International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy (DOE).
Final rule.
DOE publishes this final rule to revise its regulations issued under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (“PFCRA”), amended by the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023 (“the AFCA”). The AFCA, formerly PFCRA, pertains to the Federal Government's ability to combat fraud involving Federal funds by allowing for the imposition of civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to the government. The final rule updates DOE regulations to reflect recent amendments to the statute. The updates reflect the new title; increase the maximum amount for claims from $150,000 to $1 million; allow for reverse false claims; define new terms; extend the statute of limitations for bringing claims; require DOE to notify the Attorney General before settlement of allegations; and establish a process for crediting recovered costs. Under the statute, the heads of executive agencies, including the Secretary of Energy, are required to promulgate regulations and procedures to carry out the statute. The statute also requires the heads of executive agencies to review and update existing agency regulations to ensure compliance with the AFCA.
The rule is effective July 13, 2026.
Mr. Colin Spodek, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Ethics and Personnel Law, GC-21, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 252-9138. Email:
Part 1013 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“Part 1013”), was originally promulgated to implement PFCRA, codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801 through 3812. PFCRA required all authorities, defined to include DOE, to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the statutory provisions. Part 1013 details administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to DOE or to its agents. Part 1013 also specifies the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments.
The AFCA, enacted on December 23, 2024, under section 5203 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, Public Law 118-159 (“NDAA for FY 2025”) amended provisions of PFCRA to strengthen DOE's ability to prosecute fraud committed against the government. The amended law changed the short title from PFCRA to the AFCA. In addition, the AFCA required authority heads, including the Secretary of Energy, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, to promulgate regulations and procedures to carry out the AFCA and the amendments made by it, and to review and update existing regulations and procedures to ensure compliance with AFCA and the amendments made by the AFCA. Public Law 118-159, div. E, title LII, section5203(j), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 2443. The AFCA is the statutory authority for this regulatory action.
DOE is issuing this final rule to carry out the AFCA and bring its part 1013 regulations into compliance with statutory changes made by the AFCA. These statutory changes include changing the short title of PFCRA to the AFCA; allowing recovery for reverse false claims; adding new definitions; increasing the jurisdictional claim cap from $150,000 to $1 million; adding an inflation adjustment to the claim cap; providing for the recovery of investigative and prosecutive costs as no-year funds; and requiring notifications to the Attorney General of settlements in advance of full authorizations and before the date allegations of liability may be referred to a presiding officer.
DOE amends part 1013 as follows:
1. The part heading of this part is changed from “Program Fraud Civil Remedies and Procedures” to “Administrative False Claims and Procedures” to reflect the renaming of PFCRA effected by the statutory change to the short title.
2. The basis of § 1013.1(a) is amended in the final rule to change a reference and citation from PFCRA to the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023, which reflects the change in the short title of the statutory authority for part 1013.
3. In § 1013.2 the definition of “claim” is changed in the final rule to mirror the updated definition from section 3801(a)(3) of the AFCA. The word “an” from the statutory language has been replaced with “the” in the regulation for consistency with the rest of § 1013.2. Definitions of the terms “material” and “obligation” have also been added to mirror the newly added definitions in sections 3801(a)(10) and (11) of the AFCA.
4. Section 1013.3(a) is amended to allow for penalties and assessments against individuals who improperly conceal or decrease an obligation to the government (reverse false claims) in accordance with the expanded definition of “claim” in the amended section 3801(a)(3)(c) of the AFCA. The changes to § 1013.3(a) reflect the expanded scope of the AFCA. The changes to § 1013.3(a) reflect the changes in section 3802(a) of the AFCA and are structured similarly. Section
Section 1013.3(a)(5) is amended to add paragraphs (i) and (ii) to reflect the structure of amended section 3802(a)(3) of the AFCA. In order to mirror the language from section 3802(a)(3)(A) of the AFCA, “[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (iv)(B), an assessment shall not be made if payment by the Government has not been made on such claim” is added to the end of § 1013.3(a)(5)(i) of the regulation. In addition, the following language has been added to § 1013.3(a)(5)(ii) of the regulation in order to address the AFCA's cap on assessments made for reverse false claims newly created in section 3801(a)(3)(C), and redefined accordingly in § 1013.2(c), when an individual has fraudulently reduced or avoided an obligation to an authority, which is defined in title 31 of the U.S. Code to include DOE: “(ii) [i]n the case of a claim described in § 1013.2(c), an assessment shall not be made in an amount more than double the value of the property, services, or money that was wrongfully withheld from the authority.” These regulatory changes are made to reflect the language and structure from the expanded definition of “claim” in section 3801(a)(3)(c) in the AFCA, which allows for reverse false claims.
5. Section 1013.4(b) is amended to replace the phrase “Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act” with “Administrative False Claims Act of 2023.” This change is made to mirror the change to the short title of the AFCA.
6. Section 1013.6(a) is changed to reflect the increased cap on claims in amended section 3803(c)(1) of the AFCA. Specifically, “$150,000” in § 1013.6(a)(2) is changed to “$1,000,000”, the new statutory claim cap. Paragraph (3) is added to § 1013.6(a) of the regulation in order to incorporate the statutory inflationary adjustment language from section 3803(c)(3) of the AFCA. The statutory language provides that the statutory cap shall be adjusted for inflation in the same manner and to the same extent as civil monetary penalties under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act. The language added to § 1013.6(a)(3) of the regulation “[t]he maximum amount in paragraph (a)(2) shall be adjusted for inflation in the same manner and to the same extent as civil monetary penalties under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. 2461 note)” mirrors the language in section 3803(c)(3) of the AFCA.
7. Section 1013.45 of the regulation is amended to reflect changes to the accounting process enacted in section 3806(g)(1) of the AFCA to reimburse an authority that expended costs in investigating or prosecuting an action under the AFCA using funds recovered pursuant to an action taken under the AFCA. Section 3806(g)(1) of the AFCA provides for the recovery of investigative and prosecutive costs as no-year funds. Section 1013.45 of the regulation is accordingly changed by replacing language directing amounts collected pursuant to part 1013 to be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States, with language directing the amounts to be deposited in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3806(g). This change reflects the revised accounting structure mandated by the AFCA.
8. Section 1013.46 of the regulation is changed to reflect requirements in amended section 3803(j) of the AFCA that authority reviewing officials notify the Attorney General in writing before entering into a settlement agreement and before the date a reviewing official may refer allegations of liability to a presiding officer, defined in title 31 of the U.S. code to include administrative law judges appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105. Section 1013.46(b) of the regulation is amended to include language reflecting the reporting requirements mandated by section 3803(j) of the AFCA, which states “A reviewing official shall notify the Attorney General in writing not later than 30 days before entering into any agreement to compromise or settle allegations of liability under section 3802 and before the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to refer allegations of liability to a presiding officer under paragraph (b).” The amendments to § 1013.46(b) newly add § 1013.46(b)(1) and § 1013.46(b)(2), in which the term “presiding officer” from the statutory language in section 3803(j) is substituted for the term “ALJ” for consistency with the rest of § 1013.46.
9. Section 1013.47 is amended to reflect the revision to the statute of limitations for prosecuting claims mandated by amended section 3808(a) of the AFCA. The amended language of § 1013.46(a) of the regulation mirrors the structure and substance of the amendments to section 3808(a) of the AFCA.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may waive the notice and comment procedure if it finds, for good cause, that it is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides that an agency may waive the 30-day delayed effective date upon finding of good cause.
DOE finds good cause that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary due to the nature of the revisions. This final rule simply makes changes to part 1013 in accordance with the AFCA. Comments cannot alter the regulation given that the changes made to part 1013 by this rule mirror those directed by that law.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that there is good cause to publish this final rule without prior opportunity for public comment because the action merely aligns part 1013 with the statute. A delay in effective date is unnecessary for these same reasons. Therefore, these amendments are published as final and are effective July 13, 2026.
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The changes to part 1013 are summarized in section II of this document. DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. This final rule updates DOE's regulations in accordance with statutory changes. The regulations and the statutory updates are part of a scheme designed to impose penalties on those who make, submit, or present a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim or written statement to DOE. The initial regulations promulgated following the enactment of PFCRA were found not to impose any additional burdens or impact on small entities. The updates expand the type and value of claims that may be subject to civil penalties and assessments by DOE. They do not substantially change the nature of the conduct subject to these civil penalties and assessments. Therefore, DOE certifies that the final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
This direct final rule imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501
DOE has considered this final rule in accordance with NEPA, as amended, DOE's NEPA implementing regulations, set forth in 10 CFR part 1021, and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures published outside the Code of Federal Regulations on June 30, 2025. DOE has determined that NEPA does not apply to this action as this final rule is an administrative and routine action excepted from NEPA review and is necessary to bring DOE's program fraud regulations into conformance with the AFCA. DOE has determined that this rulemaking is a Federal action, but it is not “major” and therefore not subject to NEPA. This action is one to which NEPA does not apply because it does not fall within the definition of “major Federal action” in section 111(10) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10) (See Section 2.1(c)(5) of DOE's NEPA implementing procedures outside of the CFR). For more information, please see appendix A of 10 CFR part 1021 (“A5, Interpretive rulemakings with no change in environmental effect”) and appendix A of DOE's NEPA implementing procedures, A5, Interpretive rulemakings with no change in environmental effect (June 30, 2025).
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. Agencies are required 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. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Section 201 excepts agencies from assessing effects on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector of rules that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. Because this rule incorporates requirements specifically set forth in the AFCA, DOE is not required to assess its regulatory effects under section 201. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections 202 and 205 do not apply to this action because they apply only to rules for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is published. Nevertheless, DOE has determined that this regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or on the public sector.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
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 and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Department of Energy, Fraud, Penalties.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7, 2026, by Jonathan Brightbill, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 1013 of chapter X of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
31 U.S.C. 3801-3812; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a)
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) Made to the authority which has the effect of concealing or improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit property, services, or money to the authority.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to:
(A) A civil penalty of not more than $14,308 for each such claim. And
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, such person shall also be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such claim, of not more than twice the amount of such claim, or the portion of such claim, which is determined under this part to be a violation of the preceding sentence.
(5)(i) If the Government has made any payment (including transferred property or provided services) on a claim, a person subject to a civil penalty under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall also be subject to an assessment of not more than twice the amount of such claim or that portion thereof that is determined to be in violation of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Such assessment shall be in lieu of damages sustained by the Government because of such claim. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section, an assessment shall not be made if payment by the Government has not been made on such claim.
(ii) In the case of a claim described in § 1013.2(c), an assessment shall not be made in an amount more than double the value of the property, services, or money that was wrongfully withheld from the authority.
(b) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023 may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing the findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) The maximum amount in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be adjusted for inflation in the same manner and to the same extent as civil monetary penalties under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
All amounts collected pursuant to this part shall be deposited in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3806(g).
(b)(1) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision.
(2) A reviewing official shall notify the Attorney General in writing not later than 30 days before entering into any agreement to compromise or settle a case under this part and before the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to refer allegations of liability to the ALJ under 31 U.S.C. 3803(b).
(a) A notice to the person alleged to be liable with respect to a claim or statement shall be mailed or delivered in accordance with § 1013.8 of this part not later than the later of—
(1) 6 years after the date on which the violation of § 1013.3 is committed; or
(2) 3 years after the date on which facts material to the action are known or reasonably should have been known by the authority head, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2026-13-05, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes. AD 2026-13-05 required revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide the flightcrew with operating procedures (non-normal checklists) if a certain circuit breaker in the standby power control unit (SPCU) trips or certain environmental control system (ECS) circuit breakers downstream of the SPCU trip. Since the FAA issued AD 2026-13-05, a formatting error that omitted part of a certain appendix from AD 2026-13-05 was discovered. This AD retains the certain requirements of AD 2026-13-05 and requires revising the existing AFM to include the corrected appendix. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 13, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by August 27, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Derrick Herrera, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5140; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Derrick Herrera, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5140; email:
The FAA issued AD 2026-13-05, Amendment 39-23387 (91 FR 39854, July 1, 2026) (AD 2026-13-05), for all The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes. AD 2026-13-05 required revising the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with operating procedures (non-normal checklists) if a certain circuit breaker in the SPCU trips or certain ECS circuit breakers downstream of the SPCU trip. AD 2026-13-05 was prompted by reports of in-flight events of excessive cabin and flight deck temperatures that could not be controlled by the flightcrew using existing procedures. The FAA issued AD 2026-13-05 to address a tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 or ECS circuit breaker that could lead to an air conditioning system malfunction causing an uncontrollable, excessively high temperature in the cabin and flight deck. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flightcrew and passengers, which could result in the inability to maintain safe flight and landing.
Since the FAA issued AD 2026-13-05, it was discovered that there is a formatting error in appendix 5 of AD 2026-13-05 that omitted steps 1 through 8 of the Cabin Temperature Hot PACK CONT VALVES RIGHT or LEFT Circuit Breaker Trips procedure.
The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD retains certain requirements of AD 2026-13-05. This AD also requires revising the existing AFM to include the corrected appendix 5 to provide the flightcrew with the Cabin Temperature Hot PACK CONT VALVES RIGHT or LEFT Circuit Breaker Trips procedure.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, FAA-approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 or ECS circuit breaker, and resulting effects on the cabin environment that cannot be controlled via normal procedures, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flightcrew and passengers, which could result in the inability to maintain safe flight and landing. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 825 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 13, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2026-13-05, Amendment 39-23387 (91 FR 39854, July 1, 2026) (AD 2026-13-05).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight events of excessive cabin and flight deck temperatures that could not be controlled by the flightcrew using existing procedures and a determination that there is a formatting error in appendix 5 of AD 2026-13-05 that must be addressed. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a tripped BAT BUS SECT 2 or environmental control systems (ECS) circuit breaker that could lead to an air conditioning system malfunction causing an uncontrollable, excessively high temperature in the cabin and flight deck. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to injury or incapacitation of flightcrew and passengers, which could result in the inability to maintain safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2026-13-05, with no changes. Within 30 days after February 24, 2026 (the effective date of AD 2026-04-05, Amendment 39-23265 (91 FR 8708, February 24, 2026)), revise the Operating Procedures section of the existing AFM to include the information specified in appendices 1 through 3 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of appendices 1 through 3 of this AD into the AFM. Accomplishing the revision of the existing AFM required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD terminates the requirement of this paragraph to include the information specified in appendix 1 of this AD in the existing AFM.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2026-13-05, with a corrected appendix 5. Within 30 days after July 16, 2026 (the effective date of AD 2026-13-05), revise the Operating Procedures section of the existing AFM as required in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Replace the information specified in appendix 1 of this AD with the information specified in appendix 4 of this AD. This may be done by removing a copy of appendix 1 of this AD from the existing AFM and inserting a copy of appendix 4 of this AD into the existing AFM. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the requirement of paragraph (g) of this AD to include the information specified in appendix 1 of this AD in the existing AFM.
(2) Include the information specified in appendices 5 and 6 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of appendices 5 and 6 of this AD into the existing AFM.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2026-13-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Derrick Herrera, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5140; email:
None.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters on Lavaca Bay. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an overwater fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective July 11, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. through midnight.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (361) 244-4784, email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from shore at Waterfront Park in Point Comfort, TX. The Captain of the Port (“COTP”) Corpus Christi has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks launch position. Potential hazards may include, but are not limited to: falling debris, falling embers, and limitations to standard navigation.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on June 17, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by July 11, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 11, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. through midnight. The safety zone area encompasses a 700-foot radius around the launch platform at Waterfront Park in Lavaca Bay, at 28°40′53.92″ N, 96°33′50.84″ W. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 800-874-2143.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (800) 874-2143. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel Chicago, IL, on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 295.5 to Mile Marker 297.5 for Permanent Barrier 1 In-Water Testing to be conducted from July 13, 2026, through July 17, 2026, and then again from July 27, 2026, through July 31, 2026. This action is intended to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during electric fish barrier testing. During the enforcement period listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal regulated area in § 165.930(a)(2) from July 13, 2026, through July 17, 2026, and then again from July 27, 2026, through July 31, 2026. They will be subject to enforcement each day from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Dates and times are subject to change or shift due to inclement weather or unforeseen circumstances.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Kyle Goetz, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 630-986-2155, email:
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.930 for fish barrier testing from July 13, 2026, through July 17, 2026, and then again from July 27, 2026, through July 31, 2026, each day from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The regulated area—the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Mile Marker 295.5 to Mile Marker 297.5—is a 2-mile portion of the area specified in § 165.930(a)(2). All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan, or designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone during the enforcement time listed in this notification of enforcement. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP Lake Michigan or designated representative. Upon being hailed by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
An on-scene Safety Vessel may be reached during operating hours via VHF-FM Channel 16.
Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the simplified Type A procedures in the regulations for conducting natural resource damage assessments for hazardous substance releases. Additionally, this final rule includes several conforming changes and corrections intended to fix citations, provide for consistent use of terminology, and remove outdated or duplicative rule provisions and definitions. The Department of the Interior (Interior) is removing provisions that it believes are no longer applicable, clarifying other provisions by incorporating language that would implement existing Interior regulatory interpretations, and making other changes and corrections. These revisions also allow for the regulations to meet information collection requirements mandated by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is effective August 12, 2026. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 12, 2026.
This rule and supporting documentation are available at
Emily Joseph, Director, Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment at
The final rule revises the Type A procedures currently contained in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601
The natural resource damage Type A regulations describe how to conduct a natural resource damage assessment for hazardous substance releases under the CERCLA and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1321) (Clean Water Act). CERCLA required the President to promulgate these regulations. 42 U.S.C. 9651(c). The President delegated this rule writing responsibility to Interior. E.O. 12316, as amended by E.O. 12580. The regulations appear at 43 CFR part 11. CERCLA requires that the natural resource damage assessment regulations include two types of assessment procedures. Type A procedures are “standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring minimal field observation.” 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(2)(A). Type B procedures are “alternative protocols for conducting assessments in individual cases.” 42 U.S.C. 9651(c)(2)(B). Both types of procedures are codified at 43 CFR part 11.
A natural resource damage assessment is an evaluation of the need for, and the means of, securing restoration of public natural resources following the release of hazardous substances or oil into the environment. Interior has previously developed two types of natural resource damage assessment regulations: standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring minimal field observations (Type A Rule); and site-specific procedures for detailed assessments in individual cases (Type B Rule). The Type A Rule was last revised in November 1997. It provided for two distinct formulas for modeling damages for natural resource injuries caused by hazardous substance releases to coastal and marine environments and Great Lakes environments, respectively. In accordance with CERCLA, damages calculated in accordance with Type A or Type B procedures are entitled to a “rebuttable presumption” of correctness in any administrative or judicial proceeding. The rebuttable presumption for the Type A procedure under the current version of the rule is limited to damages of $100,000 or less.
In January 2023, Interior published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (88 FR 3373), followed by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2024 (89 FR 733), to revise the Type A Procedures covering only the natural resource damage assessments for releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act. There are also natural resource damage assessment regulations at 15 CFR part 990 that cover oil spills under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701
Natural resource damage assessments are conducted by government officials designated to act as “trustees” to bring claims on behalf of the public for the restoration of injured natural resources. Trustees are designated by the President, state governors, or Tribes. If trustees determine, through an assessment, that hazardous substance releases have injured natural resources, they may pursue claims for damages against potentially responsible parties. “Damages” include funds needed to plan and implement restoration, compensation for public losses pending restoration, reasonable assessment costs, and any interest accruing after funds are due.
The regulations establish an administrative process for conducting assessments that includes technical crit for determining whether releases have caused injury, and if so, what funds are needed to implement restoration. The regulations are for the optional use of trustees. Trustees can use the regulations to structure damage assessment work, frame negotiations, and inform restoration planning. If litigation is necessary to resolve the claim, courts will give additional deference—referred to as a “rebuttable presumption” in CERCLA—to assessments performed by trustees in accord with the regulations.
The regulatory revisions reflect several priorities of the current Administration, specifically the focus on deregulation and decreasing costs, providing jobs for the American people, and increasing American Energy Dominance. Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and Secretary's Order 3421, “Achieving Prosperity through Deregulation,” direct agencies to identify existing regulations, guidance, paperwork requirements, and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed to ensure that administrative actions do not undermine the national interest and achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to meet statutory obligations. This Final Rule modifies the current language for the Type A procedures and is expected to result in more expedited Type A damage assessments being conducted as opposed to the Type B procedures which require more expensive, time-consuming, and intensive field work. Per E.O. 14192 and accompanying OMB guidance M-25-20, the total incremental costs are estimated to be significantly less than zero. With the modification to the CERCLA natural resource damage assessment and restoration (NRDAR) regulations for Type A procedures, it is estimated that the Federal Government will see a total savings of $1.6 million per each Type B assessment that switches to Type A. Additionally, more Type A damage assessments will result in streamlined, quicker, and more cost-effective settlements, allowing for restoration to happen sooner. Switching to more Type A assessments with the higher limit would increase the cost savings.
Secretary's Order 3419, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American
Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (90 FR 8433, Jan. 29, 2025), and subsequent Secretary's Order 3417, “Addressing the National Energy Emergency,” ask agencies to identify all relevant emergency and other legal authorities available to expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriate infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects within their jurisdiction. The use of expedited settlements supports these orders by allowing for less costly, quicker resolution of claims, which is expected to directly benefit the oil and gas industry and likely various mining and transportation industry sectors.
When an incident occurs, all trustees with probable jurisdiction over the injured natural resources must decide whether there are methods to determine damages to fund restoration activities and concur to use the Type A procedures. Damages (excluding reasonable assessment costs) must be less than $5 million, (unless all parties agree to a higher limit) and at least one potentially responsible party (PRP) must voluntarily agree to utilize Type A procedures and sign a Tolling Agreement. Unlike previous iterations of these regulations, the revised Type A procedures are not limited to any specific geographic environment and can be used to evaluate natural resources defined in 43 CFR part 11 in any environment where they occur. Upon finalization of a claim, a Type A report is produced and made available for public comment.
After Interior reviewed and considered public comments, it made several clarifications and changes in this final rule. The limit on damages for Type A is raised to an initial limit of $5 million. However, if the claim is expected to be higher than $5 million, the Type A procedures may still be used instead of Type B, if all parties agree. Additionally, language is added to clarify that methods can be utilized to evaluate natural resources in all environments.
Interior reviewed comments submitted on a wide range of issues but received significant comment on a narrow set of issues. The final rule leaves the framework of the existing rule intact. The final rule does not make any substantive changes to legal standards for reliability of assessment data and methodologies. The rest of this section discusses the primary issues addressed by the final rule. References to the OPA regulations are solely for the purpose of providing context and background. For guidance on conducting natural resource damage assessments under OPA, see 15 CFR part 990.
•
The Type A procedures previously limited to coastal, marine, or Great Lakes environments, can be used for all natural resources as set forth in 43 CFR part 11 in any environment where they are found.
•
The trustees have decided that methods for replacement of natural resources or resource services (
•
The claim that will be resolved using the Type A procedure is expected to be less than $5 million (excluding reasonable assessment costs). This figure will be periodically adjusted for inflation following guidance from OMB. If the claim is expected to be higher than $5 million, the Type A procedures may still be used instead of Type B, if all parties agree.
•
At least one potentially responsible party has voluntarily agreed to utilize the Type A, and a tolling agreement for at least one year is in place.
This portion of the preamble describes the final rule and highlights certain aspects of the rule that may benefit from additional explanation. The Type A procedures provide for a simplified method for conducting damage assessments, which can be used for all natural resources in any environment they are found. The trustees have decided that models for replacement of resources or resource services (
The revisions to the Type A procedures in the final rule resulted in some conforming changes and corrections needed for compatibility with the rest of the rule. Specifically, these changes fix citations, provide for consistent use of terminology, and remove or update outdated definitions. Section 11.18(a) has been updated to reference the current editions of the publications cited and removes reference to the models included as part of the previous Type A Procedures.
Section 11.62(f)(4)(i)(B) has been updated to refer to the definition of fish kill investigations in the current publication cited in section 11.18. Section 11.71(1)(5)(iii)(A) has been updated to refer to the definition of fish mortality in the current publication cited in section 11.18.
Section 11.83(c)(2)(ii) has been updated to refer to the definition of appraisal in the current publication cited in section 11.18. Section 11.83(c)(2)(x) has updated the definition of Resource Equivalency Analysis in the table.
Appendices II and III to 43 CFR part 11 have been removed as they referenced the models for the Type A Procedures in the previous rule.
Interior published a NPRM to amend the Type A procedures in 43 CFR part 11 on January 5, 2024 (89 FR 733). The NPRM took into consideration input that Interior received on the ANPRM, which was published on January 19, 2023 (88 FR 3373). The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period, which closed on March 5, 2024. ORDA published a notice on February 13, 2024, granting a 30-day extension, which extended the comment period to April 5, 2024, and announced the dates for three Tribal consultation sessions (89 FR 10019). During the public comment period for the NPRM, Interior received 26 comments from States, Tribes, industry groups and associations, and the general public. Interior received four comments during the Tribal consultation sessions held on March 26, 27, and 28, 2024. All comments were generally supportive of Interior's efforts to update the regulations.
Interior decided to proceed to the final rule stage. Interior made specific changes in response to public comments, including clarifications to address specific concerns. Interior thanks all commenters for their time and contribution to this rulemaking. A summary of the comments received, and Interior's responses and changes made to the final rule as a result of those comments, are provided below.
Generally, all respondents appreciated Interior's work to revise and modernize the Type A Rule. Multiple respondents noted specific positive aspects of these revisions, including:
• Generally increasing flexibility within the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) process;
• Removing the geographic restrictions in the rule; and
• Increasing the damages limit for eligible claims.
Several comments requested that Interior develop technical guidance on utilizing the new Type A procedures. Proposed topics for guidance included modeling, Type A Reports, cooperative agreements, the operability of the rebuttable presumption, and other various case scenarios.
Many commenters, both in the public comment and Tribal consultation processes, requested clarity on which environments are included under the updated Type A regulations. Many commenters further expressed that the Type A regulations should not be limited to specific environment types and requested this increased scope be made clear in the final rule.
Several commenters requested clarifying or omitting the list in 11.36(b) of injury and compensable value categories addressed by the Type A procedures. One commenter suggested explicitly including groundwater and surface water as injury categories.
A large number of public and Tribal consultation comments gave feedback on the monetary cap for natural resource damages proposed in 11.34(c). While some respondents supported the cap in its proposed form (ranging from $3 to $5 million), several stated it was too low and recommended higher cap values (ranging between $5 to $25 million) that would be periodically adjusted for inflation. Some commenters suggested removing the cap altogether.
Several respondents supported the tolling agreement requirement in 11.34(e). Other commenters found that entering into a tolling agreement should be optional and thus proposed removing the requirement in the final rule. One commenter suggested that instead of requiring a tolling agreement, the Type A regulations should grant another year for completing the NRDAR process if trustees must switch from Type A to Type B procedures.
Many commenters expressed support for broadening and clarifying the valuation methodologies that can be used for damages calculations in Type A assessments. This was important to many commenters because CERCLA provides that damages calculated in accordance with Type A or B procedures are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of correctness in any administrative or judicial proceeding (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(2)(C)). Additionally, many commenters requested that the language of 11.34(a) be revised to clarify or remove references to “existing” models to allow trustees the flexibility to use models developed in the future. Some commenters suggested instead incorporating by reference the methods listed in 43 CFR 11.83 as appropriate models for assessing damages to natural resources. Others suggested additional guidance be provided in 43 CFR 11.18.
Additional comments were received requesting technical changes to the rule or clarification on how certain parts of the proposed rule will work in practice. These comments addressed topics ranging from the application of the rebuttable presumption and potential double recovery issues under Type A and Type B, to various scenarios involving multiple PRPs, litigation and
Finally, a number of commenters suggested specific line edits to the language of the proposed rule.
Consistent with sections 5(b)(2)(B) and 5(c)(2) of Executive Order 13175, and because Interior consulted with Tribal officials in the continental United States prior to publishing this rule, Interior seeks to assist Tribal officials, and the public as a whole, by including in this preamble the three key elements of a Tribal summary impact statement. Specifically, the preamble to this rule (1) describes the extent of Interior's prior consultation with Tribal officials; (2) summarizes the nature of their concerns and Interior's position supporting the need to issue the rule; and (3) states the extent to which Tribal officials' concerns have been met. The “Public Meetings and Tribal Consultations” section below describes Interior's prior consultations. Interior discussed these proposed revisions in the monthly meeting the Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment holds with the members of the NRDAR Tribal group and received comments from Tribes via the ANPRM and NPRM process on these proposed revisions as well as during Tribal Consultations.
Tribal natural resource trustees are designated in the National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR 300.610. The Tribal Chairperson, head of the Tribe's governing body, or an individual selected by the Tribe may act as trustee for natural resources belonging to, managed by, controlled by, appertaining to, or held in trust for the benefit of a Tribe. A Tribal Chairperson or head of the Tribal governing body may also designate another person to act as trustee on the Tribe's behalf. There was strong support to revise the rule to increase the limit on damages and to clarify which methods could be used under Type A. This final rule addresses the concerns raised.
Interior held information sessions for State, Tribal, and industry partners at respective meetings on the ANPRM and the NPRM. Additionally, Interior hosted three virtual Tribal consultations the week of March 25, 2024, with 15 attendees representing eight different Tribes. Comments received through those consultations were considered with the comments received through
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final rule is significant.
The regulations we are revising apply only to natural resource trustees by providing technical and procedural guidance for the assessment of natural resource damages under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act. The revisions are not intended to change the balance of legal benefits and responsibilities among any parties or groups, large or small. They do not directly impose any additional cost. In fact, we believe the final rule can help reduce natural resource damage assessment transaction costs by allowing trustees to utilize simpler and more transparent methodologies to assess damages when appropriate. This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. We estimate that this rule generates $16.3 million in annualized cost savings at a 7% discount rate, discounted relative to year 2024, over a perpetual time horizon.
With the modification to the CERCLA NRDAR Regulations for Type A procedures, it is estimated that the federal government will save a total of $1.6 million per each Type B assessment that switches to Type A. This is based on the fact that it takes a little over $0.5 million for the assessment activities leading to production/review of documents for Type A assessments, while it takes over $2 million for the assessment activities leading to production/review of documents for Type B assessments—not to mention the fact that Type B assessments take longer. Assuming we were able to switch to more Type A assessments with the higher limit, the cost savings would increase.
Our analysis of our data showed that annual costs are significantly less for a Type A assessment compared to a Type B assessment. Using the best available information and data from the Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment's information management system, Damage Assessment and Restoration Tracking System (DARTS) and publicly available sources on hourly wages, the updated regulations have the potential to result in annual cost savings of up to $1.9 million per Type A assessment, resulting in a savings of approximately $17.4 million per year for nine Type A assessments. These savings are achieved by avoiding new or ongoing activity on Type B assessments that can instead use the Type A procedures. The savings accrue to the public, private sector, state governments, and Tribes. As familiarity with the Type A procedures increases, we see the potential for additional savings. A table showing the aggregate savings over a ten-year period is shown below.
For this estimate we assume that both Type A and Type B assessments would receive the same number of respondents from the public, private sector, and state/Tribal governments, and that each respondent would submit one comment. This results in five total annual responses for both assessment types. Based on the best available data, the total completion time for Type B respondents is nearly three times greater than for Type A respondents, mostly attributable to the difference in hours spent by private sector respondents. Using hourly labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) News Release (USDL-24-1172, June 18, 2024, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2024) the value of annual burden hours is approximately $3.0 million (rounded) for a Type B assessment and $1.0 million for a Type A assessment for a savings of $1.9 million per report.
Work done by Interior economists as part of the required regulatory analysis supported the raising of the limit to $5 million. The analysis demonstrated the number of additional cases that could be considered as Type A under different alternative threshold levels starting at $3 million. Using a dataset from DARTS of 57 settled NRDAR cases from 1992 through 2023, their data evaluation of varying thresholds for an NRDAR case to qualify as a Type A assessment showed the following:
• A threshold of $3M would have resulted in 27 NRDAR cases qualifying as Type A.
• A threshold of $5M would have resulted in 36 NRDAR cases qualifying as Type A (
• The remaining 21 NRDAR cases in the dataset have a median settlement of $12M and an average settlement of $25.7M.
Additional analysis indicated a threshold of $12M would have resulted in 42 NRDAR cases qualifying as Type A (
• Although the universe of cases evolves over time, there may be a diminishing return in the number of cases that could qualify as Type A under a threshold higher than $5M.
• In absolute terms, increasing threshold limits result in more NRDAR cases that could qualify as Type A assessments.
With this analysis conducted, we decided to raise the limit to $5 million. Based on our analysis of past and current cases that could have been considered the Type A procedures under this new rule, we believe 9 new assessments using Type A procedure will occur per year under a $5 million cap. If all parties agree, the Type A procedures may be used even if the claim is expected to be higher. This could result in more cost savings and more assessments being conducted using Type A procedures.
The final rule does not sanction or bar the use of any particular methodology, so long as it meets the acceptance criteria for relevance and cost effectiveness that is set out in the rule. Of course, in litigation, any methodology used would be evaluated by courts to further ensure relevance and reliability.
We also believe that in many cases an early focus on feasible restoration and appropriate restoration actions, rather than on the monetary economic value of public losses, can result in less contention and litigation and faster, more cost-effective restoration. Meanwhile, existing criteria in the rule for evaluating restoration alternatives—including cost effectiveness—remain intact (see 43 CFR 11.82(d)). The likely result will be the encouragement of settlements, less costly and more timely restoration, and reduced transaction costs. To the extent any are affected by the final rule, it is anticipated that all parties will benefit by increasing the focus on restoration in lieu of monetary damages. With the new final rule, it is expected that claims will be resolved sooner, allowing for restoration to occur sooner.
E.O. 13563 directs that regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, should recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. 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. We have developed this final rule in a manner consistent with these principles. This final rule is consistent with E.O. 13563, including with the direction to undertake retrospective analysis of existing rules, designed “to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.”
We certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) (see section on E.O. 12866 above for discussion of potential economic effects.) In fact, the use of Type A procedures will help to ensure that claims are able to be resolved more quickly and with less transaction costs. More claims involving small entities could utilize these Type A procedures as opposed to the lengthier Type B procedures.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB has determined that this rule is not a major rule under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
This rule does not mandate any actions. The existing regulations do not require trustees to conduct assessment or pursue damage claims, and trustees who choose to conduct assessments and pursue damage claims are not required to do so in a manner described in the regulations. The revisions do not change the optional nature of the existing regulations. The revisions themselves do not replace existing procedures, they merely give trustees the option of
A takings implication assessment is not required by E.O. 12630 because no party can be compelled to pay damages for injury to natural resources until they have received “due process” through a legal action in Federal court. This rule merely provides a framework for assessing injury and developing the claim.
Federal agencies are required to consult with elected State officials before issuing rules that have “federalism implications” and either impose unfunded mandates or preempt State law. A rule has federalism implications 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.” The NRDAR regulations are already in compliance with E.O. 13132, and this rule does not alter that status. Specifically, this rule does not require State trustees to take any action; therefore, it does not impose any unfunded mandates. The States already have maximum administrative discretion and the ability to develop their own NRDAR policies and programs, which many have implemented (compliance with sections 2 and 3 of E.O. 13132). The rule has no significant effect on intergovernmental relations because it does not alter the rights and responsibilities of government entities (section 3). The rule does not preempt State law (section 4). If trustees elect to use this rule to assess natural resource damages, there is a consultation requirement with other affected trustees, which is not significantly different from the current rule (section 6). Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required under section 6 of the Executive Order. In the spirit of E.O. 13132, though, State trustees, who are representatives of State-elected officials, were given the opportunity to respond to the proposed revisions as part of the public comment period. In addition, ORDA discussed the revisions with the State NRD Alliance and at our national workshop.
Our Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. The revisions are intended to provide the option for an early focus on restoration, utilization of simpler and more cost-effective assessment methodologies, and increased opportunities for cooperation among trustees and PRPs. This rule should minimize litigation.
Tribes were given the opportunity to respond to the revisions as part of the public comment period. In addition, we discussed the revisions with our NRDAR Tribal Group on our monthly calls and at our national workshop. We also held three Tribal consultation meetings inviting all Tribes to participate and provide comments on the proposed revisions.
This final rule has new information collections (ICs) requiring OMB approval. All information collections require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
(1)
(a) The Type A Report is a document to provide the public with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the use of the Type A Procedure.
(b) The Type A Report must:
(1) State that the trustee is following this rule and provide a citation to the rule;
(2) Explain the basis for concluding that conditions for pursuing an assessment were met;
(3) Describe any agreements among co-trustees and potentially responsible parties;
(4) Identify ongoing or planned response activities that could affect the natural resources being assessed;
(5) Explain how conditions for using a Type A Procedure listed in 11.34 of this part are met;
(6) Identify and describe the model(s) selected to determine damages to fund restoration activities, including the following;
(i) Data inputs, assumptions, strengths, limitations, and uncertainties
(ii) Possible existing restoration alternatives that make these model assumptions valid for the purpose of restoration;
(iii) Results of the modeling exercise;
(7) Note the establishment of an administrative record for the assessment and explain how to gain access to that record;
(8) Explain how to submit comments and state the deadline for comments; and
(9) Identify a contact person.
(a) Evidence of efforts to coordinate with response agencies (this need not include any evidence of the substance of discussions, nor documentation of every contact);
(b) Evidence of efforts to consult with other co-trustees (this need not include any evidence of the substance of discussions, nor documentation of every contact) and documentation of any agreements among co-trustees;
(c) The invitation to potentially responsible parties inviting them to participate in the Type A Procedure and documentation of any agreements reached with potentially responsible parties;
(d) Information considered when developing data inputs and assumptions for modeling, including any significant uncertainties concerning the assumptions made and complete citations to any literature used;
(e) A printout of the model(s) sufficient for reproducibility (or a copy of the file used to generate the model(s));
(f) Documentation of any assessment costs incurred, if trustees plan to seek reimbursement of such costs;
(g) Copy of the final Type A Report and each published version of the Type A Report.
(d) If the trustees decide after their review to select different model(s), or substantially change the model data inputs or assumptions to conduct the Type A Procedure, the trustees must prepare a revised Type A Report that reflects the changes, provides any new information about the modified data
(2)
• The PAS is a rapid review of readily available information to make a determination as to whether an NRDAR will be carried out (43 CFR 11.23, 11.24 and 11.25).
• The purpose of the PED is to inform the AP to ensure that the choice of the scientific, cost estimating, and valuation methodologies expected to be used in the NRDAR are reasonable cost. The PED typically relies on available information (43 CFR 11.38).
• The AP must identify and document the use of all of the Type A and/or Type B procedures that will be performed, including any proposed injury studies, as well as potential studies to identify early restoration opportunities and potential effectiveness. The AP is published for public comment (43 CFR part 11 subpart C).
• The RCDP provides a reasonable number of possible restoration alternatives, identifies the preferred alternative and the actions required for implementation, and describes the methods and results of the injury determination, injury quantification, and damages determination (monetary or in-kind projects). The RCDP uses literature, site data, study data, and trustees' decision making; it is published for public comment (43 CFR 11.81).
• Although the RP is identified as part of a post-assessment activity, ORDA addressed Departmental and Congressional interest in timely restoration through policy by defining a “restoration-based settlement” to include a legally binding Consent Decree and concurrent final Restoration Plan. Therefore, the RP may be produced before or after settlement, and is published for public comment. The level of effort on a post-settlement RP is assumed to be the same as for settlement. For purposes of this ICR, the RP is considered to be part of the Type B ROA (43 CFR 11.93; ORDA Restoration Policy).
On January 5, 2024, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this rulemaking are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by the date specified above in
We have analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is not a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy and has not been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.
Releases of hazardous substances can adversely affect the supply, distribution, or use of various types of energy. This rulemaking provides simplified procedures to conduct NRDAR activities under CERCLA due to releases of hazardous substances and restore the injured natural resources that may supply energy. A Statement of Energy Effects is not needed.
Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, direct agencies to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized,
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly,
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon,
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences, and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
The American Fisheries Society publishes fish journals, peer-reviewed technical articles, and books on all aspects of aquatic resource-related subjects including fish biology, ecology, introduced species and economics. Its 2017 book, “Investigation and Monetary Values of Fish and Freshwater Mollusk Kills” (second printing, August 2018) includes widely accepted monetary values of fish and has been used in numerous legal challenges. It is available to borrow from Interior's library or for purchase on the AFS's website:
The Appraisal Foundation publishes the “Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions,” commonly known as the “Yellow Book”. It is developed by the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference and used in the valuation of real property in federal acquisitions and contains requirements for appraisers. The 2016 version is available to borrow from Interior's library or for purchase on the Appraisal Foundation's website:
Interior has concluded that both of these publications are reasonably available as they can both be borrowed from Interior's Library or purchased at their publishers.
Assessment procedures, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Natural resource damages, Potentially responsible parties, Trustees.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 43 CFR part 11 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 9651(c), as amended.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Department of the Interior (DOI) must publish a document in the
(a) American Fisheries Society (AFS), 425 Barlow Place, Bethesda, MD 20814; phone: 301-897-8616, website:
(1) Investigation and Monetary Values of Fish and Freshwater Mollusk Kills. Edited by Robert I. Southwick and Andrew J. Loftus. Special Publication 35. Second printing, August 2018. (AFS Special Publication 35). IBR approved for §§ 11.62 and 11.71.
AFS Special Publication 35 is available online at:
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The Appraisal Foundation, 1155 15th Street NW, Suite 1111, Washington, DC 20005; phone: 202.347.7722; email:
(1) Interagency Land Acquisition Conference—Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. 2016. ISBN: 978-0-09892208-8-0. (Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2016). IBR approved for § 11.83.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(1): Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2016 is available online at:
(2) [Reserved]
There are two types of assessment procedures:
(a) Type A procedures are simplified procedures that require minimal field observation which can be used for all types of resources defined under this part (hereafter, all environments). Subpart D of this part describes the Type A procedures.
(b) Type B procedures require more extensive field observation than the Type A procedures. Subpart E of this part describes the Type B procedures.
A Trustee may use a Type A procedure for all resource types defined under this part if all of the following are satisfied:
(a) The natural resource trustee has decided that methods for replacement of resources or resource services from the list of applicable models or the factors for evaluation of new methodologies in § 11.83 are appropriate for determining damages to fund restoration activities at the site.
(b) All Federal, State, and Tribal trustees with probable jurisdiction over the injured natural resources who have elected to participate in the claim concur in the use of the Type A procedure in the circumstances presented.
(c) The claim that will be resolved using the Type A procedure is expected to be less than $5 million (excluding reasonable assessment costs). This figure will be periodically adjusted for inflation following guidance from the Office of Management and Budget. In claims which are expected to be higher than $5 million, the Type A procedures may still be used if all parties agree.
(d) At least one potentially responsible party has voluntarily agreed to utilize the Type A procedure. If a claim involves multiple potentially responsible parties, the Type A process may not be appropriate unless resolution of the claim involves all significant potentially responsible parties, or the resolution of the claim represents a final settlement of the claim for injury to specific natural resources at the site.
(e) The potentially responsible party agrees to toll the running of the statutory limitations period for filing the claim for at least one year and to reimburse the trustees for reasonable Type A assessment costs until the claim is resolved or the potentially responsible party gives formal notice of withdrawal from voluntary participation in the Type A procedure.
(a) If the natural resource trustee determines under § 11.34 that a Type A procedure is available, the trustee must then decide whether to use that procedure or use a Type B procedure. The trustee must make this decision by weighing the difficulty of collecting site-specific data against the suitability of the averaged data and simplifying assumptions in the Type A procedure for the release being assessed. The trustee may use a Type B procedure if they can be performed at a reasonable cost and if the increase in accuracy provided by those procedures outweighs the increase in assessment costs.
(b) If there is no appropriate Type A procedure, the trustee must use a Type B procedure to calculate all damages.
(a) The natural resource trustee may use both a Type A procedure and Type B procedure for the same release if:
(1) The Type B procedure is cost-effective and can be performed at a reasonable cost;
(2) There is no double recovery; and
(3) The Type B procedure is used only to determine damages for injuries or compensable values that are not addressed by the Type A procedure.
(b) The Type A procedure may be used to address any claim brought by a natural resource trustee.
(c) If a trustee elects to use both a Type A procedure and a Type B procedure, the Assessment Plan must explain how the double recovery will be prevented.
(d) When the trustee uses a Type B procedure for injuries not addressed in a Type A procedure, they must follow all of subpart E of this part (which contains standards for determining and quantifying injury as well as determining damages), § 11.31(c) (which addresses content of the Assessment Plan), and § 11.37 (which addresses confirmation of exposure). When the trustee uses a Type B procedure for compensable values that are not included in a Type A procedure but that result from injuries that are addressed in the Type A procedure, they need not follow all of subpart E and §§ 11.31(c) and 11.37. Instead, the trustee may rely on the injury predictions of the Type A procedure and simply use the valuation methodologies authorized by § 11.83(c) to calculate compensable value. When using valuation methodologies, the trustee must comply with § 11.84.
(a) Before including any Type B methodologies in the Assessment Plan, the trustee must confirm that at least one of the natural resources identified as potentially injured in the preassessment screen has in fact been exposed to the released substance.
(b) Whenever possible, exposure shall be confirmed by using existing data, such as those collected for response actions by the On-Scene Coordinator, or other available studies or surveys of the assessment area.
(c) Where sampling has been done before the completion of the preassessment screen, chemical analyses of such samples may be performed to confirm that exposure has occurred.
(d) Where existing data are unavailable or insufficient to confirm exposure, one or more of the analytical methodologies provided in the Injury Determination phase subpart E of this part may be used.
(e) Type B assessment methodologies shall be included in the Assessment Plan only upon meeting the requirements of this section.
Once a trustee has decided that the Type A procedure is appropriate to resolve a claim and the potentially responsible party has agreed to utilize the Type A procedure, the trustee should notify and invite other affected co-trustees to participate in the Type A procedure. The Type A procedure must be documented in a Type A Report.
(a) The Type A Report is a document to provide the public with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the use of the Type A procedure.
(b) The Type A Report must:
(1) State that the trustee is following this part and provide a citation to this part;
(2) Explain the basis for concluding that conditions for pursuing an assessment were met;
(3) Describe any agreements among co-trustees and potentially responsible parties;
(4) Identify ongoing or planned response activities that could affect the natural resources being assessed;
(5) Explain how conditions for using a Type A procedure listed in § 11.34 are met;
(6) Identify and describe the model(s) selected to determine damages to fund restoration activities, including the following;
(i) Data inputs, assumptions, strengths, limitations, and uncertainties;
(ii) Possible existing restoration alternatives that make these model assumptions valid for the purpose of restoration; and
(iii) Results of the modeling exercise;
(7) Note the establishment of an administrative record for the assessment and explain how to gain access to that record;
(8) Explain how to submit comments and state the deadline for comments; and
(9) Identify a contact person.
(c) The Type A Report must be made available to the public and provide for a comment period of at least 30 days.
(a) Evidence of efforts to coordinate with response agencies (this need not include any evidence of the substance of discussions, nor documentation of every contact);
(b) Evidence of efforts to consult with other co-trustees (this need not include any evidence of the substance of discussions, nor documentation of every contact) and documentation of any agreements among co-trustees;
(c) The invitation to potentially responsible parties inviting them to participate in the Type A procedure and documentation of any agreements reached with potentially responsible parties;
(d) Information considered when developing data inputs and assumptions for modeling, including any significant uncertainties concerning the assumptions made and complete citations to any literature used;
(e) A printout of the model(s) sufficient for reproducibility (or a copy of the file used to generate the model(s));
(f) Documentation of any assessment costs incurred, if trustees plan to seek reimbursement of such costs; and
(g) Copy of the final Type A Report and each published version of the Type A Report.
(a) Comments received during the comment period must be placed in the administrative record and reviewed by the trustees.
(b) If the trustees decide after their review that no changes to the Type A Report are needed, the trustees must publish a notice that:
(1) States that the Type A Report has been finalized; and
(2) Provides substantive responses to significant comments received during the comment period.
(c) If the trustees decide after their review that it is inappropriate to use the Type A procedure, the trustees may decide to use a Type B procedure for the assessment or stop the assessment.
(d) If the trustees decide after their review to select different model(s), or substantially change the model data inputs or assumptions to conduct the Type A procedure, the trustees must prepare a revised Type A Report that reflects the changes, provides any new information about the modified data inputs and assumptions, and substantively responds to significant comments received during the comment period. Minor changes require a statement of explanation of the changes, explanation of why they are not considered substantial, and discussion of any effects on results to be appended to the original Type A Report.
(e) The trustees must provide an additional comment period of at least 30 days for a revised Type A Report.
(a) After the Type A Report is finalized, trustees may enter into a settlement agreement with potentially responsible parties.
(b) Damages to fund or undertake restoration activities must be utilized following a publicly reviewed Restoration Plan consistent with subpart F of this part.
(c) The public review and comment period for Administrative Settlement Agreements, Consent Decrees, and Restoration Plans may run concurrently with the comment period for the Type A Report, if appropriate.
(f) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(l) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Fish mortality in freshwater areas may be estimated from counts of carcasses, using methods and guidelines for estimating numbers of fish killed contained in AFS Special Publication 35 (incorporated by reference, see § 11.18).
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to amend its Suspended Counterparty Program (SCP) regulation by removing the term “reputational harm.” This amendment would eliminate redundancy and affirm that FHFA's supervision of counterparty risk is based on material and measurable risks.
Written comments must be received on or before August 12, 2026.
You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AB23, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Chris Bederka, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of this proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Comments, including any personally identifiable information such as name and contact information, will be posted to the electronic rulemaking docket on the FHFA public website at
The current SCP regulation requires the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and any affiliate thereof, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and any affiliate thereof (individually, an Enterprise and together, the Enterprises), and any Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) (collectively, the regulated entities) to submit a report to FHFA when it becomes aware that an individual or institution with which it is doing or has done business has been found within the past three years to have committed actions the SCP regulation defines as covered misconduct. FHFA may issue proposed suspension orders based on the reports it has received from the regulated entities, a referral submitted by the FHFA Office of Inspector General, or based on other information. Both the affected individual or institution and the regulated entities have an opportunity to respond to any proposed suspension order.
Under the current SCP regulation, FHFA may issue a final suspension order based on a written record, if the record shows that the underlying misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause significant financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity or otherwise threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity. Final suspension orders direct the regulated entities to cease or refrain from doing business with the suspended individual or institution. The affected individual or institution may appeal a final suspension order to the FHFA Director.
Orders issued under the SCP regulation fall within FHFA's general supervisory authority over the regulated entities, specifically its authority under sections 1313, 1313B, and 1319G of the Safety and Soundness Act. Section
Under the existing SCP regulation, FHFA may issue a proposed or final suspension order if a respondent meets a two-prong test. First, the respondent must engage in covered misconduct. Second, the covered misconduct must be of a type that would be likely to cause significant financial or
FHFA's experience implementing the SCP regulation has demonstrated that the inclusion of “reputational harm” in the second prong is unnecessary because all covered misconduct inherently involves a risk of financial harm or potential threat to the safety and soundness of the regulated entities. For example, a counterparty convicted of fraud in connection with a mortgage security inherently presents a risk of financial harm to a regulated entity, making reputational harm a redundant consideration for purposes of the SCP. Consequently, eliminating reputational harm would not cause counterparties that committed covered misconduct to avoid suspension because those counterparties would still meet the financial harm or safety and soundness risk prong.
Moreover, FHFA believes that the inclusion of the concept of “reputational harm” as a basis for regulatory action increases subjectivity and uncertainty in regulation. Although FHFA recognizes the importance of its regulated entities' reputations, most activities that could negatively impact a regulated entity's reputation do so through the traditional risk channels FHFA closely monitors (
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would codify the removal of reputation risk from their supervisory programs and prohibit the agencies from criticizing, formally or informally, or taking adverse action against an institution or any employee of an institution on the basis of reputation risk.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would amend §§ 1227.5(b)(2) and 1227.6(a)(2) to remove the term “or reputational.” The amended language would read “The covered misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause significant financial harm to a regulated entity or otherwise threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity.” Section 1227.9(b) and (c), detailing the process for requesting a reconsideration of a suspension order, would similarly be amended to remove the term “or reputational.” For the foregoing reasons, FHFA proposes amending the Suspended Counterparty Rule.
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Enterprises and the Banks with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; joint and several liability; and any other differences FHFA considers appropriate.
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
On February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14219 under which federal agencies are required to review all regulations subject to their jurisdiction and repeal, as appropriate, regulations inconsistent with law or policy.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the OMB in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order.
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly known as
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal home loan banks, Government-sponsored enterprises, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, FHFA proposes to amend part 1227 of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4513, 4513b, 4514, 4526.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; repeal of 12 CFR part 1272.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA” or the “Agency”) is requesting comment on this notice of proposed rulemaking repealing the New Business Activities regulation.
FHFA will accept written comments on the proposed rule on or before August 12, 2026.
You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AB52, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Comments, including any personally identifiable information such as name and contact information, will be posted to the electronic rulemaking docket on the FHFA public website at
Pursuant to Executive Order (Executive Order or E.O.) 14219, FHFA reviewed its regulations for consistency with law and Administration policy.
The Federal Housing Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) authorizes FHFA to exercise general regulatory authority over its regulated entities to ensure that the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and any other applicable law are carried out.
Part 1272 sets forth the requirements pertaining to the submission and approval of notices for a Bank to commence a new business activity (NBA). In 2000, the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board), a predecessor regulator of the Banks to FHFA, adopted a regulation implementing certain statutory amendments made by the Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 (Modernization Act).
In 2010, FHFA re-designated 12 CFR part 980 as 12 CFR part 1272 of its regulations without modification.
The APA requires a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is, among other things, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.”
The Administration has made the reduction of regulatory burden, efficiency, and fiscal accountability clear priorities.
Rescinding part 1272 would align with Administration policy by recognizing that part 1272 has had a minimal effect on the Banks' deployment of new products and services to their members over the last decade. Very few of the new business activities in which the Banks are statutorily authorized to engage rise to the risk level that would trigger an NBAN submission. NBAN submissions are required only to the extent a new business activity entails material risks not previously managed by the Bank.
In the last five years, the Banks have submitted only two NBANs, and in both cases FHFA determined the respective Bank to be capable of managing the risks presented by the proposed activity. In the past decade, FHFA has rejected no NBAN for unmanageable risk to the submitting Bank. While there are only two prior NBANs against which to measure costs of compliance, the Banks have raised the concern that compliance with part 1272 would be burdensome and would raise the cost of implementing NBAs. For these reasons, FHFA has determined that part 1272 has potentially become irrelevant and counterproductive to the Banks' mission.
FHFA has reviewed the NBA regulation and has concluded that it creates unnecessary burdens on the Banks. Part 1272 was first promulgated over 25 years ago for safety and soundness reasons because of changes introduced by the Modernization Act. NBA requirements in part 1272 helped their regulator ensure that the Banks could successfully accept these new types of collateral. Since the promulgation of part 1272, most of the Banks have developed significant experience managing the risks associated with collateral types introduced by the Modernization Act and other statutory changes, as well as with other types of Bank products. For these reasons, part 1272 is no longer necessary to protect against the risks for which it was originally intended.
FHFA, in its 2016 final rule amending part 1272, eliminated the need to file an NBAN prior to a Bank accepting new types of collateral, and revised the definition of “new business activity” so that it encompassed only a business activity “that entails material risks not previously managed by the Bank.”
The Banks are subject to ongoing prudential supervision through FHFA's examination function, which includes the development of NBAs. When FHFA updated part 1272 in 2016, it considered how its supervisory authority would mitigate any potential issues with NBAs and determined that FHFA will assess the risks associated with activities that do not present material risks as part of its regular supervisory process.
The Administration has made efficiency and fiscal accountability clear priorities.
FHFA also expends staff resources when reviewing NBANs in accordance with part 1272.
When a Bank begins work on an NBA that would trigger an NBAN submission, it typically involves FHFA in the development process long before formally submitting an NBAN pursuant to part 1272. Most NBAs that involve a material new risk to a Bank also require substantial resources to develop. As the Banks are responsible to their members to efficiently allocate resources, by involving FHFA early in the process of developing a new product or business activity the Bank ensures that it will not waste resources on developing a product FHFA would later determine to
If part 1272 is rescinded, FHFA expects the Banks to continue to create new activities that further their missions. FHFA requests comment on whether the repeal of the regulation will impact the Banks and specifically on what economic costs or benefits repeal would entail for the Banks. FHFA also requests comment on whether the repeal of part 1272 could lead to the Banks creating innovative programs addressing housing and community development issues, as well as any considerations for how the repeal could impact the safety and soundness of the Banks.
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires the Director of FHFA, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as they relate to: the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; the mission of providing liquidity to members; the affordable housing and community development mission; their capital structure; and their joint and several liability on consolidated obligations.
The proposed rule to repeal part 1272 does not contain any information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Order 14215 (Independent Agency Accountability) amends Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) to include in its definition of “agency,” those agencies under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) including any “independent regulatory agency.” Accordingly, pursuant to Executive Order 12866 as amended, FHFA must determine whether its regulatory action proposing repeal is “significant” and subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Executive Order 12866 section 3(f) defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. FHFA has determined the proposed rule not to be a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. OIRA has concurred in this determination, and therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. FHFA has developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 14192 requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that 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. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) (commonly known as
Federal home loan banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, and 4526, FHFA proposes to remove and reserve 12 CFR part 1272.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is proposing to amend the drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements with respect to establishments engaged in distributed manufacturing and foreign drug establishments. This action, if finalized, will provide a pathway for a distributed manufacturing establishment that manufactures drugs at multiple different physical locations to register as a single drug manufacturing establishment and align drug establishment registration and drug listing regulations applicable to foreign drug establishments with statutory changes made by the Preparing for and Responding to Existing Viruses, Emerging New Threats, and Pandemics Act (PREVENT Pandemics Act).
Either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule must be submitted by September 11, 2026. Submit comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by September 11, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit comments on the information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at
There are two purposes to this proposed rule. The first is to propose revisions to the drug establishment registration regulations to accommodate distributed manufacturing (DM) by providing drug manufacturers that engage in DM with flexibility in registration requirements. The second purpose is to propose updates to the drug establishment registration and drug listing regulations to incorporate clarifying changes to the statute made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act.
DM is a decentralized manufacturing strategy that uses advanced manufacturing technology. Under our proposal, a distributed manufacturing establishment (DME) uses a hub-and-spoke model in which the physical manufacturing activities are conducted at DM units (DMUs) that are located at one or more geographic locations (“spokes”) under the oversight and control of a single quality unit, which has a management structure located at the DM “hub” and has implemented a unified pharmaceutical quality system (UPQS). The DMUs are equivalent in design and operation, manufacture the same drug(s), and can be added, removed, or relocated as needed to meet demand. In contrast, an establishment engaged in traditional manufacturing resides in one general physical location, and manufacturing is overseen by the manufacturer's quality unit located in the same general physical location.
Current registration regulations would require the hub, provided that it is engaged in manufacturing activities as defined by 21 CFR 207.1, and each DMU within the DME to register as separate establishments even though they operate collectively as one establishment. These proposed regulations, if finalized, would provide a pathway for a DME to register as a single drug manufacturing establishment. The proposed regulations include the same categories of registration requirements that are applicable to establishments engaged in traditional manufacturing, with appropriate revisions to account for differences between DMEs and establishments engaged in traditional manufacturing.
Section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act amended section 510(i) (21 U.S.C. 360(i)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to expressly require the registration of foreign establishments engaged in the manufacturing, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States regardless of whether such drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. This amendment to section 510 of the FD&C Act also clarified that such foreign establishments must provide the drug listing information described in section 510(j) of the FD&C Act with respect to such drugs. Submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information on foreign establishments improves the Agency's visibility into the drug supply chain and enhances our ability to prevent the importation of drugs that do not comply with current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements or are otherwise adulterated or misbranded.
FDA proposes a registration pathway that is specific to DMEs. The proposed rule would modify certain definitions in part 207 (21 CFR part 207), including the definition of “establishment,” and add new defined terms related to DM. The proposed regulations, if finalized, would enable a DME to register as a single establishment with the addition or removal of a DMU from a DME, or relocation of a mobile DMU, treated as an expedited update to the DME registration. The proposed rule includes requirements regarding initial registration and updates to registration that are similar to current requirements but consider aspects of the DM hub-and-spoke model that necessitate different regulations (
Additionally, the Agency is proposing to amend the drug establishment registration requirements to clarify that the drug establishment registration requirements apply to each foreign establishment that manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States regardless of whether such drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. Similarly, the Agency is proposing to amend the drug listing requirements to clarify that the drug listing requirements apply with respect to any drug that a foreign establishment manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages for commercial distribution regardless of whether the drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
In conjunction with our general rulemaking authority in section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), this proposed rule is authorized by sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 505, 510, 512, 704, 801, and 1003 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 360b, 374, 381, and 393), sections 351, 361, and 368 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262, 264, 271), and section 2511(b) of the PREVENT Pandemics Act.
We quantify costs to drug manufacturers for reading and understanding the rule and to FDA for updating structured product labeling (SPL) submission schema, tools, and internal databases. Using a pre-statute baseline, we also estimate costs to unregistered foreign firms required to register and list with FDA, as we expect clarifying changes to statute made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act to increase compliance among covered foreign establishments. At a seven percent discount rate, estimated annualized net costs range from approximately $532,811 to $664,495, with a primary estimate of $583,958. At a three percent discount
Advanced manufacturing is a term for an innovative pharmaceutical manufacturing technology or approach that has the potential to improve the reliability and robustness of the manufacturing process and supply chain and increase timely access to quality medicines for the American public. Advanced manufacturing can integrate novel technological approaches, use established techniques in an innovative way, or apply production methods in a new domain where there are no defined best practices or experience. Advanced manufacturing can potentially be used for new or currently marketed large or small molecule drugs. FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) established the Framework for Regulatory Advanced Manufacturing Evaluation (FRAME) initiative in 2019 to ensure a regulatory framework to support the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies that could bring benefits to patients (Ref. 1). This proposed rule is being issued, in part, under the FRAME initiative.
DM is a decentralized manufacturing strategy that uses advanced manufacturing technology. DM allows for greater flexibility in drug manufacturing by using a decentralized hub-and-spoke manufacturing model consisting of a single control site that has a management structure located at a centralized site, or “hub,” and one or more DMUs at a different location from the hub (“spokes”) that are equivalent in design and operations and can be added, removed, or relocated as needed. In a hub-and-spoke model, the manufacturer can combine and collectively evaluate data from all DMUs to establish a validation strategy for a newly established manufacturing process. The knowledge and experience gained during the design stage from this collective data set could reduce the extent of validation activities that would be needed when adding subsequent DMUs to the DME or following relocation of an existing DMU. Data sets over the DMUs' operating lifetime may be further leveraged to support continued process verification. This agility in the validation strategy would be especially important for DMUs capable of mobility that are commissioned for their ability to move to new locations quickly to manufacture drugs in response to need (
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we considered whether to permit manufacturers that use an alternative distributed manufacturing model to take advantage of the streamlined registration pathway for distributed manufacturing establishments. There are other models where a drug is made at multiple locations, and some may describe this as distributed manufacturing. However, it is unlikely that these models would be appropriate for the streamlined registration we propose for a number of reasons. For example, in section V.A.1, we discuss a model in which several different contract manufacturing organizations are hired to manufacture the same drug at different locations. In such an arrangement, the unaffiliated business entities would operate under different management that would not have the direct authority to manage another entity's quality system. In such circumstances, permitting a single, streamlined registration process to cover multiple corporate entities is unworkable; the registrant must be a single legal entity. Thus, in this example, each contract manufacturing organization would need to register and list separately under the existing regulations. In addition, based upon public input (see Section III.C of this proposed rule), we concluded that the approach described in this proposed rule aligns well with the distributed manufacturing model industry is likely to adopt, and that would otherwise likely result in an additional registration burden on industry. We seek public comment on the benefits and burdens of applying this approach to other distributed manufacturing models.
DM is an alternative to traditional manufacturing and generally is envisioned to be utilized in circumstances where an agile approach to manufacturing is necessary or beneficial to meet patient needs for medicines, and when meeting such needs is either not possible or not ideal through traditional manufacturing. This proposed rule is being published, in part, to address the regulatory changes FDA has determined are appropriate for the registration of DMEs because of the differences between DM and traditional manufacturing.
This proposed rule is also being published to more explicitly address registration and listing requirements for foreign establishments that manufacture a drug that, as manufactured by such foreign establishment, is only distributed outside the United States (
Among other things, section 510 of the FD&C Act requires every person upon first engaging in the “manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing” of a drug in any establishment that they own or operate, in any State, to register the establishment. Section 510 applies to domestic establishments and any establishment within any foreign country engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing” of a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States. The information FDA obtains about establishments through the registration process is used to fulfill several of its statutory mandates and public health and animal health objectives. The regulations codified in part 207 reflect FDA's implementation of section 510 of the FD&C Act.
In August 2016, FDA published the “Requirements for Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing for Human Drugs, Including Drugs that are Regulated Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs” final rule (81 FR 60170) (2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule). The 2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule updated FDA's regulations governing drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements. These updated regulations, codified in part 207, apply to both human drugs, including biological products marketed under a biologics license application (BLA), and animal drugs, unless exempted from registration requirements under section 510(g) of the FD&C Act or 21 CFR 207.13 or determined not to be applicable because the establishments are subject to registration requirements set forth elsewhere in Title 21 of the CFR (
Current drug registration requirements include requirements regarding (1) the entities who must register, and which establishments must be registered (§ 207.17); (2) initial registration for domestic and foreign establishments (§ 207.21 and § 207.25); and (3) updates to registration information on either an expedited or annual basis (§ 207.29).
The term “establishment” in § 207.1 is defined, in part, as “a place of business under one management at one general physical location.” The preamble to the 2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule stated that “the longstanding language `one general physical location,' generally restricts a single establishment to one street address or one or more contiguous plots of land” (81 FR 60170 at 60178); and “under the final rule's definition of `establishment,' two establishments located 5 miles apart would not qualify as being at `one general physical location' and would therefore require two separate registrations. Each establishment would be associated with its own [unique facility identifier] and establishment registration number” (81 FR 60170 at 60189).
This definition has been appropriate for establishments utilizing traditional manufacturing approaches that consist of manufacturing facilities under one management at one general physical location but may not be suitable for DMEs. A DME similarly operates as a single establishment under one management but is not located at one general physical location. With the current definition of establishment, a DME that follows a hub-and-spoke model where the hub and each DMU spoke reside in more than one general physical location, and where a DMU may further move to new locations, would be required to submit a separate registration for (1) each DMU that is manufacturing drugs at a different location; (2) the hub, provided it is engaged in manufacturing activities as defined in § 207.1; and (3) any DMU subsequently added at or moved to a new location.
The requirement under existing regulations to submit multiple, separate registrations for a single DME would be unnecessarily burdensome for industry and could pose a barrier to the adoption and implementation of DM. For FDA, it could limit our understanding of connections between the hub and its DMUs and our awareness of manufacturing operations that are utilizing a UPQS to direct, monitor, and control the manufacture of drugs to ensure product quality at the distributed manufacturing establishment, including ensuring that all distributed manufacturing units within the distributed manufacturing establishment at any location are and remain equivalent in design and operation.
Additionally, information currently required for registration and expedited updates to registration would need to be expanded to include important DM-
We are undertaking this rulemaking to establish a registration pathway appropriate for DMEs. The proposed rule is intended to decrease the regulatory burden for industry, while enabling FDA to obtain the necessary information about manufacturing establishments, in a timely manner, to support FDA programs and public health responsibilities.
Nothing in the preamble to the 2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule nor the codified regulations directly addressed whether the registration and listing requirements applied to foreign establishments that manufactured a drug that was only distributed outside the United States (
However, since the publication of the 2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule, the percentage of foreign establishments required to register has increased, and as of October 2024, nearly 60 percent of registered drug establishments are outside of the United States (Ref. 3, page 4). The number of foreign establishments that manufacture APIs used in finished products imported into the United States but do not register because they only distribute the API outside of the United States has also likely grown since the publication of the 2016 Registration and Listing Final Rule. The lack of registration and listing among such entities has hindered FDA oversight over a growing sector of the supply chain because FDA may not be aware of these unregistered establishments. Therefore, they would not be considered when FDA is prioritizing surveillance inspections, which are a critical tool used in safeguarding the public from harmful, unsafe, and ineffective products.
In December 2022, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the PREVENT Pandemics Act. Section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act amended section 510 of the FD&C Act to expressly require the registration of foreign establishments that manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or process a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States, regardless of whether the drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. Section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act also amended section 510 of the FD&C Act to clarify the requirement that such establishments list such drugs. These self-implementing changes to statute introduced no new requirements on foreign establishments but rather clarified requirements already in effect at the time. This proposed rule is intended to update the drug establishment registration and listing requirements for foreign establishments to align the regulations with the changes made to section 510 of the FD&C Act.
Updating the registration and listing regulations to be consistent with these clarifying changes to section 510 of the FD&C Act will eliminate any perceived inconsistencies between the statutory requirements in section 510 of the FD&C Act and the regulatory requirements in part 207. Eliminating any such inconsistency should increase compliance with the registration and listing requirements and thus increase FDA's visibility into this area of the drug supply chain. This increased visibility will then enhance FDA's efforts to prevent adulterated or misbranded drugs from reaching patients and consumers.
In developing the part of this proposed rule regarding DMEs, FDA published a discussion paper (Ref. 4) on October 14, 2022, entitled “Distributed Manufacturing and Point-of-Care Manufacturing of Drugs Discussion Paper” and opened a docket for public comment (FDA-2022-N-2316). The paper posed questions related to the technical aspects of DM technologies, compliance with current regulations such as requirements related to CGMP and regulatory submissions, and terminology to inform future policy development. FDA received over 25 comments through the docket from industry groups, individual companies in the pharmaceutical and related sectors, and private citizens. Commenters sought clarity on how existing regulations (
We are issuing this proposed rule under sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 505, 510, 512, 701, 704, 801, 1003 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 360b, 371a, 374, 381, and 393)
We are proposing to revise part 207 to: (1) provide a pathway for a DME, as defined in this proposed rule, which performs manufacturing activities at one or more physical locations to register as a single drug manufacturing establishment, and (2) clarify the applicability of the establishment registration and drug listing requirements to foreign drug manufacturing establishments that do not directly import or offer for import drugs into the United States, but are still involved in the manufacture of drugs that are imported or offered for import into the United States.
We propose to revise part 207 to include DME-specific registration requirements that are better tailored to the hub-and-spoke model of DM than the current registration requirements. FDA proposes to create a registration pathway to enable a DME with operations at multiple locations to register as a single establishment by modifying certain definitions in part 207; adding new definitions for DM; revising and expanding requirements regarding the timing and information submitted for initial registration and subsequent updates to registration; and providing requirements specific to DMEs comprised of DMUs capable of mobility.
To accommodate DM-specific registration requirements, we propose revisions to the definitions for “establishment,” “domestic,” and “foreign” in § 207.1. Proposed § 207.1 also adds new definitions for “distributed manufacturing establishment,” “distributed manufacturing hub,” and “distributed manufacturing unit.” Each of these revised and new definitions are described in turn below. The new definitions include references to several other terms that are currently not defined in FDA regulations, such as “equivalent” and “unified pharmaceutical quality system,” and we are seeking comment on whether any of these other terms should be formally defined in the final rule and, if so, how they should be defined.
FDA proposes to revise the definition of “establishment” to include DMEs. FDA currently defines the term “establishment” to mean a place of business under one management at one general physical location and lists types of establishments that are included in this definition. The proposed revision would expressly include DMEs as a type of establishment, even though each DMU within a DME generally will operate at different locations, will not be at the same general physical location as the DM hub, and might further relocate.
FDA proposes to separately define the term “distributed manufacturing establishment” to distinguish a DME from an establishment engaged in traditional manufacturing. An establishment engaged in traditional manufacturing manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes drug(s) at one general physical location with the manufacturer's quality unit responsible for oversight typically being entirely present at that same location. In contrast we propose to define a DME as an establishment that manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes drug(s) utilizing a manufacturing strategy designed to be decentralized (
Additionally, the proposed definition of DME specifies that the hub and all associated DMUs collectively (a) operate under one management pursuant to a manufacturing strategy designed to be decentralized, and (b) were subject to a preapproval inspection because at least one drug in each profile class manufactured by the DME is manufactured in accordance with an approved application that, at the time of an original submission or postapproval submission, describes the use of a decentralized manufacturing strategy. The relevant applications are new drug applications (NDAs) submitted under section 505(b)(1) and approved under section 505(c) of the FD&C Act (including NDAs described in section 505(b)(2) of the Act); abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) submitted and approved under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act; new animal drug applications (NADAs) submitted under section 512(b)(1) and approved under section 512(c)(1) of the FD&C Act; abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) submitted under section 512(b)(2) and approved under section 512(c)(2) of the FD&C Act; or biologics license applications (BLAs) submitted and approved under section 351(a) or (k) of the PHS Act.
The requirement that the DM hub and DMUs operate under one management, which is also an expectation for establishments engaged in traditional manufacturing, means that a single business entity (
The proposed definition of DME would not permit an arrangement where several different contract manufacturing organizations are hired to each operate a DMU to manufacture the same drug(s) at multiple locations. This is because, when unaffiliated business entities are involved, there are potentially competing quality systems, which can make it difficult to ensure equivalency in design and operations is maintained across DMUs. Even if each of the DMUs were of equivalent design and were
Under our proposal, a DME must have been subject to a preapproval inspection in connection with an application that, at the time of an original or postapproval submission, describes the use of a decentralized manufacturing strategy for at least one drug in each profile class manufactured by the DME. Furthermore, our proposal allows for multiple profile classes to be manufactured at a single DME, provided that the DME meets the requirement regarding being subject to a preapproval inspection for each profile class of drug manufactured at the DME. Profile class of a drug refers to the categorization of different processing conditions and product types. For example, immediate-release, delayed-release, and extended-release solid oral dosage forms would be different profile classes of drugs. Profile classes are described in FDA's Investigations Operations Manual (Ref. 7) and are used by FDA for inspection planning and to aid decision-making. When deciding whether a new product-specific inspection, such as a preapproval inspection, is needed, FDA uses profile classes to assist in determining whether a previous FDA inspection of an establishment has already covered similar manufacturing operations, such that those inspectional findings can be applied to new, but similar, products and processes. For DM, the opportunity during a preapproval inspection to review the effectiveness of the UPQS is especially important to confirm that the UPQS is capable of managing changes in manufacturing operations to ensure equivalency in design and operation across DMUs.
FDA is proposing to permit DMEs to manufacture certain products marketed without an approved application (
In contrast to traditional manufacturing, in which drug products are manufactured at a single physical location, distributed manufacturing needs to be decentralized, taking place at more than one location. Therefore, a DME is also defined as including either at least one DMU capable of mobility (
FDA also proposes to define “distributed manufacturing unit” and “distributed manufacturing hub.” Defining these terms clarifies the role of each of these parts of a DME and is necessary because certain registration requirements may be applicable only to a particular part of the DME.
We propose to define a “distributed manufacturing unit” to mean a physical unit engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of drug(s) that is generally deployed, or put into effect, at a separate location from the DM hub and that may further move from one general physical location to another if the unit is capable of mobility. We note that a hub would not be considered a DMU if it only serves as the primary location of the quality unit responsible for implementing the UPQS and is not otherwise performing manufacturing activities other than those related to implementing the UPQS. See additional discussion in the section on the definition of the DM hub.
All DMUs within a given DME would be required to be of equivalent design and operation regardless of the location of the DMU deployed and would be expected to maintain this equivalency of design and operations over time. The term “equivalent” is not intended to mean identical, which is a stricter standard. Certain elements of a DMU can be equivalent but not identical. For example, if a manufacturer adds a new DMU to a DME that had been manufacturing a drug using a piece of equipment that has been discontinued, a newer model capable of meeting the same design and operation criteria to be able to produce the same drug according to its specifications may be considered equivalent and acceptable to use in the newly added DMU. Establishing and maintaining this equivalency ensures that each DMU that manufactures the same drug(s) and meets the same quality standards and specifications.
Complying with CGMP requirements and ensuring that each equivalent DMU continues to operate in a state of control is important for maintaining equivalency across DMUs. Therefore, the Agency intends to provide additional details in an Agency guidance on CGMP considerations for DM. This guidance will assist manufacturers in addressing the complexities associated with DM when complying with FDA's CGMP requirements (
We propose to define a “distributed manufacturing hub” to mean the place of business at one general physical location that is the primary location of the quality unit responsible for implementing the UPQS to direct,
One function of the UPQS is to provide the structure to ensure DMUs are, and remain over time, equivalent in design and operations. Under a UPQS, the personnel in the manufacturer's quality unit develop the policies and procedures that govern manufacturing operations for the entire DME; determine appropriate staffing and the personnel reporting structure for the entire DME; and conduct the overall lifecycle management for all DMUs.
The proposed definition of DM hub differentiates the DM hub from traditional sites that may have centralized certain quality oversight activities but have not implemented a UPQS. For example, a company may decide to manufacture the same drug using the same processes at several of its existing establishments at various locations and consolidate certain quality responsibilities of several establishments (
FDA also proposes to revise the definitions of “domestic” and “foreign” in 21 CFR 207.1 to include “distributed manufacturing hub” and “distributed manufacturing unit” as terms that can be characterized as either domestic or foreign, depending on location.
FDA seeks comment on whether there are other terms, including those that are used in this proposed rule, that the Agency should define or clarify in part 207 and how such a term should be defined.
Establishment registration requirements apply to any manufacturer subject to section 510 of the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations in part 207 who is manufacturing, repacking, or relabeling a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug for commercial distribution within the United States and/or for import into the United States, which would include entities involved in such activities using DM. Proposed § 207.17(b) creates a separate registration requirement for DMEs. Although this new proposed requirement is similar to the requirement under § 207.17(a), a separate provision was necessary because of certain aspects specific to DMEs. Specifically, it clarifies that in determining whether a DME is required to register, we do not evaluate whether the entire DME is domestic or foreign, but rather we focus on whether the components of the DME (
Section 510(g) and § 207.13 include certain exemptions to the drug establishment registration requirements. Generally, FDA expects that many of the exemptions in section 510(g) and § 207.13 would not apply to an establishment engaged in DM because engaging in the distributed manufacturing of a drug for commercial distribution would, in and of itself, be an activity that would require the establishment to register under § 207.17 (see § 207.13(l)(3)). However, to be consistent with § 207.17(a), and to allow the possibility that an establishment engaged in DM may still be exempt from establishment registration under § 207.13, (
FDA proposes separate initial registration requirements for DMEs that generally track with current requirements under § 207.21 but are tailored to the hub-and-spoke model of a DME. Proposed § 207.21(b)(1) would require a DME to register no later than 5 calendar days after the first domestic DMU begins to manufacture a drug for commercial distribution, or before a drug manufactured at any foreign DMU is imported or offered for import into the United States, whichever of the two occurs first. This requirement addresses the possibility that a DME may include both domestic and foreign DMUs.
Proposed § 207.21(b)(2) addresses how registrants can fulfill the initial registration requirement for a DME when the DM hub is located at, and operated as part of, a currently registered establishment. In this instance, the initial establishment registration requirement under § 207.21 has already been met, so registering the DME would be handled as an update to the existing establishment registration and is included as such in proposed § 207.21(b)(1). Permitting a facility to be both a “traditional” establishment and a DM hub under a single registration is practical because the facility is at the same address and owned by the same company, but with different business operations depending on establishment type. Furthermore, certain items such as standard operating procedures (
Although registering a DME in this situation is managed as a registration update, it is effectively a new registration for the DME. Therefore, FDA proposes that the timeline for initial registration, which is 5 calendar days, rather than the 30-day timeline required for an expedited update, apply in this instance as the timeline for updating the existing registration. FDA believes that when the registration update is for purposes of notifying FDA that the existing registered establishment will serve as the hub of a DME, the 5-calendar day timeframe would be more appropriate.
FDA proposes to create a new paragraph (b) in § 207.25 that would list the type of information required when registering DMEs. Proposed § 207.25(b) would be similar in scope to the information currently required for registration of establishments that are not DMEs but with some notable differences that account for the hub-and-spoke model of a DME.
Proposed § 207.25(b) would require registrants to provide the same basic establishment information and contact details currently required when registering establishments that are not DMEs:
• Name of the owner or operator of the DME; the name of each partner; the name of each corporate officer and
• All name(s) of the DME by which it is known (see proposed § 207.25(b)(3))
• Registration number of the DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(4))
• UFI of the DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(5)); and
• Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the official contact for the DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(8)).
Pursuant to Agency guidance (Ref. 8), the UFI required by current § 207.25(e) is Dun & Bradstreet's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number (Ref. 8), a unique numeric identifier for a specific business entity. Similarly, the registration number required by current § 207.25(d) for each establishment is described in guidance as the FDA Establishment Identifier (FEI) and is assigned by the FDA to identify establishments associated with FDA-regulated products. We note that FDA is not proposing to change the current numbering system utilized for the UFI, nor are we proposing changes to the FEI. We are, however, proposing a new approach for the application of the UFI and FEI as it relates to a DME. We propose assigning both the UFI and FEI to the DM hub because the DM hub is the central place of business that occupies one general physical location and is under the same ownership and control as the DMUs. In addition, FDA is proposing to require a unique identifier for each DMU. This unique identifier (
• Name, address, and telephone number of the DM hub (see proposed § 207.25(b)(2)). This proposed requirement specifies the DM hub because the hub must be stationary, residing at one general physical location. A DM establishment itself does not have a single address given that the hub and associated units reside in different physical locations.
• Unit identifier for each DMU of a DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(6)(i)) that is assigned by FDA. The unit identifier is intended to distinguish the DMUs from one another. Each unit identifier would be unique, but a portion of the identifier would be common across all DMUs of a DME to indicate that they are associated with a particular hub to form the DME. Because units must be equivalent, the unit identifier is important for traceability and data integrity purposes. It enables manufacturers and FDA to verify from which DMU manufacturing data is being generated.
• Location of each DMU of a DME (proposed § 207.25(b)(6)(ii)). The registrant must provide the location of each unit as a physical address or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.
• Types of operations performed at the DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(7)). This proposed requirement would require registrants to distinguish between the manufacturing operations performed at the DMUs and at the DM hub. The current list of business operations for use in establishment registration can be found on the FDA's Structured Product Labeling Resources website
• Information on the U.S. Agent and importers (see proposed §§ 207.25(b)(9) and 207.25(b)(10)). FDA proposes to require the same types of information on U.S. agents and importers currently required under § 207.25(h) for foreign establishments that are not DMEs. However, the proposed requirements are tailored to DMEs, which can have a foreign DM hub and/or foreign DMUs. For DMEs with a foreign DM hub, the registrant must provide the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the U.S. Agent (see proposed § 207.25(b)(9)(i)) and each entity involved in the importation of any drug to the United States from the foreign DM hub and any foreign DMUs that are part of the DME (see proposed § 207.25(b)(9)(ii) and (iii)). For DMEs with a domestic DM hub and at least one foreign DMU, proposed § 207.25(b)(10)(i) and (ii) require the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of each entity involved in the importation of any drug to the United States from any of the foreign DMUs that are part of the DME. We note that in this instance, the domestic distributed manufacturing hub could serve as the importer in the United States of drugs manufactured at one of the foreign DMUs, and the foreign DMU could serve as the person who imports or offers for import such drug to the United States.
Proposed § 207.29(b) describes the expedited updates for DMEs and the timelines to submit the updates. The same types of expedited updates currently required under § 207.29(a) for establishments that are not DMEs would apply to DMEs, as well as new categories of expedited updates tailored to DMEs with DMUs capable of moving or being moved.
The following list of changes that FDA proposes for submission on an expedited basis as part of DME registration are nearly identical to those required in current § 207.29(a)(1) for establishments that are not DMEs and follow the same timeline to submit the update no later than 30 calendar days after the change:
• Changing the name of a DME. The corresponding provision in current § 207.29(a)(2) requires registrants to submit a change in name or physical address of an establishment as an expedited update. For a DME, however, there is no single address. There are multiple different locations for the various parts of the DME. For this reason, FDA proposes to have separate provisions for a change to the name of the DME (see proposed § 207.2(b)(3)(ii)) and a change in the location of the DM hub (see proposed § 207.29(b)(3)(iii)). Location changes for the units are addressed in proposed § 207.29(b)(4).
• Changing the physical address of the DM hub (see proposed § 207.29(b)(3)(iii) and discussion in previous bullet).
• Closing or selling a distributed manufacturing establishment. This proposed requirement in § 207.29(b)(3)(iv) is identical to § 207.29(a)(1).
• Changing the name, mailing address, telephone number, or email address of the official contact or the United States agent. This proposed requirement in § 207.29(b)(3)(v) is identical to § 207.29(a)(3).
In addition, FDA proposes the following information, specific to DMEs, be submitted on an expedited basis:
• Initial registration of a DME in which the hub is located at and operated as part of a currently registered
• Addition of a new DMU to an already registered DME (see proposed § 207.29(b)(2)). This proposed provision would require registrants to update the existing registration when a new DMU is added to a DME on a timeline determined by whether the unit is domestic or foreign. Similar to the timeline for initial registration, for a domestic DMU, the update must be provided 5 calendar days after the unit begins to manufacture a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug for commercial distribution; and for a foreign DMU, before a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug manufactured at a foreign DMU is imported or offered for import into the United States.
• Removing a DMU from a DME. In addition to voluntary removal of a DMU from a DME, a registrant must remove a DMU from a DME when the registrant discontinues manufacturing at the DMU or when the DMU no longer remains equivalent in design and operations, and the registrant has not taken steps to return the DMU to being equivalent in design and operations (see proposed § 207.29(b)(3)(i)). We note if a DMU fails to remain equivalent in design and operations to the other DMUs in the DME, and the registrant fails to take action to return the DMU to being equivalent in design and operations, the establishment may no longer meet the definition of DME in § 207.1. Furthermore, an establishment registered as a DME that does not meet the definition of a DME in § 207.1 would not be duly registered, and any drugs manufactured at such an establishment would be deemed to be misbranded pursuant to section 502(o) of the FD&C Act.
• Relocation of a mobile unit (see proposed § 207.29(b)(4)(i) and (ii)). This proposed provision would require registrants to notify FDA in advance when a DMU moves to a new location. The proposed timeline for this notification would differ depending on whether the destination is a location in the United States or a location in a foreign country. When a DMU moves within the United States or to a U.S. location from a foreign country, the registrant must provide FDA notification at least 30 calendar days prior to the relocation (see proposed § 207.29(b)(4)(i)(1)), whereas a move to any foreign country or to a different location within the same foreign would require at least 120 calendar days advance notice (see proposed § 207.29(b)(4)(i)(2)). The proposed 30 and 120 calendar day timelines reflect the amount of time needed to prepare for a domestic versus foreign inspection, if needed. The longer timeframe proposed for a DMU moving within or to a foreign country reflects the additional time needed for activities such as securing visas, country clearances, and translators to conduct a foreign inspection. The Agency specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of the 30-day and 120-day timelines. In the notification, the registrant would be required to provide the unit identifier of the mobile unit; the departure and destination locations (physical address or GPS coordinates) and departure and arrival dates, and anticipated date for the resumption of manufacturing operations at the new location (see proposed § 207.29(b)(4)(ii)). Upon arrival at the destination, the registrant must update the registration once manufacturing has commenced (see proposed § 207.29(b)(4)(iii)). This expedited update must be provided no later than 5 calendar days after a domestic DMU begins manufacturing activities, or before importing drug manufactured at a foreign DMU into the United States.
In limited cases, such notice may not be possible because relocation was not reasonably anticipated in advance of the specified timeline. FDA requests comment on the specific circumstances where providing such advance notice would not be feasible and in those situations, when would a registrant first be able to notify the Agency.
We are proposing to amend § 207.17 and § 207.41. The proposed rule would eliminate any perceived inconsistencies between section 510 of the FD&C Act (as amended by the PREVENT Pandemics Act) and 21 CFR 207. These amendments will clarify that the drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements apply to foreign establishments engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States, even if such drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at another institution outside of the United States before it is imported or offered for import into the United States.
To ensure part 207 is aligned with the requirements in section 510 (as amended by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act), we are proposing to amend §§ 207.17 and 207.41. Specifically, we are proposing to move the language currently in § 207.17(a) that relates to the registration requirements for domestic establishments into a new paragraph (1) under subsection (a) and to move the language currently in subsection (a) that relates to the registration requirements of foreign establishments into a new paragraph (2) of subsection (a). Additionally, we are proposing to add the following language to the end of the first sentence of the new subparagraph (2): “regardless of whether the drug, or animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.” This proposed additional language mirrors the language added to section 510(i)(5) pursuant to section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act.
Proposed § 207.17(a)(2), if finalized, would clarify that the registration requirements apply to an establishment that manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes a drug outside of the United States even if such drug is only distributed outside the United States if such drug is used in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug that is ultimately imported or offered for import into the United States. For example, if these changes to 207.17 are finalized as proposed, the establishment registration requirements in part 207 would be aligned with the requirement in section 510(i) of the FD&C Act that the owner or operator of an establishment outside of the United States that manufactures an API and only distributes that API to finished product manufacturers that are also outside of the United States would be required to register the API manufacturing establishment, provided that the finished product is imported or offered for import into the United States.
To align the requirements in part 207 with the clarifying changes to section 510(i) of the FD&C Act made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act, we are also proposing to amend § 207.41. Specifically, we are proposing to add a new subsection (d) to clarify that the registrant must comply with drug listing requirements described in
As amended, proposed § 207.41(d) would clarify that the drug listing requirements apply to drugs that are manufactured, repacked, relabeled, or salvaged for commercial distribution at an establishment outside the United States if such drug is used in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding or processing of a drug that is ultimately imported or offered for import into the United States. For example, if these changes to § 207.41 are finalized as proposed, the drug listing requirements in part 207 would align with the drug listing requirements in section 510 of the FD&C Act (as amended by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act) such that an establishment outside of the United States that manufactures an API and only distributes that API to finished product manufacturers that are also outside of the United States, the owner or operator of the API manufacturer would be required to list that API in accordance with § 207.41, provided that the finished product is imported or offered for import into the United States.
We recognize that some foreign establishments that are required to register may not know how their customers intend to use the drug they distribute and thus may not know that they are required to register their establishment or list certain drugs that they manufacture. However, if such a foreign establishment fails to register, any drug that is imported or offered for import that was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed at such establishment would be considered misbranded pursuant to section 502(o) of the FD&C Act. A drug would be considered to have been manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed at such an establishment if the drug manufactured at that establishment was a component of a drug that was imported or offered for import into the United States.
For example, if a foreign establishment manufactures an API and that API is distributed to another foreign establishment and the second foreign establishment uses the API to manufacture a finished product that is imported or offered for import into the United States, the API would be considered to be a drug that was imported or offered for import into the United States. Therefore, both the API manufacturer and the finished product manufacturer would be required to register their respective establishments, and the API manufacturer would be required to list the API, and the finished product manufacturer would be required to list the finished product.
Therefore, in this scenario, in order for the finished product manufacturer to ensure that its product is not misbranded and refused admission at the border, the finished product manufacturer should ensure that its API supplier is aware of the API manufacturer's obligation to register and ensure that the API manufacturer is actually registered and that the API is appropriately listed by the API manufacturer prior to importing the drug or offering the drug for import. Although the finished product manufacturer, in this scenario, is required to ensure that the API manufacturer is actually registered, it would not be proper for the finished product manufacturer, or anyone else who does not own or operate the API manufacturer, to submit an establishment registration on behalf of the API manufacturer, unless the finished product manufacturer or other person submitting the registration is an authorized agent of the API manufacturer.
The purpose of this section is to clarify FDA's preliminary view with respect to the severability of provisions of this proposed rule. At this time, it is the Agency's position that the proposed provisions on foreign establishment registration and drug listing requirements are severable from the proposed revisions related to distributed manufacturing. Thus, if this rule is finalized as proposed, and one or more of the DM provisions is determined by a court to be invalid, that partial invalidation should not render invalid any of the foreign establishment registration and drug listing provisions of the final rule. In addition, it is the Agency's position that each of the proposed foreign establishment registration and drug listing provisions in this proposed rule is generally capable of operating independently from the other proposed foreign establishment registration and drug listing provisions. Therefore, if the application of any portion of such provisions of this rule is determined to be invalid with respect to a particular circumstance, the Agency intends that such provisions would remain applicable to all other circumstances.
It is also the Agency's position that the proposed revisions to § 207.1 of the codified are not severable from any other proposed revision to the codified regarding distributed manufacturing. Thus, if this rule is finalized as proposed, and one or more of the proposed definitions is determined by a court to be invalid, the remaining DM provisions of the final rule should also be rendered invalid (
Finally, it is the Agency's position that each of the proposed revisions related to DM in §§ 207.17-207.29 are generally capable of operating independently from one another. Thus, if this rule is finalized as proposed, and none of the DM definitions specified in the previous paragraph is invalidated, but any of the DM-related provisions in §§ 207.17-207.29 are determined by a court to be invalid, the remaining DM provisions §§ 207.17-207.29 should not be rendered invalid. For example, if this proposed rule is finalized as proposed, and if a court were to invalidate § 207.29(b)(4) regarding expedited updates prior to changing the location of a mobile DMU, the remaining DM provisions in part 207 would not be invalidated as long as the DM-related definitions in § 207.1 are not invalidated. Additionally, if this proposed rule is finalized as proposed, and the application of any portion of a provision in §§ 207.17-207.29 is determined to be invalid with respect to a particular circumstance, the Agency intends that such provision would remain applicable to all other circumstances.
The foregoing reflects the Agency's preliminary determination regarding the severability of the provisions of this rule, and the Agency solicits feedback from stakeholders regarding the severability of the provisions of this
FDA proposes that any final rule based on this proposal become effective 30 calendar days after publication in the
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with certain significant regulatory actions “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule, if finalized, would impose no costs on U.S. businesses beyond the time to read and understand some succinct revisions to an existing regulation, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
The proposed DME registration requirements would result in benefits for industry, the government, and patients. Benefits include increased visibility into the drug supply chain, as the co-registration of DME hub and spokes would enable FDA to correctly map out each DM configuration and understand the relationships between all components, supporting FDA's efforts to prevent and mitigate drug shortages and respond to unsafe products. Because of lack of data, we discuss these benefits qualitatively.
In creating streamlined procedures specifically for registration of DMEs, the proposed rule, if finalized, would revise certain sections of 21 CFR 207. We consider the labor hours to read these sections of 21 CFR 207 as a cost to drug manufacturers. The proposed rule would also impose costs on FDA to update structured product labeling (SPL) submission schema, tools, and internal databases. Using a pre-statute baseline in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on regulatory impact analysis, we also estimate costs to unregistered foreign firms required by section 510 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act, to register and list with FDA. We assume that 50% of foreign costs would be passed through to domestic entities. We additionally estimate some FDA labor costs to assist these foreign registrants.
We also identify cost savings to firms and the government. By consolidating individual DMU registrations, the proposed rule would reduce drug manufacturers' annual registration fees. FDA will also realize savings as less staff time will be required to review firm registration and answer technical and non-technical questions from registrants. Over ten years at a three percent discount rate, the estimated present value of the net costs of this proposed rule to domestic and foreign entities ranges from approximately $4.6 million to $5.78 million, with a primary estimate of $5.09 million. Estimated annualized net costs to domestic and foreign entities range from $0.48 million to $0.61 million at a three percent discount rate, with a primary estimate of $0.53 million. At a seven percent discount rate, the estimated present value of net costs ranges from $4.28 million to $5.33 million, with a primary estimate of $4.69 million. Estimated annualized net costs range from $0.53 million to $0.66 million at a seven percent discount rate, with a primary estimate of $0.58 million.
We have developed a Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the proposed rule. The full preliminary analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 9) and at
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This proposed rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). A description of these provisions is given in the
FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The proposed rule, if finalized, would also align drug establishment registration and drug listing regulations applicable to foreign drug establishments with clarifying changes to statute made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act. Namely, the proposed rule would clarify the requirement of registration of foreign establishments that manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or process a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States, regardless of whether the drug first undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States. The proposed rule would also clarify that such foreign establishments must list such drugs. The changes made by the PREVENT Pandemics Act to section 510 of the FD&C Act only clarified existing requirements, and we note that these statutory provisions are self-implementing even in the absence of the proposed rule.
This proposed rule is necessary to provide clear instructions specific to registering DMEs to eliminate duplicate submission of registration information. This proposed rule is also necessary to update the drug establishment registration and listing regulations for foreign establishments to align them with the recent clarifying changes to the statute made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act. We use submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information from domestic and foreign establishments to enhance our visibility into the drug supply chain. We also use drug establishment registration and drug listing information from foreign establishments to enhance our ability to prevent the importation of drugs that do not comply with CGMP requirements or are otherwise adulterated or misbranded. These statutory provisions provide better visibility into foreign sources of drugs, including their
We estimate the burden of the collection of information as follows:
We base our estimates on our experience with drug establishment registration and updates, the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) (Ref. 9), and the hour burden estimates applicable to these existing requirements of part 207, currently approved in OMB control number 0910-0045. If the proposed rule is finalized, DME registrants would be required under proposed § 207.25(b) to submit data elements that differ slightly from those currently required under part 207. Proposed § 207.25(b) would be similar in scope to the information currently required for registration of establishments that are not DMEs but with some notable differences that account for the hub-and-spoke model of a DME, as described in section V.A.4 of this document. Consistent with our current hour burden estimate for registration approved in OMB control number 0910-0045 (1.0 hour), we estimate that registering a DME will take one hour.
Proposed § 207.29(b) describes the expedited updates for DMEs and the timelines to submit the updates. The same types of expedited updates currently required under § 207.29(a) for establishments that are not DME would apply to DMEs, as well as new categories of expedited updates necessary for DMEs, in particular DMEs with DMUs that can move or be moved. Submissions that would be required on an expedited basis as part of DME registration are nearly identical to those required in current § 207.29(a)(1) for establishments that are not DMEs and follow the same timeline to submit the update no later than 30 calendar days after the change, as discussed in section V.A.5 of this document. The proposed rule would also explicitly provide that registrants of a DME inform FDA of the relocation of a DMU in advance of the move as opposed to the current requirement to notify FDA up to 30 days after a change in address. Consistent with our current hour burden estimate for updates to registration approved in OMB control number 0910-0045 (0.5 hour), we estimate that updates to registration, for DMUs, will take 0.5 hour.
Our estimate of the number of respondents is based on internal data reflecting 10,480 registered establishments subject to the requirements of part 207. The proposed rule, if finalized, would introduce requirements applicable only to a subset of these 10,480 respondents, specifically those establishments that choose to register as a DME. As discussed in the PRIA, at section II.F.1, we are uncertain as to the likely prevalence of distributed manufacturing in the coming years. We assume that, on average, the drug industry will register zero to two new DMEs in each of the first three years after publication of any final rule. We are also uncertain as to the likely scale of distributed manufacturing operations in the coming years. We assume that, on average, each DME includes four DMUs. As such, the proposed rule would avoid four registrations per DME (as only the fixed distributed manufacturing hub would need to register, in place of four individual units plus the hub). The proposed rule would thereby also avoid a corresponding number of registration renewals per DME in each year after the first. PRIA, at section II.F.1. Based on these assumptions, in the three years following the effective date of a final rule, we estimate that respondents will register one or fewer DMEs and will submit updates for four DMUs, as shown in Table 2. Thereafter, due to the expected cost savings from consolidation of DME registrations and renewals, we project that interest will grow and the drug industry will register three to five new DMEs in each of the next three years (Years 4-6), and then eight to ten new DMEs per following year (Years 7-10). PRIA, at section II.F.1. We estimate that it will take a respondent one hour to register a DME and 30 minutes to update a registration to include a DMU, as shown in Table 2.
As noted, the proposed rule would also explicitly provide that registrants of a DME inform FDA of the relocation of a DMU in advance of the move as opposed to the current requirement for establishments to notify FDA up to 30 days after a change in address. We estimate that the timing of this notification imposes no burden in addition to the usual burden for an update and would be accounted for as an update to registration for DMUs.
We base our hour burden estimates on the burden estimates applicable to the existing registration and listing requirements of part 207, currently approved in OMB control number 0910-0045. To account for differences in English proficiency, we multiply the hours estimated for compliance tasks by a factor of 1.8, consistent with the PRIA, section II.K.1. Hence, we estimate about 1.8 foreign labor hours for each hour spent by a US-based worker on tasks involving English proficiency. Section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act amended section 510 of the FD&C Act to expressly require the registration of foreign establishments that manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or process a drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States, regardless of whether the drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. Section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act also amended section 510 of the FD&C Act to clarify the requirement that such establishments list such drugs. These self-implementing changes to statute introduced no new requirements on foreign establishments but rather clarified requirements already in effect at the time.
With respect to foreign establishment registration and drug listing requirements in proposed §§ 207.17 and 207.41, if the proposed rule is finalized, we expect that unregistered foreign firms required to register their establishments and list their drugs with FDA pursuant to section 510 of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act, would more clearly understand their establishment registration and drug listing obligations. Though changes to statute made by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act introduced no new requirements on foreign establishments and only clarified existing requirements, we expect this clarification to increase compliance among covered foreign establishments. As noted, these statutory provisions are self-implementing, even in the absence of the proposed rule.
Our estimate of the number of foreign establishment registration and drug listing respondents is based on the PRIA. A number of foreign manufacturing establishments might not yet have registered with FDA if the drugs they manufacture are only indirectly imported or offered for import into the United States after undergoing further manufacture at another foreign establishment. These establishments thus would not have yet complied with section 510 of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 2511 of the PREVENT Pandemics Act. PRIA, section II.D.
If the proposed rule is finalized as proposed, we expect that some unregistered foreign establishments would register. We estimate that about 25 foreign manufacturing establishments not currently registered with FDA might manufacture a drug subject to an approved application that is imported or offered for import into the United States after undergoing further manufacture at another foreign establishment. We estimate that about 1,600 foreign manufacturing establishments not currently registered with FDA might manufacture an OTC monograph drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States after undergoing further manufacture at another foreign establishment. Some registrants may register more than one establishment. Based on the analysis in the PRIA, we estimate that 1,313 respondents would submit an initial foreign establishment registration for 1,625 currently unregistered foreign manufacturing establishments. PRIA, section II.D. Multiplying our current hour burden estimates approved in OMB control number 0910-0045 for registration (1.0 hour) and updates to registration (0.5 hour) by a factor of 1.8 to account for differences in English proficiency, we estimate that it will take a respondent one 1.8 hours to submit an initial foreign establishment registration and 0.9 hour (54 minutes) to update a registration, as shown in Table 2.
We estimate that these respondent foreign establishments will submit 24,550 drug listings (550 for drugs subject to an approved application and 24,000 for OTC monograph drugs). PRIA, section II.D. Multiplying our current hour burden estimates approved in OMB control number 0910-0045 for listing (1.5 hour) and updates to a listing (0.75 hour) by a factor of 1.8 to account for differences in English proficiency, we estimate that it will take a respondent foreign establishment 2.7 hours to submit an initial listing and 1.35 hours to update a listing, as shown in Table 2.
In sum, if the proposed rule is finalized as proposed, we estimate an increase in burden of 5 responses and 3 hours annually for DME respondents and 52,350 responses and 103, 819 hours annually for foreign manufacturing establishment registration and drug listing respondents, for a total estimated increase in burden of 52,355 responses and 103,822 hours, annually. We will submit an information collection request under RIN 0910-AI94 for this proposed rule. Upon publication of a final rule, and subsequent OMB approval of the information collection, we expect to revise currently approved OMB Control No. 0910-0045 to consolidate the burden of the information collection associated with this rulemaking into that control number.
To ensure that comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted through reginfo.gov (see
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3407(d)), we have submitted the information collection provisions of this proposed rule to OMB for review. These information collection requirements will not be effective until FDA publishes a final rule, OMB approves the information collection requirements, and the rule goes into effect. FDA will announce OMB approval of these requirements in the
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies that 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. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have tentatively determined that the rule does not contain policies that would 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 Agency solicits comments from tribal
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Food and Drug Administration proposes to amend 21 CFR part 207 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 360b, 371,374, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 262, 264, and 271.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(1) When used to modify the term “registrant,” “manufacturer,” “repacker,” “relabeler,” “salvager,” “private label distributor,” or “establishment” refers to a registrant, manufacturer, repacker, relabeler,
(2) When used to modify the terms “distributed manufacturing hub” or “distributed manufacturing unit” refers to a distributed manufacturing hub or unit located within any State or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(1) When used to modify the term “manufacturer,” “repacker,” “relabeler,” or “salvager,” refers to a manufacturer, repacker, relabeler, or salvager, who is located in a foreign country and who manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug, that is imported or offered for import into the United States.
(2) When used to modify the term “establishment” refers to an establishment that is located in a foreign country and is engaged in the manufacture, repackaging, relabeling, or salvaging of any drug, or any animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug, that is imported or offered for import into the United States.
(3) When used to modify the term “distributed manufacturing hub” or “distributed manufacturing unit” refers to a distributed manufacturing hub or unit located in a foreign country, provided that the distributed manufacturing establishment for which the distributed manufacturing hub or unit is a part of is engaged in the manufacture of any drug, or any animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug, that is imported or offered for import into the United States.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Unless exempt under section 510(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or this part, all manufacturers, repackers, relabelers, and salvagers must register each:
(1) Domestic establishment that manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug, and
(2) Foreign establishment that manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug, that is imported or offered for import into the United States regardless of whether the drug, or animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
When operations are conducted at more than one establishment and common ownership and control among all the establishments exists, the parent, subsidiary, or affiliate company may submit registration information for all establishments.
(b) Unless exempt under section 510(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or this part, all manufacturers must register each distributed manufacturing establishment that includes (i) a domestic distributed manufacturing hub or unit, or (ii) a foreign distributed manufacturing hub or unit that manufactures a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug that is imported or offered for import into the United States regardless of whether the drug, or animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
(c) Private label distributors who do not also manufacture, repack, relabel, or salvage drugs are not required to register under this part. FDA will accept registration or listing information submitted by a private label distributor only if it is acting as an authorized agent for and submitting information that pertains to an establishment that manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages drugs.
(a) For establishments other than distributed manufacturing establishments:
(1) Registrants must register each domestic establishment no later than 5 calendar days after beginning to manufacture, repack, relabel, or salvage a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug at such establishment.
(2) Registrants must register each foreign establishment before a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug manufactured, repacked, relabeled, or salvaged at the establishment is imported or offered for import into the United States.
(b) For distributed manufacturing establishments:
(1) Registrants must register each distributed manufacturing establishment no later than (i) 5 calendar days after the first domestic distributed manufacturing hub or unit begins to manufacture a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new drug for commercial distribution, or (ii) before a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug manufactured at any foreign distributed manufacturing hub or unit is imported or offered for import into the United States, whichever between (i) and (ii) occurs first.
(2) For a distributed manufacturing establishment in which the distributed manufacturing hub is located at, and operated as part of, a currently registered establishment, the registrant must update the existing establishment registration as described in § 207.29(b)(1) in lieu of a separate initial registration for the distributed manufacturing establishment.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) For establishments other than distributed manufacturing establishments:
(1) Name of the owner or operator of each establishment; if a partnership, the name of each partner; if a corporation, the name of each corporate officer and director, and the place of incorporation;
(2) Each establishment's name, physical address, and telephone number(s);
(3) All name(s) of the establishment, including names under which the establishment conducts business or names by which the establishment is known;
(4) Registration number of each establishment, if previously assigned by FDA;
(5) A Unique Facility Identifier in accordance with the system specified under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
(6) All types of operations performed at each establishment;
(7) Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the official contact for the establishment, as provided in § 207.69(a); and
(8) Additionally, with respect to foreign establishments subject to registration, the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address must be provided for:
(i) The United States agent, as provided in § 207.69(b);
(ii) Each importer in the United States of drugs manufactured, repacked, relabeled, or salvaged at the establishment that is known to the establishment; and
(iii) Each person who imports or offers for import such drug to the United States.
(b) For distributed manufacturing establishments:
(1) Name of the owner or operator of each distributed manufacturing establishment; if a partnership, the name of each partner; if a corporation, the name of each corporate officer and director, and the place of incorporation;
(2) The name, physical address, and telephone number(s) of the distributed manufacturing hub of the distributed manufacturing establishment;
(3) All name(s) of the distributed manufacturing establishment, including names under which the distributed manufacturing establishment conducts business or names by which the distributed manufacturing establishment is known;
(4) Registration number of the distributed manufacturing establishment, if previously assigned by FDA;
(5) A Unique Facility Identifier of the distributed manufacturing establishment in accordance with the system specified under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
(6) For each distributed manufacturing unit(s) of the distributed manufacturing establishment:
(i) The unit identifier for a distributed manufacturing unit, if previously assigned by FDA; and
(ii) The location of each distributed manufacturing unit, which may be a physical address or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates;
(7) All types of operations performed at each distributed manufacturing establishment, which include operations conducted at both the distributed manufacturing hub and the distributed manufacturing unit(s);
(8) Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the official contact for the distributed manufacturing establishment, as provided in § 207.69(a);
(9) With respect to distributed manufacturing establishments including a foreign distributed manufacturing hub, the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address must be provided for:
(i) The United States agent, as provided in § 207.69(b);
(ii) Each importer in the United States of drugs manufactured at a foreign distributed manufacturing unit or hub; and
(iii) Each person who imports or offers for import such drug to the United States.
(10) With respect to distributed manufacturing establishments including a domestic distributed manufacturing hub and at least one foreign distributed manufacturing unit, the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address must be provided for:
(i) Each importer in the United States of drugs manufactured at a foreign distributed manufacturing unit or hub; and
(ii) Each person who imports or offers for import such drug to the United States.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) Registrants must update their registration when first registering a distributed manufacturing establishment in which the distributed manufacturing hub is located at, and operated as part of, a currently registered establishment, following the timeline specified in § 207.21(b)(1). The expedited update must include the information required under § 207.25(b).
(2) Registrants must update their registration when adding a new distributed manufacturing unit to a previously registered distributed manufacturing establishment, no later than (i) 5 calendar days after a domestic distributed manufacturing unit begins to manufacture a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new drug for commercial distribution, or (ii) before a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug manufactured at a foreign distributed manufacturing unit is imported or offered for import into the United States. The expedited update must include the information required under § 207.25(b)(6).
(3) Registrants must update their registration information no later than 30 calendar days after:
(i) Removing a distributed manufacturing unit from a distributed manufacturing establishment. In addition to voluntary removal of a distributed manufacturing unit from a distributed manufacturing establishment, a registrant must remove a distributed manufacturing unit from a distributed manufacturing establishment when the registrant discontinues manufacturing at the distributed manufacturing unit or when the distributed manufacturing unit no longer remains equivalent in design and operations, and the registrant has not taken steps to return the DMU to being equivalent in design and operations;
(ii) Changing the name of a distributed manufacturing establishment;
(iii) Changing the physical address of the distributed manufacturing hub;
(iv) Closing or selling a distributed manufacturing establishment;
(v) Changing the name, mailing address, telephone number, or email address of the official contact or the United States agent. A registrant or United States agent may notify FDA
(4)(i) For a distributed manufacturing unit that is capable of moving or being moved to a new physical location, prior to changing the location of such distributed manufacturing unit the registrant must update their registration by providing advance notice as follows:
(1) For a location change within or to the United States, registrants must provide notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the relocation; or
(2) For a location change within or to a foreign country, registrants must provide notice at least 120 calendar days prior to the relocation.
(ii) The notification must include the unit identifier; the location from which the unit is departing (physical address or GPS coordinates); anticipated departure date; the destination location (physical address or GPS coordinates); anticipated arrival date; anticipated date to begin manufacturing operations at the new location.
(iii) The registrant must update the registration to confirm that the distributed manufacturing unit has arrived at the location specified in § 207.29(b)(4)(ii) and that manufacturing has commenced. The registrant must provide this update no later than 5 calendar days after a domestic distributed manufacturing unit begins to manufacture a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new drug for commercial distribution, or before a drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug manufactured at a foreign distributed manufacturing unit is imported or offered for import into the United States.
(c)
(1) The first review and update must occur during the period beginning on October 1 and ending December 31 of the year of initial registration, if the initial registration occurs prior to October 1. Subsequent reviews and updates must occur annually, during the period beginning on October 1 and ending December 31 of each calendar year.
(2) The updates must reflect all changes that have occurred since the last annual review and update.
(3) If no changes have occurred since the last registration, registrants must certify that no changes have occurred.
(d) Each registrant must comply with the requirements set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section with respect to any drug that it manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages for commercial distribution at a foreign establishment regardless of whether such drug undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate foreign establishment prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Columbia River. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by fireworks displays on the Columbia River on September 19, 2026. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 12, 2026.
To submit comments and view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact LCDR Jesse Wallace, Sector Columbia River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-572-3524, or email
On April 8, 2026, an event organizer notified the Coast Guard that they will be launching fireworks over the Columbia River near Cascade Locks, OR on September 19, 2026. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Columbia River has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 1,200 feet of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is proposing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
This proposed rule would establish a safety zone from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 19, 2026. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within a 1,200 foot radius of the fireworks launch site. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area. This regulation will only impact a small area for a few hours. The enforcement period is during a time when vessel traffic is normally low. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area from the COTP.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this proposed rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this proposed rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
This proposed rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
(d)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS seeks public comment on proposed regulations to implement Abbreviated Framework Amendment 5 (Abbreviated Framework 5) under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). If implemented by NMFS, this proposed rule would revise catch levels for blueline tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. The purposes of these proposed regulatory changes are to ensure the catch levels for blueline tilefish are based on the best scientific information available (BSIA), to achieve and maintain optimum yield (OY), and to prevent overfishing while minimizing adverse social and economic effects to the extent practicable in accordance with NMFS' statutory mandates.
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than August 12, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
An electronic copy of Abbreviated Framework 5, which includes a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from
Mary Vara, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the FMP and includes blueline tilefish, along with other snapper-grouper species. The FMP was prepared by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and fishery management plans to prevent overfishing and continually achieve the OY from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. This action is proposed under the authority of section 303(a)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks and to promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery.
All weights described in this proposed rule are in round weight, unless noted otherwise. The metric conversion for the imperial measurement used in this document is 1 pound (lb) equals approximately 0.45 kilograms.
NMFS and the South Atlantic Council manage blueline tilefish in the EEZ from the North Carolina and Virginia border southward to the South Atlantic Council's jurisdictional boundary in the Florida Keys. NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council) manage blueline tilefish in the EEZ from the North Carolina and Virginia border northward through Maine as part of the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan of the Mid-Atlantic Region. In the South Atlantic region, the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils collaborate with NMFS on the management of blueline tilefish from the border of Virginia and North Carolina to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. NMFS and the Mid-Atlantic Council began managing blueline tilefish in 2017 due to increased fishing activity in the mid-Atlantic. Previously, NMFS and the South Atlantic Council exclusively managed the species off the East Coast.
A Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) operational stock assessment for blueline tilefish (SEDAR 92) was completed in March 2025, utilizing the newly calibrated Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES) data in place of MRIP Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) data. Abbreviated Framework 5 would change the overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic. The South Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) updated the total ABC recommendation for the South Atlantic as part of SEDAR 92, in combination with the joint recommendations from the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Council SSCs for the area north of Cape Hatteras to the border with Virginia.
The South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils' SSCs recommended use of a data-limited methods model based on average catch rather than the surplus production model for management to establish the ABC for areas north and south of Cape Hatteras in the South Atlantic. The data-limited methods model was used to address deficiencies in the surplus production model and to provide scientifically justifiable catch
The current total annual catch limit (ACL) for blueline tilefish is allocated between the commercial sector at 50.07 percent and the recreational sector at 49.93 percent. The final rule for Abbreviated Framework Amendment 3 under the FMP implemented these ACLs (85 FR 43145, July 17, 2020), and the current sector allocations were established by the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 13 under the FMP (78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013). This proposed rule would use the existing allocation percentages to update the commercial and recreational ACLs.
This proposed rule would revise the total and sector ACLs for South Atlantic blueline tilefish based on updated information from SEDAR 92.
Currently, the blueline tilefish commercial ACL is 117,148 lb and the recreational ACL is 116,820 lb for each fishing year, which is the same as the calendar year. The total ACL, which is equal to the sum of the sector ACLs, is 233,968 lb. This proposed rule would increase the ACLs for blueline tilefish consistent with the results of SEDAR 92, the ABC recommendation from the SSCs of both the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils, and Abbreviated Framework 5. The total ACL (landed fish) for blueline tilefish would be 314,058 lb, which is equal to the ABC in the South Atlantic of 326,800 lb reduced by an average annual discard estimate of 12,742 lb. After applying the same allocation percentages to the proposed total ACL, the commercial ACL would be increased to 157,249 lb, and the recreational ACL would be increased to 156,809 lb. Although the numerical value of the ACLs would increase relative to the current ACLs, the proposed recreational ACL is not directly comparable to the current recreational ACL because it was derived, in part, from MRIP FES estimates rather than MRIP CHTS estimates. The proposed ACLs are consistent with the ABC recommendations from the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Council's SSCs, and this proposed rule would not change the allocation percentages of the total ACL between the commercial and recreational sectors.
In the South Atlantic, blueline tilefish is open to commercial harvest the entire calendar year (January 1 through December 31) unless a closure is necessary, which occurs when NMFS projects commercial landings will reach the commercial ACL during the year. Each year since 2020, commercial landings have reached the commercial ACL during the fishing year and resulted in closures that began between July and September. The proposed increase in the commercial ACL is estimated to result in an annual increase in gross revenue of $142,732 and may extend the length of future fishing seasons.
In the South Atlantic, blueline tilefish is open to recreational harvest each year for as long as 4 months (May 1 through August 31). Each year, NMFS projects the length of the recreational season based on catch rates from the previous fishing year to determine when landings of blueline tilefish are estimated to meet the recreational ACL. NMFS announces the corresponding length of the recreational season and the season end date in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Abbreviated Framework 5, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Senior Lead Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification follows. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see
A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule.
Abbreviated Framework 5 would change both the OFL and ABC for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic. The OFL would change from 328,985 lb to “unknown” due to the data-limited methods model used, which did not produce an OFL recommendation. The ABC for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic would increase from 233,968 lb to 326,800 lb. The South Atlantic ABC would be based on the sum of the ABCs from areas north and south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in total removals, which was the recommendation of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils' SSCs. The current ABC is inclusive of MRIP CHTS estimates to account for recreational landings from private and charter vessels, while the updated ABC would be inclusive of MRIP FES estimates for these landings. This proposed rule would set the total ACL for blueline tilefish at 314,058 lb, which is equal to the ABC minus average annual discards. Sector allocations would remain at 50.07 percent commercial and 49.93 percent recreational. When these allocations are applied to the proposed
The RFA requires NMFS to describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6)). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions, so they are outside the scope of this analysis.
Any fishing vessel that harvests and sells any of the federally managed snapper-grouper species from the South Atlantic EEZ must have a valid South Atlantic commercial snapper-grouper permit, which is a limited access permit. In 2024, there were 508 valid or renewable South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits and 86 valid or renewable 225-lb trip-limited permits. On average from 2020 to 2024, there were 133 federally permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of South Atlantic blueline tilefish. Ex-vessel revenue from landings of blueline tilefish averaged $420,364 during this period, representing 4.1 percent of total ex-vessel revenue for the vessels that harvested blueline tilefish. The average total revenue per vessel for 2020 to 2024 was $78,467. For commercial vessels that harvest blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic, NMFS estimates that economic profits are $2,903 or 3.7 percent of annual gross revenue, on average. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single vessel that harvested blueline tilefish from 2020 to 2024 was $445,119.
Although this proposed rule would apply to for-hire vessels, it would not be expected to have any direct effects on these entities. From 2020 to 2024, charter vessels targeting blueline tilefish made an average of 1,423 trips in the South Atlantic, with no such trips recorded in 2023 or 2024. Equivalent data for headboats that participate in the Southeast Region Headboat Survey are not available. However, headboats cater to large, diverse groups of individual anglers on a single vessel and generally advertise a wide range of species to be caught rather than targeting a single stock. This indicates that blueline tilefish are incidentally harvested species and for-hire vessels do not typically sell targeted trips for these fish. Therefore, NMFS does not expect the proposed changes to the management measures for blueline tilefish to directly alter the services sold by these vessels. In summary, only the impacts on commercial fishing businesses will be discussed.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard. No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.
This proposed rule would increase the blueline tilefish total ACL from 233,968 lb to 314,058 lb. Applying the existing commercial allocation of 50.07 percent to the proposed total ACL would result in a 157,249-lb commercial ACL, which would be a 40,101-lb increase relative to the current commercial ACL. Assuming the proposed commercial ACL is harvested in full, it would lead to an annual increase in commercial landings of 33,984 lb in gutted weight, worth $142,732. When divided by the average number of vessels that harvested blueline tilefish from 2020 to 2024, this results in an annual increase in ex-vessel revenue of $1,073 per vessel (approximately 1.4 percent of average annual per vessel gross revenue). Average annual economic profits per vessel would increase by $40.
Based on the above analysis, this proposed rule would not be expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Recreational, Snapper-grouper, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(z)
(ii) If NMFS estimates that commercial landings will reach the commercial ACL specified in paragraph (z)(1)(i) of this section during the fishing year, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited and harvest or possession of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits while recreational harvest is allowed. If the recreational harvest of blueline tilefish is not allowed during a period of the fishing year, then the bag and possession limits are zero during that period. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard if such species were harvested in state or Federal waters.
(iii) If commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL in paragraph (z)(1)(i) of this section, and the total ACL specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section is exceeded, and blueline tilefish is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(2)
(ii) NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season based on catch rates from the previous fishing year and when NMFS projects the recreational ACL specified in paragraph (z)(2)(i) of this section will be met, and annually announce the recreational fishing season end date in the
(3)
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers/exporters sold common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Dan Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4313.
On April 27, 2021, Commerce published in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. We calculated constructed export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The Act does not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which parallels section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely” on the basis of facts available. In this review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for Assan and 26.45 percent for Teknik. In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, since Teknik is the only company with a calculated rate that is not zero or
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties for the preliminary results of review within 10 days of public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues the party intends to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, should be filed via ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
If Assan's or Teknik's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Assan or Teknik for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For ASAS, which was not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Companies Not Individually Examined” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Charles DeFilippo or Jacob Saude AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-0981, respectively.
On June 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum sheet from Türkiye.
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative review by 90 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Act does not address the establishment of a countervailable subsidy rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the process for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.109(f) articulate a preference that Commerce is not to calculate an all-others rate using rates for individually examined respondents which are zero,
We preliminarily determine that Assan and Teknik received countervailable subsidies that are above
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in the final results.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of Commerce's analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that carbon and alloy steel threaded rod (steel threaded rod) from India was sold in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. We are also rescinding the review for three companies with no suspended entries during the POR and one company for which all review requests were withdrawn. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Bobby Shore, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3261.
On May 20, 2025, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on steel threaded rod from India, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) with respect to 20 companies.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the scope of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR subject to the AD order for which liquidation is suspended, Commerce may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer.
There were no suspended entries of subject merchandise for the companies listed in Appendix III. On June 4, 2025, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to these companies.
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of the publication of the notice of initiation. On April 30, 2025, Bee Dee Cycle Industries (Bee Dee Cycle) requested review of its exports.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The Act does not address the establishment of an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to individual companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the process for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 735(c)(5) of the Act. Section 735(c)(5) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.109(f) articulate a preference that Commerce is not to calculate an all-others rate using rates for individually examined respondents which are zero,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participants are foreign nationals; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nishant or SLF/TEI for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the
For the companies for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of this notice in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. (DJAC) and Ningxia Huahui Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Ningxia Huahui) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. In addition, we are rescinding the review with respect to Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (BPACP), for which there were no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Andrew Hart and Carter Sherwin, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1058 or (202) 482-4260.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled the deadline for the final results by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because China is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that, in addition to DJAC and Ningxia Huahui, 12 companies not individually examined are eligible for separate rates in this administrative review.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a separate rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate-rate respondents which Commerce did not examine individually in an administrative review.
For the preliminary results of this review, Commerce has calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.84 U.S. dollars per kilogram (USD per KG) based on the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for DJAC and Ningxia Huahui.
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Commerce received a timely request from Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) to verify the information submitted in this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 307(b)(1)(iv).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If the mandatory respondents' weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Consequently, the rate established for the non-individually examined companies is an
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by the mandatory respondents during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
With regard to BPACP, for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For the final results, if we continue to treat the companies identified in Appendix III as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Yixing Pengjia Technology Co., Ltd. (Pengjia Technology) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. In addition, we are rescinding the review with respect to 42 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof (wooden cabinets) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation. As noted above, the petitioner and MasterBrand Cabinets, LLC timely withdrew its request for review of Goldenhome and Zifeng International and no other party requested an administrative review of these companies. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Accordingly, Commerce is rescinding the review with respect to 42 companies that had no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR or for which a review request was timely withdrawn.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because China is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that, in addition to Pengjia Technology, the following three companies not individually examined are eligible for a separate rate in this administrative review: Jiangsu Xiangsheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd., Xiamen Golden Huanan Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and Zhongshan NU Furniture Co., Ltd.
For the preliminary results of this review, Commerce has determined the estimated dumping margin for Pengjia Technology to be 7.48 percent.
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce considers the following six companies for which a review was requested with suspended entries of subject merchandise to be part of the China-wide entity: KM Cabinetry, Suzhou Siemo, Ancientree, Oppein Home Group Inc., Shouguang Fushi Wood Co., Ltd., and Taishan Oversea Trading Co., Ltd.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participants are foreign nationals; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If Pengjia Technology's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondent consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Consequently, the rate established for the non-individually examined companies is an
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by the mandatory respondent during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For the final results, if we continue to treat the following companies as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hankook Tire & Technology Co. Ltd. (Hankook) and Nexen Tire Corporation (Nexen) made sales of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the Republic of Korea (Korea) at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Charles DeFilippo and Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 and (202) 482-1396, respectively.
On January 8, 2026, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by the
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties to this administrative review in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by parties,
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Hankook and Nexen for these final results of review. As a result of these changes, the weighted-average dumping margin changed for the company subject to this review, but not selected for individual examination. For a discussion of these changes,
The Act does not directly address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be determined for companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the process for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 735(c)(5) of the Act. Both 19 CFR 351.109(f) and section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in general, Commerce will base the all-others rate on the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hankook and Nexen that are not zero,
As a result of this review, Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed for these final results of review to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Because the weighted-average dumping margins for Hankook and Nexen are not zero or
For Kumho Tire Co., Inc., we intend to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the respondents in these final results of review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Gulf Aluminium Rolling Mill B.S.C. (GARMCO) made make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Mei Bradford, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In this administrative review, we preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for GARMCO, the sole individually examined respondent in this review.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If GARMCO's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by GARMCO for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate calculated in the investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired,
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Shane Subler, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241.
Commerce published the
On March 24, 2026, we extended the deadline for the final results of this review by 53 days, until June 30, 2026.
The product covered by the
All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties, and to which Commerce responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in Appendix I of this notice.
Based on our analysis of the case and rebuttal briefs and comments received from interested parties, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes since the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
There are six companies for which a review was requested, but which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. These companies are: (1) POSCO; (2) POSCO Coated & Color Steel Co., Ltd.; (3) POSCO International; (4) POSCO Steeleon Co., Ltd.; (5) SeAH Coated Metal; and (6) SeAH Steel Corporation. For these six companies, because the rates calculated for mandatory respondents KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (KG Dongbu Steel) and Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) were above
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), in July 2025 and March 2026, we conducted verification of the information reported by Hyundai Steel and KG Dongbu Steel, respectively. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the following net subsidy rates exist for the POR, from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the POR for each of the respective companies listed above on shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Patrick Barton at (202) 482-0012; Hannah Lee at (202) 482-1216, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On March 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of large diameter graphite electrodes (large electrodes) from India.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the
On July 1, 2026, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of large electrodes from India.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Jacob Waddell, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1369.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because China is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that, in addition to Dingsheng, one company not individually examined, Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Co., Ltd. (Xiamen Xiashun), is eligible for a separate rate in this administrative review.
The Act does not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Dingsheng that is not zero,
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Furthermore, Commerce preliminarily determines that, after failing to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification, the companies listed in Appendix II are not eligible for a separate rate and are therefore part of the China-wide entity.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants, and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
If Dingsheng's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For the respondent that was not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Consequently, the rate established for the non-individually examined companies is an
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by the mandatory respondents during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate.
For the final results, if we continue to treat the companies identified in Appendix II as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers/exporters of wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof (wooden cabinets) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Michael Romani, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets from China.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceeding by 47 days,
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The products covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received timely-filed withdrawal requests with respect to 28 of the companies listed in Appendix II. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Further, Commerce may rescind an administrative review of a CVD order, when no reviewable entries of subject merchandise exist during the POR for which liquidation is suspended, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
According to the CBP import data, Senke Manufacturing did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended, as noted in our Intent to Rescind Memo.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a countervailable subsidy,
The Act does not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its
Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
For these preliminary results, we based our findings regarding each program for KM Cabinetry and Dalian Hualing Wood Co., Ltd (Dalian Hualing) on facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) through (C) of the Act. By failing to respond to Commerce's Initial Questionnaire, KM Cabinetry and Dalian Hualing failed to cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with Commerce's requests for information in this review. Therefore, we are applying adverse inferences pursuant to section 776(b)(1) of the Act with respect to these companies.
In this administrative review, we preliminarily calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Pengjia, the sole individually examined respondent in this review. Because this individually calculated subsidy rate is not zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Pengjia and the non-selected companies under review no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of Commerce's analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from Bahrain during the period of review (POR) from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the of the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy (
Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding GARMCO no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Dusten Hom or Suresh Maniam, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202) 482-0176, respectively.
On January 8, 2026, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The topics discussed and the issues raised by parties to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are listed in the appendix to this notice.
Based on our analysis of comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the net countervailable subsidy rates calculated for Cosmo First Limited (Cosmo) and JPFL Films Private Ltd. (JPFL). For a discussion of these changes,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Commerce determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for the companies listed above for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
The final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of certain carbon and alloy steel threaded rod (steel threaded rod) from India. The period of review (POR) January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part, with respect to five companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Eric Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1988.
On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel threaded rod from India.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the scope of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received timely-filed withdrawal requests with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II, and no other parties requested a review of these companies. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the POR, January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within 10 days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Nishant no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of Commerce's analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were not sold at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024.
Applicable July 13, 2026.
Grant Fuller or Caroline Carroll, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6228 or (202) 482-4948, respectively.
On March 6, 2026, Commerce published the
The product covered by the
Because no parties commented on Commerce's
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined in these final results of this review, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Because the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and POSCO; POSCO International Corporation (collectively, POSCO) are zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai or POSCO for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
For Ameri-Source, Hanawell, and KG Dongbu, the companies that were not selected for individual examination, we intend to assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate determined as noted in the “Rate for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of review in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from Petrogas Pacific, LLC (Petrogas) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington. Petrogas activities are a nearly identical set of activities to those covered in the current authorization and will not be completed prior to the IHA's expiration. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 28, 2026.
Comments should be addressed to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definition of all applicable MMPA statutory used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the NMFS's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal of an IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
On September 4, 2024, NMFS issued an IHA to Petrogas to take marine mammals incidental to Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024), effective from August 1, 2025, through July 31, 2026. On May 15, 2026, NMFS received an application from Petrogas for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are nearly identical to those covered in the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted.
NMFS first received an application from Petrogas for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with Ferndale Pier Maintenance activities on January 3, 2024. NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments in the
The purpose of this construction project is to remove the existing timber Pier in Ferndale, Washington that has served as a loading facility since 1965 and replace it with a new structure that meets current industry best practices. As described in detail in the notice for the initial 2025 IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024) and the original 2025 notice of proposed IHA (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) planned in-water construction activities included impact and vibratory installation of 9 permanent 30-in steel pipe piles and removal of 69 existing 16-in timber piles by vibratory hammer over 17 days. These 69 timber piles were not removed under the initial IHA. During the 2025 construction season, only 10 days of in-water construction were required to install the nine 30-in steel piles by impact and vibratory installation between August 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025.
To support public review and comment on the IHA that NMFS is proposing to issue here, we refer to the documents related to the previously issued IHA and discuss any new or changed information here. These previous documents include the
Petrogas made a minor, unanticipated design change to the project. Nine permanent 30-in steel piles were installed by vibratory and impact driving for the replacement North Mooring Dolphin (NMD) as planned under the initial IHA. However, an additional nine temporary 30-in steel piles were installed by vibratory driving only around the old NMD to build a temporary work platform. One of these temporary 30-in piles was removed under the initial IHA. The remaining 8 30-in temporary piles and the existing 69 16-in timber piles will be removed during the upcoming season by vibratory driving. Work is anticipated to require 5 days of in-water work.
A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the Notices of the Proposed (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) and Final IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024) for the initial authorization. The proposed renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA (July 31, 2027). The location and timing are identical to those described in the previous notices.
As noted above, Petrogas was forced to make a design change under the initial IHA. Petrogas initially planned to remove the large concrete cap of the NMD with a crane and place it on a barge. Since the cap weighed approximately 500 tons (453.6 metric tons), a very large crane was needed. Petrogas was not able to procure a crane
Under the initial IHA it was assumed that up to 1.5 30-in steel piles would be installed via vibratory driver each day and 20 16-in timber piles would be removed via vibratory driver each day. The proposed renewal IHA assumes that the 8 temporary 30-in steel piles and 20 16-timber piles would be removed via vibratory driver each day.
The mitigation and monitoring requirements as described in the initial IHA and the marine mammal monitoring plan were followed throughout the first year of work including during vibratory installation of the temporary steel 30-in steel piles. The temporary pile drive time per day in the initial IHA is equivalent to those in the proposed renewal for 16-in timber piles (40 minutes), while the temporary drive time per day for vibratory driving of the 30-in piles is 10 minutes greater per day for the renewal IHA (40 minutes vs. 30 minutes). However, vibratory removal of 30-in steel piles would be done in a single day under the renewal IHA compared to up to 5 days under the initial IHA. Vibratory removal of the existing 16-in timber piles would take 4 days under either scenario. This assumes that Petrogas is able to work uninterrupted at maximum capacity every day. Since this may not be possible due to a range of factors (
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the Notices of the Proposed (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) and Final IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024) for the initial authorization. With the exception of harbor seals, NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, current Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined there is no new information that affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA. According to Pearson
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the Notice of the Proposed IHA (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, current Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Notices of the Proposed (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) and Final IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024) for the initial authorization. The source levels and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this renewal authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued initial IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024).
Petrogas and NMFS reanalyzed the Level A harassment zones for vibratory pile installation and removal activities to reflect Petrogas' proposed minor changes (table 1) as well as the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance as the initial analysis was based on the 2018 Technical Guidance (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024). Results are shown in table 2.
For both the initial IHA and proposed IHA renewal, Petrogas and NMFS quantitatively assessed potential exposure of marine mammals to noise levels from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance using the following equation to provide an estimate of potential exposures within estimated harassment zones:
Level A harassment isopleths increased slightly for all hearing groups except for very high frequency cetaceans (categorized as high frequency cetaceans prior to application of the 2024 Technical Guidance). These changes do not impact NMFS' analysis related to the potential for Level A harassment, which is unlikely to occur.
Petrogas would continue to implement shutdown zones that are equivalent to the Level A harassment zones during all vibratory pile removal activities for all hearing groups, as described in the initial 2025 IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024). The same occurrence assumptions that were used to estimate take for the 2024 IHA and described in the associated proposed FRN (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) are applied here. The daily duration of vibratory removal of 30-inch piles has increased from 30 to 40 minutes while the estimated total number of in-water work days has decreased from 17 to 5.
The calculated take by Level B harassment based on species density for Steller sea lions and California sea lions was one and six respectively. Petrogas has requested an increase to 10 Steller sea lion takes and 30 California sea lion takes by Level B harassment. While there are no haulouts nearby, there are haulouts in the greater Strait of Georgia, and animals of these species are known to travel significant distances in search for prey, possibly into the marine waters of the adjacent Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. The initial IHA had also increased authorized take of sea lions above the calculated estimated take values. The marine mammal monitoring report submitted by Petrogas recorded a single sea lion observation which occurred when there was no driving activity underway. A total of 41 harbor porpoises and 22 harbor seals were observed with 7 porpoise and 9 seal takes by Level B harassment.
NMFS' proposed take for the renewal IHA are indicated in table 3. No take by Level A harassment is proposed for this renewal authorization.
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are nearly identical to those included in the
(a) Petrogas must employ Protected Species Observer (PSO)s and establish monitoring locations. The Holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions.
(b) Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity (
(c) Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals.
(d) If a marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zones (table 4), pile driving activity must be delayed or halted.
(e) If pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(f) Specific measures for avoiding take of killer whales and humpback whales:
(i) Prior to the start of pile driving activities each day, Petrogas must contact the ORCA network to obtain the latest sightings information for Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) and humpback whales.
(ii) Petrogas must delay or halt pile driving activities if Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW), unidentified killer whale (
(iii) If a SRKW, unidentified killer whale, or humpback whale enters the Level B harassment zone undetected, in-water pile driving must be suspended immediately upon detection and must not resume until the animal exits the Level B harassment zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
(g) Pile driving activity must be halted (as described in condition 4(d) of initial IHA) upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone.
(h) Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant Petrogas staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 meters of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.
The proposed shutdown and monitoring zones shown in table 4 are identical to those included as part of the initial IHA.
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (89 FR 47903, June 4, 2024) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. No comments were submitted by the public. This was stated in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (89 FR 73381, September 10, 2024).
The proposed action is identical to that of the initial authorization in terms of effects. The minor change of vibratory removal of an additional eight temporary 30-inch steel installed under the initial IHA does not modify our findings. The same marine mammals are affected, and the potential effects and estimated take are a subset of the initial IHA. Mitigation and monitoring requirements remain the same as the initial authorization with the exception of removing bubble curtain and softstart measures since no impact driving is planned. While the population abundance of Northern Inland Waters stock of harbor seal has decreased slightly (now 15,898 animals changed from 16,451) there has been no effect on our findings.
With a subset of estimated take, the extensive analysis, as well as the associated findings included in the prior documents remain applicable. We found that the previous IHA had a negligible impact, and with the issuance of a renewal, the taking would be small relative to population size.
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Petrogas' activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this proposed action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to Petrogas for conducting construction associated with Ferndale Pier Maintenance Activities in Ferndale, Washington from August 1, 2026, to July 31, 2027, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The initial IHA can be found at:
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 12, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Matt Soldner, 202-453-7441.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
The Department is requesting emergency processing from OMB for this ICR no later than July 14, 2026. As a result, the Department is providing the public with the opportunity to comment under the full comment period. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 11, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
On March 7, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness (E.O. 14325) making individuals employed by organizations whose activities have a substantial illegal purpose ineligible for PSLF.
The Department held public hearings on April 29 and May 1, 2025, and engaged in the negotiated rulemaking process by convening a committee of higher education stakeholders and experts in July of 2025. On August 18, 2026, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FR 90 FR 40154) and collected public comments on the proposed regulations until September 17, 2025.
As explained in the Final Regulations published on October 31, 2025 (90 FR 48966), 34 CFR 685.219(i) required an update to the approved Public Service Loan Forgiveness Certification and Application, OMB #1845-0110. To comply with E.O. 14325, a revision to the form was made to include the addition of an attestation statement, under penalty of perjury, that the employer has not engaged in any activity that has a substantial illegal purpose on or after July 1, 2026.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, a Federal judge vacated the rule; one day prior to the rule becoming effective. The Department is now removing the attestation from the PSLF form in order to comply with the court order. No other changes have been made at this time.
In notice document 2026-13078, appearing on pages 39088-39089, in the issue of Monday, June 29, 2026, make the following correction:
On page 39088, in the second column, in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection renewal and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on FERC-521: Payments for Benefits from Headwater Improvements (OMB Control No 1902-0087). There are no proposed changes to the reporting requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 11, 2026.
Please submit
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
On February 27, 2024, Oswego Hydro Partners, LP filed an application for a license for the Phoenix Hydroelectric Project (project) in the above captioned docket. On June 6, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC) received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification from Oswego Hydro Partners, LP, in conjunction with the above captioned project.
On June 23, 2025, Commission staff provided New York DEC with written notice that the applicable reasonable period of time for it to act on the certification request was one (1) year from the date of receipt of the request, after which the certification requirement would be waived if the certifying authority failed to act by June 6, 2026. Because New York DEC did not act by June 6, 2026, we are notifying you pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), that waiver of the certification requirement has occurred.
Take notice that on June 17, 2026, Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC (Steel Reef Pipelines), 8131 Highway 2, Stanley, North Dakota 58784, filed an application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Border Crossing Facilities Project (Project) which consists of a 0.65-mile-long 10-inch-diameter segment of the Flat Lake Access Pipeline gathering system to be constructed by Steel Reef Pipelines
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Jodi Wilson, Vice President and General Counsel, 1600, 333 7th Avenue SW, Calgary, AB Canada T2P 2Z1, by phone at (403) 263-8333, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2026.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-545-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-545-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-545-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-545-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on June 25, 2026, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time, until December 31, 2027, to complete the abandonment of certain offshore platforms, gathering and transmission laterals, and appurtenant facilities (South East Louisiana Area Abandonment Project or Project) located in federal waters offshore Louisiana as authorized in the Order Approving Abandonment (Order).
Currently, Transco has completed the flushing and disconnection of pipeline segments 4757, 4759, 4760, 4761, 5099, 13446, and 15859. Additionally, Transco states pipeline segments 5784 and 5787 have been successfully pigged and isolated. However, Transco requires additional favorable seasonal windows to safely execute the cut at the Eugene Island Block 136 platform, as well as final subsea tube turn removals at the Eugene Island Block 158 platform in order to complete the physical abandonment of these facilities. Thus, Transco requests an extension of time to complete abandonment of the Project facilities until December 31, 2027.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Transco's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Permian Basin Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Lea County, New Mexico and Yoakum and Gaines Counties, Texas. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 10, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 28, 2026, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP26-534-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-534-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Northern proposes to construct and operate approximately 16.2 miles of interstate, natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities, and a new compressor station, in New Mexico and Texas. Northern also proposes to modify facilities within the fence line of the existing Plains compressor station in Yoakum County, Texas. The Permian Basin Expansion Project would provide about 361,600 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation service to a new natural gas-fired generation facility located in Gaines County, Texas.
The Permian Basin Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• approximately 15.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and 1.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline;
• a new compressor station consisting of one 7,700 horsepower natural gas-fired compressor unit and two pig launchers;
• an interconnect with Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC within the existing Phillip 66 Linam Ranch Plant;
• a new pig receiver within Northern's existing launcher facility;
• replacing an existing recycle valve and associated equipment within Northern's Plains Compressor Station and installing associated equipment within Northern's expanded facility south of the Plains Compressor Station; and
• a new delivery point at the Southwestern Public Service Company Gaines County Generating Station.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 355.7 acres of land for the pipeline and above-ground facilities. Following construction, Northern would maintain about 110.1 acres of land for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About six percent of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• socioeconomics;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; and local libraries and media outlets. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
On July 17, 2026, the Office of Energy Projects staff will be in areas surrounding West Bijou Creek in Elbert County, Colorado to gather data related to the environmental analysis of the proposed Critical Energy Reliability Link Project in the above-referenced dockets. Staff will evaluate the proposed route in this area and discuss construction and restoration practices, as well as possible alternative routes, in an effort to reduce impacts on high quality prairie habitat, in response to concerns raised by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Staff from Colorado Parks and Wildlife are also expected to participate in the site visit.
All interested parties who wish to attend must provide their own transportation. Note that some sites may only be accessible via off-road capable vehicles and/or hiking. Those attending should meet at the following location on Friday, July 17, 2026; 12:00 p.m. local time, where logistical staging will take place:
• East Field parking area at the Elbert County Fair Grounds; 95 Ute Avenue Kiowa, CO 80117.
Please use the FERC's free eSubscription service to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in these dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Molitor, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on May 11, 2026, and provided public notice of its request on June 17, 2026. In a letter issued July 8, 2026, the Acting Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Molitor LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 C.F.R Part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. On May 11, 2026, Molitor, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
m. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
You may register online at
n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for an original license for Project No. 15401.
o. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on June 10, 2026, Western Area Power Administration submitted a tariff filing: administrative correction to its eTariff records for a rate schedule to be effective April 1, 2026.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a Notice rescinding its December 23, 1997 “Questions and Answers Regarding the Affordable Housing Program” and its March 11, 1999 “Questions and Answers Regarding the Affordable Housing Program—Part 2.”
As of July 13, 2026, the Questions and Answers Regarding the Affordable Housing Program published at 62 FR 66977 (December 23, 1997) and the Questions and Answers Regarding the Affordable Housing Program—Part 2 at 64 FR 12079 (March 11, 1999) are withdrawn.
Leda Bloomfield, Senior Associate Director, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, (202) 649-3415,
The Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires each Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) to establish an affordable housing program, the purpose of which is to enable Bank members to provide subsidies for long-term, low-and moderate-income, owner-occupied and affordable rental housing.
Pursuant to Executive Order 14219, FHFA reviewed its regulations for consistency with law and Administration policy.
Section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended, requires the Director of FHFA, when promulgating regulations or taking any other formal or informal agency action of general applicability relating to the FHLBanks, to consider the differences between the FHLBanks and the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as they relate to: the FHLBanks' cooperative ownership structure; the mission of providing liquidity to members; the affordable housing and community development mission; their capital structure; and their joint and several liability on consolidated obligations.
Rescission of the guidance set forth in the Q&As is a Notice issued under FHFA's authority to interpret the Bank Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Notice does not contain any changes to information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 14215 (Independent Agency Accountability) amended Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) to include in its definition of “agency,” those agencies under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) including any “independent regulatory agency.” Accordingly, pursuant to Executive Order 12866 as amended and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, FHFA must
Executive Order 14192 requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that 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. This Notice is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action with
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 12, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 12, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) is providing notice that pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 the Board's civil money penalty (“CMP”) amounts will not increase for 2026.
Thomas Kelly, Senior Counsel, (202) 730-5276, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of TDD-TYY, (202) 263-4869 or dial 711 from any telephone anywhere in the United States.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (“FCPIA Act”), requires federal agencies to adjust, by regulation, the CMPs within their jurisdiction to account for inflation. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the “2015 Act”)
Under the 2015 Act, the annual adjustment to be made for 2026 is the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2025 exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2024. However, due to the government shutdown, the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not produce a Consumer Price Index for October 2025. On April 17, 2026, as directed by the 2015 Act, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued guidance to affected agencies on implementing the required annual adjustments.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, under delegated authority.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend for three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for its Fair Credit Reporting Risk-Based Pricing Regulations (Risk-Based Pricing Rule or Rule). The current clearance expires on July 31, 2026.
Comments must be received by August 12, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Jamie Hine, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580,
On April 17, 2026, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 91 FR 20654. The FTC received no relevant comments during the public comment period. Pursuant to OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the Office of Management and Budget clearance for its Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule (the Rule). The current clearance expires on July 31, 2026.
Comments must be filed by August 12, 2026.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Sung W. Kim, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2211;
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Medical Monitoring Project (MMP). The purpose of this data collection is to describe the health-related behaviors and clinical outcomes of adults diagnosed with HIV in the United States to guide national and local HIV-related service organization and delivery and monitor receipt of HIV treatment and prevention services and clinical outcomes.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 11, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-1255 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) (OMB Control No. 0920-0740, Exp. 5/31/2027)—Revision—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of HIV Prevention (DHP) requests a Revision of the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR): Medical Monitoring Project which expires May 31, 2027. This data collection addresses the need for national estimates of access to, and utilization of HIV-related medical care and services, the quality of HIV-related ambulatory care, and HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes. For the proposed project, the same data collection methods will be used as for the currently approved project. Data would be collected from a probability sample of HIV-diagnosed adults in the U.S. who consent to an interview and abstraction of their medical records. As for the currently approved project, deidentified information would also be extracted from HIV case surveillance records for a dataset (referred to as the minimum dataset), which is used to assess non-response bias, for quality control, to improve the ability of MMP to monitor ongoing care and treatment of people with HIV, and to make inferences from the MMP sample to persons with diagnosed HIV nationally. No other federal agency collects such nationally representative population-based information from adults with diagnosed HIV. The data are expected to have significant implications for program development and resource allocation at the state/local and national levels.
The changes proposed in this request update the data collection system to meet prevailing information needs and enhance the value of MMP data, while remaining within the scope of the currently approved project purpose. The burden is slightly lower than the burden of the previously approved project. Changes made are listed below:
• Due to a streamlining of operations in one state, the total number of persons to be sampled will decrease to 9,500, as compared to 9,700 in the currently approved project. This will result in the total burden decreasing from 5,707 to 5,589 hours.
• Two minor revisions were made to the Interview Questionnaire to improve coherence and increase the relevance and value of the information. These changes did not affect the average burden per response.
• Revisions to the medical record abstraction data elements were made to streamline the information collected and remove variables no longer useful for analysis. Because the medical records are abstracted by MMP staff, these changes do not affect the burden of the project.
This proposed data collection would supplement the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS, OMB Control No. 0920-0573, Exp. 07/31/2026) in 23 selected state and local health departments, which collect information on persons diagnosed with, living with, and dying from HIV infection and AIDS. Total estimated annual burden requested is 5,589 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Detectives Camp” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on April 14, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Detectives Camp—New—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NCHS is authorized to collect data under Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k). NCHS has a history of reaching out to young people to encourage their interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Examples of past involvement include adopting local schools, speaking at local colleges, conducting a Statistics Day for high school students, and conducting the NCHS Data Detectives Camp for middle school students.
In prior years, these activities have been approved under a Generic Information Collection entitled “Youth Outreach Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics” (OMB No. 0920-0164, Exp. Date 03/31/2026). This year, NCHS is requesting a New Information Collection Request (ICR) to consolidate the activities conducted under the Data Detectives Camp. This ICR is designed for outreach to middle school aged children and those who support them, such as parents, teachers, and counselors.
Information will be collected through application and registration forms, teacher recommendation forms, and evaluation forms. OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary. The burden table below represents each type of respondent for one annual cycle of data collection (which includes a maximum of four camps). CDC requests approval for an estimated 1,100 annualized burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled World Trade Center Health Program Stakeholder Experience Feedback Collection. The data collection seeks to solicit feedback from World Trade Center Health Program members and providers about their experiences with Program services, communications, administrative processes, and operations.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 11, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-1222 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
World Trade Center Health Program Stakeholder Experience Feedback Collection—New—National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is requesting approval of a New Generic information collection request (ICR) for a period of three years for the project titled, World Trade Center Health Program Stakeholder Experience Feedback Collection.
The World Trade Center Health Program was established under Title XXXIII of the Public Health Service Act by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347). The Program provides medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible responders and survivors affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. CDC requests approval of a New Generic Clearance to support low-burden pulse surveys and focus groups with World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program members and providers. These collections will obtain timely feedback regarding stakeholder experiences with Program services,
The Program currently collects stakeholder feedback through several established mechanisms, including a comprehensive Member Feedback Survey administered approximately every five years. While these efforts provide valuable information on overall member experience, they are not designed to provide timely, targeted feedback on specific Program functions, administrative processes, operational changes, or the experiences of particular stakeholder groups, such as providers. This Generic Clearance will complement existing feedback efforts by allowing the Program to conduct multiple small-scale collections over a three-year period, including surveys following key member interactions, such as enrollment and certification, as well as other targeted feedback collections on Program communications, administrative processes, operational changes, provider experiences, and other topics affecting stakeholder experience.
Information collected will be used to support Program management, contractor oversight, stakeholder engagement, and operational decision-making. Results will not be used for regulatory purposes or as the principal basis for significant policy decisions. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,350 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 11, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
Forms are proposed to be revised beyond what was approved by OMB on April 15, 2024, and updated in non-substantive change packages approved on April 18, 2025, and March 25, 2026. Specifically, HRSA is making the following changes to the current information collection for DGIS:
• Revising five forms to update terminology to “medically underserved”: Engaging Families and Other Individuals (formerly Engaging People With Lived Experience), Training 07, Training 08, Training 09, and Former Long-Term Trainees.
• Removing the following two forms to reduce grantee burden, as the requested information is now collected in the Partnership and Collaboration form: Training 03 (Healthy Tomorrows) and Training 04 (MCH Training Program).
The remaining 42 forms are included with no substantive changes from the prior approved OMB package. A performance measure detail sheet defines and describes each performance measure. Forms and detail sheets showing the proposed revisions are available upon request.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Address: National Institutes of Health, 6700 Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Rockledge, MD 20892, In Person and Virtual Meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of postponement of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee) has postponed its quarterly meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 15, 2026, in Washington, DC, until September 23, 2026.
The Committee has postponed its meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 15, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Mrs. Latoria Martin, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1440; or Mr. Christopher J. Siepmann, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 344-1440 or
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee) conducts quarterly meetings under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., ch. 10. The Committee provides advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
On June 16, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced in the
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of details by the public concerning potential insider threats, as well as any pertinent information regarding the person(s) involved in the reported event.
Send your comments by August 12, 2026. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To ensure consistency with the directive, TSA created the Insider Threat Reporting Tool, which collects information on potential insider threats. The public can submit inquiries regarding potential insider threats by providing personal information and other specific data regarding the person or situation deemed to be an insider threat. TSA is requesting OMB's approval of the Insider Threat Incident Reporting Tool as a Common Form to permit Federal agency users beyond the agency that created the form (
Bureau of Indians Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
Through this notice, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Office of Indian Services (OIS), Division of Workforce Development (DWD), Job Placement and Training announces a forthcoming FY 2026 Job Placement and Training discretionary grant pilot program titled, “Native American Technology and Manufacturing Grant Pilot Program—(IGNITE: Indigenous Growth in New & Innovative Trade Employment)” Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Tribal workforce development strategies preparing Tribal participants for employment in construction and infrastructure trades and emerging technology sectors, including advanced manufacturing, digital fabrication, artificial intelligence, drone and geospatial systems, and STEM-based workforce training.
Proposals must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) by the deadline indicated in the NOFO and posting on
Ms. Rebekah HorseChief, Office of Indian Services, Division of Workforce Development, 1001 Indian School Road NW, #228, Albuquerque, NM 87104;
This BIA Office of Indian Services (OIS), Division of Workforce Development (DWD), Job Placement and Training, announcement for the forthcoming FY 2026 Job Placement and Training discretionary grant pilot program titled, “Native American Technology and Manufacturing Grant Pilot Program—(IGNITE: Indigenous Growth in New & Innovative Trade Employment)” Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) provides interested applicants time to prepare their applications prior to the opening of the applications period. The BIA OIS DWD expects the official NOFO solicitation to run for approximately 30 days on the BIA-OIS website. Additional information for the FY 2026 Job Placement and Training discretionary grant pilot program NOFO posting will be available on the BIA-OIS website at the following URL:
The IGNITE grant pilot program will support Tribal workforce development strategies preparing Tribal participants for employment in construction and infrastructure trades and emerging technology sectors, including advanced manufacturing, digital fabrication, artificial intelligence, drone and geospatial systems, and STEM-based workforce training. Successful applicants supported through the IGNITE grant pilot program will describe how their program will include workforce training activities, certification programs, apprenticeship readiness, technology-based training programs, and/or supportive services that help participants successfully complete training and secure employment. Funding will be awarded directly to Tribes and Tribal organizations through 638 contracts or compacts.
• Federally Recognized Indian Tribes;
• Tribal organizations acting on behalf of Federally Recognized Tribes; and
• Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (25 U.S.C. 5304), including Tribal Consortia.
The BIA anticipates making approximately 18 to 22 awards, with individual awards ranging from $100,000 to $300,000, for a one-year period of performance. The IGNITE grant pilot program will support implementation-ready workforce programs leading directly to employment, apprenticeship placement, or industry-recognized credentials. Funding can be requested to support program execution and implementation. Funds are not allowable for planning, feasibility studies, or start-up activities. The BIA is particularly interested in supporting workforce programs aligned with construction and infrastructure trades, including those that build on established apprenticeship pathways such as Ironworkers and similar programs, as well as programs that incorporate emerging technologies.
Applicants may apply to implement one of the two options below or may propose an integrated approach inclusive of both options, combining multiple workforce training opportunities. Only one application per tribe or tribal organization will be accepted.
Applicants are encouraged to establish partnerships with workforce training providers, educational institutions, apprenticeship programs, and industry partners through formal agreements such as Memorandums of Understanding. Applicants will be provided resources and technical assistance through virtual webinars once the announcement is open for submissions. The BIA anticipates publishing the NOFO on the OIS website and opening the application period in June 2026.
While the Bureau will not accept applications at this time, interested applicants may submit questions to the program contact listed above. The forthcoming NOFO will provide the structure by which the applications will be reviewed and evaluated and describe measurable outcomes that will be defined for the period of performance.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to issue: (1) a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) barring entry of certain electronic eyewear products, components thereof, and related charging apparatuses by or on behalf of respondent MyW Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (“Defaulting Respondent”); and (2) a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against Defaulting Respondent. The investigation is terminated.
Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On July 11, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed on behalf of IngenioSpec, LLC of San Jose, California (“IngenioSpec”). 90 FR 30980-81 (July 11, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic eyewear products, components thereof, and related charging apparatuses by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,310,296 (“the '296 patent”) and 12,078,870 (“the '870 patent”).
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to all respondents other than Defaulting Respondent based on settlement or withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 9 (Aug. 14, 2025),
The Commission previously found Defaulting Respondent to be in default. Order No. 27 (Apr. 7, 2026),
On May 19, 2026, the Commission issued a notice asking the parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 91 FR at 29983-84 (“the Remedy Notice”).
On June 10, 2026, IngenioSpec filed a submission to the Remedy Notice. No other responses were received.
When the conditions in section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) have been satisfied, section 337(g)(1) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)) direct the Commission, upon request, to issue an LEO or CDO or both against a respondent found in default, based on the allegations regarding a violation of section 337 in the complaint, which are presumed to be true, unless after consideration of the public interest factors in section 337(g)(1), it finds that such relief should not issue.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the submission in response to the Remedy Notice, the Commission has determined, pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)), that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is: (1) an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain electronic eyewear products, components thereof, and related charging apparatuses by reason of infringement of any of claims 1-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, 28-35, 37 and 40 of the '296 patent and claims 36, 43-53,
The investigation is hereby terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 9, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors and its Audit, Operations and Regulations, Delivery of Legal Services, and Governance and Performance Review Committees will meet July 19-20, 2026. On Sunday, July 19, the Audit Committee meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. ET, followed by the Operations and Regulations Committee meeting at 12:00 p.m. ET, and the Delivery of Legal Services Committee meeting at 1:45 p.m. ET. On Monday, July 20, the Governance and Performance Review Committee meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. ET, followed by the Board of Directors meeting at 12:45 p.m. ET. Each meeting will continue until the conclusion of the meeting agenda.
Public Notice of Hybrid Meeting.
LSC will conduct its July 19-20, 2026, meetings at the Louisville Marriott Downtown, 280 W Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202, and virtually via videoconference.
Open, except as noted below.
Any portion of the closed sessions consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed sessions of the Audit Committee and Board of Directors meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (7), (9) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Kimberly Little, Board and Executive Coordinator, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to the Office of the Corporate Secretary at
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Notice of solicitation of comments on the Economic Classification Policy Committee's recommendations for the 2027 revision of the North American Industry Classification System.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeks public comment on the advisability of adopting the proposed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) updates for 2027 recommended by its Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC). The ECPC recommends an update of NAICS to clarify existing industry definitions and content, recognize new and emerging industries, and combine industries. There are two parts in the
To ensure consideration of comments on the adoption and implementation of the NAICS revisions detailed in this notice, please submit all comments as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice. Because of delays in the receipt of regular mail related to security screening, respondents are encouraged to send comments electronically (see
Submit comments through
OMB is issuing this solicitation of input on the 2027 NAICS revision pursuant to its authorities under the
For information about this request for comments, contact Charles Rhodes, Office of Management and Budget, 9245 New Executive Office Building, 725 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20503, telephone (202) 395-3099.
NAICS classification staff may be reached by email at
OMB published a notification of intention to revise portions of NAICS in a December 20, 2024,
The ECPC comprises representatives of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, and other government agencies. After considering all proposals from the public, consulting with U.S. data users and industry groups, and undertaking extensive discussions with Statistics Canada and Mexico's
Thus, OMB seeks comment on the advisability of revising NAICS to incorporate the changes published in this notice. The revised NAICS would be employed in relevant data collections by all OMB-recognized statistical agencies and units beginning with reference year 2027.
NAICS is a system for classifying establishments (individual business locations) by type of economic activity. Its purposes are: (1) To facilitate the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of data relating to business establishments, and (2) to promote uniformity and comparability in the presentation and analysis of statistical data describing the North American economy. OMB-recognized statistical agencies and units use NAICS to collect and/or publish data by industry. It is also widely used by State agencies, trade associations, private businesses, and other organizations; though those uses are not considered in the development of NAICS, which is developed and maintained for statistical purposes.
Mexico's INEGI, Statistics Canada, and the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the ECPC, collaborated on NAICS to make the industry statistics produced by the three countries comparable. NAICS is the first industry classification system developed in accordance with a single principle of aggregation,
For these three countries, NAICS provides a consistent framework for the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of industry statistics. Such statistics are used by businesses, government policymakers, researchers, and the public. NAICS is designed and maintained solely for statistical purposes to improve and keep current the classification of business establishments so that OMB-recognized statistical agencies and units can accurately and consistently measure the economy. Consequently, although the classification may also be used for various nonstatistical purposes (
Four principles that guide NAICS development are:
(1) NAICS is erected on a production-oriented conceptual framework. This means that producing units that use the same or similar production processes are grouped together in NAICS.
(2) NAICS gives special attention to developing production-oriented classification for: (a) new and emerging industries, (b) service industries in general, and (c) industries engaged in the production of advanced technologies.
(3) Time series continuity is maintained to the extent possible.
(4) The system strives for compatibility with the two-digit level of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC, Rev. 5) of the United Nations Statistical Commission.
The ECPC is committed to maintaining the principles of NAICS during revisions. The December 20, 2024, solicitation for public comment on questions related to a potential revision of NAICS in 2027 was directly tied to the application of these four NAICS principles.
NAICS uses a hierarchical structure to classify establishments from the broadest level to the most detailed level using the following format:
To ensure the accuracy, timeliness, and relevance of the classification, NAICS is reviewed every five years to determine what, if any, changes are required. The 2027 revision will be the sixth since OMB adopted NAICS in 1997. The ECPC recognizes the costs involved when implementing industry classification revisions in statistical programs and the costs for data users when there are disruptions in the availability of data. The ECPC also recognizes the economic, statistical, and policy implications that arise when the industry classification system does not identify and account for important economic developments. Balancing the costs of change against the potential for more accurate and relevant economic statistics requires significant input from data producers, data providers, and data users.
The full list of public comments received are available at
The December 20, 2024,
In response to the December 20, 2024, notice, the ECPC received 60 individual submissions. Each submission was assigned a unique docket number. These 60 submissions addressed the focus areas included in Parts II-III of the December 20, 2024, notice and/or included comments proposing other changes to NAICS 2022.
The ECPC applied the following general guidance when considering changes to NAICS in 2027:
(1) Because of the cost of change and the disruption of statistical data series that have already resulted from the ongoing implementation of NAICS, the ECPC will limit the scope of NAICS
(2) The ECPC will recommend new and emerging industries identified through the comment process that are supported by the guiding principles of NAICS; and
(3) The ECPC will make changes to account for errors and omissions as well as recommend narrative improvements to clarify the content of existing industries.
The ECPC also considered the views of its member agencies when evaluating specific proposals for changes to NAICS in 2027. The ECPC reviewed each individual proposal within the existing framework of the principles of NAICS. Additional considerations that resulted in recommendations for or against change included issues of relevance, size, and time series continuity.
The ECPC received a wide ranging and diverse set of suggestions in response to this solicitation. Single submissions often addressed more than one issue, and many submissions addressed common issues. Of the 60 uniquely numbered submissions received in response to the
Each suggestion was carefully considered by the ECPC. Some suggestions were recommended for adoption but modified by the ECPC to better meet the objectives of NAICS. Based on public comments, the ECPC is recommending industry definition changes to explicitly classify certain activities and more clearly match accepted industry terminology; for example, in NAICS 48811 Airport Operations, wording was added to clarify where to classify commercial spaceports. Some suggestions were recommended to be incorporated as products in the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) rather than industries in NAICS, such as the addition of NAPCS collection products for lab-created meat and animal-based products (including poultry, pork, and beef), lab-created seafood, and lab-created dairy products. Other suggestions for change were not suited to the production-oriented basis of NAICS or could not be implemented in statistical programs, for various reasons, and thus were not accepted. When a proposal was not accepted, it was usually because: (a) The resulting industry would have been too small in the U.S., or (b) the proposal did not meet the production-oriented criterion for forming an industry in NAICS.
Executive Order 14236 (March 14, 2025) rescinded Executive Order 14081 (September 12, 2022), “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy.” Executive Order 14081 required the establishment of an Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG) to recommend to the ECPC bioeconomy-related revisions to the NAICS. The ITWG delivered its recommendations to ECPC in 2023. The ECPC reviewed and considered all comments related to the bioeconomy on the same basis as all other comments received during the comment period—following the four principles to guide recommendations for any modifications to NAICS. After careful consideration of comments, the ECPC is not proposing any industry updates to NAICS in this space.
The ECPC is recommending NAICS industry title changes to more clearly describe new and existing content of industries.
a. The ECPC recommends moving electric motors for electric vehicles from 335312, Motor and Generator Manufacturing to 336310, Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts manufacturing. This change would recognize the growing relevance of electric motors in the manufacturing of transportation equipment and align the classification of electric motors for electric vehicles with those of Mexico and Canada, supporting trilateral agreement.
i. The following NAICS titles would require modification to reflect changes to industry content:
1. NAICS 33631, Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing, would be changed to “Motor Vehicle Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing.”
2. NAICS 336310, Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing, would be changed to “Motor Vehicle Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing.”
b. The following title changes do not change the content of these industries but rather refine how they are described.
i. NAICS 48811, Airport Operations, would be changed to “Airport and Spaceport Operations.”
ii. NAICS 488119, Other Airport Operations, would be changed to “Other Airport and Spaceport Operations.”
Below are the ECPC recommendations for content revisions to NAICS United States for 2027. Table 1 lists, in NAICS United States 2022 order, the disposition of all industries that the ECPC recommends for change and their resulting relationship to NAICS United States 2027 proposed industries. Table 2 presents the ECPC recommended NAICS 2022 industries in proposed NAICS United States 2027 order, cross-walked to their NAICS United States 2022 content. These tables can also be found at
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Notice.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.
Sarah Whittle Spooner. 202-395-4665.
Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of annual open meeting.
We are announcing OGIS's annual meeting, open to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss OGIS's reviews and reports, and allow interested people to appear and present oral or written statements.
The meeting will be held on August 4, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to Noon ET. You must register to attend. (See registration information below.)
Martha Murphy by email at
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with FOIA provisions at 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(6). OGIS's 2026 Report for Fiscal Year 2025, posted at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on computer matching, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is providing notice of the establishment of a new matching program. Pursuant to the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, NSF is establishing a new matching program consisting of the computerized comparison of systems of records for benefits programs at NSF with the Do Not Pay (DNP) Working System, which is administered by the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This matching program will enable the NSF programs listed in the appendix of this notice to compare records maintained in their respective systems of records with records maintained in the DNP Working System for the purposes of identifying and preventing improper payments and conducting any related recovery activities by verifying through DNP prepayment or pre-award eligibility.
This system notice is effective as of August 12, 2026. These new matching programs will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice through September 10, 2029.
Tom Boger, Acting Senior Agency Official for Privacy (SAOP), NSF, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or by email:
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503) amended the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) by establishing procedural safeguards related to agencies' use of records when performing certain types of computerized matching. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for individuals when agencies perform these functions. Additionally, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3351
NSF and Treasury have determined that the DNP matching program described in this notice is eligible for the waiver described in OMB Memorandum M-25-32, which is effective from September 10, 2025, through September 10, 2029. For purposes of this notice, matching activities conducted between the Federal benefit programs listed in the appendix to this document and the DNP Working System constitute a single agency-wide matching program implementing DNP for NSF's listed programs.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None. See Section III for summary proceedings.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and Rule 19b-4, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, notice is hereby given that on June 26, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II and III below,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the CDS Instrument On-boarding Policies and Procedures (“Instrument On-boarding Policy”) for the CDS Clearing Service. These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC CDS Clearing Rules (the “Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Instrument On-boarding Policy. This document provides an overview of ICC's on-boarding process for new CDS instruments, which includes selecting new instruments for clearing, configuring internal systems, notifying and receiving feedback from stakeholders, and ensuring operational readiness by ICC and its Clearing Participants (“CPs”). The proposed changes amend the guiding principles that ICC maintains for instrument selection. ICC believes that such changes will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to make such changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change is described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes to amend Section III.A. of the Instrument On-boarding Policy, which discusses the guiding principles that ICC maintains for considering instruments for clearing. Such principles are designed to ensure that ICC proceeds in a prudent manner with respect to instrument selection while also providing the best opportunity for CPs to minimize their risk. The changes to the guiding principles are designed to promote ICC's ability to consider additional instruments for clearing. Currently, ICC maintains a guiding principle to consider instruments for clearing that are constituents of currently clearable indices. ICC maintains another guiding principle applicable to instruments that are not constituents of such indices with two criteria set out in sub-bullets. Namely, under this guiding principle, ICC considers such instruments for clearing with uncleared gross notional open interest among ICC CPs, or with an average bilateral weekly volume equal to or greater than the average cleared volume across currently cleared instruments belonging to the same product type over the last twelve months. ICC also considers instruments with bilateral open interest held by at least three CP Affiliate Groups. An instrument considered under this guiding principle needs only to satisfy one of these criteria or sub-bullets to be considered for clearing.
The proposed amendments introduce a third criterion under this guiding principle. Specifically, ICC proposes a third sub-bullet to also consider single name instruments with reference entities with minimum outstanding debt notional of $500MM or €500MM. To further emphasize that an instrument considered under this guiding principle needs only to satisfy one of the three criteria or sub-bullets to be considered for clearing, ICC proposes to revise the punctuation by replacing periods in the first two sub-points with semi-colons and adding “or” before the third sub-bullet.
Instruments subject to the amended guiding principles would continue to be subject to effective controls through existing governance,
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)
ICC does not believe the proposed amendments will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed rule change amends the guiding principles that ICC maintains for instrument selection. Additional instruments selected for clearing under the revised guiding principles in the proposed Instrument On-Boarding Policy will be available to all ICC CPs for clearing. The clearing of any such additional instruments does not preclude the offering of such instruments for clearing by other market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2026-008 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 12, 2026, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to consider the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest orders (defined below).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest
At this time, the Exchange proposes to shorten the quarterly review and designation to a monthly review. The Exchange proposes to add a new Interpretation and Policy under the current definition for “Professional Interest” in Exchange Rule 100 to provide that orders for the account of a person or entity that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during any calendar month must be represented as Professional Interest for the next calendar month. Further, the Exchange proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 will provide that Members will be required to conduct a monthly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar month.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow; rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations. Finally, some Members currently designate orders for any customer that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during a month as Professional Interest orders on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter.
The Exchange believes that a calendar month is a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. The Exchange believes that the shortened time period will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest is met in that Members will make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders in a 30-day timeframe as opposed to a 90-day timeframe, thereby ensuring the designation is applied in a more expeditious manner.
The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriate and objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges proposed similar changes as described herein.
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on July 1, 2026. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular to provide notice to Members of the effective date of the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to shorten the quarterly look-back to a monthly look-back is consistent with the Act because it will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest continues to be met, only on a more expedited basis—removing a potential delay of two months before affecting a change in the designation. The Exchange believes that this amendment will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting the consistent application of its rules and shortening the timeframe to change the designation for all Members while continuing to provide a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. Further, the Exchange believes that the shortened time period will continue to promote consistency in the treatment of orders as Professional Interest while also preventing members with high volume from receiving benefits reserved for Priority Customer Orders.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate orders for a customer that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month as Professional Interest orders on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations. The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest orders based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriately objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. Priority is one of the marketplace advantages
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition because, today, Members are required to monitor their customers' activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate an order that is for the account of a person or entity that has placed more than 390 orders per day on average during a month as Professional Interest on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations.
Further, the designation of Professional Interest orders would not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of compliance with the Exchange's Rules. Priority Customers have been granted certain priority over other non-broker-dealer individuals and entities that have access to information and technology that enables them to professionally trade listed options in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities. Further, the Priority Customer designation allows the Exchange to attract order flow or create more competitive markets.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition because other exchanges are expected to adopt similar rules.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 5, 2026, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
On February 19, 2026, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 609 (17 CFR 230.609) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Although there have been no filings of Form 2-E since 2017, for administrative purposes the Commission estimates that, on average, approximately one respondent submits a Form 2-E filing each year. The Commission further estimates that this information collection imposes an annual burden of four hours and imposes no annual external cost burden.
The collection of information under Form 2-E is mandatory. The information provided by the form will not be kept confidential.
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.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4120 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts) to set forth specific requirements for halting and resuming trading in a security that is subject to certain corporate actions, as described below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In conjunction with plans for operating 23 hours a day, 5 days a week (“23/5 Trading”),
The Exchange understands that the other Primary Listing Exchanges plan to implement substantially identical versions of this rule to ensure consistent treatment of corporate actions across the market.
In 2023, the Commission approved the Exchange's filing establishing the Exchange's authority to declare a mandatory regulatory halt in a security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market when that security is subject to a reverse stock split.
With the launch of 23/5 Trading later this year, the concerns that led the Exchange to adopt a regulatory halt framework for reverse stock splits will likewise arise with respect to a broader set of corporate actions. Under the current market structure, the Exchange processes these corporate action-related changes and updates for listed securities during overnight hours, when the Exchange is closed to trading. Other market participants, including broker-dealers, likewise use that overnight period to process corporate action-related information and adjust quotes, orders, and related instructions accordingly.
Under 23/5 Trading, however, Nasdaq's non-trading window will be reduced to a one-hour pause.
To address these concerns, the Exchange proposes to build on the framework established under Rule 4120(a)(15) for reverse stock splits by extending that rule's mandatory regulatory halt requirement to additional corporate actions that, much like reverse stock splits, require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to permit coordinated processing. As proposed, under 23/5 Trading, if a security is affected by any of the corporate actions enumerated in the proposal, the Exchange would implement a mandatory regulatory halt
Implicit in Rule 4120(a)(15) is the recognition that certain corporate actions—such as reverse stock splits—require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to permit their coordinated processing and thereby avoid the risks associated with concurrent trading in the affected security while that processing is underway. The same principle applies to the categories of corporate actions addressed in this proposal, particularly in the context of nearly continuous trading.
In the context of 23/5 Trading, the Exchange has determined—based on discussions both internal and with industry participants, including the other Primary Listing Markets—that, similar to reverse stock splits, certain other corporate actions require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to facilitate their coordinated processing by the Exchange and other market participants before orderly trading may resume in the affected security.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the following issuer-related corporate actions are analogous to reverse stock splits with respect to processing requirements and thus warrant analogous treatment with respect to their categorization and regulatory response: (1) changes in trading symbol; (2) changes in CUSIP number; (3) stock dividends equal to at least 25% of the Nasdaq Official Closing Price;
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4120(a)(15) and make certain conforming changes to incorporate such corporate actions into the regulatory framework established for corporate actions consisting of reverse stock splits as follows. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4120(a)(15) to extend the current reverse
The Exchange then proposes to amend Rule 4120(a)(15) to enumerate, in a new subparagraph (A) thereof, the nine categories of corporate actions discussed above that would be subject to a mandatory regulatory halt under Rule 4120(a)(15). As proposed, the nine categories of enumerated corporate actions subject to a mandatory regulatory halt would consist of the following corporate actions: (1) trading symbol changes;
Specifically, proposed Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(9) would require the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt for any other corporate action or issuer-related event not enumerated in (1)-(8) above for which the Exchange determines, based on the totality of the circumstances and any information available to it, including, without limitation, information obtained from the issuer, that a regulatory halt is necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, or otherwise in the public interest.
This residual provision is designed to capture issuer-related corporate actions that, while not enumerated in Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(1)-(8), raise operational or market integrity concerns comparable to those actions. Once the Exchange determines that such a corporate action warrants a regulatory halt based on its application of the standards in Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(9),
The Exchange proposes that, under 23/5 Trading, the mandatory regulatory halts described above in proposed Rule 4120(a)(15) would be implemented after the conclusion of the Post-Market Hours session and before the start of the Night Session at 9:00 p.m. ET.
The Exchange proposes that under 23/5 Trading, trading in a security halted pursuant to proposed Rule 4120(a)(15) would resume at 8:00 a.m. ET
In supporting its reverse stock split-related proposal, the Exchange explained that reopening the security at 9:00 a.m. ET, which is after the end of pre-market trading, “is appropriate . . . because it gives the Exchange an opportunity to review its order book and root out any orders in a security that has undergone a reverse stock split, that have not correctly adjusted to the security's new stock price.”
Since the reverse stock split regulatory halt was introduced in 2023, the Exchange has determined that it would be preferable to reopen from a reverse stock split halt at 8:00 a.m. ET instead of 9:00 a.m. ET. That alteration would provide for an additional hour of liquidity formation and price discovery before the 9:30 a.m. ET Nasdaq Opening Cross, while still being consistent with the rationales cited above for reopening trading at a “unique” time. Specifically, the Exchange believes that resuming trading in the affected securities at 8:00 a.m. ET is appropriate because the proposed pause in trading provides a sufficient and transparent interval for the Exchange and market participants to complete the processing of such corporate actions and the earlier resumption of trading would provide the affected securities with additional price discovery and liquidity formation opportunities before participating in the Nasdaq Opening Cross at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Consistent with that rationale, the Exchange proposes that the securities subject to the mandatory regulatory halts addressed in this filing, including reverse stock splits, would reopen at 8:00 a.m. ET.
In sum, the corporate actions addressed in this proposal raise operational and market integrity concerns in a 23/5 Trading environment that mirror the concerns addressed by the Commission in approving the Exchange's Reverse Stock Split Proposal. Under 23/5 Trading, Nasdaq will no longer have a substantial non-trading window during which it and other market participants can process these corporate actions before trading resumes. With only one hour between trading days, neither the Exchange nor other market participants would have sufficient time to process and incorporate corporate action-related information, resulting in a risk of price dislocations, investor confusion, erroneous executions, and broader operational issues. The Exchange believes that extending its reverse stock split regulatory framework to the additional corporate actions described herein would appropriately preserve, in a 23/5 Trading environment, the safeguard implicit in the current market structure—specifically, the overnight pause in trading that allows for coordinated processing and related systems and reference-data updates. Accordingly, the proposal would promote fair and orderly trading, mitigate operational risk, and help ensure that trading resumes only after those updates have been completed.
The Exchange understands that the other Primary Listing Exchanges plan to implement substantially identical versions of this rule to ensure consistent treatment of corporate actions across the market. The Exchange proposes that the changes in this proposal and in the other Primary Listing Exchanges' similar filings would become operative at the commencement of 23/5 Trading.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that extending the reverse stock split regulatory halt framework to the additional, analogous corporate actions addressed in this proposal would promote free and open markets, protect investors, and serve the public interest by helping to ensure fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the proposal would preserve and apply an established, transparent framework for pausing and resuming trading in securities subject to reverse stock splits to certain corporate actions with analogous processing requirements, so that trading in an affected security does not occur before the corporate action has been processed and the related systems and reference-data updates have been completed and applied across the market.
With respect to the specific categories of corporate actions addressed in this proposal, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to extend the regulatory halt framework applicable to reverse stock splits to certain categories of corporate actions with analogous processing requirements, as more specifically described above. Like reverse stock splits, these corporate actions all involve non-discretionary changes to core security characteristics that require synchronized updates across Exchange and market participant systems.
Under the current market structure, an overnight pause in trading has historically provided a defined non-trading window during which the Exchange and other market participants have sufficient time to process such corporate actions in an orderly and coordinated manner prior to the resumption of trading. But in the 23/5 Trading environment, with only one hour of non-trading time between trading days, there is a substantial chance that trading in an impacted security could occur based on incomplete, inconsistent, or partially updated information, giving rise to pricing anomalies, investor confusion, erroneous executions, and heightened operational risk. The Exchange believes the proposed approach promotes fair and orderly markets by helping to ensure that trading resumes only once systems and reference data concerning these corporate actions have been fully and consistently updated across the marketplace.
With respect to the mandatory regulatory halts specifically enumerated in proposed Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(1)-(8), if the corporate action falls within the categories enumerated in the rule, Nasdaq will not have discretion about whether to declare a trading halt in the affected security.
In addition, proposed Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(9) is intended to operate as a residual provision covering issuer-related corporate actions not enumerated in Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(1)-(8) that nonetheless raise operational or market-integrity concerns comparable to those presented by the enumerated actions. Under that provision, when the Exchange determines, based on the totality of the circumstances and the information available to it, including information obtained from the issuer, that it is necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, or otherwise in the public interest, it would be required to declare a regulatory halt in that security. Once the Exchange makes that determination, the regulatory halt would be mandatory, thereby avoiding ad hoc treatment once the applicable standard has been met. In that respect, proposed Rule 4120(a)(15)(A)(9) serves as a narrow residual mechanism designed to promote consistent regulatory treatment across comparable corporate actions and to preserve transparency and uniformity in the application of proposed Rule 4120(a)(15) in a 23/5 Trading environment by requiring the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt in such cases. The Exchange therefore believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to extend its authority to declare a regulatory halt in this instance. The Exchange notes that its rules provide the Exchange with authority to implement a regulatory halt.
In all cases under proposed Rule 4120(a)(15), a mandatory regulatory halt in the affected security would be implemented after the conclusion of the Post-Market Hours session and before the start of the Night Session at 9:00 p.m. ET on the date immediately preceding the market effective date of the corporate action.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and appropriate to use the Nasdaq Halt Cross process under Rule 4753 to reopen trading in a security that is subject to a regulatory halt pursuant to this proposal because it is consistent with the process that Nasdaq currently uses to reopen a security after a reverse stock split regulatory halt, and the operational complexity and processing demands associated with such corporate actions are comparable to those involved regarding reverse stock splits. Furthermore, using the Nasdaq Halt Cross process to reopen trading after regulatory halts addressed in this proposal is consistent with the process that is typically used by Nasdaq when reopening a security that has been halted under Rule 4120. Applying a uniform, previously approved framework enhances transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants.
The Exchange believes that resuming trading in the corporate action-impacted securities addressed in this proposal at 8:00 a.m. ET would promote fair and orderly markets, protect investors, and serve the public interest by providing the Exchange and market participants sufficient time to process the relevant corporate actions correctly. The Exchange further believes that resuming trading in the affected securities through a Nasdaq Halt Cross at 8:00 a.m. ET, rather than at 9:30 a.m. ET through a Nasdaq Opening Cross, would provide a more focused reopening window and a better opportunity to identify and address potential order-entry or processing issues before the broader market opening, when thousands of other securities are undergoing their opening process.
The Exchange's proposal to make conforming changes to its existing reverse stock split regulatory halt structure to harmonize the halt time and reopening time with the times proposed in this filing is reasonable and would promote transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants. As described above, the current practice of implementing a mandatory regulatory halt for a security undergoing a reverse stock split at 7:50 p.m. ET has been feasible in the reverse stock split context, but this proposal would extend the mandatory regulatory
The Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the Exchange's existing issuer notification, market notice, and public dissemination mechanisms generally provide market participants with advance awareness of the types of corporate actions addressed herein, thereby supporting the orderly implementation of the proposed halt process and helping to protect investors and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes its proposal to move the reopening time for a symbol after a reverse stock split regulatory halt to 8:00 a.m. ET from 9:00 a.m. ET would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by creating uniformity in the reopening times for securities after a corporate action regulatory halt. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed duration of the regulatory halt is appropriate to permit full processing of the proposed corporate actions and resuming trading in the security at an earlier time, as proposed, would provide the security with opportunities for enhancing price discovery and liquidity before participating in the Nasdaq Opening Cross at 9:30 a.m. ET.
The Exchange notes that these timing harmonization changes are purely conforming and that, by aligning the reverse stock split provisions with the corporate action-related halts described in this filing, the proposal promotes a consistent and harmonized rule structure, enhances transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants, and reduces the potential for confusion.
Overall, establishing mandatory trading halts for securities that are subject to the corporate actions addressed in this filing and resuming trading thereafter promotes fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors, because it allows the Exchange to protect the broader interests of the national market system and addresses potential concerns that system errors may affect immediate trading in those securities. The Exchange believes that with the advent of 23/5 Trading, the proposed rules will help the Exchange reduce the potential for errors that could have a material effect on the market as a result of the challenge of processing such corporate actions with only a one-hour non-trading window between trading days. As discussed above, in a 23/5 Trading environment, the Exchange will no longer have an overnight trading pause during which it can process corporate actions of the type addressed in this proposal. By extending the existing reverse stock split regulatory halt framework to those categories of corporate actions, the proposal is designed to preserve the safeguards currently afforded by that overnight pause.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by mitigating operational and market integrity risks that would otherwise arise in a nearly continuous trading environment. By helping to ensure that trading resumes only after corporate action processing has been completed in an orderly and coordinated manner, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest, consistent with Sections 6(b) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and facilitate a fair and orderly market, which are both important purposes of the Act. To the extent that there is any impact on intermarket competition, it is incidental to these objectives.
Rather, the proposed changes will promote competition by ensuring that trading in corporate action-affected securities resumes only when the Exchange has processed corporate actions in a coordinated manner across Exchange and market participants' systems, consistent with its obligations as a primary listing market, thereby avoiding concurrent trading and potential confusion with respect to the affected securities while such corporate action processing is underway. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition because it applies equally to all issuers and market participants. The proposal builds on an established, uniform, and transparent framework governing the timing of trading halts and resumptions in trading in connection with certain corporate actions and is designed to address operational and market-integrity concerns, rather than competitive considerations. In substance, the proposal preserves an operational safeguard implicit in the current market structure and adapts that safeguard to a nearly continuous trading environment by extending the well-established reverse stock split framework to analogous corporate actions. By helping to ensure that trading resumes only after systems and reference data have been updated in a coordinated manner, the proposal promotes fair and orderly markets and enhances, rather than burdens, competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to all market participants and issuers equally. In addition, information regarding the halting and resumption of trading will be disseminated using several freely accessible sources to ensure the widespread availability of that information.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its fee schedule to clarify that the free trial period for One-Minute Interval Intraday Open-Close Historical Data and the free trial period for Ten-Minute Interval Intraday Open-Close Historical Data are separate and independent trials. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to clarify that the free trial period for One-Minute Interval Intraday Open-Close Historical Data (“One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data”) and the free trial period for Ten-Minute Interval Intraday Open-Close Historical Data (“Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data”) are separate and independent trials. This is a clarifying amendment and does not constitute a substantive change to the Exchange's fee schedule.
By way of background, the Exchange currently offers End-of-Day (“EOD”) and Intraday Open-Close Data (collectively, “Open-Close Data”). EOD Open-Close Data is an end-of-day volume summary of trading activity on the Exchange at the option level by origin (customer, professional customer, broker-dealer, and market maker), side of the market (buy or sell), price, and transaction type (opening or closing). The customer and professional customer volume is further broken down into trade size buckets (less than 100 contracts, 100-199 contracts, greater than 199 contracts). The EOD Open-Close Data is proprietary Exchange trade data and does not include trade data from any other exchange. It is also a historical data product and not a real-time data feed.
The Exchange also offers Intraday Open-Close Data in two different intervals: the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data (which captures options transaction data in snapshots taken every 10 minutes during the trading day) and the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data (which captures options transaction data in snapshots taken every 1 minute during the trading day).
The Exchange currently offers a free trial for up to six months of Intraday Open-Close Historical Data to both Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) and non-TPHs who have not previously subscribed to Intraday Open-Close Historical Data or previously received a free trial. However, the current fee schedule language could be read to suggest that the free trial for the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data and the free trial for the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data run concurrently or constitute a single combined trial for all Intraday Open-Close Data products. That is not the Exchange's intent. The Exchange has always intended that each product's free trial period runs independently of the other—
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to replace the current free trial language with clarifying, product-specific free trial language for each of the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data and the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data. Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following:
• For the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data: “A free trial is available for up to 6 months of Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Historical Data to both TPHs and non-TPHs who have not previously subscribed to Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Historical Data or previously received a free trial.”
• For the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data: “A free trial is available for up to 6 months of One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Historical Data to both TPHs and non-TPHs who have not previously subscribed to One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Historical Data or previously received a free trial.”
The Exchange notes that its affiliated options exchanges, such as Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe EDGX”), already use this product-specific free trial language in its fee schedule to make clear that the trials for the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data and the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data are separate and independent.
The Exchange emphasizes that this is solely a clarifying change. It does not introduce any new fees, alter any existing fees, or change the economic terms of the free trial in any respect. The duration of each free trial (up to six months) remains the same. The eligibility criteria remain the same. The only change is to make explicit in the fee schedule language what has always been the Exchange's practice: that the free trial for the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data and the free trial for the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data are separate and independent of each other.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed clarifying change promotes transparency and removes ambiguity from the fee schedule by making explicit that the free trials for the Ten-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data and the One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data are separate and independent. This ensures that subscribers and potential subscribers can clearly understand their eligibility for each free trial. The Exchange believes this clarity promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that market participants are fully informed regarding the terms of the Exchange's data products.
The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is merely a clarifying amendment that does not alter the economic terms of any data product or introduce any new fees. It does not change the competitive landscape for market data products. The clarification ensures that the fee schedule accurately reflects the Exchange's existing practice regarding the independence of the free trials for the Ten-Minute and One-Minute Intraday Open-Close Data products, which is consistent with the approach already taken by its affiliated options exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”), closed-end management investment companies, and open-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Dawson Private Markets Evergreen Fund, Dawson Partners (US) Inc., Dawson Partners Inc., and certain of their affiliated entities, as described in Schedule A to the application.
The application was filed on January 14, 2026, and amended on May 22, 2026.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' amended application, filed May 22, 2026, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.
The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18-E (“Halts”) to set forth specific requirements for halting and resuming trading in a security that is subject to certain corporate actions. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend Rule 7.18-E (“Halts”) to set forth specific requirements for halting and resuming trading in a security that is subject to certain corporate actions.
In conjunction with plans for operating 23 hours a day, 5 days a week (“23/5 Trading”),
The Exchange understands that the other Primary Listing Exchanges plan to implement substantially identical versions of this rule to ensure consistent treatment of corporate actions across the market.
In 2024, the Commission noticed for immediate effectiveness the Exchange's filing establishing the Exchange's authority to declare a mandatory regulatory halt in a security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market when that security is subject to a reverse stock split.
With the launch of 23/5 Trading later this year, the concerns that led the Exchange to adopt a regulatory halt framework for reverse stock splits will likewise arise with respect to a broader set of corporate actions. Under the current market structure, the Exchange processes these corporate action-related changes and updates for listed securities during overnight hours, when the Exchange is closed to trading. Other market participants, including broker-dealers, likewise use that overnight period to process corporate action-related information and adjust quotes, orders, and related instructions accordingly.
Under 23/5 Trading, however, the Exchange's non-trading window will be reduced to a one-hour pause.
To address these concerns, the Exchange proposes to build on the framework established under Rule 7.18-E for reverse stock splits by extending that rule's mandatory regulatory halt requirement to additional corporate actions that, much like reverse stock splits, require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to permit coordinated processing. As proposed, under 23/5 Trading, if a security is affected by any of the corporate actions enumerated in the proposal, the Exchange would implement a mandatory regulatory halt
Implicit in Rule 7.18-E is the recognition that certain corporate actions—such as reverse stock splits—require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to permit their coordinated processing and thereby avoid the risks associated with concurrent trading in the affected security while that processing is underway. The same principle applies to the categories of corporate actions addressed in this proposal, particularly in the context of nearly continuous trading.
In the context of 23/5 Trading, the Exchange has determined—based on discussions both internal and with industry participants, including the other Primary Listing Markets—that, similar to reverse stock splits, certain other corporate actions require a clearly defined and transparent pause in trading to facilitate their coordinated processing by the Exchange and other market participants before orderly trading may resume in the affected security.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the following issuer-related corporate actions are analogous to reverse stock splits with respect to processing requirements and thus warrant analogous treatment with respect to their categorization and regulatory response: (1) changes in trading symbol, (2) changes in CUSIP number, (3) stock dividends equal to at least 25% of the Official Closing Price;
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18-E
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18-E(e) to extend the current reverse stock split regulatory halt framework to the categories of other corporate actions discussed above that, in addition to reverse stock splits, would be subject to the mandatory regulatory requirements of that rule. The Exchange accordingly proposes to delete the current text of Rule 7.18-E(e) and replace it with revised text stating:
Corporate Action Halt. The Exchange will halt trading of a security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market that is the subject of an issuer corporate action or other issuer-related
The Exchange proposes to further amend Rule 7.18-E(e) to enumerate the nine categories of corporate actions discussed above that would be subject to a mandatory regulatory halt under that provision. As proposed, the nine categories of enumerated corporate actions subject to a mandatory regulatory halt would consist of the following corporate actions: (1) trading symbol changes;
Specifically, proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)(9) would require the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt for any other corporate action or issuer-related event not enumerated in (1)-(8) above for which the Exchange determines, based on the totality of the circumstances and any information available to it, including without limitation information obtained from the issuer, that a regulatory halt is necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, or otherwise in the public interest.
This residual provision is designed to capture issuer-related corporate actions that, while not enumerated in Rule 7.18-E(e)(1)-(8), raise operational or market-integrity concerns comparable to those actions. Once the Exchange determines that such a corporate action warrants a Regulatory Halt based on its application of the standards in Rule 7.18-E(e)(9), implementation of the regulatory halt would be required.
The Exchange proposes that under 23/5 Trading, the mandatory regulatory halts described above in proposed Rule 7.18-E(e) would be implemented after the conclusion of the Late Trading Session and before the start of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m. ET. This timing differs from the Exchange's current process for reverse stock split regulatory halts, pursuant to which the Exchange implements the mandatory regulatory halt at 7:50 p.m. ET, before the end of the Late Trading Session, on the day immediately before the reverse split becomes effective. That approach has been feasible in the reverse stock split context, but this proposal would extend the mandatory regulatory halt framework beyond reverse stock splits to a broader set of corporate actions that, although differing in form, share the need for coordinated systems and reference-data updates before trading may resume in an orderly manner. Because some of those actions may involve entirely new symbols or CUSIPs that would not yet exist at 7:50 p.m. ET on the prior trading day, the Exchange does not believe that the current reverse stock split timing can practicably be applied across the full set of covered corporate actions. The Exchange therefore believes it is reasonable, in the context of 23/5 Trading, to adopt a single, uniform implementation time for all halts under proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)—after the Late Trading Session and before the Overnight Trading Session begins at 9:00 p.m. ET—which would facilitate consistent treatment of covered corporate actions and enable the halts to be implemented through an automated process.
The Exchange proposes that under 23/5 Trading, trading in a security halted pursuant to proposed Rule 7.18-E(e) would resume at 8:00 a.m. ET with a Trading Halt Auction, in advance of the Core Open Auction at 9:30 a.m. ET.
In supporting its reverse stock split-related proposal, the Exchange explained that re-opening the security at 9:00 a.m. ET, “which is after the start of early trading on away markets and the Exchange but before the opening of the Exchange's Core Trading Session at 9:30 a.m., would promote fair and orderly trading, protect investors, and promote the public interest by allowing market participants and the Exchange a better opportunity to notice errors or problems with orders for the security because it would be opening for trading at a unique time, and not at a time when thousands of other securities open for trading.”
Since the reverse stock split regulatory halt was introduced in 2023, the Exchange has determined that it would be preferable to re-open from a reverse stock split halt at 8:00 a.m. ET instead of 9:00 a.m. ET. That alteration would provide for an additional hour of liquidity formation and price discovery before the 9:30 a.m. ET Core Opening Auction, while still being consistent with the rationales cited above for re-opening trading at a “unique” time. Specifically, the Exchange believes that resuming trading in the affected securities at 8:00 a.m. ET is appropriate because the proposed pause in trading provides a sufficient and transparent interval for the Exchange and market participants to complete the processing of such corporate actions and the earlier resumption of trading would provide the affected securities with additional price discovery and liquidity formation opportunities before participating in the Core Opening Auction at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Consistent with that rationale, the Exchange proposes that the securities subject to the mandatory regulatory halts addressed in this filing, including reverse stock splits, would re-open at 8:00 a.m. ET.
In sum, the corporate actions addressed in this proposal raise operational and market integrity concerns in a 23/5 Trading environment that mirror the concerns addressed by the Commission in approving the Exchange's Reverse Stock Split Proposal. Under 23/5 Trading, the Exchange will no longer have a substantial non-trading window during which it and other market participants can process these corporate actions before trading resumes. With only one hour between trading days, neither the Exchange nor other market participants would have sufficient time to process and incorporate corporate action-related information, resulting in a risk of price dislocations, investor confusion, erroneous executions, and broader operational issues. The Exchange believes that extending its reverse stock split regulatory framework to the additional corporate actions described herein would appropriately preserve, in a 23/5 Trading environment, the safeguard implicit in the current market structure—specifically, the overnight pause in trading that allows for coordinated processing and related systems and reference-data updates. Accordingly, the proposal would promote fair and orderly trading, mitigate operational risk, and help ensure that trading resumes only after those updates have been completed.
The Exchange understands that the other Primary Listing Exchanges plan to implement substantially identical versions of this rule to ensure consistent treatment of corporate actions across the market. The Exchange proposes that the changes in this proposal and in the other Primary Listing Exchanges' similar filings would become operative at the commencement of 23/5 Trading.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that extending the reverse stock split regulatory halt framework to the additional, analogous corporate actions addressed in this proposal would promote free and open trade, protect investors, and serve the public interest by helping to ensure fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the proposal would preserve and apply an established, transparent framework for pausing and resuming trading in securities subject to reverse stock splits to certain corporate actions with analogous processing requirements, so that trading in an affected security does not occur before the corporate action has been processed and the related systems and reference-data updates have been completed and applied across the market.
With respect to the specific categories of corporate actions addressed in this proposal, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to extend
Under the current market structure, an overnight pause in trading has historically provided a defined non-trading window during which the Exchange and other market participants have sufficient time to process such corporate actions in an orderly and coordinated manner prior to the resumption of trading. But in the 23/5 Trading environment, with only one hour of non-trading time between trading days, there is a substantial chance that trading in an impacted security could occur based on incomplete, inconsistent, or partially updated information, giving rise to pricing anomalies, investor confusion, erroneous executions, and heightened operational risk. The Exchange believes the proposed approach promotes fair and orderly markets by helping to ensure that trading resumes only once systems and reference data concerning these corporate actions have been fully and consistently updated across the marketplace.
With respect to the mandatory regulatory halts specifically enumerated in proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)(1)-(8), if the corporate action falls within the categories enumerated in the rule, the Exchange will not have discretion about whether to declare a trading halt in the affected security.
In addition, proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)(9) is intended to operate as a residual provision covering issuer-related corporate actions not enumerated in Rule 7.18-E(e)(1)-(8) that nonetheless raise operational or market-integrity concerns comparable to those presented by the enumerated actions. Under that provision, when the Exchange determines, based on the totality of the circumstances and the information available to it, including information obtained from the issuer, that it is necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, or otherwise in the public interest, it would be required to declare a regulatory halt in that security. Once the Exchange makes that determination, the regulatory halt would be mandatory, thereby avoiding ad hoc treatment once the applicable standard has been met. In that respect, proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)(9) serves as a narrow residual mechanism designed to promote consistent regulatory treatment across comparable corporate actions and to preserve transparency and uniformity in the application of proposed Rule 7.18-E(e) in a 23/5 Trading environment by requiring the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt in such cases. The Exchange therefore believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to extend its authority to declare a regulatory halt in this instance.
In all cases under proposed Rule 7.18-E(e), a mandatory regulatory halt in the affected security would be implemented after the conclusion of the Late Trading Session and before the start of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m. ET on the date immediately preceding the market-effective date of the corporate action.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and appropriate to use a Trading Halt Auction under Rule 7.35-E to re-open trading in a security that is subject to a regulatory halt pursuant to this proposal because it is consistent with the process that the Exchange currently uses to re-open a security after a reverse stock split regulatory halt, and the operational complexity and processing demands associated with such corporate actions are comparable to those involved regarding reverse stock splits. Furthermore, using a Trading Halt Auction to re-open trading after the regulatory halts addressed in this proposal is consistent with the process that is typically used by the Exchange when re-opening a security that has been halted under Rule 7.18-E. Applying a uniform, previously approved framework enhances transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants.
The Exchange believes that resuming trading in the corporate action-impacted securities addressed in this proposal at 8:00 a.m. ET would promote fair and orderly markets, protect investors, and serve the public interest by providing the Exchange and market participants sufficient time to process the relevant corporate actions correctly. The Exchange further believes that resuming trading in the affected securities through a Trading Halt Auction at 8:00 a.m. ET, rather than at 9:30 a.m. ET through a Core Open Auction, would provide a more focused re-opening window and a better opportunity to identify and address potential order-entry or processing issues before the broader market opening, when thousands of other securities are undergoing their opening process.
The Exchange's proposal to make conforming changes to its existing reverse stock split regulatory halt structure to harmonize the halt time and re-opening time with the times proposed in this filing is reasonable and would promote transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants. As described above, the current practice of implementing a mandatory regulatory halt for a security undergoing a reverse stock split at 7:50 p.m. ET has been feasible in the reverse stock split context, but this proposal would extend the mandatory regulatory halt framework beyond reverse stock splits to a broader set of corporate actions that, although differing in form, share the need for coordinated systems and reference-data updates before trading may resume in an orderly manner. Because some of those actions may involve entirely new symbols or CUSIPs that would not yet exist at 7:50 p.m. ET on the prior trading day, the Exchange does not believe that the current reverse stock split timing can practicably be applied across the full set of covered corporate actions. The Exchange therefore believes it is reasonable, in the context of 23/5 Trading, to adopt a single, uniform implementation time for all halts under proposed Rule 7.18-E(e)—after the Late Trading Session and before the Overnight Trading Session begins at 9:00 p.m. ET—which would facilitate consistent treatment of comparable corporate actions, enhance transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants, and support the orderly and automated implementation of such halts. The Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the Exchange's existing issuer notification, market notice, and public dissemination mechanisms generally provide market participants with advance awareness of the types of corporate actions addressed herein, thereby supporting the orderly implementation of the proposed halt process and helping to protect investors and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes its proposal to move the re-opening time for a symbol after a reverse stock split regulatory halt to 8:00 a.m. ET from 9:00 a.m. ET would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by creating uniformity in the re-opening times for securities after a corporate action regulatory halt. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed duration of the regulatory halt is appropriate to permit full processing of the proposed
The Exchange notes that these timing harmonization changes are purely conforming and that, by aligning the reverse stock split provisions with the corporate action-related halts described in this filing, the proposal promotes a consistent and harmonized rule structure, enhances transparency and predictability for issuers, investors, and market participants, and reduces the potential for confusion.
Overall, establishing mandatory trading halts for securities that are subject to the corporate actions addressed in this filing and resuming trading thereafter promotes fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors, because it allows the Exchange to protect the broader interests of the national market system and addresses potential concerns that system errors may affect immediate trading in those securities. The Exchange believes that with the advent of 23/5 Trading, the proposed rules will help the Exchange reduce the potential for errors resulting in a material effect on the market resulting from the challenge of processing such corporate actions with only a one-hour non-trading window between trading days. As discussed above, in a 23/5 Trading environment, the Exchange will no longer have an overnight trading pause during which it can process corporate actions of the type addressed in this proposal. By extending the existing reverse stock split regulatory halt framework to those categories of corporate actions, the proposal is designed to preserve the safeguards currently afforded by that overnight pause.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by mitigating operational and market integrity risks that would otherwise arise in a nearly continuous trading environment. By helping to ensure that trading resumes only after corporate action processing has been completed in an orderly and coordinated manner, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest, consistent with Sections 6(b) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and facilitate a fair and orderly market, which are both important purposes of the Act. To the extent that there is any impact on intermarket competition, it is incidental to these objectives.
Rather, the proposed changes will promote competition by ensuring that trading in corporate action-affected securities resumes only when the Exchange has processed corporate actions in a coordinated manner across Exchange and market participants' systems, consistent with its obligations as a primary listing market, thereby avoiding concurrent trading and potential confusion with respect to the affected securities while such corporate action processing is underway. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition because it applies equally to all issuers and market participants. The proposal builds on an established, uniform, and transparent framework governing the timing of trading halts and resumptions in trading in connection with certain corporate actions and is designed to address operational and market-integrity concerns, rather than competitive considerations. In substance, the proposal preserves an operational safeguard implicit in the current market structure and adapts that safeguard to a nearly continuous trading environment by extending the well-established reverse stock split framework to analogous corporate actions. By helping to ensure that trading resumes only after systems and reference data have been updated in a coordinated manner, the proposal promotes fair and orderly markets and enhances, rather than burdens, competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to all market participants and issuers equally. In addition, information regarding the halting and resumption of trading will be disseminated using several freely accessible sources to ensure the widespread availability of that information.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 30b1-10 [17 CFR 270.30b1-10] and Form N-RN [17 CFR 274.223] require registered open-end management investment companies (not including entities regulated as money market funds under 17 CFR 270.2a-7), registered closed-end funds, and business development companies (collectively, “funds”), to file a current report on Form N-RN on a non-public basis when certain events related to their liquidity and events regarding funds' compliance with the VaR-based limit on fund leverage risk in 17 CFR 270.18f-4 (“rule 18f-4”) occur. The first category of information reported on Form N-RN concerns events under which more than 15% of an open-end fund's net assets are, or become, illiquid investments that are assets as defined in 17 CFR 270.22e-4 (“rule 22e-4”) and when holdings in illiquid investments are assets that previously exceeded 15% of a fund's net assets have changed to be less than or equal to 15% of the fund's net assets. The second category of information reported on Form N-RN regards events for certain open-end funds under which a fund's holdings in assets that are highly liquid investments fall below the fund's highly liquid investment minimum defined in rule 22e-4 for more than 7 consecutive calendar days. The third category of information reported on Form N-RN regards information about a fund's breaches of the VaR test under rule 18f-4. A report on Form N-RN is required to be filed, as applicable, within one business day of the occurrence of one or more of these events. In addition, a fund is in certain cases required to file a second Form N-RN when it is no longer in breach of the applicable limit.
Based on historical filing data and projected estimates of the annual number of VAR-based filings, the staff estimates that the SEC will receive roughly 31 reports per year on Form N-RN on average.
Compliance with rule 30b1-10 is mandatory for all funds. Responses to the disclosure requirements will be kept confidential. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the PRA. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to enable the SEC to receive information on fund liquidity events more uniformly and efficiently, and to enhance the SEC's oversight of funds when significant liquidity events occur and its ability to respond to market events.
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.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest orders (defined below).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest
At this time, the Exchange proposes to shorten the quarterly review and designation to a monthly review. The Exchange proposes to add a new Interpretation and Policy under the current definition for “Professional Interest” in Exchange Rule 100 to provide that orders for the account of a person or entity that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during any calendar month must be represented as Professional Interest for the next calendar month. Further, the Exchange proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 will provide that Members will be required to conduct a monthly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar month.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant
The Exchange believes that a calendar month is a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. The Exchange believes that the shortened time period will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest is met in that Members will make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders in a 30-day timeframe as opposed to a 90-day timeframe, thereby ensuring the designation is applied in a more expeditious manner.
The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriate and objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges proposed similar changes as described herein.
The Exchange proposes implementing this rule change on July 1, 2026. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular to provide notice to Members of the effective date of the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to shorten the quarterly look-back to a monthly look-back is consistent with the Act because it will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest continues to be met, only on a more expedited basis—removing a potential delay of two months before affecting a change in the designation. The Exchange believes that this amendment will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting the consistent application of its rules and shortening the timeframe to change the designation for all Members while continuing to provide a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. Further, the Exchange believes that the shortened time period will continue to promote consistency in the treatment of orders as Professional Interest while also preventing members with high volume from receiving benefits reserved for Priority Customer Orders.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate orders for a customer that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month as Professional Interest orders on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations. The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest orders based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriately objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. Priority is one of the marketplace advantages provided to Priority Customer Orders on the Exchange. Priority Customer Orders are given execution priority over non-Priority Customer Orders and quotations of Market Makers at the same price.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition because, today, Members are required to monitor their customers' activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate an order that is for the account of a person or entity that has placed more than 390 orders per day on average during a month as Professional Interest on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations.
Further, the designation of Professional Interest orders would not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of compliance with the Exchange's Rules. Priority Customers have been granted certain priority over other non-broker-dealer individuals and entities that have access to information and technology that enables them to professionally trade listed options in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities. Further, the Priority Customer designation allows the Exchange to attract order flow or create more competitive markets.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition because other exchanges are expected to adopt similar rules.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest orders (defined below).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the quarterly review of Professional Interest
At this time, the Exchange proposes to shorten the quarterly review and designation to a monthly review. The Exchange proposes to add a new Interpretation and Policy under the current definition for “Professional Interest” in Exchange Rule 100 to provide that orders for the account of a person or entity that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during any calendar month must be represented as Professional Interest for the next calendar month. Further, the Exchange proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 will provide that Members will be required to conduct a monthly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders within five days after the end of each calendar month.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is
The Exchange believes that a calendar month is a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. The Exchange believes that the shortened time period will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest is met in that Members will make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders in a 30-day timeframe as opposed to a 90-day timeframe, thereby ensuring the designation is applied in a more expeditious manner.
The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriate and objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges proposed similar changes as described herein.
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on July 1, 2026. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular to provide notice to Members of the effective date of the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to shorten the quarterly look-back to a monthly look-back is consistent with the Act because it will ensure that the spirit of the designation of Professional Interest continues to be met, only on a more expedited basis—removing a potential delay of two months before affecting a change in the designation. The Exchange believes that this amendment will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting the consistent application of its rules and shortening the timeframe to change the designation for all Members while continuing to provide a sufficient time period to determine whether the activity of a customer meets the criteria for Professional Interest. Further, the Exchange believes that the shortened time period will continue to promote consistency in the treatment of orders as Professional Interest while also preventing members with high volume from receiving benefits reserved for Priority Customer Orders.
As noted, currently, Members are required to monitor their customer activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has executed more than 390 orders per day during a month requires computing a daily average. As such, Members should be performing the workflow necessary to designate orders on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposal does not amend the current workflow, rather, the proposal amends the timeframe to change the manner in which the customer's order is being represented from five days after the end of each calendar quarter to five days after the end of each calendar month.
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate orders for a customer that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month as Professional Interest orders on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations. The Exchange continues to believe that identifying Professional Interest orders based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriately objective approach to reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. In general, a couple marketplace advantages afforded to Priority Customer Orders on the Exchange is that Members are typically not assessed transaction fees or are assessed lower fees for the execution of Priority Customer Orders or are provided higher rebates compared to orders from other market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition because, today, Members are required to monitor their customers' activity to determine if the customer has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a month. Determining whether a customer has
The Exchange does not believe that this amendment is a significant departure from the current rule, nor does it impose any burden on any Member because each broker-dealer is required currently to perform the necessary calculation daily to arrive at the requisite average. Further, in addition to the calculation, broker-dealers are subject to know-your-customer and suitability requirements under FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) and would need to consider whether a customer meets the professional designation for purposes of determining best execution and making appropriate recommendations. Finally, some Members currently designate an order that is for the account of a person or entity that has placed more than 390 orders per day on average during a month as Professional Interest on a more expedited basis, not waiting until five days after the quarter. The Exchange notes that the trading behavior of a Priority Customer can be distinguished from that of a professional trader which is the purpose of the separate designations.
Further, the designation of Professional Interest orders would not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of compliance with the Exchange's Rules. Priority Customers have been granted certain marketplace advantages over other non-broker-dealer individuals and entities that have access to information and technology that enables them to professionally trade listed options in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities. Further, the Priority Customer designation allows the Exchange to attract order flow or create more competitive markets.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition because other exchanges are expected to adopt similar rules.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 15F (17 CFR 249.324) is filed by a foreign private issuer when terminating or suspending its Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) reporting obligations. Form 15F requires a foreign private issuer to disclose information that helps investors understand the foreign private issuer's decision to terminate or suspend its Exchange Act reporting obligations and assists the Commission staff in determining whether the issuer is eligible to terminate or suspend its Exchange Act reporting obligations. The information required by Form 15F is mandatory, and Form 15F is publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Form 15F takes approximately 30 hours to prepare and is filed once per year by approximately 23 foreign private issuers, for a total of approximately 23 responses annually. We estimate that 25% of the 30 hours per response (7.5 hours per response) is carried internally by the issuer for a total annual reporting burden of 173 hours (7.5 hours per response × 23 responses). We estimate that 75% of the 30 hours per response (22.5 hours per response) is carried externally by outside professionals retained by the issuer at an estimated rate of $600 per hour for a total annual cost burden of $310,500 ($600 per hour × 22.5 hours per response × 23 responses annually).
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.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify its Client Volume Incentive Program within its credit default swap (“CDS”) client fee schedule (the “client fee schedule”) for the CDS Clearing Service. These revisions do not require any changes to the CDS Clearing Participant fee schedule
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes to modify its Client Volume Incentive Program within ICC's client fee schedule. ICC maintains a client fee schedule
Currently, clearing fees applicable to clients of Clearing Participants are charged in accordance with the product, amount and currency set out in the client fee schedule and subject to any incentive programs or fee discounts described in the client fee schedule. In particular, the Client Volume Incentive Program in the client fee schedule applies automatically to all clients of Clearing Participants, without further action by clients or Clearing Participants, and provides a tiered discount schedule based on client fees billed during the calendar year. Specifically, for any client with annual billed fees across all ICC CDS instrument categories (
The proposed changes to the Client Volume Incentive Program are designed to increase the discount level by amending the discount schedule and introducing a 100% discount on billed annual fees greater than $6.94 million USD equivalent. Specifically, for any client with annual billed fees across all ICC CDS instrument categories (
ICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act
ICC believes that the proposed updated discount levels in the client fee schedule have been set at an appropriate level. In determining the appropriate discount level and program structure, ICC took into account factors such as client clearing volume, related revenue, costs and expenses, and the goal of increasing market participation in the clearing service, including the expected impacts of different fee levels. In ICC's view, its client fees, after taking into account the updated discount under the incentive program, will be reasonable and appropriate for its business as the discounts take into account anticipated volumes, costs and expenses, and revenues under each contract type, and they consider current and past market activity as well as anticipated market activity with respect to clearing CDS contracts at ICC. The Client Volume Incentive Program continues to be designed to encourage the clearing of contracts at ICC by clients while properly compensating ICC for the risks, costs and expenses of clearing CDS contracts.
Moreover, the updated discount will be available to all clients clearing contracts at ICC, based on their clearing activity. The Client Volume Incentive Program under the amended client fee schedule automatically, and without further action by clients or Clearing Participants, applies to all clients. ICC's fee schedules, including the proposed changes to the incentive program, will continue to be transparent and to apply equally to market participants clearing indexes, single names, and index option CDS contracts at ICC. Therefore, the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among participants, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed changes to ICC's client fee schedule modify the Client Volume Incentive Program for clearing all categories of CDS contracts at ICC and which continues to be available to all clients based on their clearing activity. The implementation of such changes does not preclude other market participants from offering similar incentive programs. Moreover, ICC does not believe that the amendments would adversely affect the cost of clearing for clients, the ability of market participants to access clearing services, or the market for cleared services generally. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the amendments impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2026-007 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves extracting flight data such as aircraft, routing speed, etc. from domestic and international flights. FAA Form 7233-1 (Domestic) and FAA Form 7233-4 (International), Flight Plan: Both forms are used to collect Domestic flight plan information and used to govern the flight of aircraft for the protection and identification of aircraft and property and persons on the ground. The information is used by air traffic controllers, search and rescue (SAR) personnel, flight standards inspectors, accident investigators, military, law enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Written comments should be submitted by September 11, 2026.
Please send written comments:
Nathan Dekker by email at:
This collection of information supports the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in addition to the normal flight plan purposes. The forms outline an aircraft's intended departure location, route, destination and flight duration to air traffic control for flight capabilities, and search and rescue.
Almost 100 percent of flight plans are filed electronically. However, as a courtesy to the aviation public, flight plans may be submitted in paper form. Flight plans may be filed in the following ways:
• Some air carrier and air taxi operations, and certain corporate aviation departments, have been granted authority to electronically file flight plans directly with the FAA. The majority of air carrier and air taxi flights are processed in this manner.
• Air carrier and air taxi operators may submit prestored flight plan information on scheduled flights to Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC)
• Pilots may call 1-800-WX-BRIEF (992-7433) or 1-833-AK-BRIEF (252-7433) file flight plans with a flight service station specialist who enters the information directly into a computer system that transmits the information to the appropriate air traffic facility. Pilots calling certain flight service stations have the option of using a voice recorder to store the information that will later be entered into a computer system by a specialist.
• Using internet access, pilots may file flight plans electronically through web applications provided by flight service, at no cost to the users. Third-party subscription-based vendors are also available for direct electronic filing. The vendors allow pilots to store flight data so that minimal additional information is required when filing a flight plan.
• Private and corporate pilots who fly the same aircraft and routes at regular times may store flight plans with flight service stations. The flight plans will then be transmitted automatically into the air traffic system at the appropriate time.
• Pilots who visit a flight service station in person may choose to file a flight plan by using a paper form. The data will then be entered into a computer and filed electronically. The pilot will often keep the paper copy for his/her record.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT or Department).
Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.
PHMSA issues this advisory bulletin to remind owners and operators of gas distribution systems of the distribution integrity management program (DIMP) requirements under 49 CFR part 192, subpart P. The guidance is intended to improve implementation of DIMP risk evaluations by addressing factors such as high-risk infrastructure, interactive threats, and leak management effectiveness. In addition, the guidance urges pipeline operators to adopt the most appropriate risk models for use within their integrity management programs, with full consideration of probabilistic risk models.
Nancy White by phone at 202-923-8268 or by email at
To address National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations P-21-2 and P-26-2, PHMSA is reminding owners and operators of gas distribution systems of existing DIMP risk evaluation requirements under 49 CFR part 192, subpart P. This guidance:
• Emphasizes ongoing efforts to advance pipeline safety risk management and risk evaluations, including foundational concepts developed by the PHMSA-organized Risk Modeling Work Group (RMWG) and its subsequent report, which provides an overview of models that may be universally applicable and used for improved DIMP implementation.
• Reinforces existing PHMSA safety initiatives, including the 2011
• Highlights recent updates to
• Urges pipeline operators to adopt the most appropriate risk models for use within their integrity management programs, with full consideration of probabilistic risk models.
Guidance and advisory bulletins are intended to provide clarity regarding an operator's existing legal obligations but are not themselves rules meant to bind the public in any way; they do not assign duties, create legally enforceable rights, or impose new obligations that are not otherwise contained in regulations. Accordingly, this guidance will not be relied upon by the Department as an independent basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the February 23 incident was:
[T]he ignition of an accumulation of natural gas that leaked from the gas main that was damaged during a sewer replacement project 23 years earlier and was undetected by Atmos Energy Corporation's investigation of two related natural gas incidents on the 2 days prior to the explosion. Contributing to the explosion was Atmos Energy Corporation's insufficient wet weather leak investigation procedures. Contributing to the severity of the explosion was Atmos Energy
NTSB found that rain inhibited the operator's ability to gather useful natural gas leak measurement data, inhibited venting, and increased the tendency of natural gas to migrate laterally where it could be stripped of odorant.
NTSB determined that “[l]eak surveys provide an indication of the leaks that may be present at the time they are performed but provide no information on leaks that may occur in the future.”
NTSB found that “[i]n addressing the likelihood of failure, age is generally recognized as a strong indicator of performance. However, gas distribution operators are not explicitly required to assess the age of their pipeline in the likelihood of failure evaluation,” even though “[t]rending failure rates by system age can reveal degrading performance.”
NTSB issued several safety recommendations as a result of its investigation into this incident. Safety Recommendation P-21-2 in particular advised PHMSA to “[e]valuate industry's implementation of the gas distribution pipeline integrity management requirements and develop updated guidance for improving their effectiveness. The evaluation should specifically consider factors that may increase the likelihood of failure such as age; increase the overall risk (including factors that simultaneously increase the likelihood and consequence of failure); and limit the effectiveness of leak management programs.”
Further underscoring the need for effective risk management through DIMP, on January 24, 2024, a home explosion and fire occurred in Jackson, Mississippi. The incident resulted in one fatality and one injury and destroyed the home. Three days later, on January 27, 2024, about 0.7 miles southeast of the first explosion, another home explosion and fire occurred and destroyed two homes.
NTSB's investigation revealed, in relevant part, that the operator's inadequate leak management program and its relative-risk model failed to classify incident locations as high-risk. These failures highlighted systemic inadequacies within the operator's distribution integrity management program.
NTSB determined the probable cause of the January 2024 incidents was the operator's:
Consequently, NTSB reiterated Safety Recommendation P-21-2 to PHMSA and issued a new recommendation, P-26-2, urging PHMSA to advise operators to adopt more robust probabilistic risk models where appropriate.
PHMSA has long concluded that “[t]he overriding principle in employing any type of risk model/assessment is that it supports risk management decisions to reduce risks.”
Pursuant to § 192.1007(f), operators must re-evaluate their DIMP as frequently as determined to be appropriate, not to exceed five years. PHMSA emphasizes that risk assessment is a dynamic process, and that owners and operators should update the risks and threats supporting their DIMP assessments as frequently as each calendar year when there is a change in knowledge or factors that alter the risk of failure.
Regardless of the risk model used, PHMSA reminds operators that identified threats may be interactive because factors impacting the likelihood and consequence of failure from one threat may be intensified by factors impacting the likelihood and consequence of failure from another threat. Interactive threats may result in an otherwise premature failure at a location on the pipeline.
PHMSA reminds operators that pursuant to § 192.1007, an operator must develop an understanding of its pipeline system based on reasonably available information. This would include identifying additional information needed to fill gaps caused by missing, inaccurate, or incomplete records and developing a plan to collect the information.
Operators can collect this information through their normal activities, including those that go beyond the activities specified in Part 192. For example, missing facility location, material, and condition data can be captured when a pipe is located or exposed. Maintenance personnel could be surveyed about unusual circumstances they have encountered or asked to review system descriptions to identify useful information that might not already be included.
In addition, PHMSA reminds operators that maintaining the effectiveness of a DIMP requires both record preservation and continual program updates. Under § 192.1011, operators must maintain records demonstrating compliance with DIMP requirements for at least 10 years.
PHMSA takes this opportunity to remind operators of the following agency actions:
2011 DOT “
July 2025
Advisory Bulletin ADB-2026-01, which reinforces the existing requirements of 49 CFR 192.1007(b) and (c) to identify threats and evaluate and rank risks, specifically highlighting how interactive threats can compound the likelihood and consequence of a failure.
PHMSA advises gas distribution pipeline operators to take the following actions to improve DIMP effectiveness:
Review NTSB's Pipeline Accident Report PAR-21/01 (Dallas, Texas, February 23, 2018) for information on risks of interactive threats, which may increase the likelihood and consequence of failure and factors that may limit the effectiveness of an operator's leak management program.
Review NTSB's Pipeline Investigation Report PIR 26/01 (Jackson, Mississippi, January 24, 2024) for information on the importance of understanding pipeline systems, risk modeling, and further discussion of leak management.
In conducting evaluations of DIMP as required by § 192.1007(f), PHMSA urges pipeline operators to adopt the most appropriate risk models for use within their distribution integrity management programs, including consideration of probabilistic risk models. PHMSA acknowledges that each risk model has its benefits.
Develop and implement a DIMP plan to evaluate and rank risks. Pursuant to §§ 192.1005 and 192.1007(c), operators must consider the likelihood and consequence of failure for all applicable threats. An effective risk evaluation should account for how interactive threats can simultaneously increase both the likelihood and consequences of an accident. Operators are also encouraged to account for time-dependent factors, such as the performance characteristics of legacy materials or pipeline age. In addition, operators should evaluate the potential for interactive threats, where multiple factors like weather conditions, soil type, and mechanical damage may interact to increase risk. An effective evaluation should be sufficiently detailed to identify where these interactive threats may exist and may require review and integration of historical construction, design, maintenance, operating, and leak records, and review of PHMSA's legacy DIMP guidance.
Review updates to ANSI/GPTC Z380.1, 2022 Edition, Addendum 2, Guide Material Appendix (GMA) G-192-8 (DIMP). This addendum provides updated guidance on fulfilling § 192.1007 requirements. Specifically, operators should review GMA G-192-8:
• Section 3.3 (Knowledge, Additional Information) and Section 4.1 (Identify Threats, Primary Threats), which provide information on accounting for time-dependent threats that may degrade pipeline assets over time.
• Section 4.4 (Identify Threats, Handling Interactive Threats), which provides information on identifying and ranking threats that interact and may increase overall risk, compounding the severity, likelihood, or consequence of a failure.
Review updates to ANSI/GPTC Z380.1, 2022 Edition, Addendum 4. This addendum provides guidance on enhancing the effectiveness of a leak management program (§ 192.1007(d)), addressing challenges such as environmental conditions that may affect emergency response and leak detection. Key sections are as follows:
• GM 192.615: Section 1.3 (Emergency Plans), which provides
• GM 192.723: Section 1.4 (Distribution Systems: Leakage Surveys), which provides guidance on conducting special one-time surveys, when gas migration or weather-related conditions may hinder leak detection.
• GM 192.803: Section 1.2 (Definitions), which provides examples of abnormal operating conditions.
• GMA G-192-11/G-192-11A: Section 5 (Gas Leakage Control Guidelines for Natural/Petroleum Gas Systems), which provides information on leak investigation and classification. Section 5.5 is a new section which provides specific guidance for the effective emergency response and leak investigation in non-typical soil conditions.
Determine and implement measures to reduce the risks associated with the failure of gas distribution pipeline assets as required by § 192.1007(d). These measures must include having an effective leak management program. PHMSA notes that data from DIMP risk models may help with determining whether the current leak management method is effective. In addition, gas distribution operators are encouraged to incorporate the updated ANSI/GPTC Z380.1 standard with considerations for non-typical soil conditions and special one-time leak surveys into their DIMP or incorporate other approaches to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 192, subpart P (
Conduct evaluations of DIMP. Section 192.1007(f) requires operators to re-evaluate their DIMP at an interval that considers the complexity of the system and the types of threats present, but not less than every five years. Operators should ensure their re-evaluation cycle is frequent enough to incorporate “new knowledge” gained from incidents, leak history, or changes in environmental conditions (including conditions discussed in this advisory). PHMSA notes through its DIMP Enforcement Guidance that “[t]he period for the evaluation of program effectiveness must be as frequent as needed to assure distribution system integrity . . .”
Maintain records, for a period of at least 10 years, demonstrating compliance with requirements of 49 CFR part 192, subpart P as required by § 192.1011. Such records may include documents supporting threat identification and risk analysis. Examples include records of identified interactive threats in the operator's system and records documenting measures implemented by the operator to reduce the risk to its pipeline system.
PHMSA notes that this advisory bulletin does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind owners, operators, or the public in any way. This guidance will not be relied upon by the Department as an independent basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 12, 2026.
The public is invited to submit comments regarding this information collection request, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted electronically at
Angela Hill by email at
Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1320.8(d), requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with the opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval. In accordance with this regulation, on January 14, 2026, PHMSA published the Pipeline Safety: Class Location Change Requirements final rule (91 FR 1608) with a 60-day comment period solicitation on its intent to request OMB's approval of the information collection request abstracted below.
During that 60-day comment period, PHMSA received a comment from the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) regarding the proposed information collection requests associated with the final rule.
PHMSA acknowledges PST's comment and agrees that TVC recordkeeping requirements are pre-existing regulatory obligations. Because these requirements are already codified in the PSR, PHMSA has revised the information collection request to remove the estimated burden for TVC recordkeeping for operators electing to use the IM alternative.
5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for, and requests comments on, the following information collection activity:
Gas transmission pipeline operators who experience a change in their class location and elect to use the IM alternative must amend applicable sections of their operation and maintenance (O&M) manual(s) to incorporate the program requirements. PHMSA estimates operators will need to update O&M manuals for approximately 137 affected pipeline miles. PHMSA estimates this action to take 80 hours per mile. Operators must maintain records of all actions implemented to meet the program requirements for the life of the pipeline.
(a) The need for the renewal of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before September 11, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Under the PRA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assigned a control number to each “collection of information” that it reviews and approves for use by an agency. A single information collection may consist of one or more forms, recordkeeping requirements, and/or third-party disclosure requirements. Under the PRA and OMB regulations, agencies have the discretion to seek separate OMB approvals for forms, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party reporting requirements or to combine any number of forms, recordkeeping requirements, and/or third-party disclosure requirements (usually related in subject matter) under one OMB Control Number. Agency decisions on whether to group individual requirements under a single OMB Control Number or to disaggregate them and request separate OMB Control Numbers are based largely on considerations of administrative practicality.
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the burden for each collection of information. Accordingly, each OMB Control Number has an associated burden estimate. The burden estimates
As described below under the heading “Updated Burden Estimate Methodology,” the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) currently accepted burden estimate methodology, referred to as the RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model, is based on taxpayers' tax reporting experience taking into account, among other things, the forms and schedules used by those taxpayers and the recordkeeping and other activities needed to complete those forms. The transition of the information return
Currently, there are 47 forms and 11 regulations used by information return issuers when complying with Federal tax laws. These include Forms 1098, 1099-B, 1099-DA, 1099-DIV, 1099-INT, 1099-MISC, 1099-NEC, 1099-R, 5498, W-9 and all related forms, schedules, and attachments. For most of these forms, IRS has in the past obtained separate OMB approval under unique OMB Control Numbers and separate burden estimates.
The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology estimates the aggregate burden imposed for information reporting, based upon the reporting-related characteristics and activities of the issuers. IRS therefore will seek OMB approval of all 47 information reporting tax forms and 11 regulations as a single “collection of information.” The aggregate burden of these tax forms will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1545-0108, which is currently assigned to Form 1096. OMB Control Number 1545-0108 will be displayed on all information returns and related information collections. As a result of this change, burden estimates for information returns will now be displayed differently in PRA Notices on tax forms and other information collections, and in
The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model for Information Returns revises the estimates of the levels of burden experienced by information return issuers when complying with their federal reporting requirements related to information return reporting. It replaces the legacy ADL model methodology developed in the mid-1980s. Since that time, improved technology and modeling sophistication have enabled the IRS to improve the burden estimates. The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology provides taxpayers and the IRS with a more comprehensive understanding of the current levels of taxpayer burden. It reflects major changes over the past two decades in the way taxpayers prepare and file their returns. The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology also represents a substantial step forward in the IRS's ability to assess likely impacts of administrative and legislation changes on information reporting.
The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology focuses on the characteristics and activities of information return issuers rather than solely focusing on the forms they file. Key determinates of taxpayer burden in the model are the type of forms issued, number of forms issued, and whether the issuer is newly issuing that form. Indicators of tax law and administrative complexity, as reflected in the tax forms and instructions, are incorporated into the model. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs. The legacy ADL model methodology primarily focused on the number of line items on each tax form. The changes between the old and new burden estimates are due to the improved ability of the RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model to measure burden and the expanded scope of what is measured. These changes create a one-time shift in the estimate of imposed burden. It is important to note that the difference between the legacy and revised estimates do not reflect any change in the actual burden imposed on taxpayers.
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
As has been done for individual taxpayer burden since 2005, business entity burden since 2014, tax-exempt organization burden since 2018, employer reporting burden since 2023, and trust and estate burden since 2024, both the time expended and the out-of-pocket costs for information return issuers are estimated. The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology relies on surveys that gather data about time spent and out-of-pocket costs incurred for pre-issuing and issuing activities for information return issuers. The methodology establishes econometric relationships between tax return characteristics and reported compliance costs. The methodology controls for the substitution of time and money by monetizing time and reporting total compliance costs in dollars. The RAAS Taxpayer Burden
The RAAS Taxpayer Burden Model methodology uses the following stratification for information return issuers:
Total Monetized Burden = Out-of-Pocket Costs + Monetized Time.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before September 11, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess its impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record and be viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Section 6048(b) requires that foreign trusts with at least one U.S. beneficiary must file an annual information return on Form 3520-A. The Form 3520-A burden accounted for in 1545-0159 is for trust and estate filers. The business filers are accounted for in 1545-0123 and individual filers will be included in 1545-0074.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of determination; unchanged, no 2026 inflation adjustment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing that it will make no change in regulation to adjust for inflation the amount of civil monetary penalties that are allowed within VA's authorities. This notice is in accordance with the requirement in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, to make annual adjustments to the penalties, based on the prior year's October Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and as interpreted and determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Memorandum M-26-11. Due to the Government shutdown, BLS was unable to produce October 2025 data. Based on the lack of October 2025 CPI-U data, needed to make adjustments under the 2015 Act, OMB determined that there is no updated cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2026. VA continues to use the 2025 civil monetary penalty levels.
Terry Rouch, Assistant Director, Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599-600), which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, sec. 5, 104 Stat. 890, 891-892), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The amended statute, codified in a note following 28 U.S.C. 2461, requires agencies to publish annual adjustments for inflation, based on the percentage change between the CPI-U (defined in the statute as the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, secs. 4(a) and (b) and 5(b)(1).
Under 38 U.S.C. 3710(g)(4)(B), VA is authorized to levy civil monetary penalties against private lenders that
Per the 2015 Act, the annual civil monetary penalties cost-of-living adjustment is based on BLS data from the month of October of the prior year. Due to the Government shutdown that occurred beginning October 2025, BLS was unable to produce the October 2025 data. Based on the lack of October 2025 CPI-U data, which is needed to make adjustments under the 2015 Act, there is no updated cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2026, and OMB has directed federal agencies to continue using the 2025 civil monetary penalty levels as applicable. As the 2015 Act “does not provide for an alternative calculation in the unusual event that there is not October data . . . as a matter of statutory interpretation, there is not authority to use an alternative method of calculation . . . [and] any effort to do so, contra the statute, would subject revised penalty calculations to significant and disruptive litigation risks.” See OMB Memorandum M-26-11, Cancellation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2026, Regarding the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, note 4 (April 17, 2026). VA is therefore continuing to use the civil monetary penalty levels VA published in 2025.
As noted above, OMB Memorandum M-26-11 reflects no inflation adjustment multiplier change for 2026. Accordingly, VA is not revising 38 CFR 36.4340(k)(1)(i) and (3) and 38 CFR 42.3(a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii), described above, to reflect any 2026 inflationary adjustments.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 7, 2026, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.