Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
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.
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This rule amends Part 0 of the Department of Justice's (“Department”) organizational regulations in title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations to establish the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”) and set forth its authorities.
Effective August 24, 2026.
Michael Fraggetta, National Fraud Enforcement Division, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530; telephone: (202) 514-2000; email:
The Department has established the Fraud Division as part of a revamped, comprehensive approach to investigating and prosecuting fraud against taxpayer dollars and taxpayer-funded programs.
Through this rule, the Attorney General delegates certain powers and authorities to the Assistant Attorney General for the Fraud Division and makes conforming amendments to the authorities previously delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (“CRM”). The rule creates a new subpart M, composed of §§ 0.70 and 0.71 and which sets forth the Fraud Division's general functions and authorities, and makes conforming changes to CRM's regulations at § 0.55, as discussed below.
Section 0.70 sets forth the functions assigned to and that shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by the Assistant Attorney General for the Fraud Division. These include handling: (1) criminal proceedings involving criminal frauds except cases assigned to the Antitrust Division by § 0.40(a),
To ensure necessary flexibility, § 0.70 also includes two paragraphs allowing the Fraud Division to oversee additional cases or types of cases assigned by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General or by agreement with the Assistant Attorney General having authority to handle such cases.
The Department is amending CRM's provisions in § 0.55 in three ways. First, the rule revises the paragraph generally assigning criminal fraud litigation to CRM to carve out cases involving frauds that are now specifically assigned to the Fraud Division—
The rule adds new § 0.71, which mirrors CRM's provision at § 0.59. It allows the Assistant Attorney General of the Fraud Division (or his Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, as applicable) to exercise functions assigned to the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 3331 and 3503 relating to the certification of special grand juries,
This rule makes two other technical and consistency changes. First, the rule adds the “National Fraud Enforcement Division” to the table of organizational units within the Department in § 0.1. Second, the rule amends paragraph (b) of § 0.13 to allow Assistant Attorneys General to redelegate all litigating authority to Section Chiefs by removing a prohibition on redelegating authority to designate attorneys to conduct grand jury proceedings. This change allows Assistant Attorneys General greater flexibility in managing their duties and responsibilities.
This rule is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice; is limited to matters of agency management and personnel; and is not a substantive rule. Therefore, this rule is exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described by section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, as this rule relates to agency organization, management, or personnel, it is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 14192.
Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This final rule does not impose a criminal regulatory penalty and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14924's requirements.
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 operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601.
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
This final rule does not call for a new or revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
A rule has federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 if it has 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. The Department has analyzed this final rule under that Executive Order and determined that this rule does not have federalism implications.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to determine whether a rule, if promulgated, will result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more in any one year. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). This final rule does not require or result in expenditures by any of the above-named entities.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This final rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This rule relates to agency management, personnel, and organization, and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B), (C). This action is accordingly not a “rule” as that term is used in the Congressional Review Act,
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Acting Attorney General is amending part 0 of 28 CFR as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
(b) Each Assistant Attorney General is authorized to redelegate to Section
The revision reads as follows:
(b) Cases involving criminal frauds except cases involving tax frauds and cases involving fraud with respect to health plans assigned to the National Fraud Enforcement Division by § 0.70(b) and (e), and cases assigned to the Antitrust Division by § 0.40(a) involving conspiracy to defraud the United States by violation of the antitrust laws.
(c) Criminal and civil litigation under the Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 84 Stat. 1285 (titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970).
The following functions are assigned to and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, National Fraud Enforcement Division:
(a) Criminal proceedings involving criminal frauds except cases assigned to the Antitrust Division by § 0.40(a) involving conspiracy to defraud the United States by violation of the antitrust laws.
(b) All criminal proceedings arising under the internal revenue laws.
(c) Criminal proceedings relating to trade fraud matters, including the importation of goods, items, articles, merchandise, products, materials, or wares; customs duties, tariffs, or other external revenue; or foreign commerce.
(d) Criminal proceedings involving monies owed to or paid by the United States.
(e) Criminal proceedings involving fraud or abuse with respect to health plans.
(f) Criminal proceedings related to health care fraud and controlled substances distribution and diversion schemes.
(g) Prosecution and litigation of any case or category of cases as the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General may assign, notwithstanding any other provision of this part.
(h) Prosecution and litigation of any case or category of cases by agreement with the Assistant Attorney General having authority to handle such cases under this part, notwithstanding any other provision of this part.
(i) Actions to seek injunctions against fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1345, obtain restitution, seize or forfeit property, recover forfeitures or damages, enforce compliance with final judgments, to recover penalties, and impose penalties, including actions for the imposition of penalties for conspiring to defraud the United States, when related to proceedings identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(j) Prosecution of any Federal criminal provision when charged in criminal proceedings brought pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(k) Investigations and inquiries into criminal conduct in pursuit of cases under paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, and prosecution of any criminal offenses identified during such investigations and inquiries whether or not such prosecution is described in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(l) Such other duties and functions as may be specially assigned by the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, notwithstanding any other provision of this part.
(a) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Fraud Enforcement Division is authorized to exercise or perform the functions or duties conferred upon the Attorney General by section 3331 of title 18, United States Code, to certify that in his judgment a special grand jury is necessary in any judicial district of the United States because of criminal activity within such district.
(b) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Fraud Enforcement Division and his Deputy Assistant Attorneys General are each authorized to exercise or perform the functions or duties conferred upon the Attorney General by section 3503 of title 18, United States Code, to certify that the legal proceeding, in which a motion to take testimony by deposition is made, is against a person who is believed to have participated in an organized criminal activity, where the subject matter of the case or proceeding in which the motion is sought is within the cognizance of the National Fraud Enforcement Division pursuant to § 0.70, or is not within the cognizance of the Civil Rights Division.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the ANCHOR Floating Production Unit (FPU), located in Green Canyon Block 763 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of America. Establishing a safety zone around the facility will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment. This rule prohibits entry of vessels into this safety zone unless specifically authorized Commander, Coast Guard Heartland District or their designated representative.
This rule is effective September 17, 2026.
To view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Mr. Steven Wilkes, Heartland District Western Rivers & Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 815-1119, or email
Chevron Corporation requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around its ANCHOR FPU facility. There are safety concerns for vessels operating in close proximity to the facility, as well as the personnel aboard the facility and the environment that arise when unauthorized vessels operate in close proximity to the unit. On April 14, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; ANCHOR Floating Production Unit (FPU) Outer Continental Shelf Facility, Green Canyon Block 763, Gulf of Mexico (88 FR 22971). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to safety zone.
Under the authority in 14 U.S.C. 544, the District Commander has determined that this rule is necessary to protect personnel, property, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with FPU operations. These hazards include the threat of allisions, collisions, security breaches, oil spills, and releases of natural gas. No vessel or person, other than attending vessels, vessels less than 100 feet that are not towing, will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the District Commander or their designated representative.
During the comment period that ended on May 15, 2023, we did not receive any comments. There are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. References to the “Gulf of Mexico” in the NPRM have been changed to “Gulf of America” in the final rule.
This rule establishes a safety zone on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the deepwater area of the Gulf of America at Green Canyon 763. The area of the safety zone is 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the ANCHOR FPU facility, which is located at 27°12′23.0394″ N, 91°11′53.1594″ W (NAD 83). No vessel, except attending vessels as defined in 33 CFR 147.20, or those less than 100 feet in length and not engaged in towing, will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the District Commander or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the safety zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. The rule also permits certain smaller vessels to enter the safety zone, and other vessels may enter the zone with permission from the District Commander.
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).
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.
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 544, 43 U.S.C. 1333; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel, as defined in § 147.20;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Coast Guard Heartland District or a designated representative.
(c)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on Lake Michigan in Gary, IN. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an over water air show, drone display, and fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from August 20, 2026 through August 23, 2026.
To view available documents go to
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 received notification that an air and water show will take place over Lake Michigan near Gary, IN. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan has determined that potential hazards associated with an air and water show are a safety concern for anyone in the area directly below the air show course.
Therefore, the COTP is issuing 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.
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 confirmed a temporary final rule was necessary on August 10, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by August 20, 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 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day from August 20, 2026 through August 23, 2026. In addition, the rule also establishes a safety zone from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 21, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on Lake Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 41°37.217′ N, 087°16.763′ W; then east along the shoreline to 41°37.413′ N, 087°13.822′ W; then north to 41°38.017′ N, 087°13.877′ W; then southwest to 41°37.805′ N, 087°16.767′ W; then south returning to the point of origin. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
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) establish or increase size—REC required; 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 (833) 900-2247. 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 safety zone for the North Avenue Swim & Triathlon Yo (NASTY) Carb Party event to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during a swim race. Our regulation for marine events within the Coast Guard Great Lakes District identifies the safety zone for this event in Chicago, IL. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or remaining within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.932 will be enforced from 6 a.m. through 8 a.m. on August 21, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Kyle Goetz, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; 630-986-2155;
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.932 for the North Avenue Swim & Triathlon Yo (NASTY) Carb Party event from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. on Friday August 21, 2026. The regulation for the safety zone, Ohio Street Beach Swim Course, Lake Michigan, Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL in § 165.932, specifies the location of the safety zone for this event.
In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or remaining within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative.
This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP, Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP, Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the Board is revising its regulations to clarify certain existing delegations of authority and create certain new delegations for the Board's Chief Counsel and Chief of Passenger Rail and Investigations (COPRI). The Board is also creating a new regulation that codifies and expands the Board's grant stamp procedures and is revising certain regulations to make nomenclature changes.
This final rule is effective on September 17, 2026.
Amy Ziehm at (202) 918-5462. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
As discussed in more detail below, the Board is revising its existing delegations at 49 CFR 1011.6 and 1011.7 to clarify that the Board's Chief Counsel has authority to (i) resolve discovery disputes in Board proceedings and (ii) with respect to routine procedural matters, determine whether to accept late-filed procedural motions, revise deadlines established by entire Board decision, and establish reply deadlines that differ from the default 20-day reply period in the Board's regulations. The Board also is newly delegating to the Chief Counsel the authority to determine (i) whether to approve, and if necessary, condition, certain transactions involving motor carriers of passengers subject to the Board's jurisdiction and (ii) whether to waive the advance notice requirements in certain exempt acquisition and operation proceedings. Additionally, the Board will newly delegate to the COPRI the authority to perform certain functions related to the submission of evidence and routine procedural matters in passenger rail proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 24308. The Board will also create a new section at 49 CFR 1011.8 to codify and expand its grant stamp procedures. Finally, the Board will make nomenclature corrections at 49 CFR 1152.20, 49 CFR 1152.50, and 49 CFR 1244.9 to reflect a name change for the U.S. Army Transportation Command and to clarify and standardize other agency references.
It has been the Board's practice that discovery disputes may be resolved initially by the Director of the Office of Proceedings (the Director), now the Chief Counsel.
Under 49 CFR 1011.6(c)(3), the Chief Counsel is delegated the “authority to dispose of routine procedural matters in proceedings assigned for handling under modified procedure, other than those assigned to an administrative law judge or a Board Member.” In practice, this delegation has been applied to permit the Chief Counsel to accept and decide pleadings related to routine procedural matters even when those pleadings are untimely.
The Board will also update its regulations to reflect that the Board assigns and authorizes administrative law judges in Board proceedings.
The Board will revise 49 CFR 1011.7(a) to newly delegate to the Chief Counsel the authority to determine whether to approve and, where appropriate, condition unopposed transactions involving motor carriers of passengers governed by 49 U.S.C. 14303 and 49 CFR part 1182. Part 1182 covers applications for authority under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to consolidate, merge, purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties or franchises of motor carriers of passengers, or to acquire control of motor carriers of passengers. Board approval is only required for transactions where the aggregate gross operating revenues of the parties to the proposed transaction exceed $2 million during a period of 12 consecutive months, ending no more than six months prior to the date of the parties' agreement. 49 U.S.C. 14303(g). The Board is required to approve the proposed transaction when it finds it consistent with the public interest and may impose conditions governing the transaction. 49 U.S.C. 14303(b).
In considering an application, the Board must consider the effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public, the total fixed charges that result from the proposed transaction, and the interest of carrier employees affected by the proposed transaction. 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Within 30 days after an application is filed, the Board must either publish notice of the application in the
Proceedings filed under 49 U.S.C. 14303 and 49 CFR part 1182 are rarely controversial. Most proposed transactions are found to be consistent with the public interest based on the information applicants provide to the Board and are unopposed. Delegating authority to the Chief Counsel to accept and approve unopposed applications will enhance administrative efficiency and save Board resources. This new delegation will permit the Chief Counsel to tentatively approve complete applications, impose conditions on such approvals when necessary, direct applicants to file additional information to correct minor errors or omissions, and reject incomplete applications. This delegation, however, would not extend to opposed applications under 49 CFR 1182.6 or grants of interim approval under 49 CFR 1182.7.
The Board will revise 49 CFR 1011.7(a) to newly delegate to the Chief Counsel the authority to determine whether to approve requests for waiver of the 60-day advance notice requirements of 49 CFR 1150.32(e) and 1150.42(e). Section 1150.32 governs noncarriers that seek acquisition or operation authority under the Board's notice of exemption procedures, and section 1150.42 governs established Class III carriers that seek acquisition or operation authority under the same procedures. Under 49 CFR 1150.32(e), if the projected annual revenue of the carrier to be created by the transaction exceeds $5 million, an applicant must, at least 60 days before the exemption becomes effective, post a notice of intent to undertake the proposed transaction at the workplace of employees on the affected lines, serve a copy of the notice on the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected lines, and certify to the Board that it has done so. Under 49 CFR 1150.42(e), an applicant must satisfy the same 60-day advance notice requirement if the projected annual revenue of the rail lines to be acquired or operated, together with the acquiring carrier's projected annual revenue, exceeds $5 million.
In some cases, parties seeking authority for transactions subject to 49 CFR 1150.32 or 1150.42 ask the Board to waive the 60-day advance notice requirement where the subject transaction would have no impact on any railroad employees. The Board has routinely granted such unopposed waivers where the purpose behind the notice requirement would not be thwarted or substantially diminished by the waiver.
To enhance the administrative efficiency of the agency, the Board will delegate to the Chief Counsel the authority to determine whether to grant such requests for waiver. These waiver requests are rarely controversial. Additionally, as noted above, these requests are filed in cases proceeding under the Board's notice of exemption procedures, and the authority to decide whether to issue notices of exemption under 49 CFR part 1150 is already delegated to the Chief Counsel.
The Board will delegate to the COPRI the authority to perform certain functions in connection with passenger rail proceedings conducted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24308, which include proceedings in which a rail carrier or regional transportation authority and Amtrak cannot reach agreement on Amtrak's use of facilities, 49 U.S.C. 24308(a), and investigations regarding Amtrak's on-time performance, 49 U.S.C. 24308(f). Specifically, consistent with prior practice,
Proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 24308 often involve voluminous technical evidence. While the Board reserves for itself consideration and disposition of “[a]ll investigations and other proceedings instituted by the Board, except as may be ordered in individual situations,”
In 2011, the Board began utilizing a grant stamp procedure for issuing decisions in uncontested, routine procedural matters delegated to the Director (now, Chief Counsel), where no further explanation or discussion was necessary.
In this final rule, the Board will create a new section 49 CFR 1011.8 codifying the availability of a grant stamp to approve uncontested matters within a delegated authority. The Chief Counsel may utilize these grant stamp procedures when the pleading states that it is unopposed by all parties or remains unopposed when the reply period expires.
Under 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2)(vii), applicants are required to serve the “Department of Defense (Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Transportation Engineering Agency, Railroads for the National Defense Program)” with their notice of intent to file an abandonment or discontinuance application under 49 U.S.C. 10903. Section 1152.50(d)(1)(ii) contains a similar requirement with respect to notices of exemption and petitions for exemption. Additionally, 49 CFR 1244.9(h) requires the Board to forward certain waybill requests for munition data to the “Department of Defense's Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC).” The Board has been advised that the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command has been renamed the U.S. Army Transportation Command.
Further, to eliminate confusion about which agencies and subagencies are required to be served under 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1), and to standardize inconsistent references across regulations, the Board is updating other references to federal agencies.
The revisions to the regulations are set forth below and are issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require that process for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), or “when the agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 49 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This proceeding concerns matters of agency procedure and practice. In this proceeding, the Board is revising its regulations to reflect existing Board procedures and practices (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.
Executive Order 12866, as modified by Executive Order 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. In section 3(d), Executive Order 12866 defines “regulation” or “rule” to exclude regulations or rules that are limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters. This rule relates to internal agency organization and management; therefore, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12866. Because this rule relates to internal agency organization and management, it is also exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 14192 under section 5(b) of that Order.
The Board has determined that this action is not a rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
This rulemaking does not contain a new or amended information collection
1. Parts 1011, 1152, and 1244 are modified as set forth below, and notice will be published in the
2. The modifications are effective September 17, 2026.
Decided: August 13, 2026.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Kloster, and Schultz.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), the Surface Transportation Board amends chapter X of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321, 11123, 11124, 11144, 14122, 15722, and 24308.
The revision and addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) All appeals of initial decisions issued by the Office of Chief Counsel under the authority delegated by § 1011.7(a), and all appeals of initial decisions issued by the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance under the authority delegated by § 1011.7(b). Appeals must be filed within 10 days after service of the initial decision or publication of the notice, and replies must be filed within 10 days after the due date for appeals or any extension thereof.
(8) The assignment of proceedings to administrative law judges.
(c) (1) As used in this paragraph,
(i) Decisions pending judicial review,
(ii) Decisions of the entire Board,
(iii) Cease and desist orders, or
(iv) Final decisions where petitions for discretionary review have been filed under 49 CFR 1115.3.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Board in individual proceedings, authority to dispose of procedural matters is delegated to administrative law judges or Board Members in proceedings assigned to them.
(3) (i) Unless otherwise ordered by the Board in individual proceedings, authority to dispose of routine procedural matters in proceedings assigned for handling under modified procedure, other than those assigned to an administrative law judge or a Board Member, is assigned to the Chief Counsel. With respect to such routine procedural matters, the authority delegated to the Chief Counsel includes, but is not limited to, determining whether to accept late-filed procedural motions, determining whether to grant requests for extension of deadlines established by decision of the entire Board, and establishing reply deadlines that differ from the default 20-day reply period set forth in § 1104.13(a) of this chapter.
(ii) The Chief Counsel shall also have authority, unless otherwise ordered by the Chairman or by a majority of the Board in individual proceedings, to decide whether complaint proceedings shall be handled under the modified procedure or be assigned for oral hearings.
(iii) In proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 24308, unless otherwise ordered by the Board in individual proceedings, the Chief of Passenger Rail and Investigations is assigned the authority to dispose of routine procedural matters in the manner described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section. This delegation is in addition to, and does not limit, the authority delegated to the Chief Counsel in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section to dispose of routine procedural matters.
(iv) In carrying out these duties, the Chief Counsel, or Chief of Passenger Rail and Investigations, as the case may be, shall consult, as necessary, with the Director of any Board office to which an individual proceeding has been assigned.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xxi) To resolve discovery disputes raised in cases pending before the Board.
(xxii) Whether to grant and, when appropriate, condition applications for authority under 49 U.S.C. 14303 and part 1182 of this chapter concerning the purchase, merger, and control of motor passenger carriers. The Chief Counsel may direct applicants to file additional information to correct minor errors or omissions in the application. This delegation does not permit the Chief Counsel to process an opposed application under § 1182.6 of this chapter or dispose of requests for interim approval under § 1182.7 of this chapter.
(xxiii) Whether to grant requests to waive the advance notice requirements of § 1150.32(e) and § 1150.42(e) of this chapter.
(4) In connection with proceedings conducted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24308, the Chief of Passenger Rail and Investigations is delegated the authority to direct parties to clarify, modify, or reformat evidence that has previously been submitted or to produce evidence to supplement evidence that has previously been submitted (including evidence that was provided pursuant to a decision of the entire Board).
(a) The Chief Counsel and Chief of Passenger Rail and Investigations may use the grant stamp procedures of this
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a motion for protective order filed under § 1104.14 of this chapter may be approved using the grant stamp procedures before the relevant reply period expires.
(c) The grant stamp shall be affixed to the pleading filed with the Board and shall contain the Board's seal, the decided date and service date of the decision, the decision identification number, the title and signature of the issuer, indication that the request is “approved,” and any necessary notation.
11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The Federal Railroad Administration;
(vii) The U.S. Army Transportation Command, Transportation Engineering Agency, Railroads for National Defense Program;
(viii) The Director of the National Park Service;
(ix) The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board;
(x) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) (if Amtrak operates over the involved line);
(xi) The Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; and
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The U.S. Army Transportation Command, Transportation Engineering Agency, Railroads for National Defense Program;
(iii) The Director of the National Park Service; and
(iv) The Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.
(h)
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) proposes to issue regulations to implement section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act regarding the statutory prohibitions and limitations on payment stablecoin issuance, offer, and sale in the United States.
Comments on the NPRM must be received on or before October 19, 2026.
Written comments may be submitted through one of two methods:
•
•
We encourage comments to be submitted via
Brendan Costello and Cody Gaffney, Attorney-Advisors, Office of the General Counsel, and Jonathan Hurowitz, Senior Advisor, Office of Financial Institutions, Treasury, at
The GENIUS Act, enacted on July 18, 2025, establishes a comprehensive framework for the regulation of payment stablecoins.
Section 3 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902) delineates the fundamental architecture of the payment stablecoin market in the United States, prescribing who may issue, offer, sell, or otherwise make available payment stablecoins. Section 3 “is intended to have extraterritorial effect if conduct involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States.”
With respect to issuance of payment stablecoins, section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) makes it unlawful for any person other than a permitted payment stablecoin issuer to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States.
Section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)) addresses the offer, sale, or otherwise making available of payment stablecoins in the United States by digital asset service providers. Under the Act, a digital asset service provider is a person (such as a digital asset exchange) that, for compensation or profit, engages in the business in the United States (including on behalf of customers or users in the United States) of exchanging digital assets for monetary value or for other digital assets, transferring digital assets to a third party, acting as a digital asset custodian, or participating in financial services relating to digital asset issuance.
Section 3(b) (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)) contains two distinct prohibitions. First, under section 3(b)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1)), beginning on July 18, 2028 (
Various provisions of the Act create exemptions from certain of these general prohibitions relating to the issuance, offer, sale, or making available of payment stablecoins. First, section 3(h) (12 U.S.C. 5902(h)) contains rules of construction that expressly exempt three categories of transactions from section 3: (i) the direct transfer of digital assets between two individuals acting on their own behalf and for their own lawful purposes, without the involvement of an intermediary, (ii) any transaction involving the receipt of digital assets by an individual between an account owned by the individual in the United States and an account owned by the individual abroad that are offered by the same parent company, and (iii) any transaction by means of a software or hardware wallet that facilitates an individual's own custody of digital assets.
Second, section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) provides that the prohibitions under section 3 (12 U.S.C. 5902) shall not apply to a foreign payment stablecoin issuer if certain conditions are met, including that (i) the foreign payment stablecoin issuer is subject to regulation and supervision by a foreign payment stablecoin regulator of a foreign country that has a regulatory and supervisory regime with respect to payment stablecoins that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to section 18(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(b)), is comparable to the regulatory and supervisory regime established under the GENIUS Act, and (ii) the foreign payment stablecoin issuer is registered with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Third, section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)) authorizes the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators to waive the application of the requirements of the Act for a period not to exceed 12 months beginning on the effective date of the Act with respect to subsidiaries of insured depository institutions and Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers with a pending application on the Act's effective date.
Finally, the Act vests Treasury with authority to issue regulations providing certain safe harbors that are consistent with the purposes of the Act, limited in scope, and apply to a de minimis volume of transactions, and to provide certain other limited safe harbors in unusual and exigent circumstances.
The Act directs Treasury to issue regulations to implement section 3, including regulations to define terms.
Consistent with its obligation to faithfully implement the GENIUS Act, in crafting this proposal, Treasury focused on the text of the GENIUS Act itself as the starting point for these proposed regulations and did not start from any pre-existing regulatory baseline. Nevertheless, throughout the proposal, Treasury considered certain discrete aspects of existing legal and regulatory regimes where Treasury believes these regimes may be instructive to the regulation of payment stablecoin activities under section 3 of the Act.
For example, in developing this proposal, Treasury considered several comments to the ANPRM that suggested that the federal securities laws, in addition to the text of the GENIUS Act, should serve as a reference point for implementing section 3 of the Act. Treasury recognizes that there are longstanding legal regimes that address the issue, offer, and sale of other financial instruments, such as securities, including offshore activities.
However, the GENIUS Act clearly distinguishes among payment stablecoins, securities, and commodities, expressly providing that payment stablecoins are not securities or commodities.
Treasury welcomes comment on whether this approach is appropriate or whether, in the alternative, these
This proposal would add new part 1523 to subchapter C of chapter XV of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Proposed § 1523.1 sets out the scope of Part 1523 and defines key terms. Consistent with the Act, proposed § 1523.1 makes clear that this part is intended to have extraterritorial effect if conduct involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States. Proposed § 1523.1 also defines terms such as “issue” and “located in the United States.” Significantly, proposed § 1523.1 makes clear that a payment stablecoin issuer may also be considered a digital asset service provider, and thus, the rules that apply to issuers and the rules that apply to digital asset service providers are not mutually exclusive.
Proposed § 1523.2 implements the prohibition on payment stablecoin issuance in the United States under section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)). First, proposed § 1523.2(a) makes clear that foreign payment stablecoin issuers that meet the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)), including registration with the OCC, may issue payment stablecoins in the United States in addition to permitted payment stablecoin issuers. Next, proposed § 1523.2(b) provides that a person will be considered to have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States only if, at the time of issuance, the person is located in the United States (as defined in proposed § 1523.1) or the person issues the payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States (as defined in proposed § 1523.1). By contrast, proposed § 1523.2(c) describes activities that would be deemed not to be issuances of payment stablecoins in the United States. Finally, proposed § 1523.2(d) provides examples of activities that, when conducted by a person in connection with the issuance of a payment stablecoin that violates section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)), may constitute participation in an unlawful issuance for purposes of the criminal penalty in section 3(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(f)), such as acting as a market maker for newly-issued payment stablecoins or coordinating with the issuer to facilitate key steps in the issuance.
Proposed § 1523.3 implements the GENIUS Act's prohibitions on the offer, sale, and making available of payment stablecoins by digital asset service providers under section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)). First, proposed § 1523.3(a) and (b) codify sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1), (2)), respectively, with some clarifications. Second, proposed § 1523.3(c) describes a digital asset service provider's obligations with respect to a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's compliance with lawful orders and reciprocal arrangements. Next, proposed § 1523.3(d) enumerates examples of activities that constitute the offer or sale of payment stablecoins, such as directly soliciting a person located in the United States, advertising a payment stablecoin as available for purchase by persons located in the United States, and advising potential purchasers on how to evade generally applicable location detection or restriction mechanisms. Finally, proposed § 1523.3(e) describes activities that would be deemed not to be offers or sales of payment stablecoins to persons located in the United States.
Proposed § 1523.4 sets out exemptions and safe harbors from the section 3 framework, and Treasury requests comment on whether to create additional safe harbors.
Proposed § 1523.5 includes a severability provision. Proposed Appendix A provides a number of interpretations intended to clarify the application of proposed Part 1523 to certain common or complex scenarios.
Proposed § 1523.1 sets forth the scope and applicability of Part 1523. Paragraph (a) provides that Part 1523 is issued by Treasury to implement section 3 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902) regarding statutory prohibitions and limitations on issuing, offering, selling, and otherwise making available payment stablecoins in the United States.
Proposed paragraph (b) makes clear that, consistent with section 3(e) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(e)), proposed Part 1523 is intended to have extraterritorial effect if conduct involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States.
Proposed paragraph (c) sets forth a number of definitions for purposes of Part 1523.
Under the proposal, the terms “digital asset,” “federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer,” “foreign payment stablecoin issuer,” “insured depository institution,” “lawful order,” “monetary value,” “offer,” “payment stablecoin,” “permitted payment stablecoin issuer,” “person,” “primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator,” “State,” and “subsidiary”
By contrast, the proposal would define several key terms other than solely by cross-reference to the Act either because the Act does not define the term or because Treasury has determined that additional clarity is needed to provide regulatory certainty.
Treasury considered whether the Act should be read as treating issuers of payment stablecoins and digital asset service providers as mutually exclusive categories, but concluded that the better reading of the Act is that issuers of payment stablecoins can simultaneously be digital asset service providers. Notably, the Act does not specify that issuers of payment stablecoins cannot be digital asset service providers, but in other instances does specify when two categories are mutually exclusive.
A contrary reading in which payment stablecoin issuers are deemed not to be digital asset service providers could further have the effect of exempting persons who engage in significant payment stablecoin offer and sale activities in the United States from the operative restrictions of section 3 (12 U.S.C. 5902) merely because they are also engaged in payment stablecoin issuance. For example, such an interpretation would, theoretically, allow a permitted payment stablecoin issuer to offer and sell a payment stablecoin that a digital asset service provider is not permitted to offer or sell, such as a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that does not have the technological capability to comply, or will not comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916).
Because the term “issue” is not defined in the Act, in order to implement the limitation on payment
First, the proposed definition focuses on the
Second, the proposed definition clarifies that the first transfer of the payment stablecoin may be effected
Third, the proposed definition clarifies that the transfer of a payment stablecoin includes the
Fourth, the first transfer of the payment stablecoin by the issuer must result or will result in a person other than the issuer having the right to use or transfer the payment stablecoin or to have the payment stablecoin converted, redeemed, or repurchased. This element reflects the key features that make a digital asset a payment stablecoin as defined in the Act: its usability as a means of payment or settlement and its convertibility into a fixed amount of monetary value.
Treasury proposes to include the phrase “will result” in this fourth element to make clear that the issuance of a payment stablecoin need not result in a right to use or transfer the payment stablecoin immediately, or a right to have the payment stablecoin converted, redeemed, or repurchased immediately. Treasury considered that an issuer may, by smart contract or otherwise, limit the holder of a digital asset purporting to be a payment stablecoin from redeeming or further transferring the payment stablecoin until some future time (such as a purported payment stablecoin that may not be redeemed until 6 months after issuance). In such a case, during the lockout period, the purported payment stablecoin could potentially be viewed as not having been issued because the issuer does not have an obligation at present to convert, redeem, or repurchase the purported payment stablecoin on demand or the holder of the payment stablecoin does not have the right to use or further transfer it. However, Treasury believes that such an interpretation is not compelled by section 2(22) or section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(22), 5902(a)) and would facilitate evasion of section 3(a). Instead, for example, Treasury believes that a purported payment stablecoin which the issuer is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase for a third party at some future time should, during the non-redemption period, be considered a payment stablecoin that has been issued.
Another aspect of the fourth element of the definition of “issue” is that it does not require that the transferee be the person who has the right to use, transfer, or redeem the payment stablecoin. For example, Treasury considered that the issuer may transfer the payment stablecoin to a custodian, but it is the custodian's customer who has the right to use, transfer, or redeem the payment stablecoin. In this case, Treasury believes that the payment stablecoin has been issued, notwithstanding the fact that the transferee does not have the right to use, transfer, or redeem the payment stablecoin. Additionally, Treasury is aware that some payment stablecoins may be, as a technical matter, redeemable only by certain persons (such as intermediaries in contractual privity with the issuer), rather than by each individual holder of the payment stablecoin. The proposed fourth element of the definition of “issue” would ensure that these payment stablecoins are considered to have been issued even though a person other than the holder has the right to redeem the payment stablecoin.
The proposed definition of “issue” contains the phrase “except as required
The proposed definition of “issue” contains one additional clarification: For the avoidance of doubt, after a payment stablecoin has been converted, redeemed, repurchased, or otherwise reacquired by the issuer, the first subsequent transfer of the payment stablecoin by the issuer that otherwise satisfies the proposed definition is considered a new issuance, whether or not the transfer is characterized as a reissuance, except as required by a lawful order. This is the case whether or not the issuer burns the digital asset or holds it on its books. Treasury believes this understanding of reissuance is appropriate, administrable, and consistent with the Act because, although the digital asset may continue to exist following the redemption or transfer back to the issuer, the issuer no longer has an obligation to a third party to convert, redeem, or repurchase the payment stablecoin. However, the subsequent transfer of the payment stablecoin to a person other than the issuer would have the economic effect of a new issuance, in that a third party would newly have the right to use or transfer the payment stablecoin, or to have the payment stablecoin converted, redeemed, or repurchased. Finally, recognizing that the terms of a lawful order requiring seizing, freezing, burning, or preventing the transfer of a payment stablecoin may additionally require reissuance of the payment stablecoin, the last clause of the clarification makes clear that issuers may reissue a payment stablecoin to comply with a lawful order notwithstanding proposed § 1523.2.
As discussed in section II.H below, Treasury is proposing to include in Appendix A several interpretations of proposed Part 1523. Some of the proposed interpretations relate to when a payment stablecoin is considered to be issued.
Treasury believes that a definition of “issuer” is necessary because both the Act and the proposal refer to the “issuer” of a payment stablecoin in several instances. For example, the Act's definition of “payment stablecoin” refers to the issuer,
The proposed definition of “issuer” incorporates two elements, both of which derive from the statutory definition of “payment stablecoin”: the issuer is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase the payment stablecoin for a fixed amount of monetary value, and the issuer represents that such issuer will maintain, or creates the reasonable expectation that it will maintain, a stable value relative to the value of a fixed amount of monetary value. As described above with respect to the definition of “issue,” Treasury interprets the obligation to convert, redeem, or repurchase the payment stablecoin broadly—imposing a lockout period or placing other conditions on redemption will not prevent a person from being considered the “issuer” of a particular payment stablecoin if the conditions for being an issuer are otherwise satisfied.
Treasury believes that relying on these core statutory functions of the issuer relating to the payment stablecoin appropriately identifies the issuer. Other persons who participate in the issuance (
Proposed § 1523.1(c) would define “located in the United States” separately with respect to individuals and entities. With respect to an individual, “located in the United States” would mean the individual is physically present in the United States, unless the individual is not a resident of the United States and the individual's physical presence in the United States is merely temporary. The proposed definition thus generally turns on the individual's physical presence on U.S. soil,
Conversely, the proposed definition of “located in the United States” would exclude U.S. residents who are not physically present in the United States, such as a U.S. resident who is temporarily abroad. Treasury does not believe that the limitation in section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) on issuing a payment stablecoin “in the United States” was intended to capture, for example, a foreign payment stablecoin issuer who issues a payment stablecoin to a U.S. resident temporarily traveling abroad on vacation. Application of Part 1523 to U.S. residents abroad would also risk frustrating particular goals of the Act, such as to promote payment stablecoins as payment instruments and establish reciprocal arrangements with foreign jurisdictions, while providing an appropriately tailored regime to mitigate potential illicit finance threats. At the outer extreme, a U.S. resident traveling temporarily in a foreign country where payment stablecoins were routinely used as payment instruments would be unable to purchase a limited amount of payment stablecoins used in that country to engage in ordinary transactions within the country.
With respect to a partnership, company, corporation, association, trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other business entity, proposed § 1523.1(c) would define “located in the United States” to mean that the entity (i) is organized or incorporated under the laws of the United States or a State, or (ii) has its principal place of business in the United States. This disjunctive definition comports with traditional notions of corporate domicile,
As discussed in section II.H below, Treasury is proposing to include in Appendix A several interpretations of proposed Part 1523. Some of the proposed interpretations relate to when a person is considered to be located in the United States.
Proposed § 1523.2 implements the limitation in section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) on payment stablecoin issuance in the United States. Proposed paragraph (a) codifies the statutory limitation with certain clarifications. Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies when a person will be considered to have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States. Proposed paragraph (c) clarifies when a person will be considered to not have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States. Finally, proposed paragraph (d) clarifies when a person has participated in a violation of section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) for purposes of the penalty imposed by section 3(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(f)).
Section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) generally provides that it shall be unlawful for any person other than a permitted payment stablecoin issuer to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States. Proposed § 1523.2(a) implements this provision and provides that, except in accordance with the exemptions and safe harbors in proposed § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for any person to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States unless the person is a permitted payment stablecoin issuer, or a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
The text of proposed § 1523.2(a) differs from the text of section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) in two key ways. First, the inclusion of the qualifying language “[e]xcept in accordance with § 1523.4” makes clear from the outset that certain exemptions and safe harbors may apply. These exemptions and safe harbors are addressed in proposed § 1523.4.
Second, while the text of section 3(a) (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) only expressly contemplates issuance of payment stablecoins in the United States by permitted payment stablecoin issuers, proposed § 1523.2(a) additionally states that foreign payment stablecoin issuers that meet the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) may lawfully issue payment stablecoins in the United States.
Treasury believes that the best reading of the Act, considered as a whole, is that foreign payment stablecoin issuers that meet the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) may issue payment stablecoins in the United States. This conclusion is principally based on two key provisions of the statute. First, section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) provides that the “prohibitions under section 3” shall not apply to a foreign payment stablecoin issuer meeting certain criteria. Treasury believes that the plain meaning of this phrase is that the prohibition in section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)) shall not apply to a foreign payment stablecoin issuer meeting the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
Second, section 4(a)(12)(C) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(12)(C)) expressly states that certain companies not domiciled in the United States or its Territories may not issue payment stablecoins without the approval of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC). This section of the statute would be in direct tension with section 3 if foreign payment stablecoin issuers were outright prohibited from issuing payment stablecoins in the United States.
Treasury further believes that practical considerations reinforce the conclusion, based on the text of the statute, that foreign payment stablecoin issuers that meet the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) may issue payment stablecoins in the United States. The Act clearly contemplates secondary market transactions in the United States involving payment stablecoins issued by foreign payment stablecoin issuers.
Treasury notes that proposed § 1523.2(a) addresses generally which categories of persons may issue a payment stablecoin in the United States and does not exhaustively list all potentially applicable prerequisites to issuing payment stablecoins in the United States. For example, a permitted payment stablecoin issuer or a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) may need to obtain the approval of the SCRC prior to issuing a payment stablecoin pursuant to section 4(a)(12) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(12)).
The Act does not define when a person has issued a payment stablecoin “in the United States.” Proposed § 1523.2(b) provides that a person will be considered to have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States only if, at the time of issuance, the person is located in the United States, or the person issues the payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States.
Treasury first determined that a standard based on the location of the parties to the transaction is consistent with the text of the Act and would be administrable and promote clarity and compliance with the requirements of the Act. In particular, the proposed approach would be simpler for all payment stablecoin market participants to understand, relative to other approaches that considered, for example, a broader conception of U.S. nexus, and thus better facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Act, especially in light of criminal penalties associated with violations of section 3(a) (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)).
Treasury next considered whether issuance in the United States should be determined based on the location of the issuer or based on the location of the third party to which the payment stablecoin has been issued.
Various provisions of the Act suggest that Congress was concerned with
As discussed in section II.H below, Treasury is proposing to include in Appendix A several interpretations of proposed Part 1523. Some of the proposed interpretations relate to when a payment stablecoin is considered to be issued in the United States.
Whereas proposed § 1523.2(b) is intended to provide clarity about what constitutes payment stablecoin issuance in the United States for purposes of section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)), proposed § 1523.2(c) describes when a person not located in the United States will be deemed
To benefit from the protection of proposed § 1523.2(c), a person must meet four conditions. First, the person must not be located in the United States as defined in proposed § 1523.1(c). Second, the person must reasonably believe that each person to whom the payment stablecoin is issued is not located in the United States. Treasury acknowledges that what constitutes a reasonable belief may depend on the facts and circumstances. However, Treasury intends this requirement to exclude situations where the issuer knows, has reason to know, or should know, based on the facts and circumstances, including representations of the person to whom the payment stablecoin is issued or other information reasonably accessible to the issuer, that the person is located in the United States.
Third, the issuer must have adopted and implemented policies, procedures, and controls reasonably designed to avoid issuing the payment stablecoin to any person located in the United States. Treasury emphasizes that these policies, procedures, and controls must not only be adopted on paper, but actually implemented in the issuer's operations, in order for the issuer to benefit from proposed § 1523.2(c). In addition, Treasury believes that policies, procedures, and controls cannot be said to be reasonably designed if they are static; rather, Treasury expects issuers to periodically review and update their policies, procedures, and controls as warranted by changing circumstances, such as when the payment stablecoin market matures, technology evolves, the issuer gains experience in issuing payment stablecoins, and in response to discovery of any inadvertent issuance to persons located in the United States.
Finally, the issuer must not engage in advertising or solicitation activities that target, or could be reasonably expected to have the effect of targeting, any person located in the United States. Treasury believes this condition is necessary to avoid a situation where an issuer is not knowingly issuing payment stablecoins to a person located in the United States, but is engaged in activities that could foreseeably have this result.
Proposed § 1523.2(c) reflects certain concepts that are similar to concepts reflected in Regulation S under the Securities Act, including determination of the non-U.S. status of the relevant person and prohibition against U.S.-targeted advertising or solicitation.
Section 3(f) (12 U.S.C. 5902(f)) imposes certain penalties on persons who knowingly participate in a violation of section 3(a) (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)). The Act does not define what it means to participate in a violation of section 3(a)'s limitation on payment stablecoin issuance. To promote clarity on the scope of this penalty provision and prevent evasion of the Act, Treasury is proposing three specific but non-exclusive examples in proposed § 1523.2(d) of when a person would be considered to participate in a violation of section 3(a) in connection with a payment stablecoin issued in violation of section 3(a). These proposed examples do not represent all situations where a person would be considered to participate in a violation of section 3(a), but rather Treasury enumerates these examples to provide a principled framework in implementing regulations with respect to section 3(a).
First, proposed § 1523.2(d)(1) provides that a person would participate in a violation of section 3(a) if, in connection with a payment stablecoin issued in violation of section 3(a), the person incurs an obligation to a third party to convert, redeem, or repurchase a payment stablecoin, including a secondary obligation to convert, redeem, or repurchase on behalf of the original issuer. This example is intended to capture the issuer itself, as well as others who effectively function as a joint issuer or guarantor insofar as they are obligated to redeem a payment stablecoin issued in violation of section 3(a).
Second, proposed § 1523.2(d)(2) provides that a person would participate in a violation of section 3(a) if, in connection with a payment stablecoin issued in violation of section 3(a), the person coordinates with the issuer to facilitate key steps in the issuance, such as soliciting customers or minting the payment stablecoins. This example is intended to capture persons who provide substantial assistance to the issuer in issuing a payment stablecoin in violation of section 3(a), and where such assistance was provided prior to or at the point at which the payment stablecoins are considered issued. For example, in a white label arrangement, the person providing its branding may be considered to facilitate key steps in the issuance process even though such person may not itself be the issuer of the payment stablecoin.
Third, proposed § 1523.2(d)(3) provides that a person would participate in a violation of section 3(a) if, in connection with a payment stablecoin issued in violation of section 3(a), the person acts as a market maker for newly issued payment stablecoins, distributes the newly issued payment stablecoins to purchasers of newly issued payment stablecoins, or otherwise makes the newly issued payment stablecoins available for secondary market trading. This example is intended to capture persons who provide substantial assistance in issuing a payment stablecoin in violation of section 3(a), and where such assistance was provided at or around the point of issuance. Treasury expects, for example, that this would cover a digital asset service provider making an initial listing of an unregistered payment stablecoin shortly after issuance, in effect supporting the mass initial distribution of the unlawful issuance. Treasury generally does not intend for proposed § 1523.2(d)(3) to cover persons who merely purchase a smaller subset of the unlawfully issued payment stablecoins in the issuance for their own use (as opposed to for immediate resale in a dealer capacity), nor is proposed § 1523.2(d)(3) intended to capture secondary market trading activities that do not have a close temporal nexus to the initial issuance. Of course, secondary market trading activities of unregistered payment stablecoins at any time may implicate the prohibitions on offer and sale in section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)), as described further below.
Treasury emphasizes that the proposed examples are not intended to be exhaustive, and that other persons not covered by these examples may be found to have knowingly participated in a violation of section 3(a).
As discussed in section II.H below, Treasury is proposing to include in Appendix A several interpretations of proposed Part 1523. Some of the proposed interpretations relate to when a person may have participated in a violation of section 3(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)).
In lieu of the proposal discussed above, Treasury is also considering alternative approaches under which proposed § 1523.2 would deem any issuance of a payment stablecoin by a person other than a permitted payment stablecoin issuer or a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) to a person who is located in the United States to be unlawful, regardless of whether the issuer knew or should have known that the recipient was actually located in the United States. Such an alternative would involve narrowing or removing proposed § 1523.2(c). This alternative approach would provide a clear, unambiguous line as to whether payment stablecoins were issued in the United States that depends only on factually verifiable locations of the issuer and the person to whom the payment stablecoins were issued. The lawful or unlawful nature of the issuance, therefore, would not depend on other facts and circumstances, such as the level of due diligence performed by the issuer.
Treasury acknowledges that this outcome may be viewed as overly strict, particularly where the issuer took reasonable steps to ensure that the recipient was not located in the United States and reasonably believed that the recipient was not located in the United States at the time of the issuance. However, under this approach, the due diligence steps that the issuer took or its reasonable belief with respect to the location of the recipient would not be relevant considerations as to whether an issuance has occurred in the United States in the first instance; rather, these factors are most relevant to the question of whether the issuer or another person “knowingly” participated in an unlawful issuance, which is a required element for the criminal penalties under section 3(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(f)).
As a second alternative, Treasury is considering whether to align proposed § 1523.2 more directly to the territorial concepts reflected in Regulation S under the Securities Act by adopting a broader offshore transaction framework. Under this alternative, for example, the term “located in the United States” would not be defined based on an individual or entity's status (
In such an alternative, an offshore transaction could be defined to require that no offer be made to a person in the United States and that, at the time the acquisition request or other transaction instruction is originated, the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is outside the United States, or the foreign payment stablecoin issuer and any person acting on its behalf reasonably believe that the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is outside the United States. Similar to proposed § 1523.2(c), the reasonable belief standard could be supported by reasonably designed, implemented, and maintained policies, procedures, and controls, which may include customer identification and due diligence, account-opening information, geographic access restrictions, device- or network-location tools, contractual representations, transaction monitoring, and other controls reasonably designed to identify whether the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is outside the United States.
Unlike proposed § 1523.2(c), when the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is a legal entity, if an authorized employee places the acquisition request or other transaction instruction while abroad, the requirement that the person acquiring the payment stablecoin be outside the United States would be satisfied, regardless of the place of incorporation or principal place of business of the entity.
As compared to proposed § 1523.2(c), the alternative would more directly incorporate the concept of directed selling efforts from Regulation S, which could be defined as any activity undertaken for the purpose of, or that could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, conditioning the market in the United States for the payment stablecoin. In applying that concept to payment stablecoins, Treasury could consider whether activity is undertaken for the purpose of, or could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, promoting, soliciting, or creating demand in the United States for the payment stablecoin. Such activity could include advertising or solicitation directed at the United States, liquidity incentives directed at U.S. use, merchant-enablement activity in the United States, U.S.-facing wallet or platform integrations, or other ecosystem-development activity intended to facilitate the use or circulation of the payment stablecoin in the United States, even if the formal issuance occurs outside the United States.
While informed by Regulation S concepts, such an approach need not import Regulation S wholesale. For example, Regulation S's category structure, distribution compliance periods, and offering restrictions may not be necessary.
Treasury recognizes that this alternative may better address certain cross-border fact patterns than the proposed approach, which defines when a payment stablecoin has been issued “in the United States” based on the location of the issuer and acquirer. For example, a nominally offshore issuance may be structured to place newly issued payment stablecoins into U.S. circulation through an affiliate, distributor, market maker, platform, or other intermediary. Conversely, an issuance may involve a U.S.-organized entity acting through non-U.S. personnel, accounts, and operations for non-U.S. customers, with no U.S.-directed activity. More closely aligning with Regulation S may provide more clarity for certain financial institutions that are already familiar with this well-established framework and have controls designed for it, though it may provide more complexity for payment stablecoin actors that are not already familiar with Regulation S. Treasury requests comment on whether an
Treasury also requests comment on whether the alternative frameworks would create undue complexity or increase or decrease evasion risk or risk of flowback of large volumes of payment stablecoins to the U.S. market.
Proposed § 1523.3 implements the prohibitions in section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)) on offers and sales of payment stablecoins by digital asset service providers. Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) codify the statutory prohibitions in sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1), (2)) with certain clarifications. Proposed paragraph (c) clarifies a digital asset service provider's obligations with respect to a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's compliance with lawful orders and reciprocal arrangements. Proposed paragraph (d) provides examples of activities that constitute an offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person in the United States. Proposed paragraph (e) describes when a digital asset service provider will be deemed not to violate the prohibitions in section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)).
In developing proposed regulations to implement section 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)), Treasury first considered the relationship between the prohibitions in section 3(b)(1) and section 3(b)(2). As a preliminary matter, Treasury notes that the prohibitions in section 3(b)(1) and section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1), (2)) are similar in language, structure and effect: Both prohibitions declare it to be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to engage in certain proscribed activities related to a payment stablecoin, unless the payment stablecoin is issued by a person meeting certain criteria. The most obvious differences between the two prohibitions are the date on which each becomes applicable and the criteria that must be met for a digital asset service provider not to violate each prohibition.
Beyond these obvious differences, there are two more subtle differences between the prohibitions in sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1), (2)). First, whereas section 3(b)(1) proscribes the “offer or [sale]” of certain payment stablecoins, section 3(b)(2) proscribes the “offer, [sale], or otherwise mak[ing] available” of certain payment stablecoins. With respect to “make available,” Treasury acknowledges that different terms in a statute are ordinarily presumed to have different meanings, in which case, “make available” should be understood to refer to a distinct set of activities that are not “offer” or “sale,” but that general rule is not dispositive.
Second, section 3(b)(1) applies to the offer or sale of certain payment stablecoins “to a person in the United States,” but section 3(b)(2) applies to the offer, sale, or otherwise making available “in the United States” of certain payment stablecoins. As discussed above, Treasury acknowledges that different terms in a statute are ordinarily presumed to have different meanings. However, Treasury believes that whatever the outer boundaries of this phrase in section 3(b)(2), offering, selling, or otherwise making available a payment stablecoin “in the United States” must include offering or selling
Section 3(b)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1)) provides that, except as provided in section 3(c) (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)) and section 18 (12 U.S.C. 5916), beginning on the date that is three years after the date of enactment of the Act, it shall be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person in the United States, unless the payment stablecoin is issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer. Proposed § 1523.3(a) implements section 3(b)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1)) and provides that beginning on July 18, 2028, except in accordance with § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States unless the payment stablecoin is (i) issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer, or (ii) issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
The text of proposed § 1523.3(a) codifies the substance of section 3(b)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(1)) without change but Treasury has included certain ministerial clarifications in the regulatory text. First, proposed § 1523.3(a) specifies that the prohibition in section 3(b)(1) becomes applicable on July 18, 2028, which is the date that is three years after the date of enactment of the Act. Second, the inclusion of the qualifying language “except in accordance with § 1523.4” makes clear from the outset that certain exemptions and safe harbors may apply. These exemptions and safe harbors are addressed below in connection with proposed § 1523.4. Third, whereas section 3(b)(1) merely cross-references section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916) as providing an exemption, proposed § 1523.3(a) more clearly spells out that the prohibition does not apply to a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
Section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(2)) provides that it shall be unlawful for any digital asset service provider to offer, sell, or otherwise make available in the United States a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer unless the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916). Proposed § 1523.3(b) implements section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(2)) and provides that, except in accordance with § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or sell to a person located in the United States, or otherwise offer, sell, or make available in the United States, a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer unless the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply with, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916).
The text of proposed § 1523.3(b) differs from the text of section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(2)) in two respects. First, the inclusion of the qualifying language “except in accordance with § 1523.4” makes clear from the outset that certain exemptions and safe harbors may apply. These exemptions and safe harbors are addressed below in connection with proposed § 1523.4. Second, proposed § 1523.3(b) makes clear that, as discussed above, the statutory phrase “offer, sell, or otherwise make available in the United States” includes offering or selling to a person located in the United States.
Treasury considered whether section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(2)) is applicable to a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer meeting the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)). Treasury does not believe that sections 18(a) and 3(b), when read together, were intended to relieve foreign payment stablecoin issuers meeting the criteria in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) of the obligations to comply with lawful orders and reciprocal arrangements, or to authorize the offer or sale of payment stablecoins issued by non-compliant issuers. Instead, Treasury believes that sections 18(a) and 3(b), when read together, relieve foreign payment stablecoin issuers meeting the criteria of section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) from the general prohibition on offers and sales of their payment stablecoins, while retaining the obligations to comply with lawful orders and reciprocal arrangements. Treasury notes that these obligations of foreign payment stablecoin issuers arise under or are reinforced by other provisions of the Act, namely section 8(a)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5907(a)(1)) (regarding lawful orders) and sections 18(a) (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) and 18(d) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(d)) (regarding reciprocity).
As described above, section 3(b)(2) and proposed § 1523.3(b) each refer to limitations on digital asset service providers' ability to offer, sell, or make available in the United States a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment
In considering the requirements of section 3(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(b)(2)), Treasury notes that, as a practical matter, a digital asset service provider may not know, and may not be able to ascertain without prohibitively onerous inquiry, the full extent of a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's technological capabilities to comply with lawful orders and reciprocal arrangements. More significantly, a digital asset service provider can never know with certainty whether a foreign payment stablecoin issuer “will comply” at all times in the future with the terms of any lawful order or any reciprocal arrangement. Thus, a strict reading of these provisions of the Act would effectively foreclose the offer or sale by digital asset service providers of payment stablecoins issued by foreign payment stablecoin issuers in all cases because it would be impossible for the digital asset service provider to meet these exacting standards. Treasury believes this strict reading is not compelled by the text of the statute and would frustrate the purpose of the Act, which clearly contemplates the offer or sale by digital asset service providers of payment stablecoins issued by foreign payment stablecoin issuers, at least in some cases.
Instead, Treasury proposes a more practical approach that permits a digital asset service provider to rely in certain circumstances on a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's representation that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916). To be entitled to rely on such a representation, however, the digital asset service provider must meet two criteria.
First, the digital asset service provider may not rely on a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's representation unless it conducts reasonable due diligence on the foreign payment stablecoin issuer. Treasury acknowledges that what constitutes a reasonable level of due diligence may vary depending on the facts and circumstances. In all cases, however, Treasury expects this due diligence to include confirming that no prohibition on secondary trading pursuant to section 8 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5907) is in effect with respect to the foreign payment stablecoin issuer. Section 8 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5907) authorizes the Secretary to designate any foreign payment stablecoin issuer as noncompliant with the requirement that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply and complies with the terms of any lawful order.
Treasury considered whether confirming the absence of any prohibition on secondary trading should alone constitute a sufficient level of due diligence on the part of a digital asset service provider. However, other evidence of a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's noncompliance with, for example, a lawful order may be readily available from public or non-public sources accessible to the digital asset service provider, even when no prohibition on secondary trading under section 8 is yet in effect. In such a situation, Treasury believes that a digital asset service provider should not be able to rely on the foreign payment stablecoin issuer's representation. As such, the proposed requirement that a digital asset service provider must conduct reasonable due diligence is intended to go beyond merely confirming that no prohibition on secondary trading is in effect. Rather, the digital asset service provider should consider all reasonably available sources of information regarding the foreign payment stablecoin issuer.
Second, the digital asset service provider may not rely on a foreign payment stablecoin issuer's representation if, based on such due diligence or other information reasonably available to it, the digital asset service provider knows, has reason to know, or should know that the representation is false or that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer does not have the technological capability to comply, or will not comply, with the terms of any lawful order or any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916). Treasury intends this language to include, in addition to actual knowledge of falsity, a situation where the digital asset service provider is aware of facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer does not have the technological capability to comply, or will not comply, with the terms of any lawful order or any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916).
Whereas proposed § 1523.3(a) and proposed § 1523.3(b) aim generally to codify the text of the statutory prohibitions in section 3(b)(1) and section 3(b)(2), respectively, proposed § 1523.3(d) provides further clarity to digital asset service providers regarding these prohibitions by enumerating examples of activities that constitute the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States. Treasury emphasizes that the proposed examples are not intended to be exhaustive, and that other activities by digital asset service providers may constitute a violation of proposed § 1523.3(a) or proposed § 1523.3(b), as applicable, depending on the facts and circumstances.
First, proposed § 1523.3(d)(1) provides that a digital asset service provider offers or sells a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States if the digital asset service provider directly solicits a person located in the United States to purchase the payment stablecoin.
Second, proposed § 1523.3(d)(2) provides that a digital asset service provider offers or sells a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States if the digital asset service provider advertises the payment stablecoin as available for purchase by persons located in the United States.
Third, proposed § 1523.3(d)(3) provides that a digital asset service provider offers or sells a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States if the digital asset service provider responds to an unsolicited inquiry from a person located in the United States by indicating willingness to sell the payment stablecoin. In this example, Treasury believes that an offer has occurred because the digital asset service provider has made a payment stablecoin available for purchase, sale, or exchange, regardless of the circumstances that gave rise to the offer.
Fourth, proposed § 1523.3(d)(4) provides that a digital asset service provider offers or sells a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States if the digital asset service provider advises potential purchasers of the payment stablecoin on how to evade generally applicable location detection or restriction mechanisms that would otherwise detect or block purchases by persons located in the United States, such as IP address checkers. This example is intended to prevent digital asset service providers from evading the Act by facilitating a potential purchaser's use of technology to evade the limitation on purchasers located in the United States.
Fifth, proposed § 1523.3(d)(5) provides that a digital asset service provider offers or sells a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States if the digital asset service provider enters into a contract for the sale of a payment stablecoin with a person located in the United States, regardless of the form of consideration provided in return for the payment stablecoin or the timing of delivery of the payment stablecoin. Treasury believes that a sale should be considered to have occurred regardless of the form of consideration provided in return for the payment stablecoin or the timing of delivery of the payment stablecoin.
Whereas proposed § 1523.3(d) is intended to provide clarity to digital
To benefit from the protection of proposed § 1523.3(e), a digital asset service provider must meet three conditions. First, the digital asset service provider must reasonably believe that the person to whom the payment stablecoin is offered, sold, or otherwise made available is not located in the United States. Treasury acknowledges that what constitutes a reasonable belief on the part of the digital asset service provider may depend on the facts and circumstances. Similar to the proposed due diligence requirements in proposed § 1523.3(c), however, Treasury intends this requirement to exclude situations where the digital asset service provider knows or has reason to know, based on the representations of the person to whom the payment stablecoin is offered, sold, or otherwise made available or other information reasonably accessible to the digital asset service provider, that the person is located in the United States.
Second, the digital asset service provider must have adopted and implemented policies, procedures, and controls reasonably designed to avoid offering, selling, or making available the payment stablecoin to any person located in the United States. Treasury emphasizes that these policies, procedures, and controls must not only be adopted in form, but actually implemented in the digital asset service provider's operations, in order for the digital asset service provider to benefit from proposed § 1523.3(e). In addition, Treasury believes that policies, procedures, and controls cannot be said to be reasonably designed if they are static; rather, Treasury expects digital asset service providers to periodically review and update their policies, procedures, and controls as the payment stablecoin market matures, technology evolves, as the digital asset service provider gains experience in offering and selling payment stablecoins, and in response to any identified instances of offers or sales to persons located in the United States.
Finally, the digital asset service provider must not engage in advertising or solicitation activities that target, or could be reasonably expected to have the effect of targeting, any person located in the United States. Treasury believes this condition is necessary to avoid a situation where a digital asset service provider is not knowingly offering, selling, or making payment stablecoins available to a person located in the United States, but is engaged in activities that could foreseeably have this result.
Like proposed § 1523.2(c), proposed § 1523.3(e) incorporates certain concepts that are similar to concepts reflected in Regulation S under the Securities Act, but would operate within the proposed definition of “located in the United States” and would not adopt Regulation S's offshore-transaction framework.
As with payment stablecoin issuance, discussed in section II.D.5, Treasury is also considering several alternative approaches for § 1523.3. First, Treasury is considering an alternative approach under which proposed § 1523.3 would deem any offer or sale of a payment stablecoin that is not issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer or a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)) to a person who is located in the United States to be unlawful, regardless of whether the digital asset service provider knew or should have known that the recipient or offeree was actually located in the United States. Such an alternative would involve narrowing or removing proposed § 1523.3(e). This alternative approach would provide a clear, unambiguous line that depends only on factually verifiable location of the person to whom the payment stablecoins were offered or sold. The lawful or unlawful nature of the offer or sale, therefore, would not depend on other facts and circumstances, such as the level of due diligence performed by the digital asset service provider.
Treasury acknowledges that this outcome may be viewed as overly strict, particularly where the digital asset service provider took reasonable steps to ensure that the recipient was not located in the United States and reasonably believed that the recipient was not located in the United States at the time of the offer or sale.
As a second alternative, Treasury is considering whether to align proposed § 1523.3 more directly to the territorial concepts reflected in Regulation S under the Securities Act by adopting a broader offshore transaction framework. Under this alternative, for example, the term “located in the United States” would not be defined based on an individual's or entity's status (
In such an alternative, an offshore transaction could be defined to require that no offer be made to a person in the United States and that, at the time the acquisition request or other transaction instruction is originated, the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is outside the United States, or the digital
Unlike proposed § 1523.3(e), when the person acquiring the payment stablecoin is a legal entity, if an authorized employee places the acquisition request or other transaction instruction while abroad, the requirement that the person acquiring the payment stablecoin be outside the United States would be satisfied, regardless of the place of incorporation or principal place of business of the entity.
As compared to proposed § 1523.3(e), the alternative would more directly incorporate the concept of directed selling efforts from Regulation S, which could be defined as any activity undertaken for the purpose of, or that could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, conditioning the market in the United States for the payment stablecoin. In applying that concept to payment stablecoins, Treasury could consider whether activity is undertaken for the purpose of, or could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, promoting, soliciting, or creating demand in the United States for the payment stablecoin. Such activity could include advertising or solicitation directed at the United States, liquidity incentives directed at U.S. use, merchant-enablement activity in the United States, U.S.-facing wallet or platform integrations, or other ecosystem-development activity intended to facilitate the use or circulation of the payment stablecoin in the United States, even if the formal issuance occurs outside the United States.
While informed by Regulation S concepts, such an approach need not import Regulation S wholesale. For example, Regulation S's category structure, distribution compliance periods, and offering restrictions may not be necessary.
Similar to the alternative considered and described in section II.D.5 above, Treasury recognizes that this alternative may better address certain cross-border fact patterns than the proposed approach. More closely aligning with Regulation S may provide more clarity for certain financial institutions that are already familiar with this well-established framework and have controls designed for it, though it may provide more complexity for payment stablecoin actors that are not already familiar with Regulation S. Treasury requests comment on whether an offshore-transaction framework would better distinguish between those fact patterns, or whether the proposed approach, including the proposed definition of “located in the United States” and proposed § 1523.3(b)-(e), provides greater administrability and certainty.
Treasury also requests comment on whether the alternative frameworks would create undue complexity or increase or decrease evasion risk or risk of flowback of large volumes of payment stablecoins to the U.S. market.
Proposed § 1523.4 implements various provisions of the Act that provide for exemptions and safe harbors from section 3(a)'s limitation on payment stablecoin issuance and section 3(b)'s prohibition on payment stablecoin offers or sales. Proposed paragraph (a) codifies the exemption in section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)) applicable to certain persons with a pending application to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses those limited safe harbors that the Secretary may provide in unusual and exigent
Section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)) provides that the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators may waive the application of the requirements of the Act for a period not to exceed 12 months beginning on the effective date of the Act with respect to the subsidiary of an insured depository institution, if the insured depository institution has an application pending for the subsidiary to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer on that effective date, or a Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a pending application on that effective date. Proposed § 1523.4(a) implements this provision and provides that the prohibitions in proposed § 1523.2 (relating to payment stablecoin issuance) and § 1523.3 (relating to payment stablecoin offer and sale) shall not apply to a subsidiary of an insured depository institution or a person applying to be a Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a pending application to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer on the effective date of the Act, but only if a waiver is granted by the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator under section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)), and only to the extent such waiver by its terms waives the provisions of section 3 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902).
Treasury believes that the authority granted to the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators in section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)) authorizes those regulators to waive the provisions of section 3 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902) for pending applicants. The statutory phrase “the requirements of this Act” plainly encompasses
Although such waivers granted by the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators could be viewed as self-executing, Treasury believes that expressly recognizing these waivers in proposed § 1523.4(a) would promote clarity for the industry and for potential purchasers of payment stablecoins during the period of any such waiver. Treasury emphasizes, however, that such waivers are intended to be temporary in duration and limited in scope. As such, the relief recognized in proposed § 1523.4(a) would apply only for the period of the waiver. Further, such waiver provides an exemption from proposed § 1523.2 or § 1523.3 only to the extent such waiver by its terms waives section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a), (b)), respectively.
Section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)) authorizes the Secretary to adopt limited safe harbors from section 3(a)'s limitation on payment stablecoin issuance in two circumstances. First, section 3(c)(1) (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)(1)) authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations providing safe harbors that are consistent with the purposes of the Act, limited in scope, and apply to a de minimis volume of transactions. Second, section 3(c)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)(2)) authorizes the Secretary to provide limited safe harbors if the Secretary determines that unusual and exigent circumstances exist.
Treasury believes that the textual differences between the safe harbor authorities in section 3(c)(1) and section 3(c)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)(1), (2)) indicate that the latter paragraph authorizes the Secretary to adopt safe harbors in unusual and exigent circumstances other than by rulemaking. In particular, section 3(c)(1)'s general grant of authority to the Secretary to adopt safe harbors specifies that such safe harbors must be issued
Section 3(h)(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(h)(1)) provides that section 3 (12 U.S.C. 5902) shall not apply to three categories of exempt transactions. Proposed § 1523.4(c) implements this provision nearly verbatim and provides that the prohibitions in proposed § 1523.2 and proposed § 1523.3 shall not apply to (i) the direct transfer of digital assets between two individuals acting on their own behalf and for their own lawful purposes, without the involvement of an intermediary; (ii) any transaction involving the receipt of digital assets by an individual between an account owned by the individual in the United States and an account owned by the individual abroad that are offered by the same parent company; and (iii) any transaction by means of a software or hardware wallet that facilitates an individual's own custody of digital assets.
Proposed § 1523.5 provides that the provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision, clause, or phrase of this part is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is Treasury's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
Treasury is proposing to include a severability clause so that in the event any particular provision of the proposed rule is held to be invalid, the remainder of the rule would remain in effect, providing clarity for all participants in the payment stablecoin market. In particular, even if the portions of this rule regarding issuance were held to be invalid, the restrictions on offer and sale would generally operate independently and continue to function as intended, as the former is directed at the conduct of issuers and the latter is directed at the conduct of digital asset service providers more broadly. Similarly, even if the portions of this rule regarding offer and sale were held to be invalid, the restrictions on payment stablecoin issuance would generally operate independently and continue to function as intended. This regulation would have been proposed independently of any provision that may be determined to be invalid.
In addition to the provisions of proposed Part 1523 discussed above, Treasury is proposing to include in Appendix A interpretations of proposed Part 1523 to further clarify and illustrate the application of various aspects of the proposed rule.
Proposed Interpretation 1 considers a U.S. resident who is issued a payment stablecoin while on vacation in a foreign country. This interpretation is intended to illustrate when a person is considered to be located in the United States as defined in proposed § 1523.1(c), and when a payment stablecoin is considered to have been issued in the United States as described in proposed § 1523.2.
Proposed Interpretation 2 considers the airdropping of a new payment stablecoin absent any sale.
Proposed Interpretation 3 considers a situation in which a digital asset service provider that operates an exchange coordinates with an issuer to list a newly issued payment stablecoin for sale. The interpretation is intended to illustrate how the digital asset service provider's activities may be viewed for purposes of proposed Part 1523.
Proposed Interpretation 4 considers a digital asset that is not redeemable by the issuer for a period of time after issuance. The interpretation is intended to illustrate when a payment stablecoin is considered to have been issued as described in proposed § 1523.2(b).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Treasury has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
Treasury's cost-benefit analysis of this proposal is summarized in section III.E below and described in more detail in the regulatory impact analysis which will be posted to the docket on the website
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 website
Treasury is proposing to issue regulations to implement section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (12 U.S.C. 5902), regarding the statutory prohibitions and limitations on payment stablecoin issuance, offer, and sale in the United States. The proposal and the required summary can be found at
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Treasury's preliminary view is that this proposed rule does not contain any information collections within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act, but requests comment on whether any aspect of the proposal raises information collection burdens.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject to review under Executive Order 12866. Treasury's analysis conducted in connection with Executive Order 12866 is summarized below and Treasury's detailed regulatory impact analysis will be posted to the docket on the website
As described in more detail in the detailed regulatory impact analysis, the proposed rule's estimated benefits substantially exceed the estimated costs. The quantified benefits of this proposal comprise: regulatory clarity and avoided depegging losses and consumer protection from avoided issuer failures. Non-quantified benefits include preservation of dollar dominance in digital payment markets, enhanced market integrity and investor confidence, innovation incentives from clear regulatory “rules of the road”, and improved U.S. competitive positioning in global digital payments.
The direct costs of this proposed rule are expected to be primarily transitional: market concentration costs and switching costs. The analysis also contemplates annual digital asset service provider compliance costs, and requests comment on whether issuer compliance costs should be quantified separately, given the overlap described throughout this proposal among issuers and digital asset service providers, as well as among issuance, offer, and sale. Qualitative costs include reduced product choice.
As described in the previous sections and in the more detailed regulatory impact analysis, Treasury also considered several alternatives to the proposed rule. In particular, Treasury considered a less stringent extended transition period (
Treasury requests comment on all aspects of the regulatory impact analysis, including the data, assumptions, methods, and estimates used to assess the costs, benefits, transfers, distributional effects, and alternatives associated with the proposed rule.
Banks, banking, Consumer protection, Digital assets, Digital asset service provider, Non-bank entity, Payment stablecoins, Permitted payment stablecoin issuer, State and local governments, State qualified payment stablecoin issuer, foreign payment stablecoin issuer.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury proposes to amend 12 CFR chapter XV subchapter C by adding part 1523 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5901
(a) This part is issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to implement section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (12 U.S.C. 5902) regarding the statutory prohibitions and limitations on issuing, offering, selling, and otherwise making available payment stablecoins in the United States.
(b) Consistent with section 3(e) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(e)), this part is intended to have extraterritorial effect if conduct involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States.
(c) For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) With respect to an individual, the individual is physically present in the United States, unless the individual is not a resident of the United States and the individual's physical presence in the United States is merely temporary; or
(2) With respect to a partnership, company, corporation, association, trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other business entity, the entity:
(i) Is organized or incorporated under the laws of the United States or a State; or
(ii) Has its principal place of business in the United States.
(a) Except in accordance with § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for any person to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States unless the person is:
(1) A permitted payment stablecoin issuer; or
(2) A foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
(b) A person will be considered to have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States only if, at the time of issuance:
(1) The person is located in the United States; or
(2) The person issues the payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a person will be deemed not to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States, if:
(1) The person is not located in the United States;
(2) The person reasonably believes that each person to whom the payment stablecoin is issued is not located in the United States;
(3) The person has adopted and implemented policies, procedures, and controls reasonably designed to avoid issuing the payment stablecoin to any person located in the United States; and
(4) The person does not engage in advertising or solicitation activities that target, or could be reasonably expected to have the effect of targeting, any person located in the United States.
(d) The following are examples of activities that, when conducted by a person in connection with the issuance of a payment stablecoin that violates paragraph (a), constitute participation by the person in the violation for purposes of the penalty in section 3(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(f)):
(1) The person incurs an obligation to a third party to convert, redeem, or repurchase a payment stablecoin, including a secondary obligation to convert, redeem, or repurchase on behalf of the original issuer;
(2) The person coordinates with the issuer to facilitate key steps in the issuance, such as soliciting customers or minting the payment stablecoins; or
(3) The person acts as market maker for the newly issued payment stablecoin, distributes the newly issued payment stablecoin to purchasers of the newly issued payment stablecoin, or otherwise makes the newly issued payment stablecoin available for secondary market trading.
(a) Beginning on July 18, 2028, except in accordance with § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States unless the payment stablecoin is:
(1) Issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer; or
(2) Issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in section 18(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916(a)).
(b) Except in accordance with § 1523.4, it shall be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or sell to a person located in the United States, or otherwise offer, sell, or make available in the United States, a payment stablecoin issued by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer unless the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply with, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916).
(c) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, a digital asset service provider may rely on a representation by a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has the technological capability to comply with, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order and any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916), provided that:
(1) The digital asset service provider may not rely on such representation unless it conducts reasonable due diligence regarding the representation; and
(2) The digital asset service provider may not rely on such representation if, based on such due diligence or other information reasonably available to it, the digital asset service provider knows, has reason to know, or should know that the representation is false or that the foreign payment stablecoin issuer does not have the technological capability to comply, or will not comply, with the terms of any lawful order or any reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 18 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5916).
(d) The following are non-exhaustive examples of activities that constitute an offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States:
(1) Directly soliciting a person located in the United States to purchase the payment stablecoin;
(2) Advertising the payment stablecoin as available for purchase by persons located in the United States;
(3) Responding to an unsolicited inquiry from a person located in the United States by indicating willingness to sell the payment stablecoin;
(4) Advising potential purchasers of the payment stablecoin on how to evade generally applicable location detection or restriction mechanisms that would otherwise detect or block purchases by persons located in the United States, such as IP address checkers; or
(5) Entering into a contract for the sale of a payment stablecoin with a person located in the United States, regardless of the form of consideration provided in return for the payment stablecoin or the timing of delivery of the payment stablecoin.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a digital asset service provider will be deemed not to offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States, and will be deemed not to offer, sell, or otherwise make available in the United States a payment stablecoin, if:
(1) The digital asset service provider reasonably believes that the person to whom the payment stablecoin is offered, sold, or otherwise made available is not located in the United States;
(2) The digital asset service provider has adopted and implemented policies, procedures, and controls reasonably designed to avoid offering, selling, or making available the payment stablecoin to any person located in the United States; and
(3) The digital asset service provider does not engage in advertising or solicitation activities that target, or could be reasonably expected to have the effect of targeting, any person located in the United States.
(a) The prohibitions in § 1523.2 and § 1523.3 shall not apply to a subsidiary of an insured depository institution or a person applying to be a Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a pending application to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer on the effective date of the Act, but only if a waiver is granted by the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator under section 5(f) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5904(f)), and only to the extent such waiver by its terms waives the provisions of section 3 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902).
(b) The prohibitions in § 1523.2 and § 1523.3 shall not apply to the extent that the Department of the Treasury determines that unusual and exigent circumstances exist in accordance with section 3(c)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(c)(2)).
(c) The prohibitions in § 1523.2 and § 1523.3 shall not apply to:
(1) The direct transfer of digital assets between two individuals acting on their own behalf and for their own lawful purposes, without the involvement of an intermediary;
(2) Any transaction involving the receipt of digital assets by an individual between an account owned by the individual in the United States and an account owned by the individual abroad that are offered by the same parent company; and
(3) Any transaction by means of a software or hardware wallet that facilitates an individual's own custody of digital assets.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is Treasury's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
1.
No. As described in § 1523.2(b), a person will be considered to have issued a payment stablecoin in the United States only if, at the time of issuance, the person issuing the payment stablecoin is located in the United States, or the person issues the payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States. The foreign payment stablecoin issuer is not located in the United States because it is not organized or incorporated under the laws of the United States or a State and does not have its principal place of business in the United States. Similarly, at the time of the issuance, the U.S. resident is not located in the United States because he or she is not physically present in the United States.
Although the foreign payment stablecoin issuer has not violated § 1523.2(a) in this scenario, foreign payment stablecoin issuers should take care to avoid offers or sales to U.S. residents while such residents are located in the United States. For example, if the foreign payment stablecoin issuer directly solicited the U.S. resident (while he or she was physically located in the United States) to purchase the payment stablecoin, this conduct would likely violate § 1523.3, unless the conditions in § 1523.3(e) were satisfied.
2.
Yes, because the airdrop meets the definition of “issue” in § 1523.1(c), and because, as described in § 1523.2(b), a payment stablecoin has been issued in the United States because the person to whom the payment stablecoin was issued was located in the United States at the time of issuance.
3.
No. The digital asset service provider is not considered the issuer as defined in § 1523.1(c) because the digital asset service provider does not have an obligation to convert, redeem, or repurchase the payment stablecoins. However, depending on the facts and circumstances, the digital asset service provider may have participated in the issuance as described in § 1523.2(d) and may be offering or selling the payment stablecoins as described in § 1523.3.
4.
Yes. As described in § 1523.1(c), an issuer is considered to have issued a payment stablecoin if the first transfer of the payment stablecoin will result in a person other than the issuer having the right to redeem a payment stablecoin, even if the redemption obligation does not mature until some period after the transfer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737 -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of nuisance stick shaker activation while accelerating to cruise speed at the top of a climb due to frozen angle of airflow (AOA) sensor vanes. This proposed AD would require installing new external case heaters (ECHs) on the left and right AOA sensors, performing repetitive functional tests and applicable corrective actions, and accomplishing applicable concurrent actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 2, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Michael Closson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3973; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. 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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Michael Closson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3973; email:
The FAA has received reports of nuisance stick shaker activation on Model MD-90 airplanes while the airplane was accelerating to cruise speed at the top of a climb. A review of recorded flight data and weather reports indicated that the nuisance stick shaker activation was caused by AOA sensor vanes that were frozen and malfunctioned due to insufficient heat in certain AOA sensors that prevent ice build-up in the vane pivot. Heavy moisture conditions on the ground can lead to water entering the AOA vane pivot and freezing prior to or during flight. The manufacturer has determined that the potential for vane pivot freezing exists on AOA sensor part numbers used on certain Model 737, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the stall warning system and result in a loss of continued safe flight and landing.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026. This material specifies procedures for installing new ECHs on the left and right AOA sensors, performing repetitive functional tests and applicable corrective actions (
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 133 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed 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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by October 2, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of nuisance stick shaker activation while the airplane was accelerating to cruise speed at the top of a climb due to frozen angle of airflow (AOA) sensor vanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address malfunctioning AOA sensor vanes due to insufficient heat in certain AOA sensors that prevent ice build-up in the vane pivot. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the stall warning system and result in a loss of continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026.
(1) Where the Compliance Time column of the table in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026, refers to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the concurrent actions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026, specify contacting Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires doing the repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(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 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(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.
(3) For any concurrent actions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026, that contain steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Closson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3973; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-30A1081 RB, Revision 1, dated April 30, 2026.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Trading Bay Production Airport, Trading Bay, AK. This action would support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-5150 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AAL-148 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Bryantjay T. Toves, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3465.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Trading Bay Production Airport, Trading Bay, AK.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E5 airspace area designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would establish Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Trader Bay Production Airport, AK, to contain two private-use special instrument flight procedures.
The establishment of Class E airspace would encompass a 3.9-mile radius west and a 7-mile radius east, both bounded by a north-south line centered approximately 250 feet west of the airport reference point to contain IFR aircraft transitioning to or from Trader Bay Production Airport. The airspace would contain arriving aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface while on the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) M Runway (RWY) 17 and RNAV (GPS) M RWY 35 approach procedures and departing aircraft while on the Special Obstacle Departure Procedures until the aircraft reaches 1,200 feet above the surface.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.9-mile radius west and a 7-mile radius east of the long. 151°50′13″ W line and centered on the airport reference point.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the regulation for the Galveston Harbor, Bolivar Roads Channel, Texas Anchorage grounds (the “Bolivar Anchorage”) to institute a 48 hour time limit for anchorage area (A) East. Amending this regulation would align the time limit for anchorage area (A) East with the already established 48 hour time limits for Bolivar Anchorage areas (A), (B) and (C). We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 17, 2026.
To submit comments and view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Christopher Morgan, Sector Houston-Galveston, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 713-398-5823, email
In 2018 the Coast Guard established the Bolivar Anchorage area (A) East at 33 CFR 110.197, to address port security, port congestion and navigation safety concerns (83 FR 18412, April 27, 2018). At the time when the anchorage area was established it did not include a time limit of 48 hours like the Bolivar Anchorage areas (A), (B) and (C). After discussion with the local maritime community during a Harbor Safety Committee meeting, it was determined that having a 48 hour time limit in the regulations for the Bolivar Anchorage area (A) East was needed to ensure consistency among these anchorage areas.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend the Bolivar Anchorage regulation to establish a 48-hour time limit for vessels within the Bolivar Anchorage area (A) East, to bring its timeline requirements in line with the rest of the Bolivar Anchorage areas.
The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authorities in 33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006 and 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
This proposed rule would amend the already existing Bolivar Anchorage 48-hour time limit regulation at 33 CFR 110.197(b)(2), by adding anchorage area (A) East. As amended, the 48-hour time limit would then apply to all Bolivar Anchorage areas: (A), (A) East, (B), and (C). This amendment would ensure uniformity across the entirety of the Bolivar Anchorage areas and reduce confusion from the local maritime community about the time limit restrictions. 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 operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant
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 the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this 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 amends an existing anchorage regulation by implementing a 48 hour time restriction. Since this proposed rule would neither increase nor decrease the size of existing anchorage and does not increase the existing use of the anchorage, no environmental impact is anticipated. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
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.
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006, 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(b) * * *
(2) Except when stress of weather makes sailing impractical or hazardous, vessels shall not anchor in anchorage areas (A), (A) East, (B), or (C) for more than 48 hours unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston. Permission to anchor for longer periods may be obtained through Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston on VHF-FM channels 12 (156.60 MHz) or 13 (156.65 MHz).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for COR-23134-4 soybean, which has been developed using genetic engineering to express Cry1B.34.1, Cry1B.61.1, and IPD083Cb proteins to protect against certain susceptible lepidopteran pests, and the GM-HRA protein that was used as a selectable marker. We are making the petition and draft plant pest risk assessment available for public review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 19, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The petition, draft plant pest risk assessment, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Alan Pearson, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, AP100-3-WS-1151, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-3944; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
Section 340.6(a) of the regulations provides that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-349-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for COR-23134-4 soybean (
As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by COR23134 with that of the unmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that COR23134 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the nonmodified soybean.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the Animal Welfare Act regulations for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds not bred for use in research by dealers, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, research facilities, carriers and intermediate handlers.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 19, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the Animal Welfare Act contact Ms. SaMonia Ford, APHIS, Animal Care, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B, 3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526; 970-494-7478;
Definitions, regulations, and standards established under the AWA are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as the regulations). Part 1 contains definitions for terms used in parts 2 and 3. Part 2 provides administrative requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties, including licensing requirements for dealers, exhibitors, and operators of auction sales. Part 3 provides standards for humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of covered animals, and consists of subparts which contain specific standards for animals covered under the AWA. Subpart G of Part 3 provides standards for birds not bred for use in research.
Administering the AWA requires the use of several information collection activities such as license applications and renewals, registration applications and updates; annual reports; acknowledgement of regulations and standards; inspections; requests; notifications; agreements; plans; written program of veterinary care and health records; itineraries; applications and permits; records of acquisition, disposition, or transport of animals; official identification; variances; protocols; health certificates; complaints; marking requirements; and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years as they pertain to birds not bred for use in research. APHIS has amended this information collection by decreasing the number Respondents, Responses, and Total Burden Hours being reported.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
30-Day information collection notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Send comments on or before September 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Wendy Marshall, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Phone: 202-272-0043. Email:
Under the PRA and its implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information,” within the meaning of the PRA, includes agency requests that pose identical questions to, or impose reporting or recording keeping obligations on, ten or more persons, regardless of whether response to such request is mandatory or voluntary. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c); see also 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Before seeking clearance from OMB, agencies are generally required, among other things, to publish both 60-day and 30-day Notices in the
To comply with this requirement, the Access Board published its 60-day Notice in May 2026. See 91 FR 31405 (May 27, 2026). The Access Board is now publishing this 30-day Notice for the proposed renewal of this information collection. OMB's approval of the current version of the Access Board's Online ABA Complaint Form is set to expire in October 2026.
The Online ABA Complaint Form prompts complainants to provide the information the Access Board needs to investigate their complaint. First, complainants must complete the form fields for at least the name of the building or facility and the city and state in which it is located. Second, complainants must describe each barrier to accessibility they have encountered or are aware of at the building or facility. Third, complainants are given the option, but are not required, to provide personal information, including their name, address, telephone number(s), and email address. Where provided, personal information is not disclosed outside the Access Board without the written permission of the complainant. Complainants are also given the option to upload electronic files containing pictures, drawings, or other documents relevant to their complaint. Once any additional information and the complaint is submitted, the system provides complainants with confirmation that their complaint has been submitted successfully, a complaint number for them to use when making inquiries about the status of their complaint, and an option to print their complaint.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Maryland Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is for the committee to continue The purpose is for the committee to continue briefing planning on the chosen topic of artificial intelligence and its application in voting administration.
Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. ET.
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer, at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of meeting will include a list of persons who are present. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following scheduled meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after meetings. Records of meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed revisions to the State and Local Government Finance Collections, and Public Employment & Payroll Collections, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 19, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Michael Reich, Assistant Division Chief, Public Sector, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, 301-763-5163; or by email
The Census Bureau plans to request a revision and extension of the clearance for the Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll and the Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances. The Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll collects state and local government data by function for full-time and part-time employees and payroll. Data collection is conducted through ten tailored instruments (Forms E1 through E10), each assigned to a government unit in accordance with its functional responsibilities. The Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances collects state and local government finance data including government revenue, expenditure, debt, and details on pension systems. Data are collected for all agencies, departments, and institutions of the 50 state governments and for a sample of all local governments (counties, municipalities, townships, and special districts). Data collection is conducted through five tailored instruments (Forms F11, F13, F28, F29, and F32), each assigned to a government unit in accordance with its functional responsibilities. Form F11 is used for public pension systems; Form F13 is used for state insurance trust systems; and Forms F28, F29, and F32 are used for local governments. Data for school districts is collected under a separate survey (Annual Survey of School System Finances) and are not included here.
In years ending with `2' and `7' this collection is conducted as a part of the Census of Governments. There is no difference in content collected between a Census of Governments year and non-Census year. In non-Census of Governments years, we only collect data from a sample of the entire government universe, whereas during a Census of Governments year we collect data from the entire universe. The upcoming three years of this collection will cover fiscal years 2027, 2028, and 2029. 2027 will be a Census of Governments year collection.
The Census Bureau plans to revise the Annual Survey of Local Government Finances (F-28) and the Annual Survey of Public Pensions (F-11) collections. These surveys are collected as part of the larger State and Local Government Finance Collections mentioned above. All other forms remain unchanged.
For Local Government Finances (F-28), the Census Bureau plans to add the collection of selected criminal justice intergovernmental expenditure details previously dropped to support the needs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In addition, a question to clarify payments made to retirement systems that the government is unable to classify will be added to remove classification issues in the financial admin and miscellaneous expenditure functions.
For Public Pensions (F-11), the Census Bureau plans to restructure the instrument to streamline collection and reduce respondent burden. The Census Bureau will combine several items including government contributions (into two items; own contributions and other government contributions), interest and dividends (into one item), state and local active membership (into one item), and state and local employee contributions (into one item). These revised questions will better align with Annual Comprehensive Financial Report structure, making collection easier for smaller pension system while affecting overall public estimates minimally. The Census Bureau will also drop sixteen actuarial data items only published in individual unit files, keeping fiduciary net position, actuarially determined contributions, discount rate, total pension liability, and net pension liability.
These changes will help to provide key data users with the data they need and modernize the survey's content to maintain the relevancy and sustainability of these data. Cognitive testing shows the addition and removal of the forementioned content did not negatively impact overall response.
The data collected are released as part of the State and Local Government Finance and Public Employment & Payroll statistical series. The collections also produce individual data products that focus on state governments, local governments, and public pensions in greater detail than the combined financial and employment series as a by-product of their collections for the combined data series. The Census Bureau provides these data to the Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop the public sector components of the National Income and Product Accounts and for constructing the functional payrolls in the public sector of the Gross Domestic Product, payroll being the single largest component of current operations. The Census Bureau also provides these data to the Federal Reserve Board for use in the Flow of Funds Accounts and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for use in the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Other Federal agencies that make regular use of the data include the Council of Economic Advisers, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Justice. State and local governments and related organizations, public policy groups, public interest groups, private research organizations, and private sector businesses also use these data.
Statistics are produced as data files in electronic formats published to the Census Bureau website and APIs.
These surveys use multiple modes for data collection with the main collection method being internet data collection with a mailed invitation, followed by email, mail, and telephone follow-ups. Other methods used to collect data and maximize response include collecting state and local government data through administrative records such as submitted financial audits, state financial reports, and annual comprehensive financial reports via electronic or mailed files and/or records.
The Census Bureau developed central collection agreements with state and large local government officials to collect the data from their dependent agencies and report to the Census Bureau as a central respondent. These arrangements eliminate the need for a mail invitation for approximately 5,900 governmental units in a sample year and 33,000 during the year of the Census of Governments. The arrangements reduce burden by greatly decreasing the number of respondents who must complete an on-line response as the data are acquired from a centralized source instead of multiple sources.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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 may 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.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Sault Ste. Marie Economic Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 16, requesting subzone status for the facility of Yazaki North America, Inc., located in Petoskey, Michigan. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 13, 2026.
The proposed subzone (2.5 acres) is located at 2277 M-119 Highway, Petoskey, Michigan. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 16.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, John Frye of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact John Frye at
Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 19, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Minority Business Development Agency PRA Officer at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Uma Hiremagalur at
In 2023, MBDA awarded cooperative agreements under the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the MBDA Business Center Program. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act/Modernization Act (GPRA/MA), and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), MBDA requires all award recipients to report basic participant information, service activities and progress on attainment of program goals via the Online CRM/Performance
This data provides the baseline from which the Online CRM/Performance Database is populated. The Online CRM/Performance Database is used to regularly monitor and evaluate the progress of the MBDA programs, to provide the Department and OMB with a summary of the quantitative information required to be submitted about government supported programs, to implement the GPRA/MA, conduct program evaluation in support of the Evidence Act. This information may also be summarized and included in the MBDA Annual Performance Report, which is made available to the public.
The MBDA technical assistance programs continue to use the Online CRM/Performance Database. The client transaction and verification forms will be used to collect information about the effectiveness of the programs funded by the agency. The forms include a statement regarding MBDA's intended use and transfer of the information collected to other federal agencies for the purpose of conducting research and studies on minority and underserved businesses.
Information will be collected both manually and electronically.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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 may 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.
Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 19, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Minority Business Development Agency PRA Officer at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Uma Hiremagalur at
In 2023, MBDA awarded cooperative agreements under the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the MBDA Capital Readiness Program. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act/Modernization Act (GPRA/MA), and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), MBDA requires all award recipients to report basic participant information, service activities, and progress on attainment of program goals via the Online CRM/Performance Database. The data inputs into the Online CRM/Performance Database originates from progress report forms used by each awardee to collect information about each participant that receives technical assistance services under the Capital Readiness Program.
This data provides the baseline from which the Online CRM/Performance Database is populated. The Online CRM/Performance Database is used to regularly monitor and evaluate the progress of the MBDA programs, to provide the Department and OMB with a summary of the quantitative information required to be submitted about government-supported programs, to implement the GPRA/MA, conduct program evaluation in support of the Evidence Act. This information may also be summarized and included in the MBDA Annual Performance Report, which is made available to the public.
The MBDA technical assistance programs continue to use the Online CRM/Performance Database. The client transaction and verification forms will be used to collect information about the
Information will be collected both manually and electronically.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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 may 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America (GOA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has modified the Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued to bp Exploration and Production Inc. (bp) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOA.
The LOA is effective through October 1, 2026.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
On August 28, 2025, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) received a request from NMFS Office of Policy (Policy) for reimplementation of the current Incidental Take Regulation (ITR) to avoid a lapse in ITRs offering incidental take coverage for GOA geophysical survey activities. On October 20, 2025, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the original petitioner for the current ITRs) submitted a request to be included in the process as a co-petitioner. In response to these requests, NMFS issued a new final rule, effective April 20, 2026, through April 19, 2031 (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
The reimplementation of the regulations continues the established framework for authorization of incidental take through LOAs. The final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, and there are no changes to the associated mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
NMFS issued a LOA to bp on March 1, 2026, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a three-dimensional ocean-bottom node and distributed acoustic sensing survey in the Garden Banks and Walker Ridge areas, effective May 1, 2026, through August 31, 2026. Please see the
On July 21, 2026, bp informed NMFS that the survey had a delayed start. Accordingly, they requested that the August 31, 2026 expiration date be extended to October 1, 2026, due to the delay. There are no other changes to the survey area or plan, which includes 106 days of sound source operation, with 69 days planned in zone 5 and 37 days planned in zone 7. Since the survey timing now involves months for which take was not previously assessed, we have updated bp's take estimates based on the revised schedule. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 106 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the period that produces the greatest value.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the modified LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 7 of the rule (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026). For more information, please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2026 final rule (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above and in the
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 91 FR 20784, 20812, April 17, 2026). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of bp's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application, as subsequently modified by bp, and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA modification request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued a modification to the LOA to bp authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
Office of the Secretarial Boards & Councils, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) will be renewed for a two-year period beginning on August 26, 2026. The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on energy policies; the Department's basic and applied research and developmental activities; economic and national security policy; and on any other activities and operations of the Department of Energy.
The projected renewal date is August 26, 2026.
David Borak, SEAB Designated Federal Officer, by Phone: 240-306-5557 or Email:
The renewal of the SEAB has been determined to be essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy and to be the in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Board will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, adhering to the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing this written public interest determination, which has been approved by the Secretary of Energy, to demonstrate that renewing the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) is in the public interest:
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 13, 2026, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, 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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate 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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/26.
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.
RP26-1044-001.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date.
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
On August 12, 2026, Maine Department of Environmental Protection submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from the Town of Dover-Foxcroft, in conjunction with the above captioned project on August 3, 2026. Pursuant to section 6.1(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If Maine Department of Environmental Protection fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate 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
On July 25, 2025, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (applicant or PG&E) filed an application to surrender and decommission the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project No. 77. The project is located on the Eel River and East Branch of the Russian River in Lake and Mendocino counties, California. The project occupies federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
On May 22, 2026, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) initiated a scoping process as part of its review and held scoping meetings on June 23 and 24, 2026 in Ukiah, California. On July 24, 2026, Commission staff extended the comment period to September 18, 2026, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time, for the filing of scoping comments.
By this notice, Commission staff provides notice of two additional public scoping sessions to collect comments on the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA document. All interested individuals, resource agencies, Native American Tribes, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are invited to attend one or both of the sessions.
These additional sessions will follow the format of the June 23 and 24, 2026 sessions. There will be no formal presentations at either session. Numbered tickets will be handed out on a first-come, first-serve basis; individuals will be called in order by ticket number to provide oral comments to be transcribed by a stenographer for the formal record. Time limits on oral comments may be enforced to ensure those wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so. The times and locations of the additional scoping sessions are as follows:
If you provided comments in our previous June 23-24 scoping sessions, you do not need to attend and/or resubmit your comments. For additional information on the proceeding, see our May 22, 2026 notice and Scoping Document 1. The comment period for filing all scoping comments closes on September 18, 2026, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time
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
If you have further questions, you may also contact Diana Shannon at
Take notice that on August 7, 2026, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to: (i) abandon in place approximately 5.39 miles of Columbia's 10-inch-diameter BKY pipeline, (ii) abandon by removal approximately 0.19 miles of Columbia's 10-inch-diameter BKY pipeline, and (iii) remove associated mainline valves meters, a rectifier, and appurtenant facilities. All of the above facilities are located in Lawrence County, Kentucky, and Wayne County, West Virginia (BKY Abandonment Project). The project will allow Columbia to facilitate the planned expansion of an adjacent third-party facility since the proposed pipeline segments are no longer required to support Columbia's current firm service obligations. The estimated cost for the project is $2,797,063, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
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 concerning this request should be directed to LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5232, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 13, 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
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filled motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-562-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-562-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (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 by mail at: LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or by email (with a link to the document) at
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is now accepting public comments on the experts the Agency is considering for membership on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). This document identifies the individuals nominated. The Agency anticipates selecting from those nominees that are identified as interested and available to appoint two new SAP members by October 2026 due to expiring membership terms. Public comments on these nominations will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new members for the FIFRA SAP.
Submit your comments on or before September 8, 2026.
Submit comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-5679, online at
The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) is Tamue L. Gibson; Regulatory and Information Services Division (7602M), Office of Mission Critical Operations, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: (202) 564-7642; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. It may be of particular interest to persons who are interested in the impact of pesticide regulatory actions on health and the environment and pesticide-related issues in general. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions, consult the DFO listed under
Do not submit CBI information to EPA through email or
When preparing and submitting your comments, see Commenting on EPA Dockets at
This document solicits public comment on the experts recently nominated to serve on the FIFRA SAP (see Unit III.D.2.). The Agency anticipates selecting from these nominations to appoint two new SAP members by October 2026 due to expiring membership terms. Public comments on these recent nominations will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new members for the FIFRA SAP.
The FIFRA SAP is a federal advisory committee, established in 1975 under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136
The FIFRA SAP serves as a scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide independent scientific advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Members serve staggered terms of appointment, generally of three to six years duration. To augment the knowledge-base of the FIFRA SAP, FIFRA required that EPA establish a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.
As a scientific peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists.
Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert comments on the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. In accordance with FIFRA section 25(d)(1), the Administrator shall require nominees to the FIFRA SAP to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, including educational background, employment history, and scientific publications. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the FIFRA SAP by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a federal department or agency, or their employment by a federal department or agency (except EPA). FIFRA section 25(d) further stipulates that the Agency publish the name, address, and professional affiliation of the nominees in the
Consistent with the requirements of FIFRA section 25(d), FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, conflict of interest statutes in Title 18 of the United States Code, and related regulations. Before being formally appointed, each candidate is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form in which they must fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any. EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure forms to assess the possibility of financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a loss of impartially, or any prior involvement with the development of documents likely to be under consideration by the FIFRA SAP (including previous scientific peer reviews) before the candidate is considered further.
In accordance with the provisions of FIFRA section 25(d), on April 15, 2026, EPA requested that the NIH and the NSF nominate scientists to fill vacancies occurring on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency requested nominations of nationally recognized experts in the fields of ecological and human exposure assessment, including environmental fate and transport of chemicals; new approach methodologies, including
NIH and NSF provided the Agency with a total of 28 nominees, of which, 16 are interested and available to actively participate in FIFRA SAP meetings (see Unit III.D.2.), and 12 individuals are not available to be considered further for membership at this time (see Unit III.D.1.). In addition to the list of nominees provided in this document, a compilation of brief biographical sketches, including information about the qualifications of the individual nominees, is available in the public docket identified under
The following individuals are not available to be considered further for membership at this time (listed alphabetically):
1. Steven Belmain, Ph.D., University of Greenwich, Greenwich, London.
2. Mark Cubeta, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
3. Thomas Hartung, MD, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.*
4. Eunha Hoh, Ph.D., San Diego State University, San Diego, California.*
5. Lifang Hou, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
6. Pamela Lein, Ph.D., University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
7. Charles Mitchell, Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
8. Richard Ostfeld, Ph.D., Carey Institute, Millbrook, New York.
9. Michael Parsons, Ph.D., Fordham University, Bronx, New York.
10. Lina Quesda-Ocampo, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
11. Brian J. Reich, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
12. Elaine Sunderland, Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
*
The following individuals are interested and available experts that the Agency is considering for membership on the FIFRA SAP (listed alphabetically). Selected biographical data for each nominee is available in the docket identified under
1. Diana S. Aga, Ph.D., University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
2. Antonio T. Baines, Ph.D., North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina.
3. Michelle C. Cora, DVM, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina.
4. Megan M. Dewdney, Ph.D., University of Florida, Lake Alfred, Florida.
5. Lauren M. Diepenbrock, Ph.D., University of Florida, Lake Alfred, Florida.
6. Rebecca C. Fry, Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
7. James J. Galligan, Ph.D., University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
8. Kurunthachalam Kannan, Ph.D., University at Albany, Albany, New York.
9. Bo Li, Ph.D., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
10. Carrie McDonough, Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
11. Irfan Rahma, Ph.D., University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
12. Nors F. Savage, Ph.D., United States National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia.
13. Elizabeth J. Skellam, Ph.D., University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.
14. Marin Talbot Brewer, Ph.D., University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
15. Kyla Welch Taylor, Ph.D., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina.
16. Wei Zheng, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
The form can be reviewed at
To request additional information, please contact Donna Schneider <
By neutralizing the effect of export credit support offered by foreign governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private sector will not accept, Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in foreign markets on the basis of price and product. Under the Working Capital Guarantee Program, Ex-Im Bank provides repayment guarantees to lenders on secured, short-term working capital loans made to qualified exporters. The guarantee may be approved for a single loan or a revolving line of credit. In the event that a borrower defaults on a transaction guaranteed by Ex-Im Bank the guaranteed lender may seek payment by the submission of a claim.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
August 25, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 763 966 301#; or via web:
James Kaplan, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 864-7150.
Board Meeting Agenda.
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 Trade Regulation Rule on Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising (Franchise Rule or Rule). The current clearance expires on August 31, 2026.
Comments must be received by September 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christine M. Todaro, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3711,
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
Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting to reinstate approval of the ACF-700: Tribal Annual Report (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #: 0970-0430) with proposed revisions. ACF requests changes to the form that reduce annual burden hours.
Comments due September 17, 2026.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Head Start Act, notice is hereby given of one Tribal Consultation session to be held between HHS/ACF OHS leadership and the leadership of Tribal governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The purpose of this consultation session is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations.
Wednesday, September 16, 2026—1:00-4:00 p.m. ET.
Virtual: Registration information for the virtual event will be forthcoming.
Office of Head Start, email
In accordance with section 640(l)(4) of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C. 9835(1)(4), ACF announces OHS Tribal Consultation session for leaders of Tribal governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
The agenda for the scheduled OHS Tribal Consultation reflects the statutory purposes of Head Start Tribal Consultations related to meeting the needs of AIAN children and families. OHS will also highlight the progress made in addressing issues and concerns
The consultation session includes elected or appointed Leaders of Tribal governments and their designated representatives. Designees must have a letter from the Tribal government authorizing them to represent the Tribe. Tribal governments must submit the designee letter at least 3 days before the consultation session to the Office of Head Start at
Within 45 days of the consultation process, a detailed report of the consultation session will be available for all Tribal governments receiving funds for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Tribes can submit written testimony for the report to the Office of Head Start at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Women's Health and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are announcing a public workshop titled “Testosterone Use in Menopausal Women.” The purpose of the public workshop is to examine the current scientific evidence and critical knowledge gaps related to testosterone use in menopausal women to help inform future research and potential drug development of testosterone products for menopausal women. Researchers, educators, industry, clinicians, patients, and consumers may benefit from attending this scientific workshop. Presentations will examine the physiological roles of testosterone throughout a woman's life, including age-related decline, the menopausal transition, challenges associated with measuring and interpreting testosterone blood levels, and how these levels correlate with clinical symptoms and conditions. Speakers will review current and potential clinical uses of testosterone in menopausal women and examine the strengths and limitations of available data supporting those uses. Speakers will discuss regulatory considerations, including the development of robust efficacy and safety data, to support a marketing application for testosterone in menopausal women for the treatment of various clinical conditions, and study design considerations for evaluating long-term safety outcomes in women.
The public workshop will be held on September 17, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. See the
The public workshop will be held as a hybrid event via webcast and an in-person option at the FDA White Oak Campus, Great Room, Bldg. 31, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments, data, and information 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
Lakshmi Kannan, Bldg. 32, Rm. 2333, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9440,
Menopause represents a significant biological transition for women, marked by cessation of ovarian function and decreased levels of all ovarian steroids, including estrogen and testosterone. Testosterone in women naturally declines with age. Levels in the late 40s are approximately half of those in the early 20s, reaching a nadir in the late 50s, followed by stabilization or modest increases starting in the 60s. The role of declining ovarian testosterone levels in menopausal women and its relationship to medical conditions, such as frailty, depressive symptoms, sleep, sexual function, cognition, and musculoskeletal health, are not well understood. Unlike estrogen-containing products, there are no FDA approved indications for testosterone therapy for menopausal women. Nevertheless, the off-label use of testosterone in women nearing or after menopause has increased over the past decade. Testosterone is currently approved for hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and South Africa. Beyond HSDD, there are limited data on the treatment effect of testosterone for other clinical uses. While short-term safety data exist for physiologic doses, long-term safety data beyond 24 months are limited, particularly regarding cardiovascular and breast cancer risks. Additionally, challenges exist in testosterone measurement and understanding the relationship between testosterone levels and various clinical outcomes. This public workshop will examine the current scientific evidence and knowledge gaps related to testosterone use in menopausal women to inform future research and potential drug development of testosterone products for menopausal women.
This public workshop will include presentations and session discussions by experts in the fields of women's health, endocrinology, clinical pharmacology, clinical care, and regulators. The patient perspective will also be explored. Sessions will address testosterone physiology throughout a woman's life, navigating measurement challenges, clinical guidelines and practice perspectives, and regulatory considerations for drug approval, including the identification of clinically meaningful endpoints for various indications. Each session will include panel discussions to explore critical research gaps and chart a path forward for testosterone therapy in menopausal women.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. People interested in attending this public workshop in-person must register by September 10, 2026, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Those planning to attend virtually may register up until the date of the meeting. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the FDA Office of Women's Health at
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 21 CFR 10.65.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry titled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application.” This draft guidance is intended to serve as a foundational guidance to assist applicants in determining which one of the abbreviated approval pathways under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) is appropriate for the submission of a marketing application to FDA. This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry titled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application” issued in May 2019 and, when finalized, will replace the 2019 guidance for industry.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 19, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
David Coppersmith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1666, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9193.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry titled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application.” This draft guidance is intended to serve as a foundational guidance to assist applicants in determining which one of the abbreviated approval pathways under the FD&C Act is appropriate for the submission of a marketing application to FDA. This draft guidance highlights criteria for submitting applications under the abbreviated approval pathways described in sections 505(j) and 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j) and 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2), respectively), identifies considerations to help potential applicants determine whether an application would be more appropriately submitted under section 505(j) or pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act, and provides direction to potential applicants on requesting assistance from FDA in making this determination.
This draft guidance focuses on those applications that can be submitted as abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, petitioned ANDAs under section 505(j)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act, or new drug applications (NDAs) pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. This draft guidance does not discuss stand-alone NDAs.
This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry titled “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application,” which was announced in the
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on “Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this draft guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for submission of 505(b)(2) or 505(j) applications have been approved under OMB Control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 201 for labeling of prescription drugs have been approved under OMB Control number 0910-0572. The collections of information for controlled correspondence and requests for communication with Office of Generic Drugs staff have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0727.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council, September 23, 2026, 8:00 a.m. to September 23, 2026, 5:00 p.m., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 which was published in the
Amendment to inform that the open sessions will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be partially open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast and Podcasting website (
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.
Open: September 9, 2026, 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. 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:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), in accordance with its authority and responsibility under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is announcing the availability of new World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84)-based Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs). These OPDs depict geographic areas located on the OCS offshore the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) covering the extent of the area identified for further consideration for potential OCS mineral leasing and environmental analysis in BOEM's CNMI Area Identification that was finalized on March 18, 2026. These diagrams may be used in the descriptions of potential OCS mineral lease sales off of CMNI. Additional OPDs for areas offshore CNMI that were not included in the March 2026 Area Identification are expected to be published in the future.
Copies of the OPDs are available for download in .pdf format from the Offshore Marine Cadastre (OMC) Navigator at
Dr. Megan Carr, Associate Director for Strategic Resources, at (202) 294-3998 or via email at
The extent of the published diagram coverage is shown in Figure 1 below.
BOEM is announcing the following OPDs for the OCS off of CNMI:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the Proposed Leasing Notice (PLN) for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Pacific Mineral Lease Sale 2 (PACM-2). BOEM publishes this notice pursuant to its regulatory authority under 30 CFR part 581. Pursuant to 30 CFR 581.16, the Secretary of the Interior provides the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands with the opportunity to review and comment on the PLN within 60 days of publication of this notice of availability. The PLN describes the proposed lease sale's size, timing, and location, along with information to lessees about clauses, lease stipulations, and terms and conditions, such as minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Comments received from the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands must be submitted to BOEM no later than October 19, 2026. BOEM will publish a Final Leasing Notice in the
The PLN for the proposed Lease Sale PACM-2 and other information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Office of Strategic Resources, Pacific Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102, Camarillo, California, 93010; telephone: 805-384-6305. The PLN and other essential information are available for downloading or viewing on BOEM's website at
Joshua Gange, Acting Supervisor for Leasing and Technical Review, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific Region, 760 Paseo Camarillo (CM102), Camarillo, CA, 93010, at
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
August 13, 2026.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective June 5, 2026, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (91 FR 36613, June 17, 2026). Subsequently, the announcement of road closures and parking restrictions in Washington, DC, indicated an impact to the Commission and surrounding area for a period between August 14, 2026, and August 26, 2026. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to continue to hold an in-person hearing in these investigations.
The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on August 26, 2026, if deemed necessary; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on August 27, 2026; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on September 3, 2026.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 10) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and Notice of Investigation and terminate the investigation as to certain claims.
Jonathan D. Link, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3103. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 9, 2026, based on a complaint filed by Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc. (collectively “Polaris”), each of Medina, Minnesota. 91 FR 11336-37 (March 9, 2026). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain off-road vehicles and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,819,220 (“the '220 patent”); 7,950,486 (“the '486 patent”); 8,613,337; 9,217,501; and 12,187,127 (“the '127 patent”).
On June 26, 2026, Polaris filed a motion to amend the complaint and Notice of Investigation to assert claim 31 of the '486 patent and claims 9-15 and 22 of the '127 patent against the recently-launched ZFORCE® Z10 and Z10-4 vehicles, and to terminate the investigation in part as to claims 7 and 8 of the '220 patent. The motion certifies that CFMOTO does not oppose the motion and no opposition was filed.
On July 14, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID, amending the complaint and Notice of Investigation to assert claim 31 of the '486 patent and claims 9-15 and 22 of the '127 patent against the ZFORCE® Z10 and Z10-4 vehicles, and terminating the investigation in part as to claims 7 and 8 of the '220 patent. The ID finds that Polaris has shown good cause to amend the complaint and add allegations and the “proposed amendments will not prejudice the public interest or the rights of the parties participating in this investigation.” Order 10 at 5-6. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. Claims 7 and 8 of the '220 patent are terminated from the investigation. Further, the complaint and Notice of Investigation are amended to assert claim 31 of the '486 patent and claims 9-15 and 22 of the '127 patent.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 13, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 18) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety due to an arbitration agreement.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 23, 2026, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by InterDigital, Inc. and InterDigial VC Holdings, Inc., both of Wilmington, Delaware (together, “InterDigital”). 91 FR 2959-60 (Jan. 23, 2026). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain video-capable electronic devices by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,741,211; claims 39, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, and 74 of U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724; claims 13, 16, 19, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,681,855; claims 1-3, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,917,146; and claims 1, 4, 10, and 15
On May 4, 2026, the Commission terminated the investigation as to claim 4 of the '674 patent. Order No. 8 (April 14, 2026),
On July 13, 2026, InterDigital and Amazon filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon an arbitration agreement.
On July 17, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 18) granting the motion. The ID noted that Commission Rule 210.21 provides that “[a]ny party may move at any time to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a settlement, a licensing or other agreement, including an agreement to present the matter for arbitration.” ID at 1 (citing 19 CFR 210.21(a)(2)). The ID found that in compliance with Commission Rule 210.21(d), the parties provided a copy of the arbitration agreement.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 13, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to find a violation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) prohibiting the importation of products that infringe claims 1 and 7 of each of the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,764,172 (“the '172 patent”); 9,370,934 (“the '934 patent”); 11,535,038 (“the '038 patent”); 12,240,248 (“the '248 patent”); and 12,240,249 (“the '249 patent”); and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against respondents Mountain Peak, Inc. and Straightouttaink, LP. The investigation is terminated.
Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On June 17, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed by Epson America, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California; Epson Portland, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Nagano, Japan (collectively “Epson”). 90 FR 25644-45 (June 17, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of the '172 patent, the '934 patent, the '038 patent, the '248 patent, and the '249 patent.
The Commission's notice of investigation named the following entities as respondents: Shenzhen Hongxinyuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Jianjai (“Shenzhen Hongxinyuan”) of Shenzhen, China; Shangrao Shixuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Inkgo (“Shangrao Shixuan”) of Shangrao, China; Shen Zhen Sailing Technology Limited d/b/a Triple-Color (“Shen Zhen Sailing”) of Shenzhen, China; Qiong Wang d/b/a 7-Magic (“Qiong Wang”) of Leizhou City, China; Dongguan Ocbestjet Digital Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet (“Ocbestjet Dongguan”) of Dongguan City, China; Ocbestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet (“Ocbestjet HK”) of Hong Kong, China; Shenzhen Kaizhen Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a PayForLess (“Kaizhen”) of Shenzhen, China; ZhuHai MeiJiAn Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a HaloFox (“ZhuHai MeiJiAn”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Shuofeng E-commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a super-ink-club (“Shuofeng”) of Zhuhai, China; Tatrix International China Co., Ltd. (“Tatrix”) of Guangdong, China; Luozhi Trading Co., Ltd. (“Luozhi”) of Guanzhou, China; Zhuhai Zhenyang Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Zhenyang”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Hengyunda Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Hengyunda”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Rongtaida Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Rongtaida”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Shi Wei Tai Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Shi Wei Tai”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Yixing Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Yixing”) of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Bowang Technology Co., Ltd. (“Bowang”) of Zhuhai, China; Mei Jin Technology HK Co., Ltd. (“Mei Jin”) of Hong Kong, China; Mountain Peak, Inc. (“Mountain Peak”) of Industry, CA; and Straightouttaink, LP (“Straightouttaink”) of San Jose, CA. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party in this investigation.
The Commission previously found respondents Tatrix, Luozhi, Zhenyang, Hengyunda, Rongtaida, Shi Wei Tai, Yixing, Bowang, Mei Jin, Mountain Peak, and Straightouttaink in default.
On January 8, 2026, the Commission terminated the following respondents from the investigation: Shenzhen Hongxinyuan, Shangrao Shixuan, Shen Zhen Sailing, and Qiong Wang.
On January 20, 2026, the Commission terminated the investigation as to claims 2, 3, 8, and 10 of the '172 patent; claims 8 and 10 of the '934 patent; claims 12, 17, 19-20, and 24 of the '038 patent; claims 13, 15, and 20-21 of the '248 patent; and claims 2, 8, 13-15, and 20-22 of the '249 patent. Order No. 12 (Dec. 18, 2025),
On March 24, 2026, the ALJ issued an initial determination (Order No. 16) (“ID”) granting Epson's motion for summary determination of a violation of section 337. The ID also includes a Recommended Determination (“RD”) recommending that the Commission issue a GEO barring entry of products that infringe the asserted claims, issue CDOs against respondents Mountain Peak and Straightouttaink, and set a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing articles imported during the period of Presidential review.
On April 6, 2026, the Commission issued its post-RD notice seeking submissions on public interest issues raised by the relief recommended by the ALJ should the Commission find a violation. 91 FR 17307-08 (April 6, 2026). No responses were filed from the public. On April 21, 2026, Epson filed a statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4), 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
On May 8, 2026, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID in part with respect to the economic prong of the DI requirement and requesting written submissions on the issues under review as well as remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 91 FR 25921-23 (May 12, 2026) (“Review Notice”). The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
On May 22, 2026, Epson and OUII filed their written submissions in response to the Review Notice. No other written submissions were filed in response to the Review Notice. On May 29, 2026, Epson and OUII filed their replies to the other party's written submissions.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including Order No. 16 and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to affirm with supplemental analysis the ID's findings that Epson has satisfied the economic prong of the DI requirement. The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a GEO and CDOs against respondents Mountain Peak and Straightouttaink, as to claims 1 and 7 of each of the following patents: the '172 patent, the '934 patent, the '038 patent, the '248 patent, and the '249 patent.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined to impose a bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review. 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The Commission issues its opinion herewith setting forth its determinations. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 13, 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.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on February 2, 2026 (91 FR 4613) and determined on May 8, 2026 that it would conduct an expedited review (91 FR 34649, June 8, 2026).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on August 14, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5777 (August 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Office of Information Policy, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Office of Information Policy, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until September 17, 2026.
To request additional information about this information collection request, please contact: Andrew Fiorillo, Acting Chief of Compliance, Office Information Policy, 441 G St. NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20530,
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530.
On August 13, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in the lawsuit entitled
The United States alleges that the defendant made unpermitted discharges of pollutants and otherwise failed to comply with the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for stormwater discharges by failing to eliminate its unauthorized non-stormwater discharges and by failing to comply with numerous other requirements included in that permit to prevent and minimize water pollution at its vinegar and mustard production facility in Greenville, New Hampshire. The United States' complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act in four specific ways: (1) unpermitted discharges of pollutants; (2) failure to evaluate for and eliminate unauthorized non-stormwater discharges; (3) failure to carry out stormwater management practices required by the defendant's NPDES permit; and (4) failure to timely provide to the Environmental Protection Agency information reasonably required to implement the Clean Water Act. In its complaint, the United States sought an order requiring the defendant to comply with all applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, including the defendant's current and any future NPDES permits, along with civil penalties.
The proposed consent decree resolves the United States' claims. It requires the defendant to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 based on its limited financial ability to pay. The proposed consent decree also includes injunctive relief to bring the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act and applicable NPDES permit coverage, including requiring defendant to implement monitoring for water quality, acetic acid discharge, and stormwater discharge flow; retain a third party to conduct a facility engineering investigation and a facility environmental site assessment and investigation and use the results to implement a comprehensive environmental compliance program; evaluate for and eliminate non-stormwater discharges; implement control measures that minimize pollutant discharges in stormwater; to prepare and implement an updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
This is a hybrid meeting. Members and the public may attend this meeting virtually via Zoom. Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the AAAC website:
Registration for the virtual meeting can be accessed via the following link:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
Comments must be filed by September 17, 2026. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by October 19, 2026. This biweekly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from July 21, 2026, to August 3, 2026. The last biweekly notice was published on August 4, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Karen Zeleznock, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1118; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-3994, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the license amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website (
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website (
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available on the NRC's public website (
The following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, were published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
10:00 a.m., August 26, 2026.
Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must submit a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive dial-in information. All requests must be sent to
This meeting will be open to the public.
Office of Legislative Affairs Update.
Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, (312) 751-4920.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SF-1 (17 CFR 239.44) is a registration statement used by issuers of asset-backed securities to register a public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
91 FR 52392, August 13, 2026.
Friday, August 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The Open Meeting scheduled for Friday, August 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SF-3 (17 CFR 239.45) is a registration statement used by issuers of asset-backed securities to register a public shelf offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350
Currently, there are 11 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that the ongoing annual burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO would be 2,322 hours. In addition, the Commission estimates an industry-wide annual external cost to NRSROs of $4,840
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
On December 3, 2025, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on Amendment No. 4 from interested persons and to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, on an accelerated basis.
Section 1003 of the Company Guide sets forth minimum quantitative and qualitative continued listing standards for securities listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide to specify that if a security's closing price per share is less than $0.25 (the “Minimum Trading Price”) on any trading day, the Exchange shall immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings with respect to such security in accordance with the provisions of Section 1009 of the Company Guide.
The Exchange proposes that these changes will be effective on July 1, 2027.
The Exchange also proposes to specify in Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide that, consistent with its general authority under Section 1002(e) of the Company Guide to suspend trading in the event of any condition that makes further dealings on the Exchange unwarranted, it may suspend trading or delist a security where, in the Exchange's opinion, the trading price has experienced a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, even if such security has not fallen below the Minimum Trading Price.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission has consistently recognized that the development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to enhance the Exchange's continued listing standards. The proposal will accelerate the timeframe within which the Exchange will delist a security in instances where the security trades below the Minimum Trading Price and result in immediate suspension from trading on the Exchange. The Exchange states that securities that fall below the Minimum Trading Price are more susceptible to trading volatility and market manipulation and are unlikely to recover to a meaningful degree.
While several commenters expressed general support for the Exchange's goal of enhancing market quality and maintaining appropriate continued listing standards,
This commenter attached a report by Professor Craig M. Lewis that presents an empirical study raising concerns that the proposal may prematurely delist companies that would otherwise regain compliance.
In response to commenters, the Exchange states the Minimum Trading Price criteria is a “measured approach to address concerns about volatility and potential manipulation in low-priced stocks.”
The Exchange's proposal to immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for a security that falls below the Minimum Trading Price is consistent with the Act's requirement that rules be, among other things, designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Commission's data analysis supports the Exchange's proposal. Specifically, the Commission's analysis supports the Exchange's statement that there is an increasing trend of low-priced stocks and demonstrates that stocks trading below the Minimum Trading Price are likely to stay under this threshold for a significant period of time. As discussed further below, low priced securities may be more susceptible to manipulation. The continued listing of securities trading below the Minimum Trading Price raises concerns that these securities may have heightened susceptibility to manipulation while trading on the Exchange for an extended period. Accordingly, the immediate suspension and delisting of these securities is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
As part of the Commission's consideration of the proposed Minimum Trading Price, the Commission analyzed stock prices and delisting data for companies listed on NYSE American and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).
In addition, the Commission analyzed the relationship of securities that crossed specific closing price thresholds between $0.10 and $0.50, and their closing prices after 180 calendar days of first crossing a specific closing price threshold.
The Commission's analysis also shows that securities that would have fallen below the Minimum Trading Price had a high likelihood of being delisted for reasons that indicate a failure to comply with other quantitative continued listing requirements.
Finally, the Commission's analysis indicates a fundamental tradeoff inherent in selecting a threshold for delisting: a more stringent threshold (
The
The Commission agrees with the Exchange that securities with low trading prices may be more prone to manipulation.
The proposal is reasonably designed to enhance the Exchange's listing standards by immediately suspending trading and commencing delisting proceedings for securities that fall below the Minimum Trading Price, which facilitates the continued listing of securities of a higher quality and that are financially sound. As noted above, the imprimatur of listing on a particular exchange correlates to investors' expectations that the listed issuer meets certain standards set by the exchange and that a listing exchange will use its judgment regarding the level at which to set those standards. Those standards are informed by an exchange's regulatory and commercial considerations and the Act provides exchanges with discretion, subject to the requirements of the Act, to set those standards as they see fit with the understanding that not all companies will meet those standards initially or over time.
Moreover, the addition of the Minimum Trading Price requirement is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed standard is reasonably designed to the Exchange's goal of addressing the risks that it has identified with respect to very low-priced securities. The Minimum Trading Price will provide for a closing price level below which there may be a heightened susceptibility to manipulation and difficulties maintaining fair and orderly markets in these securities.
While the overall conclusion of the Lewis Report is that the Exchange's proposal to immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for securities that fall below the Minimum Trading Price may result in the delisting of companies that later recover and that some of these companies may otherwise have remained listed on the Exchange, the possibility of a meaningful recovery is not determinative of whether the Exchange may reasonably determine to delist a security. As discussed above, the Commission's analysis shows that 55% of the securities that fell below the Minimum Trading Price had a closing price under $0.25 after 180 days, with the median closing price at $0.23, and that securities that close below $0.25 experience significant volatility.
Several commenters stated that the Minimum Trading Price criteria would negatively impact capital formation for small public companies and increase risk to investors.
The Commission acknowledges that there are many benefits to companies and their shareholders related to being listed on a national securities exchange, including increased access to capital formation and promotion of market efficiency. Commenters have raised concerns that delisting companies that fall below the Minimum Trading Price may lead to several negative consequences, including, but not limited to, making capital raising and obtaining financing more difficult for small companies.
The Exchange's proposal to immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for securities that fall below the Minimum Trading Price, as set forth in Amendment No. 4, is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Exchange's proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act; and will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
Several commenters stated that the Minimum Trading Price criteria is susceptible to short-term market dislocations (
In response, the Exchange states that it has a long standing practice of immediately suspending trading in a security when it trades below $0.10 that is publicly known.
A security's closing price is a reasonable measure to be used in a quantitative listing standard to determine whether a company should continue to be listed on the Exchange,
Several commenters raised concerns about the lack of a cure or compliance period for issuers that fall below the Minimum Trading Price and stated that immediate suspension of trading and commencement of delisting proceedings under the proposal without a plan of compliance or cure period for issuers raises fair procedure concerns under Section 6(b)(7) of the Act.
In response, the Exchange states that it disagrees with the approach of incorporating a compliance period (or measuring the Minimum Trading Price over 30 trading days) due to the propensity for problematic trading at very low price levels and that allowing for a compliance period would facilitate the exchange trading of low-priced stocks for a longer period.
While the Exchange rules provide for an opportunity to submit a plan to come back into compliance with certain other continued listing standards,
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act in that it provides a fair procedure for the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered. A listed company whose security is subject to immediate suspension of trading and the commencement of delisting proceedings under the proposal after failing to comply with the Minimum Trading Price requirement will be able to appeal the delisting decision in accordance with the provisions in Part 12 of the Company Guide.
Several commenters suggested alternatives to the proposal. Commenters recommended replacing the proposal's single-day price trigger with a multi-day average price test.
As originally filed, the Exchange had proposed that the Minimum Trade Price requirement would become effective on October 1, 2026.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to specify that, consistent with its general authority under Section 1002(e) of the Company Guide to suspend trading in the event of any condition that makes further dealings on the Exchange unwarranted, it may suspend trading or delist a security where, in the Exchange's opinion, the trading price has experienced a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, even if such security has not fallen below the Minimum Trading Price.
Several commenters stated that the proposed revision to Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide, which allows the Exchange to suspend trading or delist a security where the trading price has experienced a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level, provides the Exchange with “broad” and “amorphous” discretion.
In response, the Exchange states that the rules of the Exchange permit regulatory staff of the Exchange to delist a company when they have determined, in their sole discretion, that continued trading is inadvisable.
The proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is reasonably designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act in that it provides a fair procedure for the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered. Pursuant to the Exchange's proposal, the Exchange may exercise discretion to determine if a listed company's security is experiencing a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, and accordingly suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for the security. Such company will be able to appeal the delisting decision in accordance with the provisions in Part 12 of the Company Guide, as described above.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 4 in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) is a disclosure document under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 3501
Currently, there are 11 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that the ongoing annual burden for respondents to comply with Rule 17g- 2 is 3,883 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 303A.00 and 303A.07 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to extend the transition period in which a listed company must establish an internal audit function. 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.
Section 303A.07(c) of the Manual states that each company listed on the Exchange must have an internal audit function. The purpose of the internal audit function is to provide an issuer's management and audit committee with ongoing assessments of the issuer's risk management processes and system of internal controls. The function may be outsourced to a third-party service provider other than an issuer's independent auditor.
Like other elements of the Exchange's corporate governance rules, Sections 303A.00 and 303A.07 provide a transition period for certain issuers to become compliant with the internal audit function.
In expressing concern over the current one-year compliance period, issuers often cite competing business and regulatory obligations requiring management's attention and the challenges of building an internal audit function to assess a company's internal control environment while a company is still in its early stages and continuing to grow. The Exchange continues to believe that having a robust internal audit function is a key component of sound corporate governance, but agrees that providing issuers with additional time to develop such function will result in a more effective function. In this regard, the Exchange notes that newly-public companies are typically in the process of upgrading their accounting systems and internal controls and hiring additional staff to meet the greater demands placed on public companies. Given the oversight role of directors—and members of the Audit Committee, in particular—with respect to risk management and internal controls, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the transition period for compliance in order to provide a new slate of directors with sufficient time to assess an issuer's operations to help design a valuable internal audit function.
During the proposed five-year transition period, the Exchange believes that other requirements will continue to provide sufficient assurance that issuers listed on the Exchange are appropriately managing risk. All issuers listed on the Exchange are required to have an Audit Committee comprised of at least three independent directors.
Similarly, the Exchange notes that Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) does not require companies listed on that exchange to maintain an internal audit function. Given that a company could list on Nasdaq without any internal
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) generally
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that the proposed amendment would provide an extended transition period to comply with the internal audit requirement, thus enabling issuers to design a comprehensive and effective internal audit function. As discussed above, the Exchange views the internal audit function as a supplement to the statutory protections contained in Section 404(a) and 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which require that management annually assess an issuer's internal control environment and the external auditor provide an attestation on such assessment. In addition, Exchange rules require all listed issuers to have a fully independent Audit Committee responsible for, among other things, oversight of risk mitigation and internal controls. Finally, the Exchange notes that Nasdaq rules do not require listed companies to maintain an internal audit function. Therefore, even with an extended transition period, the Exchange's rules in this regard will be more stringent than its peer exchange.
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 proposal simply extends the transition period for compliance with the Exchange's internal audit requirement. The Exchange does not believe that extending the transition period in this manner presents any burden on competition as Nasdaq does not have an internal audit requirement.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the 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 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This advance notice is submitted by OCC in connection with a prosed change to its operations to amend the circumstances under which OCC may renew its revolving credit facility that OCC maintains for a 364-day term and that it may use: (i) to meet obligations arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member or any action taken by OCC to address such a default or suspension; (ii) to reimburse OCC for bankruptcy losses, subject to the conditions set forth in the By-Laws and Rules; (iii) to the extent permitted by the By-Laws and Rules, (a) to obtain funds
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
OCC maintains a Revolving Credit Facility to ensure access to needed liquidity in time to satisfy settlement obligations, even in the event of a default by a Clearing Member or another market disruption. A prior advance notice filing relating to the Facility, to which the Commission did not object, set forth the circumstances under which OCC may renew the Facility without filing an additional advance notice (the “Evergreen Provisions”).
OCC proposes amending the Evergreen Provisions, to which the Commission has not objected, to permit OCC to replace the lead or backup administrative agent of its Revolving Credit Facility without first submitting an advance notice.
The Revolving Credit Facility provides short-term secured borrowings in an aggregate principal amount of $2.5 billion but may be increased to $3.5 billion if OCC so requests and sufficient commitments from lenders are received and accepted. To obtain a loan under the Revolving Credit Facility, OCC would pledge as collateral: (i) U.S. dollars; (ii) securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or the Government of Canada; (iii) equities included in the S&P 500 Market Index, the NASDAQ exchange, or any United States or Canadian national securities exchange; (iv) Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”); or (v) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”). The Facility is renewed annually for a 364-day term.
Presently, OCC must submit an advance notice prior to renewing the Revolving Credit Facility if it intends to make changes to: (a) the financial institution acting as lead administrative agent;
OCC seeks this change in order to be able to more quickly replace the lead administrative agent if doubts arise as to the agent's ability to meet OCC's expectations in the event that OCC might need to draw on the Facility, given that any new agent is subject to the requirements for selecting providers of core services as set forth in Rule 17ad-25(i).
To be clear, OCC is satisfied with the current lead administrative agent of the Facility, and does not presently intend to replace the agent. However, OCC seeks the ability to more quickly replace the lead administrative agent if at some point in the future it develops concerns with the then-current lead administrative agent's ability to meet OCC's expectations.
OCC proposes to remove the Evergreen Provision currently applicable to renewals of its Revolving Credit Facility requiring an advance notice to change the lead administrative agent of the Facility. In its place, OCC requests a new Evergreen Provision permitting it to change its lead administrative agent, its backup administrative agent, or both, so long as any new agents are subject to the requirements for selecting providers of core services as set forth in OCC's policies and procedures as required by Rule 17ad-25(i).
After the Commission promulgated Rule 17ad-25(i), OCC filed a proposed rule change to establish its framework for complying with the new obligations.
The lead and backup administrative agents of the Revolving Credit Facility constitute service providers for core services under the governance framework that OCC established to comply with SEC Rule 17ad-25(i).
Moreover, SEC Rule 17ad-25(i)
Because changes to the regulatory landscape, namely the enhanced processes for onboarding a provider of core services such as a lead or backup administrative agent, ensure that any replacement administrative agent will be safe and capable, and because OCC seeks the ability to quickly and efficiently change administrative agents in the event that problems are identified with the current administrative agent, the proposed change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).
The role of lead administrative agent in OCC's Revolving Credit Facility includes acting as the central coordinator and manager, serving as the primary contact between OCC and syndicate lenders, and handling daily operations such as payment distribution, notice distribution, and other administrative functions. This role is designed to provide OCC with convenience and efficiency by creating a streamlined, single point of contact for the Facility—a complex, multi-lender transaction. In addition to the lead administrative agent, the Facility is also supported by a backup administrative agent to ensure redundancy and operational continuity in the event that the lead administrative agent was unavailable. OCC regularly tests the Facility using hypothetical drawdowns to assess operational readiness and identify process improvement opportunities, and it wishes to be able to quickly substitute the lead and/or backup administrative agent if the testing reveals concerns with the agent's performance, among other potential reasons for a change.
OCC also proposes that the Evergreen Provision relating to its ability to increase commitment amounts be updated to reflect the size of the current Bank Syndicate Revolving Committee, which is $2.5 billion. OCC seeks to retain the ability to increase or decrease the size of the Facility by an additional $500 million without submitting an advance notice. And OCC proposes other non-substantive revisions to the language of certain Evergreen Provisions for consistency and clarity.
OCC proposes that the Evergreen Provisions applicable to its Bank
i. An advance notice filing is required if OCC seeks to change the commitment period (which would continue to be 364 calendar days unless changes are necessary to avoid the expiration of the term falling on a weekend or other day that is not a business day) in connection with future renewals;
ii. OCC may increase the commitment amounts without an advance notice filing so long as the increase (whether in the initial commitment amount, additional commitment amount, or both) is by no more than $500 million in total as compared to the 2025 Bank Syndicate Revolving Credit Facility, which authorized a $2.5 billion initial commitment that could be increased to $3.5 billion if OCC so requests and sufficient commitments from lenders are received and accepted;
iii. OCC may decrease the commitment amounts by up to $500 million without an advance notice filing so long as any decrease in the initial commitment amount is replaced by other qualifying liquid resources (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(a)(14)) of an equal amount;
iv. OCC may add new lenders or remove existing lenders without an advance notice filing so long as all lenders to future renewals are subject to the same credit review as those lenders that were party to its 2020 Bank Syndicate Revolving Credit Facility;
v. OCC may change the lead administrative agent and/or backup administrative agent so long as the new agent in future renewals is subject to the requirements for selecting providers of core services set forth in OCC's policies and procedures;
vi. OCC may change pricing and collateral haircuts without an advance notice filing so long as such terms are consistent with the then-current market practice; and
vii. OCC may otherwise change the terms and conditions of the agreement without an advance notice filing so long as the changes do not materially affect the nature or level of risk presented to OCC.
As a covered clearing agency and DCO, OCC's ability to meet settlement demands in the event of a Clearing Member default, or the failure of another participant to meet its obligations to OCC, is critical to the markets that OCC serves. OCC believes that the overall effect of this proposed change on the risk profile at OCC would be to reduce liquidity risk associated with OCC's function as a covered clearing agency and DCO by providing it with the flexibility to more quickly replace its lead administrative agent in the event that testing reveals doubt about the agent's ability to meet OCC's expectations with respect to the Revolving Credit Facility. At worst, the proposed change is neutral with respect to OCC's risk profile, because any replacement lead administrative agent would vetted under the exacting process for providers of core services set forth in OCC's policies and procedures established to comply with Rule 17ad-25(i).
The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Exchange Act in furtherance of these objectives and principles.
OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
OCC believes the proposed change is reasonably designed to comply with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed change is
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission. The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice 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-OCC-2026-802 and should be submitted on or before September 9, 2026.
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 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17A(d)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act generally prohibits any registered transfer agent from engaging in any transfer agent activity in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. In addition, Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Exchange Act require every registered transfer agent to make reports as the Commission or other appropriate regulatory agency (“ARA”), as defined in Section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Exchange Act, prescribe by rule as necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
On June 16, 1977, the Commission adopted Rules 17Ad-2(c) and (d), pursuant to Sections 2, 17, 17A, and 23(a) of the Exchange Act
Rule 17Ad-3(b) requires a registered transfer agent to send a copy of the written notice required pursuant to Rules 17Ad-2(c) and (d) to all the issuers for which that transfer agent acts when for two consecutive months the transfer agent has failed to turnaround at least 75% of all routine items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-2(a) or to process at least 75% of all items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-2(b). The transfer agent is required to send the notice within twenty business days after the close of the second month to the chief executive officer (“CEO”) of each issuer for which such registered transfer agent acts.
The Commission estimates that each year approximately two registered transfer agents send a notice of non-compliance to the Commission and their ARA pursuant to Rule 17Ad-2(c) and (d). Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-3(b), a transfer agent that has already filed a notice of non-compliance with the Commission and its ARA pursuant to Rule 17Ad-2 will only be required to send a copy of that notice to issuers it
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the 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 respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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
On June 18, 2026, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.
NSCC is a central counterparty (“CCP”), which means that it interposes itself as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer for the financial transactions it clears. NSCC provides CCP services for the U.S. equity market. As such, NSCC is exposed to the risk that one or more of its Members may fail to make a payment or to deliver securities.
NSCC's liquidity risk management plays an integral part in NSCC's ability to perform its role as a CCP. If a Member defaults, NSCC, as a CCP, would need to complete settlement of guaranteed transactions on the failing Member's behalf from the date of default through the remainder of the settlement cycle (currently one day for securities that settle on a regular way basis in the U.S. markets). To do so, and to meet its related regulatory requirements, NSCC seeks to maintain sufficient liquid resources in order to meet the potential funding required to settle outstanding transactions of a defaulting Member in a timely manner, as well as to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet its minimum liquidity resource requirement in each relevant currency for which it has payment obligations owed to its Members.
NSCC has a number of default liquidity resources that it considers to be qualifying liquid resources for the purposes of Rule 17Ad-22(a).
NSCC collects SLD, which are additional cash deposits to its Clearing Fund, both at the Start of Day (“SOD”) and on an intraday basis, to cover the liquidity exposures presented by Members (whether individually or as part of an affiliated Member family) whose activity generates liquidity needs in excess of NSCC's then available qualifying liquid resources.
Each Business Day, NSCC determines the peak liquidity need of each Member over a 24-month lookback period, and the 30 or fewer Members/Affiliated Families with the largest peak liquidity need during the lookback period may be designated “Supplemental Liquidity Providers” for that Business Day.
In addition to SOD Supplemental Liquidity Obligations, NSCC may also issue Intraday Supplemental Liquidity Calls to Supplemental Liquidity Providers during Options Expiration Activity Periods, calculated and collected, when applicable, on the first Business Day of an options expiry period.
On the remaining days of any Options Expiration Activity Period, NSCC may issue an intraday call on Supplemental Liquidity Providers whose increase in activity levels caused, or was the primary cause of, an observed increase in NSCC's Daily Liquidity Need. These discretionary Intraday Supplemental Liquidity Calls are issued in an amount equal to the difference between the Daily Liquidity Need associated with the Supplemental Liquidity Provider on such Business Day, adjusted to account for such increased activity levels, and the sum of NSCC's Qualifying Liquid Resources.
NSCC is proposing to amend the Rule 4A, which applies to SLD, to (i) standardize the netting methodology and processes for determining intraday SLD Obligations
First, the Proposed Rule Change would standardize the methodology and process for calculating intraday SLD Obligations to more closely align with the netting methodology used for SOD SLD Obligations.
The Proposed Rule Change would also provide additional details regarding the factors that NSCC takes into consideration when projecting its Daily Liquidity Needs for determining intraday SLD Obligations, as discussed below. A new Section 5 of Rule 4A would provide that NSCC may take into consideration factors including, but not limited to: (a) a Member's projected or anticipated trading or settlement activity as communicated by the Member, The Options Clearing Corporation, a Qualified Clearing Agency or Registered Clearing Agency offering trade matching services, an Index Receipt Agent, or any other person authorized to submit transaction information for such Member; (b) projected netting activity using open positions for that Member; and (c) anticipated deliveries from a Member's free inventory at the Member's Designated Depository into the next CNS
As to the anticipated deliveries from a Member's free inventory, the Proposed Rule Change would provide that, in order for NSCC to appropriately consider these anticipated deliveries into its Daily Liquidity Need projections, the Member shall identify to NSCC an aggregate value of its existing free inventory that is recorded in the subaccounts of the Member with delivery obligations into the CNS night cycle scheduled to run on that Business Day. The Member would also commit to make best efforts to manage such inventory so it continues to be recorded within the Member's subaccount through the start of the immediate next CNS night cycle and not take any action that would prohibit the delivery of such inventory into the immediate next CNS night cycle. The Proposed Rule Change would also clarify that NSCC may consider all or part of the identified inventory in its Daily Liquidity Need projections. NSCC states that these changes would provide additional clarity and transparency in NSCC's rules regarding the inventory projection process and result in more accurate projections of its Daily Liquidity Needs and resulting intraday SLD Obligations for its Members.
Second, the Proposed Rule Change would consolidate and streamline the description of how NSCC determines SLD Obligations on both an SOD and intraday basis. The Proposed Rule Change would modify Section 4 of Rule 4A to clarify that SOD SLD Obligations are determined based on observed Daily Liquidity Needs, and that intraday SLD Obligations are determined based on projected Daily Liquidity Needs. The Proposed Change would also delete Section 7 of Rule 4A, which currently describes intraday SLD determination, and replace it with the new Section 5, discussed above, that describes the methodology and process for projecting NSCC Daily Liquidity Needs when determining intraday SLD Obligations.
Third, the Proposed Rule Change would standardize the NSCC Rules for determining the pro rata allocation of SOD and intraday SLD Obligations and eliminate the $2 billion threshold for pro rata allocations. Specifically, Section 6 of Rule 4A would provide that, if two or more Supplemental Liquidity Providers present a Daily Liquidity Need resulting in an SLD Obligation, NSCC would determine the SLD Obligation amount of each Supplemental Liquidity Provider as its pro rata share of the largest SLD Obligation calculated for the Business Day.
Additionally, the Proposed Rule Change would modify the process for returning excess SLD to Members in Section 9 of Rule 4A, to provide that NSCC will return a Member's SLD upon the request of that Member, provided that NSCC may retain any amount of such SLD that NSCC deems necessary to cover observed or projected liquidity obligations of that Member.
Finally, the Proposed Rule Change would clarify obligations for Members to inform NSCC regarding anticipated trading and settlement activity that would impact NSCC's liquidity needs. Specifically, in a new Section 14, the Proposed Rule Change would require that Members manage their liquidity needs to NSCC and notify NSCC of anticipated significant changes in their settlement activity, and that Members identify contact persons responsible for responding to NSCC's inquiries concerning settlement activity and liquidity management and confirm or update such contacts on at least an annual basis. The Proposed Rule Change would also adopt certain obligations for Members to provide regular reporting and information to NSCC that is specific to anticipated trading and settlement activity to more accurately project its Daily Liquidity Needs, as NSCC may deem necessary.
The Proposed Rule Change would also make other clarifying and clean up revisions to Rule 4A to conform with the above-mentioned changes, including new, revised, and removed definitions, relocation or removal of certain language in the SLD rules, clarification of notices provided to Supplemental Liquidity Providers, and consolidation of rules concerning the satisfaction of SOD and intraday SLD Obligations.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
NSCC collects SOD and intraday SLD to cover liquidity exposures presented by Members whose activity generates liquidity needs in excess of NSCC's available liquid resources. As discussed in Part III, the Proposed Rule Change would more closely align the determination of intraday SLD Obligations with that of SOD SLD Obligations so that, similar to SOD liquidity need calculations, intraday SLD determinations are based on Members' open NSCC positions, rather than a netting percentage, and regardless of the timing of any options expiry period. The Proposed Rule Change would also remove the $2 billion threshold for the pro rata allocation of SLD obligations and standardize the pro rata allocation of SOD and intraday SLD Obligations when more than one Member is driving NSCC's liquidity needs so that NSCC would collect the largest SLD on a pro rata basis. These changes to SLD netting methodology and pro rata allocation would result in more accurate estimations of the actual liquidity exposures of each Member, and thus, should allow NSCC to more accurately calculate SLD Obligations for Members. In turn, with these more accurate calculations, the Proposed Rule Change should allow NSCC to collect additional funds to cover liquidity exposures presented by Members that would help mitigate potential liquidity shortfalls arising out of the liquidation of a defaulting Member's portfolio.
Additionally, the Proposed Rule Change would clarify the methodology and considerations for determining SLD Obligations to explain that determination of SOD SLD Obligations are based on observed Daily Liquidity Needs while intraday ones are based on projected Daily Liquidity Needs and such determinations include adjustments in consideration of NSCC's liquidity risk tolerance. The Proposed Rule Change would also describe the factors considered when projecting Daily Liquidity Needs and determining intraday SLD Obligations as well as the new process for requesting return of excess SLD, and lastly, adopt specific obligations to provide reporting and information on anticipated activity that would impact NSCC's liquidity needs that are in addition to Members' broader existing obligations to provide reporting and information. With these clarifications and additional details, the Proposed Rule Change would make the SLD rules, methodology, and process clearer and more transparent to Members, and as such, inform Members' ability to understand and plan for SLD Obligations and funding such obligations.
Because the revisions to the SLD methodology should generally provide NSCC with resources more precisely tailored to address liquidity needs to manage potential losses arising out of a member default and the clarifications to the SLD rules should allow members to better anticipate their obligations to NSCC, the Proposed Rule Change should better ensure that, in the event of a Member default, NSCC's operation of its critical clearance and settlement services would not be disrupted because of insufficient financial resources. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change should support NSCC's ability to provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Additionally, the Proposed Rule Change would standardize both the SLD methodology that would provide NSCC with more accurate estimations of actual liquidity exposures and resulting SLD Obligations from Members, as well as the allocation of such SLD Obligations on a pro rata basis sufficient to cover NSCC's liquidity requirements. These standardizations should help NSCC collect sufficient liquidity resources to cover potential losses in the event of a Member default while also limiting liquidity and funding burdens on Members and reducing the possibility that Members would be unable to fund such obligations. By helping to ensure that NSCC has collected sufficient qualifying liquid resources to complete end of day settlement in the event that the Member with the largest aggregate payment obligations defaults, the Proposed Rule Change should help manage and cover NSCC's liquidity exposures, thereby limiting non-defaulting Members' exposure to mutualized losses. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change should help NSCC assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency, such as NSCC, to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity.
As discussed above, through the standardization and clarification of the SLD rules, methodology, and processes, the Proposed Rule Change should help NSCC more accurately determine the actual liquidity exposures presented by
Moreover, for both SOD and intraday SLD Obligations, the Proposed Rule Change would also provide for adjustments to SLD Obligations in consideration of liquidity risk tolerance. These changes, along with the clarification of Member obligations to provide reporting and information to NSCC regarding anticipated trading and settlement activity that would impact NSCC's liquidity needs, would help NSCC determine with more accuracy its liquidity needs and should help provide NSCC with sufficient resources to cover its regulatory liquidity requirements. Additionally, while limiting liquidity and funding burdens on its Members, the modifications to the pro rata allocation of SLD Obligations and to the process for returning excess SLD amounts to Members should also enable NSCC to collect and retain sufficient funds to cover its liquidity needs and meet its Cover 1 regulatory requirements.
As a result, the Proposed Rule Change should support NSCC's ability to measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk borne by NSCC as it relates to SLD Obligations, consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 3, 2025, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from interested persons and to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
Section 802.01 of the Manual sets forth minimum quantitative and qualitative continued listing standards for securities listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange states that it maintains ongoing dialogue with companies approaching noncompliance with the Price Criteria as well as companies working through a cure period.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01C of the Manual to specify that if a security's closing price per share is less than $0.25 (the “Minimum Trading Price”) on any trading day, the Exchange shall immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings with respect to such security in accordance with the provisions of Section 804.00 of the Manual.
The Exchange proposes that this change will be effective on July 1, 2027.
The Exchange also proposes to specify in Section 802.01C of the Manual that, consistent with its general authority under Section 802.01D of the Manual to suspend trading in the event of any condition that makes further dealings on the Exchange unwarranted, it may suspend trading or delist a security where, in the Exchange's opinion, the trading price has experienced a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, even if such security has not fallen below the Minimum Trading Price.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission has consistently recognized that the development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to enhance the Exchange's continued listing standards. The Exchange states that it has increased the price at which it will take immediate delisting action in response to its observations that there is an industry-wide trend of low-priced stocks trading on national securities exchanges.
The Commission agrees that securities with low trading prices may be more prone to manipulation because when a security has a low trading price, the cost required to accumulate a position from the public float that is large enough to influence the price of the security is reduced. Accordingly, a would-be manipulator would find it less costly to manipulate the price of the low-priced security. Thus, the continued listing of companies with low trading price raises concerns that these securities may have heightened susceptibility to manipulation. As such, the immediate suspension and delisting of these very low-priced securities is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and more broadly, the rule is reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest from potential harm. Moreover, the Minimum Trading Price requirement is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed standard is reasonably designed to the Exchange's goal of addressing the risks with respect to very low-priced securities, including a heightened susceptibility to manipulation and difficulties maintaining fair and orderly markets in these securities.
The Exchange's proposal to immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for a security that falls below the Minimum Trading Price is consistent with the Act's requirement that rules be, among other things, designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Commission's data analysis supports the Exchange's proposal. Specifically, the Commission's analysis supports the Exchange's statement that there is an increasing trend of low-priced stocks and demonstrates that stocks trading below the Minimum Trading Price are likely to stay under this threshold for a significant period of time. As discussed further below, low priced securities may be more susceptible to manipulation. The continued listing of securities trading below the Minimum Trading Price raises concerns that these securities may have heightened susceptibility to manipulation while trading on the Exchange for an extended period. Accordingly, the immediate suspension and delisting of these securities is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
As part of the Commission's consideration of the proposed Minimum Trading Price, the Commission analyzed stock prices and delisting data for companies listed on NYSE and NYSE American.
In addition, the Commission analyzed the relationship of securities that crossed specific closing price thresholds between $0.10 and $0.50, and their closing prices after 180 calendar days of first crossing a specific closing price threshold.
The Commission's analysis also shows that securities that would have fallen below the Minimum Trading Price had a high likelihood of being delisted for reasons that indicate a failure to comply with other quantitative continued listing requirements.
Finally, the Commission's analysis indicates a fundamental tradeoff inherent in selecting a threshold for delisting: a more stringent threshold (
The Exchange
While the Exchange rules provide for an opportunity to submit a plan to come back into compliance with certain other continued listing standards,
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal, as set forth in Amendment No. 2, to immediately suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for securities that fail to comply with the Minimum Trading Price requirement is reasonably designed and consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that the rules of the Exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and public interest. The Exchange's proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act; and will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act in that it provides a fair procedure for the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered. A listed company whose security is subject to immediate suspension of trading and the commencement of delisting proceedings under the proposal after failing to comply with the Minimum Trading Price requirement will be able to appeal the delisting decision in accordance with Section 804.00 of the Manual.
Further, the Commission finds that the proposed effective date of July 1, 2027 is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Act and should provide a sufficient transition period before the rule is effective for affected issuers to take steps to bring their trading price above $0.25, including by implementing reverse stock splits to increase share prices, while helping ensure the timely implementation of the Minimum Trading Price to address the risks of very low-priced securities.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to specify that, consistent with its general authority under Section 802.01D of the Manual to suspend trading in the event of any condition that makes further dealings on the Exchange unwarranted, it may suspend trading or delist a security where, in the Exchange's opinion, the trading price has experienced a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, even if such security has not fallen below the Minimum Trading Price.
The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is reasonably designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act in that it provides a fair procedure for the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered. Pursuant to the Exchange's proposal, the Exchange may exercise discretion to determine if a listed company's security is experiencing a precipitous decline and is at an abnormally low level from which it is unlikely to recover, and accordingly suspend trading and commence delisting proceedings for the security. Such company will be able to appeal the delisting decision in accordance with the provisions in Section 804.00 of the Manual, as described above.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 2 in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes amendments to Rules 7.31, 7.35, and 7.35B regarding Discretionary Orders and the Closing Auction. 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.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers), 7.35 (General), and 7.35B (DMM-Facilitated Closing Auctions) to (1) enhance auction imbalance information disseminated in connection with Closing Auctions and (2) make associated changes reflecting Exchange processing of Discretionary Orders (“D Orders”) in UTP Securities.
Rule 7.31(c) describes the Auction-Only Orders offered by the Exchange. An Auction-Only Order is a Limit or Market Order that is to be traded only in an auction pursuant to the Rule 7.35 Series (for Auction-Eligible Securities) or routed pursuant to Rule 7.34 (for UTP Securities). Rule 7.31(c)(1) and the paragraphs thereunder describe the types of Auction-Only Orders that the Exchange accepts for participation in an opening or reopening auction: Limit-on Open (“LOO”) Orders, Market-on-Open (“MOO”) Orders, and Opening D Orders. Rule 7.31(c)(2) and the paragraphs thereunder describe the types of Auction-Only Orders that the Exchange accepts for participation in the closing auction: Limit-on-Close (“LOC”) Orders, Market-on-Close (“MOC”) Orders and Closing D Orders.
The Rule 7.35 Series sets forth rules for Exchange auctions. Rule 7.35 sets forth general rules governing auctions on the Exchange, including definitions for terms used in the Rule 7.35 Series.
Rule 7.35B sets forth the process for Closing Auctions facilitated by a Designated Market Maker (“DMM”). Rule 7.35B(a) sets forth both the DMM and Floor broker responsibilities for the closing of securities, and specifically provides that it is the responsibility of each DMM to ensure that registered
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Closing Imbalance as set forth in Rule 7.35(a)(4)(A)(ii). Currently, as noted above, the Closing Imbalance is defined as the Imbalance of MOC and LOC Orders to buy and MOC and LOC Orders to sell. A Manual Closing Imbalance means a Closing Imbalance disseminated by the DMM before the Imbalance Freeze Time and a Significant Closing Imbalance means a Closing Imbalance disseminated at or after the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze Time.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35(a)(4)(A)(ii) to define the Closing Imbalance as the Imbalance of MOC, LOC, and Closing Imbalance Offset Orders (“Closing IO Orders”)
The proposed change is intended to enhance the information provided by the dissemination of the Closing Imbalance by expanding the order types that are included in its calculation. Specifically, including Closing IO Orders and Closing D Orders, in addition to MOC and LOC Orders, in the calculation of the Closing Imbalance would provide market participants with a more comprehensive view of unpaired auction-eligible interest going into the Closing Auction. The proposed change would make the composition of the Closing Imbalance consistent with that of the Total Imbalance for the Closing Auction, as defined in Rule 7.35(a)(4)(A)(i),
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.35B(f), which, as noted above, describes the Auction Imbalance Freeze in connection with a DMM-facilitated Closing Auction. Rule 7.35B(f)(3) currently provides that, beginning 10 seconds before the scheduled close of trading, a request to enter a Closing D Order or D Order in any security or a request to cancel, cancel and replace, or modify a Closing D Order or D Order in an Auction-Eligible Security will be rejected.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35B(f)(3) to provide that (1) beginning 10 seconds before the scheduled close of trading, a request to enter a Closing D Order or D Order in an Auction-Eligible Security will be rejected, and (2) beginning one minute before the scheduled close of trading, a request to cancel, cancel and replace, or modify a Closing D Order or D Order in an Auction-Eligible Security will be rejected. This proposed change would allow for the entry of Closing D Orders and D Orders in Auction-Eligible Securities
As noted above, Rules 7.31(c)(1) and (c)(2) describe the Auction-Only Orders that the Exchange accepts in connection with opening, reopening, and closing auctions. Rule 7.31(c)(1)(C)(ii) currently provides that, based on the instruction of the Floor broker, an Opening D Order in a UTP Security will be routed to the primary listing market as either a MOO or LOO Order. Rule 7.31(c)(2)(C)(iv) similarly provides that, based on the
The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 7.31(c)(1)(C)(ii) and 7.31(c)(2)(C)(iv) (and to make non-substantive conforming changes to Rules 7.31(c)(1)(C) and 7.31(c)(2)(C) to accommodate their deletion) to reflect that the Exchange no longer accepts Opening or Closing D Orders in UTP Securities, and, accordingly, there is no need to convert any such orders to MOO, LOO, MOC, or LOC Orders for routing to the primary listing market. Floor brokers are now able to send orders in UTP Securities that they wish to be routed to the primary listing market as MOO, LOO, MOC, or LOC Orders, as applicable, in the first instance. Accordingly, this proposed change is intended to remove rule text that no longer has application, thereby promoting clarity in Exchange rules.
Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed changes, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of these changes by Trader Update. Subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the Exchange anticipates that such changes will be implemented no later than in the first quarter of 2027.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rules 7.35 and 7.35B relating to the Closing Imbalance and Auction Imbalance Freeze are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed change to include Closing IO Orders and Closing D Orders in the calculation of the Closing Imbalance would enhance the information provided by the dissemination of the Closing Imbalance and could encourage increased participation in Closing Auctions, to the benefit of market participants and the investing public. Similarly, the proposed change to the cutoff time for the cancellation, cancellation and replacement, or modification of Closing D Orders and D Orders in advance of the scheduled close of trading would, in conjunction with the proposed inclusion of Closing D Orders in the Closing Imbalance, provide market participants with enhanced information regarding the imbalance in the period leading up to the close of trading on the Exchange.
The proposed changes to Rules 7.31 and 7.35B relating to D Orders are designed to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system, as well as to protect investors and the public interest, because they would either remove or update rule text to ensure that the Exchange's rules accurately describe Exchange processing of D Orders in UTP Securities. Because the Exchange no longer accepts Opening or Closing D Orders in UTP Securities, there is no need to convert any such orders to MOO, LOO, MOC, or LOC Orders for routing to the primary listing market, and the proposed change to Rules 7.31(c)(1)(C) and 7.31(c)(2)(C) would thus remove outdated rule text referencing such conversion. As noted above, to the extent Floor brokers would like to send MOO, LOO, MOC, or LOC Orders in UTP Securities for Exchange routing to the primary listing market, they can continue to do so. The proposed change to Rule 7.35B(f)(3) to describe the rejection of Closing D Orders and D Orders in Auction-Eligible Securities only would similarly ensure that the rule accurately reflects the Exchange's handling of Closing D Orders and D Orders in UTP Securities. As noted, the Exchange currently accepts intraday D Orders in UTP Securities and will continue to do so.
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 not intended to address competitive issues but rather is intended to enhance auction imbalance information disseminated in connection with Closing Auctions conducted by the Exchange and ensure that Exchange rules accurately reflect current handling of D Orders in UTP Securities.
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)(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 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
• 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
Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(g)) authorizes the Commission to require by rules and regulations, for the protection of investors, that officers and employees of registered management investment companies (“funds”) who may singly, or jointly with others, have access to securities or funds of any registered management investment company, either directly or through authority to draw upon such funds or to direct generally the disposition of such securities, to be bonded by a reputable fidelity insurance company against larceny and embezzlement. The Commission, pursuant to this provision, adopted rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 270.17g-1) in 1947 and has subsequently amended the rule on numerous occasions.
Rule 17g-1 provides, in substance, the following requirements. The form and amount of the fidelity bond must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors at least once annually, and the amount of any premium paid by the fund for any “joint insured bond,” covering multiple funds or certain affiliates, must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors. The amount of the bond may not be less than the minimum amounts of coverage set forth in a schedule based on the fund's gross assets. The bond must provide that it shall not be cancelled, terminated, or modified except upon 60 days' written notice to the affected party and to the Commission. In the case of a joint insured bond, 60 days' written notice must also be given to each fund covered by the bond. A joint insured bond must provide that the fidelity insurance company will provide all funds covered by the bond with a copy of the agreement, a copy of any claim on the bond, and notification of the terms of the settlement of any claim prior to execution of that settlement. Finally, a fund that is insured by a joint bond must enter into an agreement with all other parties insured by the joint bond regarding recovery under the bond.
Upon the execution of a fidelity bond or any amendment thereto, a fund must file with the Commission within 10 days: (i) a copy of the executed bond or any amendment to the bond, (ii) the independent directors' resolution approving the bond, and (iii) a statement as to the period for which premiums have been paid on the bond. In the case of a joint insured bond, a fund must also file: (i) a statement showing the amount the fund would have been required to maintain under the rule if it were insured under a single insured bond; and (ii) the agreement between the fund and all other insured parties regarding recovery under the bond. A fund must also notify the Commission in writing within five days of any claim or settlement on a claim under the fidelity bond. A fund must notify by registered mail each member of its board of directors of: (i) any cancellation, termination, or modification of the fidelity bond at least 45 days prior to the effective date; and (ii) the filing or settlement of any claim under the fidelity bond when notification is filed with the Commission. The Commission amended rule 17g-1 most recently in 2004 to require that the fund's board of directors satisfy the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) (17 CFR 270.0-1(a)(7)).
We estimate that approximately 2,078 funds (registered open- and closed-end funds, and business development companies) must comply with the collections of information under rule 17g-1, and which collectively submit an estimated 2,437 filings on Form 17G 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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden
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 “Act”)
The proposed rule change of CME Securities Clearing Inc. (“CMESC”) is annexed hereto [sic] as Exhibit 5 and consists of proposed amendments to the CMESC Stress Testing & Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy (or the “Policy”) and proposed amendments to Rule 402(b). The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide more detail to the description of how CMESC will implement its stress testing methodology, enhance the clarity of the Policy and clarify the intended operation of Rule 402(b). Specifically, CMESC proposes to amend the Policy to: (i) provide greater detail in the description of its scenarios for stress testing, including the historical and hypothetical stress scenarios it will employ for credit stress testing and liquidity stress testing; (ii) provide further explanation of the rationale for CMESC's methodology for sizing the Guaranty Fund
In its filing with the Commission, CMESC 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. CMESC has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CMESC is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The CMESC Stress Testing & Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy provides guidelines employed by CMESC for monitoring, assessing, and mitigating risk associated with the exposures arising from Participants' positions. Consistent with the SEC's rules, in particular, SEC Rules 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii)
CMESC proposes to amend Section 4.1 (Stress Scenarios) of the Policy, principally to explain in greater detail the different types of stress scenarios included in CMESC's stress testing methodology and how they are constructed.
Currently, the Policy provides that stress scenarios are built using historical and hypothetical market moves. CMESC proposes to describe in greater detail the different types of stress scenarios that are historical and hypothetical through the following proposed changes to the introductory paragraphs of Section 4.1. As the starting point, CMESC proposes to clarify in the introductory paragraph of Section 4.1 that the historical and hypothetical market moves used to build historical and hypothetical stress scenarios, respectively, are designed to represent extreme but plausible market conditions. This clarification ensures that the Policy language regarding the historical or hypothetical market moves used to build stress scenarios is aligned to the requirements in SEC Rules 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii) and 17ad-22(e)(7)(i), respectively, that stress scenarios contemplate “extreme but plausible market conditions.”
Next, CMESC proposes to clearly identify “historical” and “hypothetical” as two categories of stress scenarios in Section 4.1 of the Policy by separating them into two sub-paragraphs and supplementing the current descriptions of each of these two categories. With respect to the historical category, CMESC proposes to clarify that the selection of dates captured in the historical scenarios are chosen through a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of market behavior and the resulting exposures arising from actual Participant positions. The proposed revisions retain the reference to “market behavior,” but remove the reference to “observed and projected” market behavior to make the distinction between historical and hypothetical scenarios clearer.
With respect to the hypothetical category, CMESC proposes to amend its description of hypothetical scenarios to clarify they will include theoretically driven scenarios (
In addition, CMESC proposes to add new text to Section 4.1 to describe how stress shocks applied within the stress testing methodology are designed to capture different interest rate environments. Specifically, the new text will explain that, to capture different interest rate environments, shocks will be calculated using varying return types.
Having proposed the above changes to enhance the description of and distinction between the historical category of stress scenarios and the hypothetical category of stress scenarios, CMESC is proposing further changes to enhance the description of the stress scenarios set forth in Table 1 (Stress Scenario Categories as reflected in the proposed amendments) of the Policy (“Table 1”), in order to provide greater clarity regarding CMESC's stress testing methodology. CMESC is proposing to recategorize and rename the three current categories of stress scenarios as (i) “Historical: Risk Factor Shocks” scenarios, (ii) “Historical: Event-Driven” scenarios, and (iii) “Hypothetical” scenarios, each as more fully described below.
Table 1 of the current Policy describes historical scenarios as those based on historical data for securities cleared by CMESC, which will be deleted and replaced with a description of historical scenarios as those based on a systematic application of quantitative filters across available risk factor curves relevant to U.S. Treasury securities (
Table 1 of the current Policy describes the various risk factors that may be considered by CMESC in identifying the largest curvature movements for historical scenarios. In the renamed category of Historical: Risk Factor Shocks scenarios (which are included alongside Historical: Event-Driven Scenarios as a subset of all historical scenarios) in Table 1, CMESC proposes to include additional information on the risk factors considered in defining historical scenarios based on risk factor shocks. Using the defined risk factor curves, CMESC would identify historical dates with the largest movements as historical scenarios that capture (i) the largest upward and downward movements for defined tenors on the curves (
CMESC is proposing to amend Table 1 to explicitly refer to event-driven scenarios as a type of historical scenario, referring to this category of scenarios as “Historical: Event-Driven” scenarios. The current Policy already accounts for this treatment and includes the consideration of historical scenarios to capture major historical event shocks as stress scenarios. The proposed amendments to the Policy clarify that the inclusion of event-driven scenarios (
CMESC is proposing to amend Table 1 to refer to hypothetical scenarios generally, referring to this category of scenarios as “Hypothetical”, and removing an existing reference to PCA. While, as reflected in the proposed amendments to the Policy, PCA will continue to be used to determine hypothetical scenarios, the emphasis is
Elaborating further, proposed revisions to Table 1 outline in greater detail how CMESC will construct hypothetical scenarios, including by using a systematic combination of principal components determined through PCA to generate a comprehensive set of extreme but plausible market shocks. The proposed amendments describe that the determination of component variances will consider two business days of interest rate changes. The proposed amendments also detail how CMESC will select the number of principal components to simulate curvature shifts and ultimately create the scenarios derived from PCA using combinations of PCA scores for the largest factors.
The proposed amendments to Table 1 then outline that CMESC will then use plausibility thresholds—defined at the tenor level based on historical data—that are designed to ensure the PCA-generated scenario shocks remain extreme but plausible. As described in the proposed amendments to Table 1, CMESC will also undertake steps to promote curve consistency that are designed to recognize the relationships between relevant U.S. Treasury curves (including the repo curve) within the hypothetical scenario shocks, using appropriate adjustments or returns as appropriate.
Pursuant to the Rules, CMESC uses the stress testing methodology to size and maintain the Guaranty Fund in an amount at least equal to the largest theoretical loss to CMESC in excess of initial margin resulting from the Default of two (2) Member Families (the “cover two standard”).
Consistent with the Rules, the Policy currently provides that CMESC would utilize a formula as a guideline for sizing the Guaranty Fund. CMESC is proposing to amend an existing footnote at Section 5 of the Policy to further clarify the applicability of the defined term “Member Family” to the stress testing of CMESC's financial resources. CMESC is also proposing to add a footnote to Section 5.2.1 of the Policy regarding the Guaranty Fund sizing formula to clarify the rationale underpinning selection of the number of Users (
CMESC's Rule 402(b) provide that a Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution is calculated based on the Member's proportionate share of the aggregate Required Guaranty Fund Contribution, considering its proprietary transactions and transactions of Users authorized by the Member in accordance with formula adopted by CMESC from time to time, and subject to a ten (10) million dollar minimum contribution amount.
First, with respect to the Policy, CMESC proposes to clarify that the term “gross notional” as used in Section 5.2.2 of the Policy refers to the gross notional of outstanding securities transactions of a Member. Second, CMESC proposes to add a footnote to the Policy elaborating on the rationale for the dual-component allocation methodology. Specifically, the new footnote explains that the LND component in this dual-component methodology aligns contributions with the tail risk (
Finally, CMESC proposes amending Rule 402(b) in two places to clarify the intended Guaranty Fund allocation process. CMESC Rule 402(b) currently provides that each Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution is calculated as the higher of a minimum requirement of ten (10) million dollars or the Member's proportionate share of the Guaranty Fund, determined as a function of the LND amount for the Member Family and the gross notional outstanding of the Member Family in
CMESC is proposing a few additional minor changes to the Policy designed to add clarity and support readability of the Policy. As a matter of general applicability, CMESC proposes to clarify in Section 4.1 (Stress Scenarios) that all price moves considered in stress scenarios are to be calculated using a “two-business day” period (rather than a “two day” period), which aligns with the margin period of risk.
Further, CMESC proposes to clarify in Section 1 (Purpose and Statement of Policy) of the Policy that its stress scenarios are for the purpose of managing the risks “presented to” CMESC, rather than those “present to” CMESC. This wording change is designed solely to improve the accuracy and readability of the Policy.
CMESC proposes a technical correction in Section 4.2 (Review of Stress Testing Results & Methodology) of the Policy, which concerns review of stress testing results and methodology by CMESC's stress testing committee. Currently, the Policy provides that the stress testing committee may review analysis of some or all of the stress testing scenarios and models on a more frequent basis than the predetermined frequencies if markets display high volatility, become less “liquidity”, or when the size or concentration of positions of Participants increases significantly or in other circumstances. CMESC proposes to correct a typographical error by replacing the word “liquidity” with “liquid” in Section 4.2 to improve readability of the Policy.
Finally, CMESC proposes to make a minor change in Section 5.2.2 (SC Guaranty Fund Allocation) of the Policy to improve readability of the Policy. The proposed change is to state more specifically state that the LND is calculated “for each Member,” rather than to state more generically that the LND calculated “as described above.”
For the reasons set forth below, CMESC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. As discussed herein, the proposed amendments are designed to enhance the CMESC Stress Testing & Guaranty Fund Sizing Policy by (i) explaining in greater detail CMESC's stress testing methodology and the stress scenarios it will employ to estimate credit or liquidity exposures that could result from the realization of potential stress scenarios, such as extreme price changes, multiple defaults, or changes in other valuation inputs and assumptions; (ii) enhancing the description of the rationale for determining the size of the Guaranty Fund and components of the methodology used to allocate Member contributions to the Guaranty Fund; and (iii) making certain other minor and clean-up changes in the documentation to promote clarity and readability. In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule 402(b) enhance the description of allocation of the Guaranty Fund by clarifying the intended allocation process. CMESC believes that these proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act because they are designed to enhance CMESC's stress testing and clarify how each Member's Required Guaranty Fund Contribution amount will be calculated for the purpose of appropriately sizing and allocation of the Guaranty Fund and are designed to ensure that CMESC has sufficient resources, which are important components to the effectiveness of its risk management system and support CMESC's ability to maintain adequate financial resources, which, in turn, promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of CMESC for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
CMESC also believes the proposed rule change will support the compliance with the specific stress testing requirements of SEC Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(iii), which requires CMESC to maintain financial resources at the minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for CMESC in extreme but plausible market conditions, and SEC Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i), which requires CMESC to maintain sufficient liquid resources at the minimum to effect settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for CMESC in extreme but plausible market conditions. CMESC is implementing the proposed rule change in order to further clarify its stress testing methodology by drawing a clearer distinction between the historical category of stress scenarios and the hypothetical category of stress scenarios and providing more detailed descriptions of each category of its stress scenarios. The proposed rule change further describes how the shocks applied within the stress testing methodology are designed to capture different interest rate environments. The description of the historical stress scenarios is enhanced, particularly as it relates to those scenarios based on individual tenor shocks, yield curve shape shocks and statistical risk identification. Additionally, the proposed rule change further describes the hypothetical category of stress scenarios, particularly how they are designed considering a defined construction logic employing PCA, plausibility thresholds, and curve consistency. Finally, the proposed rule change further details the rationale for: (i) the Cover 2 shortfall calculation employed to size the Guaranty Fund including not only the two Member families' own exposures but the exposures of an appropriate number of Users, as determined by CMESC's risk management team; and (ii) using a dual-component methodology to allocate the Guaranty Fund among Members, taking
CMESC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to enhance the Policy by providing more detailed descriptions regarding the categorization of stress scenarios, descriptions of the stress scenarios and rationale for Guaranty Fund sizing and allocation, and to amend the Rules to clarify and align the description of the Guaranty Fund allocation process across its documentation, in order to support CMESC's implementation of an effective stress testing methodology for purposes of credit and liquidity stress testing and sizing and allocating the Guaranty Fund. The effects of the proposed rule change will be reflected in the implementation of CMESC's credit and liquidity stress testing used to calculate, monitor and assess its financial and liquidity resources, which will uniformly and equally impact all Participants in accordance with the Rules. CMESC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact on burden on competition that does not already exist under the existing Policy, other risk management policies and the Rules, or is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CMESC currently does not have any Members or Users and has not received nor solicited any written comments from others related to this proposal. CMESC has not received any unsolicited written comments from any interested parties. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments, available at
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, Station Place, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 15, 2026, the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-DTC-2026-009, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.
As part of its services as a central securities depository, DTC makes eligible for deposit physical debt certificates, manages custody of such certificates for its Participants, and oversees related processing. DTC also coordinates with Agents to facilitate the redemption and maturity of securities, ensuring the collection and distribution of proceeds. In 2001, the Commission approved a Rule Change wherein an Agent could elect to have DTC destroy the debt security certificate in lieu of physical delivery of the certificate to the Agent provided that thirty days had passed since DTC received the redemption proceeds in full.
Under the current procedure for redeeming a debt security at maturity, DTC submits a physical debt certificate and a Letter of Transmittal (“LT”) to the Agent prior to the release of redemption proceeds from the Agent to DTC. After receiving both documents, the Agent releases the funds, and DTC then distributes the funds to Participants and deletes the Participants' positions from DTC's records.
Alternatively, Paying Agents and Issuers currently utilizing DTC's Redemption PWP
The Proposed Rule Change seeks to amend the Redemptions Guide and the OA to update the PWP process. The Proposed Rule Change would: (i) eliminate the need for a LT or the presentment of certain other physical documents; (ii) include in the Rules that Agents may receive automated notifications; (iii) make participation in the PWP process mandatory, with opt-out permitted only where necessary; (iv) establish retention and destruction protocols for physical certificates; and (v) make clarifying and conforming changes.
With respect to items (i), (ii) and (iv) above, the Proposed Rule Change would no longer require a physical certificate presentment or related physical documentation for eligible redemption and maturity events. Agents may continue to receive automated notifications that provide information on the relevant security (including CUSIP), payment date, and amount due. These notifications would be sent electronically to Agents prior to the event. An agent must opt-in to receive these notifications and does so by sending an email to the redemptions operations team.
Physical certificates related to these events would no longer be delivered to Agents. Agents would remit proceeds to DTC without receipt of a LT or other physical certificates, then DTC would allocate redemption proceeds to Participants based on its book-entry records and remove any positions from its records following payment. The associated physical certificates would be segregated and imaged for record retention purposes, retained for at least ninety days following redemption, and then destroyed according to DTC's procedures.
To effectuate these changes, the Proposed Rule Change would update the Redemptions Guide and the OA. The Proposed Rule Change would remove references to DTC presenting physical certificates, letters of instructions or a LT in connection with redemption or maturity events from the Redemptions Guide in the “About Maturities,” “About Redemptions,” and “Maturities” sections. Article V.A. of the OA would also be updated to delete language referencing the use of physical documentation in connection with redemption or maturity events. The Redemptions and Maturities sections of the Redemptions Guide as well as the Redemption PwP section of the OA would be updated to include that that Agents may opt-in to receive DTC-specific payment details for upcoming redemption payments via automated notification, thus replacing the presentment of physical documents. Language would also be added to the OA to state that securities certificates will be maintained for at least 90 days after the redemption date, after which they will be destroyed.
With respect to item (iii) above, participation in the PWP process would be mandatory for all eligible fully registered debt securities represented by physical certificates held at DTC and registered under the name Cede & Co. Exceptions to participation are permitted solely to comply with a state statute, court order, or other legal or regulatory obligation, or if the Agent is a governmental entity or authorized representative requiring physical documentation. All opt-out requests must be submitted to DTC in writing and are strictly limited to the applicable securities.
To produce this change, the Proposed Rule Change would add language to the Redemption PwP section of the OA to this effect.
The Redemption PwP section of the OA would be modified as follows. References to the “paying agent” would be replaced with “Agent,” a defined term in the document. The Proposed Rule Change would clarify that either or both the Agent or Issuer may review details prior to the redemption date. The term “BEO” issues would be substituted with “non-FAST” issues to encompass all certificated bond asset types. Also, Securities certificates and LTs would be added to the list of physical documents which would not be provided. Finally, the phrase “or electronic file of expected payments due” would be deleted from the “About Redemptions” section of the Redemptions Guide as the new “automated notification” language provides the same information.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that a clearing agency's rules are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As described above in Section III, the Proposed Rule Change: (i) eliminates the need for a LT or the presentment of certain other physical documents; (ii) codifies into the Rules the existing process by which Agents opt-in to receive automated notifications; (iii) makes participation in the PWP process mandatory, with opt-out permitted only where necessary; (iv) establishes retention and destruction protocols for physical certificates; and (v) makes clarifying and conforming changes. Eliminating the need for the presentment of physical documents and its reliance on automated notifications and DTC's book-entry records should streamline the processing of eligible debt securities by reducing delays associated with the handling, transportation and reconciliation of physical certificates. The new process should introduce more efficiency and reliability in the redemption process by simplifying and modernizing the overall processing workflow. In addition, making participation in the PWP process mandatory, with only necessary opt-outs permitted, would allow both greater consistency in application and streamlining of the process for the collection and distribution of proceeds. Furthermore, the changes to the OA and Redemptions Guide improve clarity of the descriptions of PWP and enable DTC to more effectively communicate the new process outlined by the Proposed Rule Changes.
Because these changes should facilitate timely payments for debt securities with less operational risk, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change should promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, both in-person at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, and by teleconference through Microsoft Teams. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the twelfth session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers (CCC 12) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from Monday, September 14, 2026, to Friday, September 18, 2026.
The agenda items to be considered at CCC 12 include:
—Adoption of the agenda;
—Decisions of other IMO bodies;
—Amendments to the IGF Code and development of guidelines for alternative fuels and related technologies;
—Development of a safety regulatory framework to support the reduction of GHG emissions from ships using new technologies and alternative fuels;
—Amendments to the IMSBC Code and supplements;
—Amendments to the IMDG Code and supplements;
—Revision of the Revised guidelines for the preparation of the Cargo Securing Manual (MSC.1/Circ.1353/Rev.2) to include a harmonized performance standard for lashing software to permit lashing software as a supplement to the Cargo Securing Manual;
—Consideration of reports of incidents involving dangerous goods or marine pollutants in packaged form on board ships or in port areas;
—Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, environment, facilitation, liability and compensation-related conventions;
—Biennial status report and provisional agenda for CCC 13;
—Election of the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2027;
—Any other business;
—Report to the Committees.
Please note: The IMO may, on short notice, adjust the CCC 12 agenda to accommodate any constraints associated with the meeting. Although no changes to the agenda are anticipated, if any are necessary, they will be provided to those who RSVP.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference line, which can handle 500 participants or up to the seating capacity of the room if attending in-person. The meeting location will be the United States Coast Guard Headquarters, and the teleconference line will be provided to those who RSVP. To RSVP, participants should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Eva McNell, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will conduct its regular business meeting on September 16, 2026 in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. Also, the Commission published a document in the
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.
This public meeting will be conducted in person and digitally from the Holiday Inn Express Bloomsburg at 14 Mitchell Drive, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: 717-238-0423; fax: 717-238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Adoption of the preliminary FY2028 budget; (2) Adoption of the member jurisdiction allocation requests for FY2028; (3) Adoption of the Sustainable Water Resources Fund Policy; (4) Approval of contract and grants; and (5) 25 actions on 15 regulatory program projects.
This agenda is complete at the time of issuance, but other items may be added, and some stricken without further notice. The listing of an item on the agenda does not necessarily mean that the Commission will take final action on it at this meeting. When the Commission does take final action, notice of these actions will be published in the
The meeting will be conducted both in person and digitally at the Holiday Inn Express Bloomsburg, 14 Mitchell Drive, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. The public may access the Business Meeting remotely via TEAMS:
A public hearing and written comment period was provided for the actions on the 15 projects and the comment period on those proposed actions is closed. Written comments pertaining to all other items on the agenda at the business meeting may bemailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically at the link Business Meeting Comments. Comments are due to the Commission for all items on the business meeting agenda on or before September 14, 2026. Comments will not be accepted at the business meeting noticed herein.
1:00 p.m. CT on August 20, 2026.
Halloran Centre for Performing Arts & Education, Memphis, Tennessee.
Open.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on August 20 at the Halloran Centre for Performing Arts & Education, 225 S. Main Street, in Memphis, Tennessee. The meeting will be called to order at 1:00 p.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below.
On August 20, at the Halloran Centre for Performing Arts & Education, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a Board-hosted public listening session which begins at 9:00 a.m. CT and will last until 11:00 a.m. Preregistration is required to address the Board.
For more information: Please contact Melissa Greene, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comments to assist in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its obligations as a Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This notice includes the schedule for the submission of comments for the China report and a public hearing.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Alex Martin, Deputy Director for China Affairs, at
China became a Member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-286), USTR is required to submit annually a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and any bilateral commitments made to the United States. In accordance with section 421, and to assist it in preparing this year's report, USTR is soliciting public comments. You can find last year's report on the USTR website at:
The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO agreements. You can find the Protocol and Working Party Report on the WTO website at
USTR will convene a public hearing on September 30, 2026, related to China's compliance with its WTO commitments.
To ensure participation, you must submit requests to present oral testimony at the hearing and written testimony by 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 17, 2026, via
Small businesses (generally defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with fewer than 500 employees) or organizations representing small business members that submit comments should self-identify as such, so that we may be aware of issues of particular interest to small businesses.
Written comments and/or oral testimony should address China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas:
A. Trading rights.
B. Import regulation (
C. Export regulation.
D. Internal policies affecting trade (
E. Intellectual property rights (including intellectual property rights enforcement).
F. Services.
G. Rule of law issues (
H. Other WTO commitments.
In addition, given the United States' view that China should be held accountable as a full participant in, and beneficiary of, the international trading system, USTR requests that interested persons specifically identify unresolved compliance issues that warrant review and evaluation by USTR.
To be assured of consideration, submit your written comments, requests to testify, and written testimony by the September 17, 2026, 11:59 p.m. EDT deadline. All submissions must be in English. USTR strongly encourages submissions via
To make a submission via
At the beginning of your submission or on the first page (if an attachment), include the following text: (1) 2026 China WTO Compliance Report; (2) your organization's name; and (3) whether the submission is a written comment, request to testify, or written testimony. Submissions should not exceed 30 single-spaced, standard letter-size pages in 12-point type, including attachments. Please do not attach separate cover letters, exhibits, annexes, or other attachments to electronic submissions. Rather, include any such items in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files. You will receive a tracking number upon completion of the submission procedure at
For further information on using
If you are unable to provide submissions as requested, please contact Alex Martin, Deputy Director for China Affairs, in advance of the deadline at
General information concerning USTR is available at
If you ask USTR to treat information you submit as BCI, you must certify that the information is business confidential and you would not customarily release it to the public. For any comments submitted electronically containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BCI.” You must clearly mark any page containing BCI with “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing BCI also must submit a public version of their submission that will be placed in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P.” Follow the “BCI” and “P” with the name of the individual or organization submitting the comments.
USTR will post written submissions in the docket for public inspection, except properly designated BCI. You can view submissions at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and public comment period.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and FAA Order 1050.1G,
The public comment period for the Draft EA will close on August 28, 2026.
The Draft EA is available for public review at
Public comments can be submitted electronically to
The Unique ID for this document is EAXX-012-12-000-1759511355.
Leslie Grey, Environmental Protection Specialist, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
The FAA is the lead federal agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are cooperating agencies due to their special expertise and/or regulatory jurisdiction. The FAA is evaluating Reditus's Proposed Action to conduct up to 12 daytime reentries per year of its ENOS-Mk1 (ENOS) capsule in the northeastern portion of the Gulf of America, south of Tallahassee and west of Cedar Key, Florida. Reditus's Proposed Action would include reentry, splashdown, and recovery activities. Reditus must obtain a vehicle operator license from the FAA to conduct commercial reentries of its ENOS capsule. The Draft EA also evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with FAA's approval of related airspace closures.
The Draft EA has been posted and comments will be received through the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the FAA in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, the FAA cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All comments received during the comment period will be given equal weight and be taken into consideration in the preparation of the Final EA.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Supplemental notice and request for comment.
On December 20, 2024, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a notice of proposed Buy America waiver for certain battery-electric minibuses. FTA has not made a final decision on the proposal. FTA is seeking supplemental comment as to whether FTA should remove the proposed requirement that the minibuses be battery-electric propulsion.
Comments must be received by September 2, 2026.
Jaamal Jennings, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at
Under FTA's Buy America statute, FTA may obligate funds for a project to procure rolling stock only if the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States is more than 70 percent of the cost of all components of the rolling stock and if final assembly of the rolling stock occurs in the United States. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C). FTA implements these Buy America requirements by rule at 49 CFR part 661 and requires offerors to certify affirmatively that they comply with Buy America as implemented by FTA's rule. 49 CFR 661.12. A manufacturer delivering more than a minimum quantity of rolling stock must submit to pre-award and post-delivery reviews and independent inspections to verify its compliance with Buy America. 49 U.S.C. 5323(m); 49 CFR part 663. In addition to Buy America requirements, a bus model must pass testing for safety and performance before it can be purchased using FTA funds. 49 U.S.C. 5318.
FTA may waive Buy America requirements for an item if, among other reasons, a compliant version of the item
In 2023, FTA received three waiver applications on behalf of 16 transit operators for non-availability waivers to purchase the E-Jest battery-electric minibus. The E-Jest is made by the Turkish company Karsan Otomotiv Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (“Karsan”) and sold in the United States by the Damera Corporation. In response to these three waiver applications, on December 20, 2024, FTA proposed a general waiver
FTA received 67 comments on the proposed waiver. Most comments were in favor of the waiver as proposed. These comments generally came from transit providers or their industry associations, autonomous vehicle service providers, and companies looking to establish manufacturing in the United States that seek a customer base while building up to full Buy America compliance.
Comments opposed to the waiver generally came from vehicle manufacturers or dealers already doing business in the United States. Three vehicle manufacturers opposed the proposed waiver. None of the three manufacturers claimed to provide a vehicle that responded to all the specifications in FTA's proposed waiver. Only one of the three manufacturers explicitly claimed Buy America compliance for a partially responsive vehicle.
FTA is proposing to eliminate the specification in its December 2024 proposed waiver that the minibuses be battery-electric. Eliminating the battery-electric specification would allow transit operators to decide for themselves the propulsion type that is best suited to their operations and their communities. The rest of the proposed waiver would remain the same, and battery-electric vehicles still would be available under the revised proposed waiver along with other propulsion types.
As revised, the proposed waiver would apply to any vehicle with all of the following characteristics and be subject to the following phase-out:
• The vehicle has, or is capable of having, low-floor entry;
• The vehicle is of unibody or monocoque construction (
• The vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of less than 11,794 kg (26,001 pounds) and is designed to transport fewer than 16 seated passengers including the driver;
• The vehicle is not of a type already covered by FTA's Partial Buy America Waiver for Vans and Minivans (87 FR 64534,
For a contract for a vehicle meeting all the above requirements awarded more than two years after the effective date of the waiver, this waiver would only apply where vehicle final assembly occurs in the United States. This waiver would expire three years after the effective date. To allow onshoring of newer propulsion types at the same time as more mature propulsion types are available to recipients, FTA proposes that the waiver will remain in effect for the proposed three-year term.
FTA requests supplemental comments from all interested parties on its proposal to eliminate the battery-electric requirement. Should FTA approve the waiver as revised? Should the waiver be further modified in some way? Relevant information and comments will help FTA fully establish the facts surrounding the waiver requests and inform FTA's ultimate decision whether to grant the waiver.
If a comment asserts a domestic vehicle meeting FTA's proposed specifications already exists, please be clear about whether the vehicle complies with FTA's specific Buy America requirements for rolling stock as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C) and 49 CFR part 661. Has the vehicle passed a post-delivery review required by 49 U.S.C. 5323(m), and if so, where and when? Any other relevant information, for example, regarding geographic availability or production quantities, will be useful to FTA.
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Request for Information (RFI).
Significant and immediate investment in linear utility infrastructure is essential to meet the surging energy needs of critical manufacturing and emerging technologies that drive America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. Highway and rail transportation assets represent significant linear rights-of-way (ROWs) that have traditionally been reserved solely for transportation needs. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department), through the Build America Bureau, created the America's Great Corridors of Commerce (AGCC) initiative to unleash opportunities for both highway and rail ROW owners to generate revenue streams through utility colocation that can fund transportation improvement projects, while simultaneously delivering significant
Written comments are due by September 12, 2026. DOT will consider comments filed after this date to the extent practicable.
Written comments may be submitted electronically or by email or U.S. mail. Respondents are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address.
•
•
•
•
Morteza Farajian, Ph.D., Executive Director, Build America Bureau, 202-366-0797,
Significant and immediate investment in longitudinal utility infrastructure is essential to meet the surging energy and power needs of critical manufacturing and emerging technologies that drive America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. Similarly, transportation agencies and companies require additional resources to fund capital improvements and address deferred maintenance. Through AGCC, DOT seeks to leverage existing highway and rail ROWs in a safe and strategic manner by facilitating meaningful colocation of multiple utility assets, including electric and communications infrastructure. This initiative will build, in record time, a new backbone for the world's strongest economy while maintaining operational flexibility for ROW owners and enabling revenue generation. AGCC directly addresses the national emergency established by Executive Order 14156 regarding the inadequate U.S. power grid and energy supply and need for a more reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy.
While utility colocation within the ROW is technically feasible and has been implemented to some degree in the United States, installations are typically assessed and executed on a case-by-case basis without a comprehensive and strategic commercial, technical, and financial plan. This fragmented process increases time and resource demands, creates inefficiencies, and restricts the ability to scale efforts effectively. In contrast, through the Build America Bureau's AGCC initiative, the Department will unleash the full power of America's transportation corridors by harnessing the Administration's decisive leadership to unite Federal, State, and private partners.
As a part of AGCC, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation will lead an interagency Federal task force aimed at marshaling Federal resources and relevant permitting agencies and authorities to expedite and scale colocation in AGCC corridors. The task force will provide technical assistance and coordination for designated AGCCs.
Key goals of AGCC are to:
• Drastically accelerate the siting, permitting, and financing of linear utility infrastructure projects, including electrical transmission lines, water pipelines along highways, pipelines along railways, fiber optic, and rural broadband along corridors where colocation is safe, technically and operationally feasible, and in demand through an innovative P3 model and leasing concept.
• Incentivize data centers, manufacturing facilities, and distribution hubs to locate close to AGCC corridors to leverage a “plug and play” model for easy connectivity to new utility corridors, maximizing underused transportation assets and spurring significant economic benefits to States and regions in record time.
• Provide a new opportunity for utility and telecommunication companies in addition to the existing siting options.
• Provide the backbone needed by State DOTs and railroads to deploy technology projects, safety equipment, signs, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), autonomous capabilities, Wi-Fi, and potentially electricity.
• Enhance the value of highway and rail ROWs by creating financial incentives to allow for installation of these valuable utility corridors.
• Simplify the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review processes for colocation of utility infrastructure within transportation ROWs by helping project developers identify and leverage existing Federal tools. Categorical Exclusions (CEs) generally have the shortest analysis and review timeline and are reserved for actions that Federal agencies have determined will not have a significant impact based upon previous projects and analyses. Projects within the AGCC program will most likely fall under one or multiple CEs, as they will largely take place within the transportation ROW and environmental disturbance will be limited. Information on AGCC concierge services and broader permitting efficiencies, including applicable CEs and environmental review resources available to both AGCC program participants and independent developers is available on the AGCC web page.
• Coordinate financial tools and resources to reduce deployment costs or increase revenue opportunities from value creation.
• Assist State DOTs and railroads in effectively managing their ROW by eliminating administrative and operational burdens of utility coordination. The AGCC model establishes a single point of responsibility for negotiating access to ROWs and coordinating between various players. This saves time and resources for ROW owners, enabling them to focus on their core responsibilities.
Key benefits of supporting the coordinated and efficient development of linear utility infrastructure in the transportation ROW include:
• Cost Reduction and Efficiency Gains: In contrast to conventional colocation initiatives, AGCC enables macro-level cost savings and expedited project delivery leading to lower costs and increased utility deployment to meet the needs of both the public and industry. The program minimizes the need for new ROW acquisition and reduces development costs.
• Strategic Industrial Land Use: Land adjacent to highways and railways outside of the ROW, often undervalued due to environmental factors like noise, can be repositioned for high value uses such as data centers, advanced manufacturing facilities, or distribution hubs, leading to increased economic
• Achieving Economies of Scale: AGCC seeks to enable value creation by encouraging technical efficiencies, such as shared trenching or tunneling, standardized engineering protocols, and consolidated procurement, that provide a faster and less expensive alternative to existing development options.
• Generation of Revenue: ROW leasing and utility hosting arrangements can open new, recurring revenue channels. Revenues can be reinvested in upgrades along the 160,000 centerline miles of the National Highway System and the 140,000 route miles of the U.S. freight rail network.
• Reducing Utility Rates: Colocating businesses and activities that use significant utilities along one line prevents the need for extensive, scattered grid transmission upgrades and the need to coordinate with too many landowners. This strategic utilization of ROWs and clustering can minimize the total capital investment required to provide reliable power, ultimately lowering transmission costs and creating downward pressure on residential user rates.
• Utilization of Previously Developed Land: By focusing on existing transportation ROWs, AGCC projects will be treated as brownfield developments, rather than greenfield expansions. This approach reduces environmental disturbance, leverages existing infrastructure (roads, utilities, grading), and lowers remediation and construction costs.
AGCC is a P3 initiative in which a private entity (concessionaire) is procured by a highway or rail ROW owner to act as their Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager activities will include but not be limited to: design, build, finance, operate and maintain dedicated sub-surface channels (
Discover more about the AGCC initiative in the sections below or by visiting the AGCC web page.
The AGCC model seeks to engage multi-industry P3s to promote broader use of the transportation ROW to generate commercial and public benefits while protecting ROW owners' control. Under the AGCC P3 model, the ROW owner may negotiate a contractual agreement with a private entity to serve as a Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager may act as the central project leader and take on responsibilities such as business development, design, construction, finance, and long-term operation and maintenance. U.S. DOT seeks to maximize optionality for State departments of transportation and railroad ROW owners in selecting the delivery and construction method that is the best fit for their specific state or regions and will provide technical assistance, tools and resources to assist delivery of the project.
One likely delivery method for AGCC projects on either highway or rail corridors will be developing an underground utility tunnel capable of colocating multiple infrastructure items. Benefits of undergrounding vary by geography but can include economies of scale from digging once, greater reliability and resiliency of utilities, improved public safety risks and making efficient use within corridors located in high population areas. For underground AGCC projects, the Corridor Manager can be responsible for building the underground utility tunnel and leasing space to the utility and telecommunication companies. The Corridor Manager can also manage those leases and collect/share revenue with the ROW owners based on pre-negotiated contractual terms or resource sharing agreements. In some cases, these underground utility tunnels or conduits may be eligible for financing by the Build America Bureau's TIFIA or RRIF loans or Department of Energy (DOE)'s Energy Dominance Financing (EDF). While the utility items themselves may be financed in part by federal loan programs such as EDF, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they could also be financed directly by private sector or utility companies to avoid requiring compliance with certain federal regulations. U.S. DOT will bring to bear sufficient resources and prioritization to expedite environmental review (NEPA) while also working in concert with federal permitting agencies to provide the necessary permits for these projects for all utilities up front. Operating in this way can provide certainty to the ROW owner and businesses looking to access these corridors that all environmental and permitting is completed.
For AGCC highway projects that choose above ground utilities in the ROW, the Corridor Manager can be involved in any development of utility infrastructure working directly with the utility and telecommunications companies, the details of which will be negotiated by those private parties. The Corridor Manager can also be responsible for the same lease negotiation, revenue collection or resource sharing activities listed above. Project sponsors who choose above ground—or a hybrid approach—electric transmission and colocation of related infrastructure items may receive the same concierge environmental and permitting expedition by U.S. DOT and other federal agencies. Regardless of the building method employed by project sponsors, U.S. DOT may favor applications for AGCC designation in states and regions that have state-level environmental policies, utility accommodation policies and permitting policies that are in sync with the environmental and permitting streamlining at the federal level.
The Department will establish a process to designate and prioritize AGCC candidates to receive technical assistance and concierge services with a focus on planning, siting, permitting, and financing. DOT intends to designate up to five AGCCs per year. The broad AGCC colocation and P3 concept may be utilized by any ROW owners, regardless of official AGCC designation, and the Department will provide informational resources to support broader application of the concept. However, only designated AGCCs would receive specialized Federal concierge services. To maximize these benefits, ROW owners should align their state and utility accommodation policies with the concierge services being introduced by Federal partners.
It is envisioned that the Department will establish an interagency Federal task force to provide technical assistance and coordination for the designated AGCCs. Each designated AGCC would have dedicated Federal points of contact to provide concierge services aimed at reducing administrative delays, minimizing interagency conflicts, maximizing available financial resources, and lowering compliance costs. The Federal task force efforts would focus on two primary areas:
1. Streamlining and Expediting NEPA Review and Permitting Processes: Each
2. Streamlining and Unifying Access to Federal Funding and Financing Programs: Designated corridors would receive technical assistance to apply for planning grants, use technology tools, and navigate state level environmental reviews and utility accommodation policies.
While the availability of the Federal task force concierge services would be limited to designated AGCCs, the broader transportation community will benefit from the resources, best practices, and lessons learned developed through this effort.
DOT intends to solicit proposals from ROW owners through an annual Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI). The AGCC Federal task force would screen proposals for alignment with AGCC goals related to market demand, corridor readiness, financial feasibility, streamlining efforts, and stakeholder support, and may provide geospatial resources to support the identification of corridors that are good AGCC candidates. The task force would also consider State and local commitments to streamline and expedite permits and environmental reviews and provide funding and financing incentives while evaluating AGCC proposals. The Federal task force intends to prioritize longer multi-state corridors with regional significance.
DOT seeks comments and recommendations from all interested stakeholders regarding the AGCC model and the proposed elements of DOT's anticipated approach to implementing the voluntary, applicant-driven AGCC designation process as described above. In addition, DOT seeks comments and recommendations on the following specific questions:
1. What are the most critical challenges and barriers to deploying the AGCC concept as described in the RFI? How can these challenges and barriers be mitigated? What actions and resources can the Federal government provide to help mitigate these barriers? Please consider factors such as:
a. Technical feasibility, including proximity, construction, and other technical feasibility considerations and/or limitations of colocating utilities in the transportation ROW and/or of colocating multiple utilities within an underground tunnel (channel) or above ground in the outer limits of the ROW.
b. Safety during construction, operations, and maintenance.
c. Siting, planning, and permitting.
d. Funding and financing, design, development, construction, operations, and maintenance.
e. Construction timeliness.
f. Federal and State regulations and policies.
g. Community engagement and acceptance.
h. Market limitations.
2. What can be done to minimize challenges and complexities or maximize opportunities for projects that cross jurisdictional borders? Please consider factors such as:
a. Revenue sharing across transportation and utility jurisdictions.
b. Financial and operational liability across transportation and utility jurisdictions.
c. Utility service across transportation utility jurisdictions.
d. Interstate cooperation and coordination.
e. Laws, regulation, and utility accommodation policies.
3. What are challenges, complexities, opportunities, and recommendations related to the proposed voluntary AGCC P3 model described in this RFI? How can the Federal government support procurement in this context? In your response, consider the template P3 Term Sheet developed by the Build America Bureau [
4. What forms of technical assistance or support would help ROW owners, utilities, and project developers more effectively deploy AGCC corridors? Specifically consider the types of support that would be most helpful from the Federal interagency task force, considering the anticipated support described in this RFI.
5. Please comment on the approach to designate AGCCs described in this RFI. What are the potential positive and negative impacts of such an approach? How could this process be altered or improved?
6. Would the AGCC model accelerate deployment of power and communications infrastructure versus traditional greenfield projects? What are the potential regional economic and industrial development impacts of the AGCC model compared to traditional greenfield projects?
7. A goal of AGCC is to leverage opportunities to co-develop utility projects in support of increased affordability for utility ratepayers. AGCC seeks to catalyze opportunities for diverse, least-cost, least-risk resources which will not unnecessarily increase utility rates. Are there design elements of AGCC that are important to consider to ensure success of this goal?
This is solely a request for information; DOT is not accepting expressions of interest in response to this RFI. DOT may or may not elect to issue an RFEI in the future based on or related to the content and responses to this RFI. Respondents may respond to as many or as few questions or topics as they wish. DOT will not respond to individual submissions or publish a compendium of responses. DOT may request clarification of responses to this RFI through direct contact with respondents. Any information obtained as a result of this RFI is intended to be used by the Government on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy development. Responses to this RFI will be treated as information only. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOT to any further actions related to these topics.
Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to structure future programs and/or be made available to the public, respondents are strongly advised NOT to include any information in their responses that might be considered business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential. If a respondent chooses to submit business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, it must be clearly and conspicuously marked as such in the response. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Federal Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information and may use or disclose such information for any purpose.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of designation.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3354(b)(2), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has delegated authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to designate additional databases for inclusion in the Do Not Pay Working System when those databases substantially assist in preventing improper payments. Section 3354(b)(2) requires the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment prior to designating additional databases for inclusion in the Do Not Pay Working System. In fulfillment of this requirement, Treasury published a notice on June 25, 2026, proposing the designation of the U.S. legal entity dataset of OpenCorporates Limited (“OpenCorporates”), which comprises publicly available business registration information sourced from official U.S. state and territory public registries. Treasury received no comments on the proposed designation during the 15-day comment period.
Treasury has determined that the designation of OpenCorporates' U.S. legal entity dataset to the Do Not Pay Working System should proceed. Effective immediately, Treasury designates OpenCorporates' U.S. legal entity dataset to the Do Not Pay Working System.
Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone (202) 622-2000 or Email
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the United States Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the 2026 Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement project in Puget Sound, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 17, 2026.
Comments should be addressed to Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Kate Fleming, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 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; 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 the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 216.103).
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 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 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 has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On February 26, 2026, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction associated with the Navy's 2026 Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement project in Puget Sound, Washington. Following NMFS' review of the application, and subsequent discussions between NMFS and the Navy, the application was deemed adequate and complete on June 4, 2026. Following the adequate and complete determination, the Navy submitted a revised application reflecting the previous discussions on June 26, 2026. We received another revision on August 6, 2026 and a final revision on August 12, 2026. The Navy's request is for take of 10 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and, for a subset of these species, Level A harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued two consecutive IHAs to the Navy for related and similar work (89 FR 47539, June 3, 2024), the first of which was reissued (90 FR 17419, April 25, 2025) because no work was completed under the initial Year 1 IHA). Preceding these two consecutive IHAs, NMFS issued a rule to the Navy for related and similar work (84 FR 15963, April 17, 2019). The Navy complied with all the requirements (
Maintaining existing wharves and piers is vital to sustaining the Navy's mission and ensuring readiness. To ensure continuance of necessary missions at its installations, the Navy must conduct annual maintenance and repair activities at existing marine waterfront structures, including removal and replacement of piles of various types and sizes. The Navy refers to this program as the Marine Structure Maintenance and Pile Replacement (MPR) Program.
Under the MPR program, the Navy is planning to conduct repairs and maintenance of existing marine structures and replacement of degraded piles at three Navy installations within Puget Sound, Washington. The activities that have the potential to take marine mammals include the impact and vibratory installation and removal of concrete and steel piles, and steel casings.
The proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness. It will become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. The specified activities could occur at any time during each project year, subject to existing time of year restrictions (in-water work windows) designed to protect fish species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). For Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bangor (located in Hood Canal), in-water work would occur from July 16 through January 15. At the remaining two facilities (located in Puget Sound), in-water work would occur from July 16 through February 15. Pile driving would occur during daylight hours only. During marbled murrelet (
Construction is planned for up to a total of 227 days, with 22 days planned at NBK Bangor, 77 days planned at Naval Station (NS) Everett, and 128 days planned at NBK Manchester, up to 7 days per week, during daylight hours only. However, project delays may occur due to a number of factors, including project funding, permitting requirements, availability of equipment and/or materials, weather-related delays, equipment maintenance and/or repair, and other contingencies.
The three installations are located within inland waters of Washington State. One facility is located along Hood Canal (NBK Bangor), while the other two are located along the southwestern (NBK Manchester) and southeastern (NS Everett) shorelines of Puget Sound. See figure 1 for a regional map and application figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 for maps of each installation.
NBK Bangor is located north of the community of Silverdale in Kitsap County on the Hood Canal. NBK Bangor serves as the Pacific homeport for the Navy's TRIDENT submarine squadron and other ships home-ported or moored at the installation and to maintain and operate administrative and personnel support facilities including security,
NS Everett provides homeport ship berthing, industrial support, and a Navy administrative center. It is located on Port Gardner Bay in Puget Sound's Whidbey Basin (see figure 1-3 of the Navy's application). To the west of the installation is the channelized mouth of the Snohomish River bounded by Jetty Island, which is composed of sediment from maintenance dredging and acts as a breakwater for the northwest area along the installation's waterfront. Jetty Island separates Port Gardner Bay and Possession Sound from the Snohomish River channel. The mouth of the Snohomish River channel is a historically industrialized area of highly modified shorelines and dredged waterways that forms a protected harbor within Port Gardner Bay. East of Jetty Island lies the Snohomish River estuary, consisting of a series of interconnected sloughs that flow through the lowlands east and north of the river's main channel. Water depths in Possession Sound range from about 9 m (30 ft) near the industrialized shoreline in Port Gardner to 180 m (600 ft) in mid-channel.
NBK Manchester provides bulk fuel and lubricant support to area Navy afloat and shore activities. It is located on Orchard Point, approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) due east of Bremerton (see figure 1-4 of the Navy's application). The installation is bounded by Clam Bay to the northwest, Rich Passage to the northeast, and Puget Sound to the east. NBK Manchester piers are located on the north side of Orchard Point and in a small embayment open on the south side of Orchard Point. In Clam Bay, the bathymetry is gently sloping with depths in the outer portions of the bay of approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) below mean lower low water (MLLW). Depths off Orchard Point drop off dramatically to 18 m (60 ft) below MLLW approximately 150 m (500 ft) from shore and 90 m (300 ft) below MLLW 1.6 km (1 m) offshore. Rich Passage is a shallow sill, less than 21 m (70 ft) deep.
Through its 2026 MPR project, the Navy plans to conduct maintenance and repair activities at marine waterfront structures at NS Everett, NBK Manchester, and NBK Bangor within Puget Sound. Repairs would include replacing up to 234 structurally unsound concrete or steel piles with 233 concrete or steel piles over a 1-year period using impact and vibratory pile driving and removal. A bubble curtain would be used during all impact driving of steel piles.
Piles may be removed by vibratory extraction, cutting/chipping, clamshell removal, or direct pull depending on site and pile conditions, and piles may be installed via vibratory and impact driving with the aid of water jetting or auger drilling. However, noise levels produced through mechanical extraction activities, water jetting, and auger drilling are not expected to exceed baseline levels produced by other routine activities and operations at the three facilities, and any elevated noise levels produced through these activities are expected to be intermittent and of short duration.
Likewise, the MPR program involves the repair of pile-supported structures that include replacement of elements such as pile caps and cross bracing, replacement or repair of decking, and replacement of wave break panels. Fender system components such as camels (protective float system) may be replaced. Also, various metal components exposed to the marine environment are subject to corrosion and will require periodic maintenance, such as coating, or replacement. All the associated repair activities either occur over water or involve only minor in-water work and are not expected to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. Therefore, only impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory removal, are carried forward for further analysis.
Between July 2026 and July 2027, the following activities are planned: At NBK Bangor, approximately 15 24-in concrete piles would be vibratory removed at Olympic Pier and EHW-1; approximately 4 20-in (0.5 m) steel fender piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer and if necessary, followed by impact proofing at Olympic Pier; and up to 12 30-in (0.8 m) steel piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer followed by impact proofing at EHW-1 (with a bubble curtain).
At NS Everett, approximately 144 12-in (0.3 m) steel piles would be vibratory removed at Piers A, B, and South Wharf; and approximately 144 18-in (0.5 m) steel fender piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer and if necessary, impact proofing (with a bubble curtain).
At NBK Manchester, approximately 74 14-in (0.4 m) steel H-piles would be vibratory removed at the Fuel Pier; approximately 30 24-in concrete piles would be impact installed in cases where no bedrock is present. To support the installation of 24-in concrete piles, up to 74 36-in steel casings would be vibratory installed and removed. Also, approximately 52 temporary 24-in steel piles would be installed and removed via vibratory hammer at this location.
Table 1 provides a summary of pile types, sizes, and maximum numbers of piles at each installation to be removed or installed over the 1-year MPR Program period from July 2026 to July 2027. This estimate assumes all piles would be removed and replaced with new piles. However, existing piles may be repaired in place with no new piles installed and if replacement piles are larger than existing piles, typically fewer piles are needed. Therefore, estimates of replaced piles for each installation are a conservative overestimate.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the 2024 SARs) and are available online at:
As indicated above, all 10 species (with 15 managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur.
In addition to what is included in sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application, and NMFS' website (
Generally, humpback whales are considered common in the Puget Sound, though the greatest density sightings are off the south end of Vancouver Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Olsen
The number of humpback whales potentially present near any of the three naval installations over the project time period is expected to be low in any month.
Within the project area, three humpback whale stocks may occur: The Central America/Southern Mexico—CA-OR-WA stock, which corresponds with the Central America DPS (found all along the west coast, but most common off California and Oregon; the Central America DPS is listed as endangered under the ESA); the Mainland Mexico—CA-OR-WA stock, which corresponds with the Mexico DPS (found all along the west coast; the Mexico DPS is listed as threatened under the ESA), and the Hawaii stock, which corresponds with the Hawaii DPS (found predominately off Washington and southern British Columbia; the Hawaii DPS is not listed under the ESA). According to Curtis
During migration from Mexico to the Arctic, a subpopulation of the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales, commonly referred to as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), stops and feeds along the coasts of Oregon and Washington including the Northern Puget Sound (Calambokidis
In October 2020, PSOs reported four sightings of a single gray whale near NBK Bangor during construction associated with the Pier Extension Project (DoN, 2021; DoN, 2022). Gray whales were not observed during monitoring efforts associated with other projects occurring at relevant Navy installations in Puget Sound (Callaghan
Between 2019 and 2023, there was a UME for gray whales occurring along the West Coast from Mexico through Alaska. While most of the strandings associated with this UME were documented along Washington's Pacific coast, 14 gray whale strandings were reported in inland waters between February and July, 2 of which were reported in Possession Sount near NS Everett (May 2019 and April 2020) and 2 to the north of NS Everett to the east and west of Camano Island (April 2021 and March 2022); other observations of single stranded gray whales were reported at the mouth of Hood Canal (May 2019), south of Whidby Island (May 2019), near Bainbridge Island (May 2020), in Sinclair Inlet (March 2021), and near Seattle (April 2019). There were also four gray whale strandings reported in the southern portion of Puget Sound to the southwest of Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
While no gray whale UMEs are currently active, Cascadia Research is actively monitoring high numbers of stranded gray whales along the Washington Coast and in Puget Sound this year (2026). As of July 21, 2026, 30 stranded gray whales have been reported in these waters, with malnutrition commonly documented. At least ten whales also had blunt force trauma consistent with vessel collision and one had recent evidence of entanglement (Cascadia Research Collective,
Gray whales are expected to occur in the waters surrounding all three installations primarily from February through June when most in-water construction will not occur.
Minke whales are reported in Washington inland waters year-round, although few are reported in the winter (Calambokidis and Baird, 1994), and are relatively rare in Puget Sound. Minke whales were not observed during monitoring efforts associated with projects occurring at relevant Navy installations in Puget Sound (Callaghan
West coast transient killer whales are documented intermittently year-round in Washington inland waters. While no transient killer whales were observed by PSOs monitoring during the Navy's construction at NBK Bangor in 2023, one group of five was observed by PSOs in 2022 (DoN 2022) and four groups of six or seven individuals were observed by PSOs in 2021 (DoN, 2021). PSOs monitoring during other Navy construction projects at relevant installations did not report observations of transient killer whales (Sandoval and Johnson, 2022). Transient killer whales are occasionally observed transiting through Rich Passage near NBK Manchester and in Possession Sound near NS Everett (Orca Network, 2026). In 2022, transient killer whales were observed in Possession Sound near NS Everett. Additionally, PSOs monitoring during WSDOT's Mukilteo multi-modal project reported 11 sightings of killer whales across 169 monitoring days between 2015 and 2021 (90 FR 31965, July 16, 2025). The mean pod size was four and the maximum pod size reported by PSOs was eight. The Whale Museum's data (provided by the Navy) indicate an average pod size of four as well.
The southern resident killer whale (SRKW) stock contains three pods (J, K, and L pods), with pod sizes ranging from approximately 15 (in K pod) to 34 (in L pod) individuals (Orca Network, 2026). SRKWs are documented intermittently year-round in Washington inland waters (Olsen
In 2006, NMFS designated critical habitat under the ESA for the SRKWs in inland waters of Washington State (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006). The designated critical habitat consists of three areas: (1) summer core area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; (2) Puget Sound; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca. The essential features for conservation of the habitat are: (1) water quality to support growth and development; (2) prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; and (3) passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. On August 2, 2021 (86 FR 41668), NOAA Fisheries published a final rule to revise the critical habitat designation for SRKWs, maintaining the previously designated critical habitat in inland waters of Washington and expanding it to include certain coastal waters off Washington, Oregon, and California.
SRKWs are expected to occur occasionally in the waters surrounding all of the installations relevant to this project except those in Hood Canal (NBK Bangor), where they have not been reported since 1995 (NMFS, 2006). This corresponds to the Puget Sound segment of the designated critical habitat for SRKW, which is defined as the area south of the Deception Pass Bridge, west of the entrance to Admiralty Inlet, and north of the Hood Canal Bridge. It also corresponds to a BIA for the species, which was developed based on the aforementioned critical habitat boundaries (Calambokidis
SRKWs were not observed by PSOs monitoring during previous construction activities at NBK Manchester (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021) or NBK Bangor (Callaghan
Within the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia, this species is most abundant in the Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the San Juan Islands (Nyswander
Dall's porpoises were not observed during monitoring efforts associated with projects occurring at relevant Navy installations in Puget Sound (Callaghan
Harbor porpoises are known to occur year-round in the inland trans-boundary waters of Washington and British Columbia, Canada and along the Oregon/Washington coast (Barlow
At NBK Bangor, PSOs associated with a service pier extension project observed harbor porpoise each month during the 2020-2021 monitoring period, with peak numbers recorded in August (DoN, 2021). During this time, a total of 420 harbor porpoise sightings were reported, with a mean group size of 3.3 (DoN, 2021). A total of 12 groups of harbor porpoises were also observed during year 2 of this project, with a mean group size of 3.4 (DoN, 2022); Finally, four groups of two to four harbor porpoise were reported during monitoring for construction at EHW-1 in 2023 (Callaghan
At NBK Manchester, a total of six groups of one to six harbor porpoises were detected by PSOs, with a mean group size of 2.7 (Sandoval and Johnson, 2022).
Between 194 and 214 harbor porpoises were observed by PSOs during WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal Project, for an average daily occurrence of 1.3 harbor porpoises and average group size of 2 (90 FR 31965; July 16, 2025).
Only male California sea lions migrate into Pacific Northwest waters, with females remaining in waters near their breeding rookeries off the coast of California and Mexico. They use haul-out sites along the outer coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in Puget Sound. Haul-out sites are located on jetties, offshore rocks and islands, log booms, marina docks, and navigation buoys. This species also may be frequently seen resting in the water, rafted together in groups in Puget Sound.
In Washington inland waters, California sea lions are typically present most of the year though occurrence is low in mid-June through August, as most California sea lions would be returning to rookeries in California waters (Navy, 2025). As described below, surveys at the naval installations indicate that a few individuals remain year-round (Navy, 2025).
The Navy conducts surveys at its installations in Puget Sound that have sea lion haulouts. Specifically, of the project relevant to naval installations, California sea lion haulouts occur at NBK Bangor and NS Everett (though California sea lions may haul out opportunistically at any location).
California sea lions have been documented during shore-based surveys at NBK Bangor in Hood Canal since 2008 in all months, with as many as 320 individuals observed at one time (October 2018) hauled out on submarines at Delta Pier and on Port Security Barrier (PSB) floats (Navy, 2025). Since 2020, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of California sea lions reported at Bangor during the project period months (July-January) is 35 animals (Navy, 2025). Additionally, California sea lions were observed by PSOs consistently at NBK Bangor during Navy construction projects: 2 California sea lions were observed across 15 days between August and September 2023 (Callaghan
California sea lions have been documented during the Navy's shore-based surveys at NS Everett from 2014 to 2025 in all survey months, with as many as 267 individuals hauled out at one time (April 2020) on PSB floats (Navy, 2025). In 2020, the Navy's survey effort increased to include pinniped counts within the entire East Waterway. Since 2020, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of California sea lions reported at Everett during the project period months (July-February) is 35 animals and the maximum count documented at one time was 225 individuals (Navy, 2025).
At NBK Manchester, a float that had been regularly used as a main haulout area for California or Steller sea lions was removed in 2018, leading to a large decrease in sea lion numbers in the vicinity of Manchester Fuel Depot. Other floats have periodically been introduced and utilized by California sea lions since then (including the large main float that was reinstalled in 2021), making the number of California sea lions observed in the vicinity of NBK Manchester highly variable. As of May 2023 (approximate date of a float removal), there have been no available floats nearby for California sea lions to haul out on, though one buoy remains that can support a maximum of four California sea lions at a time. Since 2023, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of California sea lions reported at Manchester during the project period months (July-February) is 6 animals and the maximum count at one time was 92 (Navy, 2025).
California sea lions were observed consistently at NBK Manchester during Navy construction projects. A total of
Steller sea lions use haul-out locations in Puget Sound, and may occur at the same haulouts as California sea lions. Steller sea lions have been seasonally documented (September through April) in shore-based surveys at NBK Bangor in Hood Canal since 2008 (Navy, 2025). Since 2020, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of Steller sea lions reported at Bangor during project period months (July-January) was two animals and the mean monthly maximum documented at one time was four animals. Steller sea lions were not observed at NBK Bangor during construction occurring on 14 days between August and October 2021 (Hamer Environmental, 2021), or on 32 construction days between October and January (DoN, 2022). However, 13 Steller sea lions were observed by PSOs across 15 days in August and September 2023 (Callaghan
At NS Everett, Steller sea lions have rarely been detected during the Navy's shore-based surveys conducted since July 2012. However, occasional observations have been reported from the PSB or in the Notch Basin, generally one at a time (Navy, 2025). Other than these detections on the installation's PSBs, the nearest known Steller sea lion haulout is 14 mi (23 km) away. The average daily occurrence of Steller sea lions observed by PSOs during WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal Project (169 days of monitoring between 2015 and 2021), was 0.25, suggesting an occasional occurrence of this species in the vicinity of the project site (90 FR 31965; July 16, 2025).
As discussed above, in 2018, a float was removed that was regularly used as the main haulout area for sea lions, leading to a large decrease in the sea lions' numbers reported in the vicinity of NBK Manchester. As of May 2023, there have been no available floats for sea lions to haul out on, though one buoy remains, primarily used by California sea lions. Since 2023, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of Steller sea lions reported at Manchester during the project period months (July-February) is four animals and the maximum count at one time was seven (Navy, 2025).
Additionally, Steller sea lions were observed consistently at NBK Manchester during Navy construction projects. A total of three individuals were reported across three sightings, for a mean of one individual per sighting.
Harbor seals are the most common pinniped that breed and remain in the inland marine waters of Washington year-round (Calambokidis and Baird 1994a). Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs and beaches, and feed in marine, estuarine and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display strong fidelity for haul-out sites (Pitcher and McAllister, 1981).
Harbor seals are expected to occur year-round at all installations with the greatest numbers expected at installations with nearby haulout sites. In Hood Canal, where NBK Bangor is located, known haulouts occur on the west side of Hood Canal at the mouth of the Dosewallips River and on the western and northern shorelines in Dabob Bay located approximately 8.1 mi (13 km) and 2.3 mi (3.7 km) away from the Navy's installation, respectively. Telemetry data from harbor seals tagged by the Navy and the WDFW show most animals occurring in this area, with a smaller proportion of animals moving in and out of the NBK Bangor project area (P. Thorson, Navy, personal communication, 2026). Small numbers of harbor seals have been documented hauling out opportunistically at NBK Bangor (
Harbor seals occupy the waters and haulout sites near NS Everett year-round. According to the Navy, mother-pup pairs have been observed at NS Everett each summer since 2018. Navy shore-based surveys were conducted regularly at this site between 2012 and 2016, and again beginning in 2019, at which point surveys were expanded to include the entire East Waterway. However, log rafts were removed from the East Waterway in the spring of 2022. Since then, the largest number of harbor seals observed at NS Everett was 788 in October 2023. The Navy documented an average of 213 harbor seals hauled out at NS Everett in 2024 (Navy, 2025). Additionally, PSOs monitoring for marine mammals during the WSDOT Mukilteo Multimodal Project reported a daily average of 21 harbor seals (90 FR 31965; July 16, 2025).
No haulouts have been identified at NBK Manchester. Single harbor seals have been observed swimming in these areas or hauled out on nearby rocks or on floats. The nearest documented haulout to NBK Manchester is Orchard Rocks Conservation Area in Rich Passage, approximately 1.0 mi (1.8 km) away. The Navy began surveying this area in June 2020, which has led to a dramatic increase in the number of harbor seals observed in proximity to NBK Manchester Fuel Depot. Since 2020, during these surveys, the monthly average daily occurrence of harbor seals reported at Manchester during the project period months (July-February) is 13 animals and the maximum count at one time was 138 (Navy, 2025). PSOs also observed a total of 103 harbor seals with a mean group size of 1.3 (groups ranging from 1 to 13 individuals) across 11 monitoring days between September and December 2021 at this installation (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021).
The occurrence of elephant seals in Puget Sound is unpredictable. No regular haulouts exist in Puget Sound with the exception of individual elephant seals occasionally hauling out for 2 to 4 weeks to molt, usually during the spring and summer and typically on sandy beaches (Calambokidis and Baird, 1994). These animals are usually yearlings or subadults and their haul-out locations are unpredictable. However, a female elephant seal has been reported hauled out in Mutiny Bay on Whidbey Island periodically since 2010. She was observed alone for her first three visits to the area, but in March 2015, she was seen with a pup. Since then, she has produced three more pups between 2018 and 2021 (Orca Network, 2025). Northern elephant seals generally give birth in January but this individual has repeatedly given birth in March. She typically returns to Mutiny Bay (not included in the ensonified area) in April and May to molt (when project activities are not planned). Her pups have also repeatedly returned to haul out on nearby beaches and one has also had a pup (Orca Network 2025).
A northern elephant seal was observed north of NBK Bangor in Hood Canal, from Kitsap Memorial Park in August 2020 (DoN, 2021). Additionally, across 169 monitoring days between 2015 and 2021, one to two northern elephant seals were observed by PSOs during the WSDOT Mukilteo Multimodal Project from the New Mukilteo Ferry Terminal monitoring location (90 FR 31965; July 16, 2025). Northern elephant seals were not observed by PSOs during the Navy's other construction activities occurring at NBK Bangor (Hamer Environmental, 2021; DoN, 2022) or NBK Manchester (Sandoval and Johnson, 2021).
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities or hear over the same frequency range (
For more details concerning these groups and associated generalized hearing ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section discusses how components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by the specified activities. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities could occur from vibratory pile installation and removal, and impact pile driving. The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the project area and, for some species as a result of impact pile driving at two installations, Level A harassment.
Across three locations in Puget Sound, Washington, the proposed activities would result in the removal of approximately 234 steel or concrete piles with diameters of 12, 14, and 24-in, and installation of approximately 233 concrete or steel piles with diameters of 18, 20, 24, and 30-in. There are a variety of types and degrees of effects on marine mammals and their habitat (including prey) that could occur as a result of the specified activities. Below we provide a brief description of the types of sound generated by specified activities, the general impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from these types of activities, and a related project-specific analysis with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.
Activities associated with the project that have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals through exposure to sound would include vibratory pile
Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak sound pressure levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the substrate, and extract piles by using vibration to break the sediment friction and allow a crane to pull the piles out. Vibratory hammers typically produce less sound (
The likely or possible impacts of the Navy's proposed activities on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; should any animals occur near the project site(s) close enough to be harassed due to the presence of equipment or personnel, we expect they would have already traveled through the Level B and/or Level A harassment zones for the specified in-water activities and, thus, would already be considered taken by acoustic impacts. Therefore, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic in nature.
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Navy's specified activity. Anthropogenic sounds span a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life from none or minor to potentially severe responses depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources, such as those in the Project, can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of impact and vibratory pile driving and removal are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
The degree of effect of an acoustic exposure on marine mammals is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (
Richardson
Below, we provide additional details regarding potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from noise in general, starting with hearing impairment, as well as from the specific activities the Navy plans to conduct, to the degree it is available.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group are less hazardous than those near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Respiration rates vary naturally with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
During the Navy's previous pile driving activities at NBK Bangor (Callaghan et al., 2024; Hamer 2021; DON 2022; DON 2021) and NBK Manchester (Sandoval and Johnson, 2022), harbor seals were most commonly observed traveling, swimming, or diving, though some behaviors recorded during pile driving activities indicated that harbor seals were aware of the construction, such as less foraging reported and looking at the construction site or startling. Likewise, California sea lions were observed traveling and swimming during pile driving activities, but occasionally were observed porpoising or breaching. Harbor porpoises were observed traveling, milling, and/or porpoising.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking occurs in the frequency band that the animals utilize, and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of vibratory pile driving sound spans a broad frequency spectrum, and is anticipated to be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the proposed action area. Since noises generated from the proposed construction activities are mostly concentrated at low frequencies (<2 kHz), these activities likely have less effect on mid-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. Low-frequency noise may also affect communication signals when they occur near the frequency band for noise and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction activities that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from these activities. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above airborne acoustic harassment criteria. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would likely previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of additional incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further.
The Navy's proposed activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project areas (see discussion below). Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during the proposed construction activities; however, any displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or populations.
The total area likely impacted by the Navy's activities is relatively small compared to the available habitat in Puget Sound. Avoidance by potential prey (
The proposed project would occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. The nearshore and intertidal habitat where the proposed project would occur is an area of relatively high marine vessel traffic. Most marine mammals do not generally use the area within the footprint of the project area. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels during the proposed construction activities. Effects on marine mammal habitat would be limited to temporary pile installation and removal noise, and effects on prey species would be similarly limited in time and space.
Effects to turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Since the currents are so strong in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediments in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area
Fishes utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fishes and fish mortality (summarized in Popper
Fish populations in the proposed project area that serve as marine mammal prey could be temporarily affected by noise from pile installation and removal. The frequency range in which fishes generally perceive underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz (Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish behavior or distribution may change, especially with strong and/or intermittent sounds that could harm fishes. High underwater SPLs have been documented to alter behavior, cause hearing loss, and injure or kill individual fish by causing serious internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Zooplankton is a food source for several marine mammal species, as well as a food source for fish that are then preyed upon by marine mammals. Population effects on zooplankton could have indirect effects on marine mammals. Data are limited on the effects of underwater sound on zooplankton species, particularly sound from construction (Erbe
The greatest potential impact to marine mammal prey during construction would occur during impact pile driving. However, the duration of impact pile driving would mostly be limited to the final stage of installation (“proofing”) after the pile has been driven as close as practicable to the design depth with a vibratory driver. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, allowing fish to forage and transit the project area in the evening. Impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and removal would possibly elicit behavioral reactions from fishes such as temporary avoidance of the area but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes or have persistent effects on local fish populations. Additionally, the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of ESA-listed salmon species. Construction also would have minimal permanent and temporary impacts on benthic invertebrate species, a marine mammal prey source. In addition, it should be noted that the area in question is lower-quality habitat since it is already highly developed and experiences a high level of anthropogenic noise from normal operations and other vessel traffic.
The Navy's MPR program is not expected to result in any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, since installation and removal of in-water piles would be temporary and intermittent. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals outside this project area. Although Puget Sound in its entirety is listed as a BIA and critical habitat for SRKWs (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006; Calambokidis
In summary, given the relatively small areas being affected, as well as the temporary and mostly transitory nature of the proposed construction activities, any adverse effects from the Navy's activities on prey habitat or prey populations are expected to be minor and temporary. The most likely impact to fishes at the project site would be temporary avoidance of the area. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we preliminarily conclude that impacts of the specified activities are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
The Navy's proposed 2026 MPR project includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar pile types and dimensions of piles available in literature. Source levels used for each pile size and activity are presented in table 5. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.
The Navy proposed to use bubble curtains when impact driving steel piles. For the reasons described in the next paragraph, we assume here that use of the bubble curtain would result in a reduction of 8 dB from the assumed SPL (rms), SPL (peak) and SEL source levels
During the 2023 study at NBK Bremerton, the Navy conducted comparative measurements of source levels when impact driving steel piles with and without a bubble curtain. Underwater sound levels were measured at two locations during the installation of one 24-in diameter steel pile and four 36-in steel piles. The bubble curtain used during the measurements reduced median peak sound levels by between 8 and 12 dB, median RMS sound levels by 10 and 12 dB, and median single strike SEL sound levels by 7 and 8 dB. The analysis included in a proposed rule for regulations (83 FR 9366, March 5, 2018) preceding two consecutive IHAs (89 FR 47593, June 3, 2026) that preceded this project as well as results from the NBK Bangor Trident Support Facilities Explosive Handling Wharf study (Crowser, 2013), are consistent with these findings. While proper set-up and operation of the system is critical, and variability in performance should be expected, we believe that in the circumstances evaluated here an effective attenuation performance of 8 dB is a reasonable assumption.
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers a practical, alternative way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur AUD INJ. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool (table 6), and the resulting estimated isopleths (table 7), are reported below.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the vicinity of the project area includes site-specific and nearby survey information from the Navy and WSDOT. Specifically, data sources consulted included (1) the Navy's “Summary of Weekly Marine Mammal Surveys at Navy Northwest Region Installations: 2008-2025”, and (2) PSO monitoring completed across (a) 156 monitoring days associated with four projects completed by the Navy at Bangor; (b) 11 monitoring days associated with one project completed by the Navy at Manchester, and (c) 169 monitoring days between 2015 and 2021, between the months of August and February, associated with the multi-year WSDOT Multimodal Construction Project completed by WSDOT, which was located near NS Everett. Species-specific data summaries of the above are included in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section.
For large whales (humpback whales, minke whales, and gray whales), killer whales (transient and resident), Dall's porpoise, and elephant seals, NMFS considered the data sources identified above, as well as (1) data collected by The Whale Museum between August 2022 and July 2024 from Blake Island (approximately 3 km from NBK Manchester) provided by the Navy and, (2) The Orca Network archived sightings.
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
For species with rare or infrequent occurrence at a given installation during the in-water work window, the likelihood of occurrence was reviewed on the basis of past records of occurrence (described in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities) and the potential maximum duration of work days at each installation, as well as total work days for all installations. In most cases, the occurrence of the species in this category (
For the remaining species, the Navy utilized density estimates or site-specific survey data to estimate the likelihood of occurrence. Specifically, the Navy proposed to use density estimates of harbor porpoise from the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (Navy, 2019) to estimate the likelihood of occurrence. However, NMFS finds it more appropriate to use local monitoring data to estimate the likelihood of occurrence for harbor porpoise. As such, for harbor porpoise and the other remaining species (California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal), the Navy and NMFS predicted a daily occurrence, and estimated take by multiplying the estimated daily occurrence for each species by the number of in-water construction days, generally using the following equation;
Although certain species are not expected to occur at all at some facilities—for example, resident killer whales are not expected to occur in Hood Canal—an overall take estimate for these species has been developed across the entire project.
The Navy proposes to implement a shutdown of pile driving activity if any large whale or killer whale is observed within or approaching any defined harassment zone (see Proposed Mitigation section). Additionally, the Navy plans at least daily coordination with the Orca Network to maintain situational awareness of large whales in the vicinity of the project sites and shut down should they be reported or observed by PSOs near the project site. As a result of this proposed mitigation, we do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome upon occurrence of any large whale or killer whale. Likewise, the Navy has not requested take by Level A harassment of large whales or killer whales, nor has NMFS proposed for authorization take by Level A harassment of these species.
In most cases where proposed shutdown zones are greater than or equal to the calculated Level A harassment zones, take by Level A harassment is not proposed for authorization. However, there are scenarios for some pinniped species and installations (
Additionally, in cases where the Level A harassment zones are larger than the proposed shutdown zones (
We acknowledge that the number of estimated exposures above higher threshold criteria (
The Navy plans to shut down in-water pile driving upon observation of any large whale or killer whale approaching or within any estimated harassment zone. While the Navy plans to coordinate with the Orca Network to maintain situational awareness of the presence of large whales or killer whales near all three project areas, the Level B harassment zone is larger than is practicably observable by PSOs during most activities. As such, some take by Level B harassment is proposed for authorization for these species.
The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that one group of two humpback whales may occur in the Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize four takes by Level B harassment of humpback whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of humpback whales are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
The Navy initially assumed that one group of two gray whales may occur in the Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season. However, given the recent reports of stranded gray whales in Puget Sound, the Navy requests and NMFS concurs that up to eight gray whales may be taken by Level B harassment during the project period. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize eight takes by Level B harassment of gray whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of gray whales are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that one group of two minke whales may occur in a Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season for a total of four takes by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize four takes by Level B harassment of minke whales.
No takes by Level A harassment of minke whales are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that one group of six transient killer whales may occur in a Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a total of two days over the course of the constructions season for a total of 12 takes by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize
No takes by Level A harassment of transient killer whales are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 1 group of 10 SRKW may occur in the Level B harassment zone during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season for a total of 20 takes by Level B harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 20 takes by Level B harassment of SRKWs.
No takes by Level A harassment of SRKW are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that one group of two Dall's porpoise could occur within the project area during active pile driving on a total of 2 days over the course of the construction season for a total of four. Because exposure estimates are low and the Level A harassment zones are larger than are likely observable during impact pile driving, NMFS proposes to authorize these four takes as Level A harassment, acknowledging that instead the takes could be by the less severe Level B harassment.
NBK Bangor—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 12 harbor porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 264 takes by Level B harassment of harbor porpoises across the 22 construction days at this project site.
The calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during the 6 days of impact proofing of 30-in steel piles at EHW-1 is 1,135 m, and the Navy plans to maintain a shutdown zone of 350 m (table 9). NMFS estimates that 12 harbor porpoises per day could occur within the calculated Level A harassment zone and remain for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. As such, we propose to authorize 72 takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises at this project site.
NMFS modified the calculated takes by Level B harassment to deduct the estimated amount of take by Level A harassment (
NS Everett—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that two harbor porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 154 takes by Level B harassment of harbor porpoises across the 77 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
NBK Manchester—that the Navy requests and NMFS concurs that two harbor porpoises could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 256 takes by Level B harassment of harbor porpoises across 128 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
Across all installations, NMFS proposes to authorize 602 takes by Level B harassment of and 72 takes by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises for a total of 674 takes.
NBK Bangor—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 35 California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 770 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lions across the 22 construction days at this project site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table 9). However, given the proximity of hauled out California sea lions to the project site, and the fact that on 6 construction days the calculated Level A harassment zone is 243 m (during impact proofing of 30-inch steel at EHW-1), NMFS predicts that it is possible that up to two California sea lions could go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. This results in two takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the proposed amount of take by Level A harassment estimated (
NS Everett—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 35 California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 2,695 takes by Level B harassment across the 77 construction days at this project site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table 9). However, given the proximity of hauled out California sea lions to the project site (the PSB at this location directly connects to the southwest end of Pier B and runs about 60 m along the southern end of both Piers A and B, and approximately 160 m along the southeastern extent of Pier A), and the fact that on 5 construction days the calculated Level A harassment zone is 38 m (during impact proofing of 18-inch steel fender piles at Piers A, B, and South Wharf), NMFS predicts that it is possible that up to one California sea lion per day could go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. This results in five takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the proposed amount of take by Level A harassment estimated (
NBK Manchester—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that six California sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 768 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lions across 128 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
Across all installations, we propose to authorize 4,226 takes by Level B harassment and 7 takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions for a total of 4,233 takes.
NBK Bangor—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that four Steller sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
NS Everett—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 0.25 Steller sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone every construction day, or one Steller sea lion could occur within the Level B harassment zone every 4 construction days. This results in 19 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lions across the 77 days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
Manchester—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that four Steller sea lions could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 512 takes by Level B harassment across the 128 construction days at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are anticipated at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
Across all installations, we propose to authorize 619 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lions. No takes by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions are requested and none are proposed for authorization.
NBK Bangor—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 16 harbor seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 352 takes by Level B harassment across the 22 construction days at this project site.
The calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during 6 days of impact proofing of 30-inch steel piles at EHW-1 is 651 m. The calculated Level A harassment zone expected to occur during impact proofing of 20-inch steel fender piles at Olympic Pier is 190 m (planned on 2 construction days). The Navy plans to maintain a shutdown zone of 200 m (table 9) at this site during all impact pile driving activities. NMFS predicts that three harbor seals could be present in the project area during each of the 6 construction days where the calculated Level A harassment zone exceeds the planned shutdown zone. Additionally, given the regular occurrence of harbor seals at the project site, NMFS predicts that up to three harbor seals per day could go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ during the 2 construction days where shutdown zone exceeds the calculated Level A harassment zone, but the Level A harassment zone is relatively large and more challenging for PSOs to effectively monitor. As such, we propose to authorize 24 takes by Level A harassment of harbor seals at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the proposed amount of take by Level A harassment estimated (
NS Everett -The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 54 harbor seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. Fifty-four represents 25 percent of the harbor seals documented during the Navy's pinniped monitoring, because surveys were recently expanded to include the entire East Waterway. This results in 4,158 takes by Level B harassment across the 77 construction days planned at this site.
The Navy plans to shut down at distances slightly larger than the Level A harassment zones associated with this project site (see table 9). However, given the regular occurrence of harbor seals at the project site, and the fact that on 5 construction days the calculated Level A harassment zone is 104 m (during impact proofing of 18-inch steel fender piles at Piers A, B, and South Wharf), NMFS predicts that it is possible that up to one harbor seal per day could go unobserved and remain within the calculated Level A harassment zone for a sufficient period to accumulate enough energy to result in AUD INJ. As such, we propose to authorize five takes by Level A harassment of harbor seals at this project site.
Takes by Level B harassment were modified to deduct the proposed amount of take by Level A harassment estimated (
Manchester—The Navy requests and NMFS concurs that 13 harbor seals could occur within the Level B harassment zone each construction day. This results in 1,664 takes by Level B harassment across the 128 construction days planned at this project site.
No takes by Level A harassment of California sea lions are requested at this project site and none are proposed for authorization.
Across all installations, we propose to authorize 6,145 takes by Level B harassment of and 29 takes by Level A harassment of harbor seals for a total of 6,174 takes.
Because the occurrence of northern elephant seals in Puget Sound is unpredictable and this species is known to linger, NMFS predicts that one northern elephant seal could occur within the project area on up to 4 days during the project period. This results in four takes by Level B harassment.
No takes by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals are anticipated and none are proposed for authorization.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
The mitigation requirements described in the following were proposed by the Navy in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and the Navy. The Navy has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the proposed measures are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as proposed mitigation requirements, and has included them in the proposed IHA.
NMFS requires the establishment of both clearance and, where technically feasible, shutdown zones during project activities that have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. The purpose of “clearance” of a particular zone is to minimize potential instances of harassment and/or minimize the intensity of a harassment event by delaying the commencement of an activity if marine mammals are observed within the defined area. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to prevent or minimize a specific acute impact and/or minimize the intensity or duration of a harassment event by halting the activity that is already underway if a marine mammal is observed within the defined area (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). For very high frequency cetaceans, phocids, and otariids, the clearance zone at all sites for all activities is equivalent to the shutdown zone and are not differentiated. For low frequency cetaceans and killer whales, a minimum clearance zone that is based on the distance that can be reliably observed by PSOs is established in addition to a shutdown zone.
For all large cetaceans and killer whales, the Navy proposes to shut down at distances based on the largest estimated harassment zone for each activity. At Bangor, the largest shutdown zone for these hearing groups is 11.7 km, which corresponds to the maximum Level B harassment distance during a vibratory pile driving activity. At Everett, the largest shutdown zone for these hearing groups is 5.4 km, which corresponds to the maximum Level B harassment distance during a vibratory pile driving activity. At Manchester, the largest shutdown zone for these hearing groups is 13.6 km, which corresponds to the maximum Level B harassment distance during a vibratory pile driving activity. If a large whale or killer whale is observed approaching the Level B harassment zone (
Recognizing that the entirety of the Level B harassment zone cannot practicably be monitored by PSOs, the Orca Network would be consulted prior to commencing pile driving each day, and Navy biologists and lead PSOs will have access to text updates (See Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section for more details). If any large cetacean or killer whale is documented near or approaching the shutdown zone (equivalent to the Level B harassment zone during most activities), pile driving would be delayed or stopped until the whale or whales have moved away.
For all other hearing groups and activities, the proposed shutdown zones are primarily based on the estimated Level A harassment isopleths. However, in cases where it would be challenging to detect marine mammals at the Level A harassment isopleth, (
Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activities (
Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made that the clearance zones (at minimum) (LF and HF) and shutdown zones are clear of marine mammals. Monitoring of the clearance zone, shutdown zone, and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see, would continue for the duration of pile driving through 30 minutes post completion of pile driving activity. Monitoring beyond the shutdown zones
If any marine mammal is observed entering or within the shutdown zones, pile driving activity must be delayed or halted. 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 relevant zone, (at minimum), or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the clearance zone (at minimum) (LF and HF) and shutdown zones, and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see, would commence.
Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant Navy staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during all construction activities. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m 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 number and placement of PSOs (described in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section) would ensure that the clearance zone (at minimum) (LF and HF) and shutdown zones are visible, such that PSOs are confident of their ability to observe marine mammals at relevant distances. For very high frequency cetaceans, phocids, and otariids, the clearance zones are equivalent to the shutdown zones and are not differentiated. For low frequency and high frequency cetaceans, the clearance zones are based on the distances that can be reliably observed by PSOs. However, PSOs would conduct monitoring beyond the clearance zones to the extent that they can see.
The use of soft-start procedures is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors would be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the hammer at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second waiting period. This procedure would be conducted a total of three times before impact pile driving begins. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of 30 minutes or longer. Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving activities.
A bubble curtain would be employed during impact installation or proofing of steel piles. Bubble curtains would not be required during vibratory pile driving. If a bubble curtain is used, it would distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring would be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring would ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects would prevent full mudline contact.
NMFS conducted an independent evaluation of the proposed measures, and has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The monitoring and reporting requirements described in the following were proposed by the Navy in its adequate and complete application and/or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and the Navy. The Navy has agreed to the requirements. NMFS describes these below as requirements and has included them in the proposed IHA.
Visual monitoring would be conducted by trained PSOs positioned at suitable vantage points to be able to observe the entirety of the clearance zones (at minimum) (LF and HF), the shutdown zones, and the surrounding area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions.
During all pile driving activities at all installations the Navy intends to employ three PSOs per location (for a total of nine PSOs on days with work at all three locations), to monitor the clearance zones (at minimum)(LF and HF), the shutdown zones, and the surrounding area. At least one PSO would be placed near the pile driving site during all pile driving and removal activities.
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in-water construction activities. In addition, PSOs would record all incidents of marine mammal
The Orca Network receives sighting information from citizen scientists, vessel captains, and researchers throughout the Puget Sound area. Navy biologists and the lead PSO will have access to the Orca Network notification texts, and they can call into the notification system. Prior to pile driving each day, the lead PSO would contact the Orca Network and monitor social media to review updated sighting locations of large whales, including ESA-listed SRKWs and humpback whales. If any large whale or killer whale species are reported approaching, or within the shutdown zone, pile driving would be delayed until the whale or whales have moved away.
The Navy may implement hydroacoustic monitoring during impact pile driving of sheet piles with a bubble curtain to verify the sound source levels associated with the use of this attenuation device with this pile type. If hydroacoustic monitoring is planned, Navy would submit a hydroacoustic monitoring plan to NMFS for review and approval no less than 90 days prior to implementation of sound source verification activities. The Navy would conduct its activities consistent with the NMFS-approved plan.
The Navy would submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 calendar days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report would include an overall description of the construction work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets (in a queryable electronic format). Specifically, the report would include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (1) number of and type of piles that were driven and the method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: (1) name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; (2) time of sighting; (3) identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the estimated harassment zones, by species; and,
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
Should acoustic monitoring be conducted, an acoustic monitoring report(s) must be submitted, at minimum, on the same schedule as visual monitoring reports (
A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of the draft report, the report will be considered final. All PSO data would be submitted electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database and would be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the USACE must report the incident to the NMFS OPR (
• time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• observed behaviors of the animals(s), if alive;
• photographs or video footage of the animal(s), if available; and
• the general circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 2, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal associated with this project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment and, for Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, California sea lions and harbor seals, Level A harassment, from underwater sounds generated by pile installation and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
No serious injury or mortality is expected, even in the absence of required mitigation measures, given the nature of the activities. Further, for six species of marine mammals (all low frequency and high frequency cetaceans, Steller sea lions, and northern elephant seals), no take by Level A harassment is anticipated, due to the rarity of these species in the project areas (Steller sea lions and northern elephant seals), or due to the relatively small Level A harassment zones (low and high frequency cetaceans). The likelihood of take by Level A harassment occurring is further reduced by Navy's plans to implement mitigation measures such as shutdown zones that encompass all or a portion of the Level A harassment zones (see Proposed Mitigation section).
Level A harassment is proposed for very high-frequency cetaceans (Dall's porpoise and harbor porpoise) and the pinniped species that commonly occur in the project areas (California sea lions, and two out of three stocks of harbor seals). Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ (
Additionally, the amount of take by Level A harassment of these 4 species proposed for authorization is very low. NMFS expects no more than 4 takes by Level A harassment for Dall's porpoise, 72 takes by Level A harassment for harbor porpoise, 7 takes by Level A harassment for California sea lions, and 29 takes by Level A harassment for harbor seals (across 2 out of 3 stocks). For all hearing groups, if hearing impairment occurs, it is most likely that the affected animal would lose only a few dB in its hearing sensitivity. Due to the small degree anticipated, any AUD INJ potentially incurred would not be expected to affect the reproductive success or survival of any individuals, much less result in adverse impacts on the species or stock.
Additionally, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. However, since the hearing sensitivity of individuals that incur TTS is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours, it is unlikely that the brief hearing impairment would affect the individual's long-term ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics, and would therefore not likely impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal, let alone adversely affect rates of recruitment or survival of the species or stock.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disruption, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would likely be limited to reactions such as avoidance, increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
If sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activities are occurring. We expect that any avoidance of the project areas by marine mammals would be temporary in nature and that any marine mammals that avoid the project areas during construction would not be permanently displaced. Short-term avoidance of the project areas and energetic impacts of interrupted foraging or other important behaviors is unlikely to affect the reproduction or survival of individual marine mammals, and the effects of behavioral disturbance on individuals is not likely to accrue in a manner that would affect the rates of recruitment or survival of any affected stock.
Some individual marine mammals in the project areas, such as California sea lions, harbor seals or harbor porpoises, may be present and be subject to repeated exposure to sound from pile driving activities on multiple days. Repeated exposures of individuals to relatively low levels of sound outside of preferred habitat areas are unlikely to significantly disrupt critical behaviors. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any effects on rates of reproduction and survival of the stock.
Additionally, pile driving and extraction would not likely occur on every day at each installation, and these individuals would likely return to normal behavior during gaps in pile driving activity within each day of construction and in between work days. As discussed above, individuals could temporarily relocate during construction activities to reduce exposure to elevated sound levels from the project. While vibratory driving associated with some project components may produce sound at distances of many kms from the pile driving site, thus intruding on higher-quality habitat, the project sites
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause a low level of turbidity in the water column and some fish may leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected (with the exception of gray whales and SRKWs, there are no habitats of known particular importance to marine mammals), the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
There is a BIA for feeding gray whales that intersects with the project area associated with NS Everett, but it is active between February and May (Calambokidis
ESA critical habitat for SRKW occurs in Puget Sound (see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section of this notice) but excludes the areas around military installations which would be most impacted by pile driving sound. NMFS did not identify in-water sound levels as a separate essential feature of critical habitat, though anthropogenic sound is recognized as one of the primary threats to SRKW (NMFS, 2019). The exposure of SRKW to sound from the proposed activities would be minimized by the required proposed mitigation measures (
As described above, increased sightings of gray whale strandings have been reported in Puget Sound. We do not expect authorized takes to exacerbate or compound upon these increased strandings. As discussed above, no injury, serious injury or mortality is expected or proposed, and the impact of Level B harassment takes of these species will be minimized through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The strandings do not provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts. Despite the strandings, the Eastern North Pacific population of gray whales remains healthy.
Finally, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individuals, much less these stocks' annual rates of recruitment or survival. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and would therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization;
• Any Level A harassment is anticipated to cause only slight auditory injury, including PTS of a few decibels within the lower frequencies associated with impact pile driving of 18-in steel at Everett and 30-in steel at Bangor, and not encompassing a species' full hearing range.
• At worst, the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would result in temporary behavior modifications or a small degree of TTS that would resume to baseline at the cessation of activities or as animals move away from the source;
• The project areas at all three installations are industrialized; therefore, individuals taken are likely habituated to anthropogenic activities and behavioral reactions are expected to be minor and temporary;
• The project areas at all three installations are small relative to the overall habitat range of each species, and overlap with known habitats of particular importance is minimal;
• Effects on marine mammal prey species from the activities are primarily expected to be short-term, and any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue to adverse impacts on their populations;
• The proposed mitigation measures are expected to minimize the severity of the effects of the specified activity.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
We propose to authorize incidental take of 15 marine mammal stocks (table 8). The total amount of taking proposed for authorization is less than 33.3 percent for 14 stocks, which meets the definition stated above.
Though the most recent SAR includes an unreliable population estimate for the Washington Inland Southern Puget Sound stock of harbor seal because it is more than 8 years old, Pearson
Given that the specified activity will be stationary within an area not recognized as being of any special significance that would serve to attract or harbor seals, we therefore believe that the estimated numbers of takes, were they to occur, likely represent repeated exposures of a much smaller number of individual harbor seals and that these estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of harbor seals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of SRKW, as well as one stock of humpback whale (Mainland Mexico—CA-OR-WA), which are listed under the ESA.
The Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the West Coast Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization. Due to the inability of PSOs to determine stock in the field, our consultation also includes information relevant to the ESA-listed Central America/Southern Mexico—CA-OR-WA stock of humpback whales although no take of this stock is expected nor is it proposed for authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting the 2026 MPR Project in Puget Sound, Washington, Washington, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed construction project. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal 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 Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• 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).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
1. 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 (
2. 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.
• 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.