Rule2026-07600
House Falls in Marine Terminals
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 17, 2026
Effective
April 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentOccupational Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
OSHA is finalizing the revocation of the agency's House Falls in Marine Terminals Standard.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 74 (Friday, April 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20583-20587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07600]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1917
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0008]
RIN 1218-AD52
House Falls in Marine Terminals
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is finalizing the revocation of the agency's House Falls
in Marine Terminals Standard.
DATES: The final rule is effective April 17, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-
2025-0008) is available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Most exhibits are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>; some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not
available to download from that web page. However, all materials in the
dockets are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2500 (TDY number 877-889-5627) for
assistance in locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of
[[Page 20584]]
Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8a5ada1a4a1a6afadbae6aebaa9a6aba1bbfa88aca7a4e6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="137e767a7f7a7d7476613d7561727d707a602153777c7f3d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.
General information and technical inquiries: Contact Andrew
Levinson, Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-
1950; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b1408131a551f081c3b1f1417551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9869a8188c78d9a8ea98d8685c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at <a href="https://www.osha.gov">https://www.osha.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
IV. Explanation of the Revocation of the House Falls in Marine
Terminals Standard
V. Final Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
I. Executive Summary
This final rule revokes OSHA's House Falls in Marine Terminals
Standard, 29 CFR 1917.41 (``House Falls Standard''). OSHA has
determined that this standard is no longer necessary to protect
employees working in marine terminals from occupational safety and
health hazards. This is a deregulatory action per Executive Order
14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' (90 FR 9065 (Feb.
6, 2025)).
II. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established
federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), and 29
U.S.C. 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and
health standard is ``. . . a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act. As required by the OSH Act,
OSHA originally determined that the Standards for Marine Terminals
would substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm when
promulgating those standards (see 48 FR 30886, 30887 (July 5, 1983)).
Once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in support of a
standard, the next question is whether a particular requirement is
reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a whole. See
Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir.
1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th
Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647
F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSHA standards must also be both technologically and
economically feasible. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Because this final rule eliminates an existing standard, OSHA finds
that it raises no feasibility concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) directs agencies to include
in each rule adopted ``a concise general statement of [the rule's]
basis and purpose'' (5 U.S.C. 553(c); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring
the Secretary to publish a ``statement of reasons'' for any standard
promulgated)). This notice satisfies this concise statement
requirement.
The effective date of this final rule is its date of publication.
It is exempt from the APA's requirement for delay in effective date
because the rule relieves a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
III. Background
OSHA first adopted the House Falls Standard in 1983, as part of its
Marine Terminals rulemaking, to address serious occupational safety and
health hazards in the marine terminals industry (see 48 FR 30886 (July
5, 1983)). The House Falls Standard requires that: span beams be
secured to prevent accidental dislodgement; a safe means of access be
provided for employees working with house fall blocks; and designated
employees inspect chains, links, shackles, swivels, blocks and other
loose gear used in house fall operations before each day's use.
Defective gear is not to be used (29 CFR 1917.41). House falls are
spans and supporting members, winches, blocks, and standing and running
rigging forming part of a marine terminal and used with a vessel's
cargo gear to load or unload by means of married falls (29 CFR 1917.2).
The House Falls standard is one of several intended to protect
employees working in marine terminals from the occupational safety and
health hazards to which they are exposed (see 29 CFR Pt. 1917). For
example, in addition to containing the House Falls Standard, the Marine
Terminals Standards contain standards protecting employees from
slippery conditions (29 CFR 1917.12) and hazardous cargo (29 CFR
1917.22). The Marine Terminals Standards apply to work such as loading,
unloading, movement or other handling of cargo in marine terminals (29
CFR 1917.1). Marine terminals are wharves, bulkheads, quays, piers,
docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage or adjacent
areas and structures associated with the primary movement of cargo or
materials from vessel to shore or shore to vessel including structures
which are devoted to receiving, handling, holding, consolidating and
loading or delivery of waterborne shipments or passengers, including
areas devoted to the maintenance of the terminal or equipment.
IV. Explanation of the Revocation of the House Falls in Marine
Terminals Standard
OSHA proposed removing the House Falls Standard from the CFR
because that standard is no longer necessary to protect employees
working in marine terminals from occupational safety and health
hazards. When OSHA first promulgated the Marine Terminals Standards in
1983, house falls were generally employed by the marine terminals
industry to load and unload cargo. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for this rule, OSHA stated that the agency's understanding is that the
marine terminals industry does not currently employ house falls because
most cargo has been containerized and is moved by cranes. Moreover,
OSHA has no records of any citations for a violation of this standard
(OSHA's accessible records extend back to 2012, and OSHA did not
receive any public comment or evidence suggesting earlier citations).
Therefore, consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, ``Ensuring
Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of
Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,'' E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing
[[Page 20585]]
Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' and the goal of significantly
reducing the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national
security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen,
OSHA preliminarily found that removing the House Falls Standard from
the CFR would reduce the compliance burden on the regulated community
without compromising worker safety.
OSHA received two substantive comments in response to the proposal.
One commenter, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB),
agreed with OSHA's rationale for proposing to revoke the House Falls
Standard and fully supported the standard's removal (OSHA-2025-0008-
0004). A second commenter, the Occupational Safety and Health State
Plan Association (``OSHSPA''), conceded that employing house falls is
no longer a ``typical practice,'' but disagreed with OSHA's proposal to
eliminate the standard, asserting that house falls are ``still in use''
(OSHA-2025-0008-0005).\2\ However, they provided no information to
support this assertion. Without supporting information, OSHA cannot
assess the claim or determine how often this atypical practice might be
used. The absence of any record of citations over the last decade,
combined with the lack of any other evidence that this practice is
still actually used or presents the same hazards that it did at the
time of promulgation, indicate that the standard is no longer
necessary. The agency notes that if OSHSPA is correct and house falls
are still used in rare cases, and OSHA revokes its house falls
standard, employers in marine terminals would be obligated under the
OSH Act's general duty clause (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)) to protect
employees from the known hazards arising from their use. For these
reasons, OSHA finds that a specific House Falls Standard is no longer
necessary to protect employees working in marine terminals from
occupational safety and health hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A third, anonymous commenter stated the following:
``Enhanced Social Responsibility'' (OSHA-2025-0008-0003). This
commenter did not provide OSHA with sufficient information to
provide a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1532(a)) require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net
benefits of regulations, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that
OSHA promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, or a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Neither the benefits
nor the costs of this final rule will exceed $100 million in any given
year. This final rule will, however, result in a net cost savings for
employers in marine terminal and longshoring operations, which are the
only industries throughout OSHA's jurisdiction affected by the
rescission of 29 CFR 1917.41.
Furthermore, as discussed below in Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, because the final rule will not impose any costs, OSHA
certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
OSHA estimates that there are currently 2,617 establishments in
maritime affected by OSHA standards addressing house falls (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2024). These establishments are found in the following
industries: Port and Harbor Operations (NAICS 488310), Marine Cargo
Handling (NAICS 488320), Navigational Services to Shipping (NAICS
488330), and Other Support Activities for Water Transportation (NAICS
488390). The revocation of the House Falls Standard will, among other
things, eliminate the time necessary for new establishments and newly
hired occupational health and safety specialists at existing
establishments to familiarize themselves with the requirements found in
29 CFR 1917.41. Based on an average annual establishment entry rate of
10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025), an average hire rate of 43.9
percent (BLS, 2025), and 10 minutes less time spent on regulatory
familiarization at a loaded hourly wage rate for an occupational health
and safety specialist of $65.41, OSHA estimates that this deregulatory
action will result in $15,377 in cost savings annually.
OSHA also estimated the impacts under an alternative scenario where
only new entrants into the industry would be affected by the revocation
of 29 CFR 1917.41. This scenario assumes that for non-entrant (i.e.,
existing) establishments within an industry, the familiarization time
saved for newly hired occupational health and safety specialists is
negligible due to knowledge of the requirements in section 1917.41
retained institutionally within the business entity by team leaders and
other senior staff. For this scenario, costs savings that result from
rescinding section 1917.41 would be $2,853 annually.
A third impacts scenario, one that is likely closer to the real-
world environment for the retention and communication of safety and
health information in most workplaces, would be the midpoint of the two
extreme cases described above. Under this mid-range scenario,
approximately half of affected establishments would retain staff whose
complete knowledge of the rescinded standards would substitute for the
familiarization time needed by the newly hired health and safety
specialists. Viewed alternatively, under this mid-range scenario, all
affected establishments retain veteran staff who can briefly inform the
new safety and health specialist of the status of standards such as
section 1917.41 in less time (roughly five minutes) than would be
necessary in the absence of institutional knowledge (ten minutes). OSHA
estimates that this would result in cost savings of $9,115 annually.
OSHA's estimate of cost savings may underestimate total cost
savings if the elimination of the labor burden for regulatory
familiarization extends to the avoidance of unnecessary safety training
of employees.
OSHA presented this analysis in its proposed rule and requested
public comment on its analysis of the cost savings for employers
affected by the revocation of the House Falls Standard. One commenter,
NFIB, fully supported that analysis (OSHA-2025-0008-0004). No commenter
objected to OSHA's estimates. Therefore, OSHA's estimates of the costs
and benefits of this final rule remain unchanged from the proposal.
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2025). Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics--May 2024 (Released April 2, 2025). Available at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm</a> (Accessed April 11, 2025)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). County Business Patterns 2022 (Released
June 27, 2024). Available at <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html</a> (Accessed July 17, 2024)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). Business Dynamics Statistics. Available
at <a href="https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&">https://bds.explorer.ces.census.gov/?xaxis-id=year&xaxis-selected=2018,2019,2020,2021,2022&</a>;group-id=none&measure-
id=estabs_entry_rate&chart-type=bar (Accessed June 6, 2025)
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility
[[Page 20586]]
analysis (IRFA) 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.
OSHA reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a burdensome
regulation. Therefore, OSHA certifies that the rescission will not have
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. OSHA
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to or ``at least as effective as'' the new
Federal standard or amendment or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
In the proposed rule, OSHA preliminarily determined this rule would
not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing
standard, and therefore State Plans would not be required to amend
their standards in response. OSHA received one comment related to this
determination. The comment was from the OSHSPA, which agreed with
OSHA's determination that State Plans should not be required to amend
their standards to adopt this rule. OSHA received no other comments
disputing OSHA's preliminary conclusion that this proposed rule does
not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing
standard. Therefore, OSHA is finalizing its determination that State
Plans are not required to amend their standards. OSHA agrees with
OSHSPA that the OSH Act requires State Plans to have standards that are
``at least as effective'' as OSHA's but allows State Plans to be more
stringent than OSHA in protecting the safety and health of workers in
their respective jurisdictions. This rulemaking does not change that
authority. Consequently, State Plans are not obligated to make any
changes to their existing standards in response to this final rule.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
defines ``collection of information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing
to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third
parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a
Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a
currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if
the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB
control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)). The process for OMB approval is
found in 5 CFR part 1320. This final rule imposes no new information
collection requirements and does not affect the currently approved
information collections in Marine Terminals (29 CFR Pt. 1917) and
Longshoring (29 CFR Pt. 1918) (OMB Control Number 1218-0196).
Accordingly, OMB approval of information collections is not required
for this final rule.
C. Review Under Executive Order 12866
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.
D. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this final rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321,
137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR
part 11).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 11.10, the promulgation, modification, or
revocation of any OSHA safety standard is categorically excluded from
the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment under NEPA
absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the need for such an
assessment. OSHA finds that this final rule presents no such
extraordinary circumstances.
E. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and the Executive Orders on
Consultation
[[Page 20587]]
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175, 65 FR
67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10,
1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given that this
is a final deregulatory action that involves the removal of
requirements, that OSHA does not foresee economic impacts of $100
million or more, and that the action does not constitute a policy that
has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no
further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these
statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has determined that
this final rule is consistent with the policies and directives outlined
in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' and is an
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1917
Health, Longshore and Harbor workers, Occupational safety and
health.
VII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is
issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); section 41
of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941);
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025); and
29 CFR part 1911.
Dated: April 14, 2026.
David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA amends 29 CFR part
1917 as follows:
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS
0
1. The authority for part 1917 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), or 7-2025 (90 FR
27878), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1917.28 and 1917.31 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Subpart C--Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment
Sec. 1917.41 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 1917.41.
[FR Doc. 2026-07600 Filed 4-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js" defer></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 17, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.