 5-year period during which it would apply.

(5) Minor (less than one county in size) zone boundary changes may be allowed for any State to resolve law enforcement or other boundary clarification issues resulting from implication of a new configuration. Changes will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the respective Flyway Council and the SRC.

Any State may continue their dove zone and split-season configuration selected in the previous 5-year period. If changes are made, the zone and split-season configuration must conform to one of the following two options:

(1) One zone (same as no zones) with up to three season segments; or

(2) Two zones with up to three season segments in each zone, except in the WMU where the season in one or both zones may be split into two segments.

The process for States to select their dove hunting zone and split-season configuration is the same as that for selecting the duck hunting zone and split-season configuration. States wishing to change their dove zone and split-season configuration selection from within our established guidelines must provide their selected configuration and zone descriptions to the Service's Migratory Bird Program by the end of August in the year prior to the first year of the 5-year period that the selection would apply. However, we encourage States to submit their selections and zone boundaries as soon as possible. The Service's Migratory Bird Program will approve State selections once they are determined to be consistent with the above guidelines and zones and split-season configurations and boundary descriptions are complete. Any discrepancies between the State selections and the zone and split-season guidelines and configurations will be addressed by the SRC at their fall meeting, generally held in October. States may continue their zone and split-season configuration used in the previous 5-year period, and we will assume this is the case unless we receive configuration selections and zone descriptions from the State by the deadline for requesting configuration changes. We will publish State-selected dove zone and split-season configurations and zone descriptions in the MGBH memorandum.

Special seasons may be used for species considered to be underutilized, to address nuisance problems with overabundant species, or to provide special hunting opportunities. Special seasons differ from regular seasons in that they entail additional hunting opportunity outside the established regular seasons but within the 107-day limit mandated by the MBTA. Special seasons are used only for species whose migration and distribution provide opportunities outside the period in which regular seasons are held and when harvest can be achieved without appreciable impacts to nontarget species. An important tenet of special seasons is that harvest pressure can be effectively directed primarily at target species or population segments that can be temporally and geographically isolated to avoid nontarget take. Currently, special seasons include: (1) Early teal seasons in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways; (2) bonus blue-winged teal bag limits in certain States in the Mississippi and Central Flyways; (3) early teal and wood duck seasons in Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee; (4) waterfowl hunting days for youth and veterans-active military personnel; and (5) early seasons on overabundant resident Canada and cackling geese.

The Service has required that States implementing special seasons conduct experiments to assess the biological impacts of those seasons on both target and nontarget species. However, the Service eliminated experimental evaluation requirements for special seasons on overabundant resident Canada and cackling geese, except: (1) in areas where previous evaluations indicate an unacceptable level of take of migrant Canada and cackling geese; and (2) in areas where evaluations have not been conducted and one could reasonably expect an unacceptable level of take of migrant Canada and cackling geese ( e.g., areas in northern States). All special seasons require Flyway Council endorsement, and Flyway Councils may request evaluation of any special season as part of the approval process if they believe such evaluations to be warranted. Additionally, if conditions are believed to have changed, new evaluations can be conducted for areas in which prior evaluations failed with respect to the take of migrant Canada and cackling geese. The Service may periodically reevaluate special seasons on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are still justified and will continue to require experiments for any new special seasons other than those described for overabundant resident Canada and cackling geese. Any new special seasons will be established through a new rulemaking process, which we expect to be infrequent, involving a proposed and final rule.

Experimental seasons are used to evaluate expansion of regular seasons to new areas; the use of zones and splits in duck, dove, and, in some cases, goose seasons; special seasons; and alternative regulations for regular or special seasons. The Service may require implementing States to conduct research for at least 3 years to assess the environmental effects of experimental seasons, including on target and nontarget species. The Service may also require a memorandum of understanding with any State that implements experimental seasons. Experimental seasons may be authorized for up to 5 years, after which a new request must be submitted. A season may be offered on an experimental basis or change from experimental status to operational status upon approval by the respective Flyway Council(s) and the SRC. Any new experimental season will be established through a new rulemaking process, which we expect to be infrequent, involving a proposed and final rule. Change in season status from experimental to operational will be included in the MGBH memorandum.

Crows are in the family Corvidae and were not initially identified as a migratory bird in the four bilateral conventions for the protection of migratory birds. The family was added to the list of migratory birds with the convention amendment with Mexico in 1972. However, crows were not identified as a game bird; Corvidae are not one of the five families that comprise migratory game birds. At the time Federal protection was extended to Corvidae, some States had existing hunting seasons for crows. Therefore, Federal regulations were established to allow crow hunting; see 50 CFR part 20, subpart L, at § 20.133, hunting regulations for crows. Federal regulations allow States to establish dates and durations of hunting seasons, bag and possession limits, and methods of taking crows, subject to limitations defined in § 20.133. The hunting season on crows can have a maximum of 124 days within a calendar year because of specific provisions included in the convention with Mexico and must be outside the peak crow nesting period. Some States allow crow hunting 4 days a week, extending the open season nearly 8 months. Most States have no daily bag limit on crows. Crows may also be taken under a depredation order as defined in § 21.150, the depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, grackles, and magpies.

Migratory bird hunting regulations at 50 CFR part 20 apply to game birds and crows. Thus, we make the distinction in our regulations between migratory bird hunting (crows included) and migratory game bird hunting (crows excluded). Thus, crow hunting regulations (§ 20.133) are not affected by this rulemaking regarding the administrative process for authorizing migratory game bird hunting. However, this rulemaking action revises § 20.133 to authorize Tribes to establish crow hunting regulations along with the States to be consistent with our Tribal migratory game bird hunting regulations at § 20.110 (see 88 FR 60375, September 1, 2023).

We generally establish the authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting for the conterminous U.S. States by flyway or management unit/region. We will include the authorization conditions for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in separate sections near the end of the MGBH memorandum. The States included in the flyways and management units/regions are described below:

Atlantic Flyway: Includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Mississippi Flyway: Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Central Flyway: Includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).

Pacific Flyway: Includes Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.

High Plains Management Unit: Roughly defined as that portion of the Central Flyway that lies west of the 100th meridian.

Columbia Basin Management Unit: In Washington, all areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County; and in Oregon, the counties of Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla.

Eastern Management Unit: All States east of the Mississippi River, and Louisiana.

Central Management Unit: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.

Western Management Unit: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

Eastern Management Region: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Central Management Region: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The proposed rule, which appeared in the June 26, 2026, Federal Register , opened the public comment period for the process of authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting. We received written comments from 28 individuals and organizations on the rule including those from the four Flyway Councils, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 14 States, 2 non-government organizations (California Waterfowl Association and Animal Counsel), and 7 individuals. Two individuals opposed hunting of migratory birds, except subsistence harvest. All other comments provided general support for the increased efficiency and timeliness of the process for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting in this rulemaking except for the concerns identified below. Due to the number of comments, this summary presents major themes (issues) occurring throughout the comments.

Issue: Opposition to a 3-year cycle for issuance of the notice and memorandum to authorize seasonal migratory game bird hunting because of lack of coordination with the Flyway Councils and Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council on this specific aspect of the regulatory process and lack of assessment of the implications, cost-benefit analysis, and NEPA compliance (all commentors except two anti-hunting).

Response: We made no change in reference to the 3-year cycle. We reiterate that the Service will continue to make annual decisions on harvest levels and will update the MGBH memorandum codifying the authorization conditions each year if any changes are prescribed by our decision frameworks and current biological data. We believe this confirmation of the continued annual decision-making on appropriate harvest levels and annual publication of the MGBH memorandum for any prescribed changes addresses commentor concerns. However, we will strive to find efficiencies in the issuance of the MGBH memorandum. We currently envision issuance of the full memorandum to establish the limits and authorize seasonal migratory game bird hunting once every three years and then publishing only changes to these authorization conditions prescribed by our decision frameworks on years 2 and 3. We will continue to coordinate with the Flyway Councils and the Alaska Migratory Co-management Council in the implementation of this new regulatory process.

Issue: Some states do not have their own migratory game bird hunting regulations process and currently depend on the Service to open and publish their hunting seasons.

Response: The Service will no longer continue the current practice of publishing State annual hunting regulations as Federal regulations. Because State season selections are made entirely by the States within the established Federal limits and do not involve any decision-making by the Federal government, there is no need for State season selections to be part of the Federal rulemaking to authorize season migratory game bird hunting.

We worked with the Flyway Councils and all State attorneys' offices to discuss this new process starting in July 2022 and August 2023. Only two States in the three western most Flyways have requested that we publish their seasons while they develop their own regulatory process. Several States have requested that we do not publish their hunting regulations because Federal and State regulations may differ in some cases if the State changes regulations, but still within the Federal limits, or is more restrictive than the Federal publication of State seasons. The potential for inconsistencies exists and differences would be confusing to the public.

Although most States have their own regulations process for migratory game bird hunting, we recognize that about six States do not and these States currently depend on the Service to publish their regulations. The Service proposed to continue to publish annual hunting regulations for these States as a policy memorandum for up to 3 years from publication of this final rule. We revised this final rule to publish State hunting seasons as a policy memorandum for as long as there is a demonstrated need for those few States that do not have their own regulatory process and request that we do so. In this case, we will publish the seasons on a State-by-State basis and not on a Flyway-wide basis. These State annual regulations will be published as a Federal MGBH memorandum, separate from the memorandum with the authorization conditions, available at the address indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds when they become available in about July each year.

Issue: Reference to the frequency and necessity of SRC meetings is outside of the scope of this rulemaking (change in Federal administrative process) and inconsistent with SEIS 2013.

Response: In this final rule, we removed the two references to the frequency and necessity of SRC meetings and retain the two SRC meetings in the annual process consistent with SEIS 2013. However, we do expect the efficiency of the SRC meetings may be improved because the Flyway Councils will not need to make recommendations for season limits when supporting the prescribed limits from our decision frameworks, changed or unchanged from the previous year. We believe the Service and Flyway Councils will be able to focus on changes that are not anticipated from our decision frameworks.

Issue: Clarity of the rule regarding how the documents in the new process work together.

Response: We made changes to table 1 to improve clarity in the comparison of documents in the current process versus the new process. Specifically, in this final rule, we revised text in the table from the proposed rule to increase clarity, and we added a row to include State season selections. Also, we added figure 1 in this final rule to help increase clarity of the new process and timing for authorizing seasonal migratory game bird hunting including biological assessment, regulatory meetings, announcing the authorization conditions, and establishment of State and Tribal hunting seasons. Lastly, although terms in the new process are defined in the preamble of the proposed and final rules, for convenience, we advise the reader to see the list of definitions in the regulation promulgation section, specifically at § 20.107 Definitions.

Issue: Concern for the loss of a Federal repository for State seasons (selections) as the Federal Register with State season selections previously provided.

Response: The Service's Migratory Bird Program, Branch of Monitoring and Data Management, maintains a database of State season selections. Under the new process, States are still required to submit their season selections to the Migratory Bird Program each year and we will continue to maintain this database of season selections. This data will continue to be available upon request.

Issue: Publish the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) anytime there is a proposed change in a decision framework.

Response: The Service believes that the most appropriate RIA is on the relative changes prescribed by the data and our decision frameworks once every 3 years and on the duck season regulatory alternatives used in the duck hunting decisions frameworks any time there is a proposal for change to these. There is information in the proposed rule, and this final rule, that explains the economic significance of migratory game bird hunting and our past work to understand the economic impacts associated with the duck regulatory alternatives and desire to continue to build on this work. Changes to decision frameworks in of themselves will not have any economic impact or benefit in their impact assessment, but rather the decisions from these based on current biological status.

The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). This EIS and Record of Decision continue to apply to the new process for authorizing seasonal game bird hunting. Further, the new hunting regulations process is more compliant with these NEPA documents than the current process. Specifically, there were two preferred alternatives in the NEPA documents that are only now being implemented with the new process. These include the frequency of review and adoption of duck regulatory packages and zones and split season guidelines. The preferred alternative in both cases is to establish these packages and guidelines for at least a 5-year period, with changes limited to not sooner than every 5 years, and then after that only when necessary (see above under Adaptive Harvest Management Approach for Duck Harvest Management, and Duck Zones and Split Seasons, and Dove Zones and Split Seasons for more details). We currently propose and finalize these regulations every year or 5 years regardless of changes. We address NEPA compliance for zones and split hunting seasons through the preparation of environmental assessments, the most recent being the Zones and Split Seasons for Duck Hunting and its corresponding 2011 finding of no significant impact.

This final rule is administrative in nature and is categorically excluded. It revises the process for transmitting authorization conditions for seasonal migratory game bird hunting to States and Tribes. Importantly, it does not alter the substantive annual biological monitoring and assessment process that determines those conditions.

The categorical exclusion determination is based on primarily 43 CFR 46.210(i) (in addition to 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215), which provides that policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines of administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature qualify for categorical exclusion. The environmental effects of this action are too broad or speculative to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and are addressed in an environmental action statement, which is part of the record for this final rule and available for public inspection as provided in ADDRESSES , Document availability.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides that the Secretary shall insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We conducted a formal consultation to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from this consultation are included in a biological opinion, which concludes that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The biological opinion resulting from this section 7 consultation is part of the record for this rule and available for public inspection as provided in ADDRESSES , Document availability.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews all significant rules as defined by that E.O. This rulemaking action will serve only to change the administrative process for authorizing States and Tribes to establish their regulations for migratory game bird hunting. OIRA has determined that this rule is significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13653 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. By eliminating annual rulemaking, the Service will save about $80,000 per year in printing costs, reduce staff workload by at least 50 percent, and reduce 200 hours of managerial workload reviewing and surnaming documents. A regulatory impact analysis associated with the change in our internal administrative process was prepared and is available upon request from the person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0206.

We have developed this final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We have examined this final rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and determined that this action will not have an economic impact on any small entities. This proposed final rule is administrative in nature, and the affected entities are State and Tribal governments. The rulemaking action changes only our internal administrative process for authorizing States and Tribes to establish seasonal migratory game bird hunting regulations. The annual process is largely a cooperative effort between the Service and the States and Tribes. The change in our administrative process eliminates the need for annual rulemaking and is expected to increase efficiency; better meet State, Tribal, and Federal rulemaking constraints; and reduce the complexity and costs associated with promulgating annual migratory game bird hunting regulations.

This is not a major rule under subtitle E of SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This final rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory game bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 02/28/2027).

• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 09/30/2028). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 10/30/2027).

You may view the information collection request(s) at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this final rulemaking does not include any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Department, in promulgating this final rule, has determined that this rulemaking action will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule, authorized by the MBTA, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This final rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this final rulemaking action would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, will reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and has not been designated by OIRA as a significant energy action. Therefore, no statement of energy effects is required.

In accordance with E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Native American Indian Tribal Governments”) and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we considered possible effects of this final rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes with respect to impacts to Tribes' treaty rights to hunt waterfowl. We have determined that there are de minimis effects on Indian Tribes for that aspect of their treaty rights. Through this process to establish and announce authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting, we regularly coordinate with Tribes that are affected. Tribes could attend spring and fall Flyway Council meetings, participate in SRC meetings, and provide comments on Federal Register publications concerning authorization conditions for migratory game bird hunting, and, whenever needed, we hold informal consultations with Tribes regarding trust resources, trust assets, health, and safety. This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This final rule is administrative in nature and does not directly affect any specific Tribal lands, treaty rights, or Tribal trust resources. In addition, this final rule will not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal and ceded lands. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that this rulemaking action does not have “Tribal implications” under section 1(a) of E.O. 13175. Thus, formal government-to-government consultation is not required by E.O. 13175 and related policies of the Department of the Interior. We will continue to collaborate with Tribes on concerns related to migratory game bird hunting regulations.

We routinely provide Federal Register publications and biological status reports pertaining to migratory bird management, authorization conditions, and regulations online for all States and Tribes, and other interested parties. Upon being notified of any concern regarding proposed and final regulations, we have initiated consultation, and we will continue to consult with Tribes when necessary and requested by Tribes.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the MBTA. We prescribe authorization conditions from which States and Tribes may establish their annual regulations for migratory game bird hunting seasons. This final rule changes only the Federal internal administrative process for establishing the authorization conditions and preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to establish hunting seasons that meet their individual needs. We maintain our regulations at 50 CFR 20.110 (Regulations for certain Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands) recognizing Tribal sovereignty to exercise reserved hunting rights and, for some Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both Tribal and nontribal members on their reservation. Consistent with our longstanding policy, we continue to recognize that, in certain cases, conflicts may arise between specific States and Tribes on aspects of Tribal treaty rights. The Service actively supports the parties reaching a mutually agreeable solution to such conflicts.

Any State or Tribe may be more restrictive in its regulations than the Federal authorization conditions and regulations at any time. The authorization conditions are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of the authorization conditions from which they will establish their own hunting regulations. This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have federalism implications and do not warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is amending title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: