Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Ratification.
The Department of Homeland Security is publishing notice of the Secretary of Homeland Security's ratification of a rule.
The ratification was signed on October 29, 2025 and relates back to the original date of the action that it ratifies.
Office of the General Counsel, DHS, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 282-9822.
On October 29, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security ratified the approval and issuance of the final rule titled “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review,” as well as the associated notice of proposed rulemaking.
DHS is now publishing the ratification in the
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
On January 4, 2025, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 became law. The Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), U.S. Department of Commerce, publishes this final rule to reflect an amendment made to the grant rates prescribed by EDA's authorizing statute, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. Immediate implementation of the rule will prevent public confusion between EDA's implementing regulations and changes enacted in the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024.
This rule is effective November 19, 2025.
Jeffrey Roberson, Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 72023, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1315; email:
On January 4, 2025, the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-272) became law and contained the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (“the Act”) in Title II of Division B. The Act reauthorizes EDA through Fiscal Year 2029 and updates numerous authorities that govern the operation of EDA under its organic act, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (“PWEDA”).
This rule addresses an explicit conflict between EDA's existing regulations (13 CFR chapter III) and the Act with respect to EDA's cost sharing requirements for projects that meet EDA's distress criteria. Prior to the Act, section 204 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) specified that EDA's federal grant rate for projects that meet PWEDA's eligibility requirements shall not exceed 50 percent. Section 2215 of the Act
In this rule-making, EDA is taking a conservative approach and only updating the parts of its regulations that are explicitly contradicted by the Act and are necessary for ongoing EDA operations. EDA anticipates additional rule-makings to fully implement the Act, including at least one that would solicit notice and comment on a comprehensive update to EDA's distress criteria and grant rates.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. This rule conforms EDA's grant regulations with a statutory change directed by Congress.
Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule was drafted in accordance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192. OMB has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Orders 12866, as defined in section 3(f), and 13563. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.
This final rule is not major under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This final rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Applicant and application requirements, Economic distress levels, Eligibility requirements, Grant administration, Grant programs, Investment rates.
For the reasons discussed above, EDA is amending title 13, chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3121; 42 U.S.C. 3141-3147; 42 U.S.C. 3149; 42 U.S.C. 3161; 42 U.S.C. 3175; 42 U.S.C. 3192; 42 U.S.C. 3194; 42 U.S.C. 3211; 42 U.S.C. 3233; Department of Commerce Delegation Order 10-4.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Announcement of fee.
This document announces the fee that HUD will collect from borrowers of loans guaranteed under HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108 Program) to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in Fiscal Year 2026 in the event HUD is required or authorized by statute to do so, notwithstanding subsection (m) of
Scott Laliberte, Acting Deputy Director, Financial Management Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-3956 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. FAX inquiries (but not comments) may be sent to Mr. Laliberte at 202-402-3956 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (division K of Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriations Act) provided that “the Secretary shall collect fees from borrowers, notwithstanding subsection (m) of such section 108, to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing” Section 108 loans. This language overrode section 108(m) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which states that “No fee or charge may be imposed by the Secretary or any other Federal agency on or with respect to a guarantee made by the Secretary under this section after February 5, 1988.” Identical language was continued or included in the Department's continuing resolutions and appropriations acts authorizing HUD to issue Section 108 loan guarantees during Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016 to 2025.
On November 3, 2015, HUD published a final rule (80 FR 67626) that amended the Section 108 Program regulations at 24 CFR part 570 to add 24 CFR 570.712. Section 24 CFR 570.712 established additional procedures for charging borrowers a fee, including procedures for announcing the amount of the fee each fiscal year when HUD is required to offset the credit subsidy costs to the Federal Government to guarantee Section 108 loans. For FYs 2016 to 2025, HUD published notifications to set the fees in accordance with 24 CFR 570.712.
If authorized by statute, this document sets the fee for Section 108 loan disbursements under loan guarantee commitments awarded for FY 2026 at 0.58 percent of the principal amount of the loan. HUD will collect this fee from borrowers of loans guaranteed under the Section 108 Program to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in FY 2026 if language authorizing the collection of fees in the FY 2026 HUD appropriations bills under consideration are enacted, or if HUD is otherwise required or authorized by statute to collect fees from borrowers to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans, notwithstanding subsection (m) of section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(m)). The calculation of the FY 2026 fee uses a similar calculation model as the FY 2016 to FY 2024 fee
As described in 24 CFR 570.712(b), HUD's credit subsidy calculation is based on the amount required to reduce the credit subsidy cost to the Federal Government associated with making a Section 108 loan guarantee to the amount established by applicable appropriation acts. As a result, HUD's credit subsidy cost calculations incorporated assumptions based on: (1) data on default frequency for municipal debt where such debt is comparable to loans in the Section 108 loan portfolio; (2) data on recovery rates on collateral security for comparable municipal debt; (3) the expected composition of the Section 108 portfolio by end users of the guaranteed loan funds (
Taking these factors into consideration, HUD determined that the fee for disbursements made under loan guarantee commitments awarded in FY 2026 will be 0.58 percent, which will be applied only at the time of loan disbursements. Note that future notifications may provide for a combination of upfront and periodic fees for loan guarantee commitments awarded in future fiscal years but, if so, HUD will provide the public with an opportunity to comment if appropriate under 24 CFR 570.712(b)(2).
The expected cost of a Section 108 loan guarantee is difficult to estimate using historical program data because there have been no defaults in the history of the program that required HUD to pay a note holder in accordance with its full faith and credit guarantee or use the credit subsidy reserved each year for future losses.
In this regard, Section 108 guaranteed loans can be broken down into two categories: (1) loans that finance public infrastructure and activities to support subsidized housing (other than financing new construction) and (2) other development projects (
This document establishes a statutorily required fiscal requirement in the form of a fee based on rate and cost determinations that does not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this document is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising its purchasing regulations governing debarment, suspension, and ineligibility from contracting to provide improved organization and clarity, updates to definitions and processes to better reflect actual practice, and alternatives in lieu of suspension and debarment.
Effective November 19, 2025.
Robert Dietz at 202-268-6088 or Susan Witt at 202-268-4833
The following updates to 39 CFR 601.113 are being included:
• Section 601.113 is now titled “
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 601 as follows:
39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 410, 411, 2008, 5001-5605.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(i) Directly or indirectly (
(ii) Conducts business or reasonably may be expected to conduct business with the Postal Service as a subcontractor, an agent, or a representative of another supplier.
(14)
(c)
(ii) After reviewing the basis for a debarment request and obtaining concurrence from the General Counsel, the Debarment Official may initiate debarment proceedings by sending the party proposed for debarment a written notice of proposed debarment. The notice will state that debarment is being considered; the reasons for the proposed debarment; the anticipated period of debarment and the proposed effective date; and that, within 30 days of the notice, the party, individually or through a representative, may submit in writing information in opposition to the proposed debarment. In the event a party does not submit information in opposition to the proposed debarment to the Debarment Official within the time allowed, the debarment will become final with no further review or appeal.
(iii) If there is any question of material fact involving the debarment allegations, the Debarment Official may seek additional information from the party or other persons. In establishing such material fact(s), the Debarment Official may in his or her discretion request the Judicial Officer to hold a fact-finding hearing on such matters. The hearing will be governed by the rules of procedure at 39 CFR part 955. The Debarment Official must consider
(iv) After consideration of the circumstances and any information and argument submitted by the party, the Debarment Official, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, will issue a written decision regarding whether the party is debarred, and, if so, the period of debarment. The decision will be final and binding, unless the decision was procured by fraud or other criminal misconduct, or the decision was obtained in violation of the regulations contained in this part or an applicable public law enacted by Congress.
(v) If the party enters into any agreement regarding improper conduct whereby the party states that it will not contest any debarment on the grounds of the improper conduct, the Debarment Official is not required to comply with the requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) and, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, may proceed to immediately debar the party by providing a written decision stating that the party is debarred effective immediately and identifying the period of debarment.
(2)
(A) Indictment or charging of a criminal offense incidental to obtaining or attempting to obtain contracts or subcontracts, or in the performance of a contract or subcontract.
(B) Violation of a Federal antitrust statute arising out of the submission of bids or proposals.
(C) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, or any other criminal offense of moral turpitude.
(D) Misconduct involving theft or abuse of mail, narcotics trafficking, willful disregard of applicable laws or safety standards, or other conduct demonstrating a lack of honesty or responsibility.
(E) Breach of a Postal Service contract so severe as to justify debarment, including, but not limited to, willful failure to perform a Postal Service contract in accordance with the specifications or within the time limit(s) provided in the contract; repeated failures to perform or unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more Postal Service contracts; violation of a contractual provision against contingent fees; or acceptance of a contingent fee paid in violation of a contractual provision against contingent fees.
(F) Violation of, or aiding any Postal Service employee or agent in the violation of, any federal ethics laws or principles.
(G) Any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty.
(H) Any other cause of a serious and compelling nature for which debarment is warranted.
(ii) The existence of any of the causes for debarment in this section can be established by a preponderance of the evidence, as determined by the Debarment Official.
(3)
(A) Whether the party had, or was in the process of establishing, written standards of conduct and published internal control systems at the time of the improper conduct, or adopted such procedures prior to any Postal Service investigation of the activity cited that constitutes the grounds for debarment.
(B) Whether the party promptly brought the improper conduct to the attention of the Postal Service.
(C) Whether the party promptly and fully investigated the circumstances involving the grounds for debarment and, if so, made the full results of the investigation available to the Postal Service.
(D) Whether the party cooperated fully with the Postal Service during its investigation into the circumstances involving debarment.
(E) Whether the party paid or agreed to pay all criminal, civil and administrative penalties or liability, and any other costs arising out of the improper conduct, including any investigative or administrative costs incurred by the Postal Service.
(F) Whether the party took appropriate disciplinary action against the individual(s) responsible for the improper conduct.
(G) Whether the party implemented and/or agreed to implement remedial measures, including those identified by the Postal Service.
(H) Whether the party instituted and/or agreed to institute new and/or revised review and control procedures and ethics programs.
(I) Whether the party had adequate time to eliminate circumstances within the party's organization that could lead to debarment.
(J) Whether the party's senior officers and mid-level management recognize and understand the seriousness of the misconduct giving rise to debarment.
(ii) The existence or nonexistence of mitigating factors or remedial measures such as those listed in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section is not determinative of whether or not a party should be debarred. The party has the burden of demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Debarment Official, that debarment is not warranted or necessary, or that the period of debarment should be reduced.
(4)
(ii) Except as precluded by an applicable statute, Executive order, or controlling regulation of another agency, a debarred party may submit a request to the Debarment Official to remove the debarment or reduce the period of debarment. The party must support the request with a reasonable justification, such as newly discovered material evidence, acquittal or reversal of a conviction, bona fide change of ownership or management, or the elimination of the causes for which debarment was imposed. The Debarment Official may, in his or her discretion, approve or deny any such request by written decision.
(5)
(ii)
(d)
(ii) For a suspension pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, the suspension is effective upon issuance of the notice of proposed debarment and for the period stated in the notice, unless superseded by the party's debarment.
(iii) Within 30 days of notice of suspension or any extension, a party may submit to the Debarment Official, in writing, any information or reason(s) the party believes makes a suspension or an extension inappropriate. The Debarment Official, after consultation with the General Counsel, will consider the party's submission and, in his or her discretion, may revoke a suspension or an extension of a suspension by written decision.
(2)
(i) If the party commits, is indicted for, or is charged with any of the offenses identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and the Debarment Official determines not to institute debarment proceedings until the conclusion of any judicial or administrative proceedings related thereto;
(ii) For any other cause of such serious and compelling nature that suspension is warranted; or
(iii) If the Postal Service has notified a party of its proposed debarment under this part.
(3)
(e)
(2) The improper conduct of one party participating in a joint venture or similar arrangement may be imputed to other participating parties if the conduct occurred for or on behalf of the joint venture or similar arrangement, or with the knowledge, approval, or acquiescence of the other parties. Acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct will be evidence of such knowledge, approval, or acquiescence.
(3) The improper conduct of a party may be imputed to an affiliate, and the improper conduct of an affiliate may be imputed to a party.
(f)
(2) Through a representative, the Debarment Official will use
(3) Contracting officers must review the
(g)
(i) Being awarded any contract with the Postal Service;
(ii) Receiving any subcontract to provide property or services under any Postal Service contract;
(iii) Submitting proposals or offers of any manner to the Postal Service in an attempt to obtain an award of a contract;
(iv) Providing property or services to other persons or entities for resale, in whole or part, to the Postal Service;
(v) Being employed and performing as designated key personnel under a Postal Service contract or subcontract; or
(vi) Having access to mail, Postal Service data, or Postal Service facilities under a Postal Service contract or subcontract.
(2) The debarment, suspension, or ineligibility of a party does not, of itself, affect the rights and obligations of the parties to any valid, pre-existing contract. The Postal Service may terminate for default a contract with a party that becomes debarred, suspended, or ineligible during the contract's period of performance. Contracting officers may not add new work to any contract with a party that is debarred, suspended, or ineligible by supplemental agreement, by exercise of any option, or otherwise (unless the work is classified as an insignificant or significant minor service change to a mail transportation contract).
(3) All parties doing business with the Postal Service are obligated to review the database identified in paragraph (f) of this section in order to exclude debarred, suspended, or ineligible parties from performing any part of a Postal Service contract.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section, and in his or her discretion, the Debarment Official may approve a deviation from any part of this paragraph (g) if, after consultation with the General Counsel, it is determined to be in the best interests of the Postal Service.
(h)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile
This rule is effective December 19, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0303. All documents in the docket are listed on the
La Kenya Evans-Hopper, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3245; email address:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On August 21, 2025 (90 FR 40791), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the Arizona SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving this rule into the Arizona SIP. The September 25, 2013 version of Rule 333 will replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maricopa County Air Quality Department Rule 333, revised on September 25, 2013, which regulates VOC emissions from petroleum solvent used in dry cleaning. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the redesignation of the Salt Lake City, Utah and Provo, Utah nonattainment areas (NAAs) to attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM
This rule is effective on December 19, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0098. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6602,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 6, 2020 (85 FR 71023)
Additionally, we proposed to approve SIP revisions submitted on January 19, 2017 (Utah state SIP section IX.H.13) and February 15, 2019 (portions of Utah state SIP section IX.H.11 and 12). We also proposed to approve, through parallel processing, the removal of the startup/shutdown emission limits for the Kennecott Power Plant found in Utah state SIP section IX.H.12.i.i.C, which were formally submitted on October 9, 2020.
The EPA proposed to approve the area sources, major stationary sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources BACM/BACT analyses for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM
Consistent with the EPA's procedures for parallel processing established under section 2.3 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51, our July 16, 2025 (90 FR 31901) proposed approval relied upon our evaluation of the public draft version of the revisions to Utah state SIP sections IX.H.11 and 12, R307-110-17, and the revised BACM/BACT analyses for the five sources
During the public notices and comment periods, we received multiple comments that were for and against both proposed actions. The full text of comments received are included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at
We are approving the redesignation of the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM
We are approving the Governor of Utah's January 13, 2020 submittal, containing revisions to R307-110-10, and the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM
Additionally, we are approving SIP revisions submitted on January 19, 2017 (Utah state SIP section IX.H.13), and February 15, 2019 (portions of Utah state SIP section IX.H.11 and 12). We are approving the removal of the startup/shutdown emission limits for the Kennecott Power Plant found in Utah state SIP section IX.H.12.i.i.C, which was formally submitted by the State of Utah on December 14, 2020.
The EPA is approving for incorporation into the SIP the area sources, major stationary sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources BACM/BACT analyses for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM
Additionally, we are approving Utah's July 15, 2020 submission to revise the federally approved Utah state SIP based upon revisions to the Utah state SIP sections IX.H.11 and 12, and the accompanying R307-110-17. Finally, the EPA is approving for incorporation into the federally approved Utah state SIP the five major stationary sources BACM/BACT analyses/updates for the Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, and Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
NMFS corrects the final rule published on July 7, 2025, to implement the Pacific Halibut Recreational Quota Entity Program Fee Collection. The final rule inadvertently omitted an amendatory instruction to add the definition for “Charter halibut permit holder”. This correction fixes that omission.
Effective on January 1, 2026.
Doug Duncan, 907-586-7228,
In the final rule to implement the Pacific Halibut Recreational Quota Entity Program Fee Collection final rule (90 FR 29774, July 7, 2025), NMFS modified the definitions in 50 CFR 300.61 to include a definition for “Charter halibut permit holder.” However, NMFS mistakenly omitted the amendatory instruction to include this definition in the CFR. This action corrects that omission and ensures the regulations are consistent with the description and intent in the Pacific Halibut Recreational Quota Entity Program Fee Collection final rule (90 FR 29774, July 7, 2025).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-04-06, which applies to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. AD 2024-04-06 requires repetitive operational checks of the gravity cross flow shut-off valve and, for certain airplanes, a one-time inspection of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes at the clamp blocks location, and applicable corrective action. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-04-06, the manufacturer developed additional corrective actions. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2024-04-06 and would require replacement of the saddle clamp, inspection of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes, and applicable corrective 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 January 5, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• 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.
Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; 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 Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; email:
The FAA issued AD 2024-04-06, Amendment 39-22685 (89 FR 19228, March 18, 2024) (AD 2024-04-06), for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. AD 2024-04-06 was prompted by an MCAI originated by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued AD CF-2022-70, dated December 21, 2022, to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2024-04-06 requires repetitive operational checks of the gravity cross flow shut-off valve and, for certain airplanes, a one-time inspection of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes at the clamp blocks location, and applicable
AD 2024-04-06 explains that the FAA considers the requirements “interim action” and was considering further rulemaking. The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-04-06, Transport Canada superseded AD CF-2022-70, dated December 21, 2022, and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, dated April 29, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states there have been several findings of mechanical wear damage on the motive flow fuel-feed tubes that were secured by bonding clamps and clamp blocks inside the collector tank. In some instances, the wear damage led to a hole in a motive flow fuel-feed tube resulting in a fuel imbalance during flight that required the flightcrews to correct the imbalance using the gravity transfer system. Failure of the affected motive flow fuel-feed tubes and a subsequent failure of the gravity transfer system could lead to a fuel imbalance condition resulting in a reduction in airplane functional capabilities and increased crew workload. The MCAI also states that since AD CF-2022-70 was issued, the manufacturer issued new service information to require replacement of the saddle clamp of the motive flow tubes, along with an inspection and rectification of the flow fuel-feed tubes.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2024-04-06, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2024-04-06. Those requirements are referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, which specifies procedures for performing a repetitive operational check of the gravity cross flow shut-off valve and, for certain airplanes, inspecting the motive flow fuel-feed tubes for mechanical wear damage (damage includes, but is not limited to, cracks, scores, scratches, nicks, and gouges) and pre-load condition, and, based on findings, replacing the motive flow fuel-feed tube. This material also specifies procedures for replacing the saddle clamp of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes on both left and right sides, inspecting the motive flow fuel-feed tubes for damage (damage includes, but is not limited to, cracks, scores, scratches, nicks, and gouges) and, based on findings, repairing or replacing the motive flow fuel-feed tube. 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
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 94 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
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 January 5, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2024-04-06, Amendment 39-22685 (89 FR 19228, March 18, 2024) (AD 2024-04-06).
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, dated April 29, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of mechanical wear damage on the motive flow fuel-feed tubes that were secured by bonding clamps and clamp blocks inside the collector tank. This AD was also prompted by a determination that replacement of the saddle clamps of the motive flow tubes is also needed to address the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address mechanical wear damage on the motive flow fuel-feed tubes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the affected motive flow fuel-feed tubes and a subsequent failure of the gravity transfer system, which could lead to a fuel imbalance condition resulting in a reduction in airplane functional capabilities and increased crew workload.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 refers to “4 January 2023” [the effective date of AD CF-2022-70], this AD requires using April 22, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2024-04-06).
(4) Where Parts II and III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 specify “rectify, as applicable,” this AD requires replacing that text with “accomplish all applicable corrective actions before further flight”.
(5) Where the service information referenced in Part II of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 specifies to do rework if there is no damage or paint damage only, operators may either do the rework or replace the fuel tubes as specified in the service information referenced in Part II of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24.
(6) Where Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 specifies inspecting for “a damage”, this AD requires replacing that text with “damage (damage includes, but is not limited to, cracks, scores, scratches, nicks, and gouges)”.
Although the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; email:
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, dated April 29, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(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).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B, EC 225LP, AS-365N3, and AS 332L2 helicopters; all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, and EC635T2+ helicopters; all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, MBB-BK 117 D-2, and MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters; and all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139, AW109SP, AW139, AW169, and AW189 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that certain rescue hoist assemblies may have been equipped with a non-conforming overload clutch assembly. This proposed AD would require replacing each affected rescue hoist assembly with a serviceable rescue hoist assembly. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an affected rescue hoist assembly unless certain requirements are met. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by January 5, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Adam Hein, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4116; 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 Adam Hein, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0051R1, dated May 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0051R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B, EC 175 B, EC 225 LP, AS 365 N3, and AS 332 L2 helicopters, all serial numbers; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 P3, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, EC135 T3, EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3 helicopters, all variants and all serial numbers; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 D-2, MBB-BK117 D-3, and MBB-BK117 D-3m helicopters, all variants and all serial numbers; and Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW109SP, AB139, AW139, AW169, and AW189 helicopters, all serial numbers. The MCAI states the manufacturer of the affected rescue hoists reported that certain rescue hoist assemblies may have been equipped, during manufacturing or maintenance, with a non-conforming overload clutch assembly. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rescue hoist assembly, in-flight failure of the rescue hoist, and consequent injury to a person being lifted or to persons on the ground.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0051R1, dated May 7, 2025. This material identifies the affected rescue hoist assemblies and specifies procedures for replacing the affected rescue hoist assembly with a serviceable rescue hoist assembly. EASA AD 2025-0051R1 also prohibits installing an affected rescue hoist assembly unless certain requirements are met. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 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.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0051R1, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC 175 B helicopters, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, and EC635 T3 helicopters, and Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3m helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would not because those models do not have an FAA type certificate.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0051R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0051R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0051R1 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0051R1. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0051R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 858 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 January 5, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to the following helicopters as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B, EC 225LP, AS-365N3, and AS 332L2 helicopters.
(2) Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, and EC635T2+ helicopters.
(3) Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, MBB-BK 117 D-2, and MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters.
(4) Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139, AW109SP, AW139, AW169, and AW189 helicopters.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports that certain rescue hoist assemblies may have been equipped with a non-conforming overload clutch assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rescue hoist assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the rescue hoist assembly, in-flight failure of the rescue hoist, and consequent injury to a person being lifted or to persons on the ground.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2025-0051R1, dated May 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0051R1).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0051R1 refers to March 14, 2025 (the effective date of EASA AD 2025-0051, dated February 28, 2025), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the definition of affected part EASA AD 2025-0051R1 refers to “the ASB”, for this AD, replace that text with “the applicable original issue of the alert service bulletins listed in in Ref. Publications”.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0051R1.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0051R1 specifies submitting certain information and returning parts to the manufacturer for rework, this AD does not require those actions.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished provided that the rescue hoist is not used.
(1) The Manager, International Validation 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Adam Hein, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4116; email:
(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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0051R1, dated May 7, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending upward from the surface and from 700 feet above the surface to optimize instrument flight procedure containment at Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, OR. This action would also remove an unnecessary descriptive reference from the text header within the airport's legal description. These actions would support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-2282 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ANM-131 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K,
Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2248.
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 modify Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, OR.
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 E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in respective paragraphs 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, 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 modify the Class E airspace. First, the Class E airspace extending upward from the surface would be modified to expand the radius from 4 to 4.6 miles, add a 0.8-mile extension to the south, and modify the existing northern extension. This would adequately contain the maximum circling radii to Runways (RWY) 20 and 34 and departing aircraft until reaching 700 feet above the surface on the NEWPORT ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) procedure from RWYs 16 and 20. The modification would also contain arriving aircraft that descend to below 1,000 feet above the surface on the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) RWY 34 approach procedure and the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR)-A approach procedure, as well as the missed approach procedure on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer (LOC) RWY 16 approach procedure.
Second, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be reduced to exclude unneeded airspace to the northeast while expanding needed coverage to the north, south, and west. This would contain IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface on the ILS or LOC RWY 16 missed approach procedure and NEWPORT ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) procedure from RWYs 16 and 20. This configuration would add sufficient containment for arriving aircraft that descend to below 1,500 feet above the surface on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, and the VOR-A procedures' turn.
Last, the text header in the airport's legal descriptions would be modified to remove unnecessary descriptive references to the Newport very high frequency omnidirectional range tactical air navigation (VORTAC).
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G,
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 the surface within a 4.6-mile radius of the airport, within 2.8 miles east and 2.6 miles west of the 341° bearing extending from the airport's 4.6-mile radius to 6.8 miles north, and within 3 miles west of the 159° bearing extending from the airport's 4.6-mile radius to 5.4 miles south.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.6-mile radius of the airport, within 4.6 miles east and 2.6 miles west of the 341° bearing extending from the airport's 4.6-mile radius to 10.2 miles north, within 1.6 miles east and 2.9 miles west of the 161° bearing extending from the airport's 4.6-mile radius to 7.9 miles south, and clockwise from the airport's 187° bearing to the 318° bearing extending from the 4.6-mile radius to the 6.5-mile arc.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference certain modifications to the latest version (Version 4.0) of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). NAESB's revisions in Version 4.0 of the standards streamline the process for accessing publicly available gas-electric coordination data during extreme cold weather or emergency events.
Comments are due January 20, 2026.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways. Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by U.S. Postal Service mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
○
○
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more detailed filing procedures.
Jerry Chiang (Technical Issues), Office of Technical Reporting and Economics, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8786,
Oscar F. Santillana (Technical Issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6392,
David Faerberg (Legal Issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8275,
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest modifications to Version 4.0 of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to interstate natural gas pipelines. The incorporation by reference of these standards into the Commission's regulations would improve the coordination between the natural gas pipelines and electric utilities. Such coordination is essential to maintaining reliability for both the natural gas pipeline network system and the bulk electric system, especially during periods when both systems have coincident peak requirements.
2. NAESB is an American National Standards Institute-accredited, non-profit standards development organization formed for the purpose of developing voluntary standards and model business practices that promote more competitive and efficient natural gas and electric markets. On December 4, 2024, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission that it had modified Version 4.0 of the business practice standards (Informational Report).
3. Since 1996, the Commission has incorporated by reference in its regulations NAESB's business practice standards and communication methodologies of interstate natural gas pipelines to create a more integrated and efficient pipeline network system. These regulations have been promulgated in the Order No. 587 series of orders,
4. On July 25, 2022, then-Chairman Richard Glick of the Commission and Jim Robb, President and CEO of the NERC, sent a letter to NAESB requesting NAESB convene a forum “to identify actions that will improve the reliability of the natural gas infrastructure system as necessary to support the bulk electric system and to address recurring challenges stemming from natural gas-electric infrastructure interdependency.”
5. In response to that letter, NAESB convened a Gas-Electric Harmonization Forum to consider issues related to the challenges stemming from natural gas-electric interdependency. Over 700 individuals representing more than 370 different organizations from all segments of the natural gas and electric markets participated in the Gas-Electric Harmonization Forum. NAESB released
6. On November 7, 2023, as updated on February 28, 2024, the Commission, NERC, and various regional entities published a report on the performance of the bulk power system during Winter Storm Elliot in December of 2022.
7. In response to the Winter Storm Elliot Report, the NAESB Board of Directors created a jointly assigned annual plan item as part of the WGQ, Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ), and Retail Market Quadrant (RMQ) 2024 Annual Plans. The Annual Plan directed the Joint WGQ, WEQ, and RMQ Business Practices Subcommittees to review and modify the NAESB Gas/Electric Coordination Business Practice Standards, and any corresponding standards, that could improve communications among gas and electric market participants and enhance situational awareness during extreme weather events without endangering sensitive commercial information. Between January and July 2024, the Joint WGQ, WEQ, and RMQ Business Practices Subcommittees held ten meetings to identify and evaluate possible areas of standards development. NAESB states that “on July 19, 2024, the joint subcommittees voted out a recommendation proposing new and revised WGQ Business Practice Standards.” NAESB further states that “[o]n October 24, 2024, the NAESB WGQ Executive Committee voted to approve the recommendation with super majority support. NAESB WGQ membership subsequently ratified the new and revised standards on November 25, 2024.”
8. On December 4, 2024, NAESB filed its Informational Report informing the Commission that it had modified Version 4.0 of the NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards applicable to interstate natural gas pipelines. The NAESB Informational Report identifies three modifications to the WGQ Version 4.0 standards, which include one revised standard and two new standards, and discusses the deliberations that led to the changes. The revision creates a central location on pipeline Informational Postings websites where transportation service providers can post publicly available data, including scheduled quantity information. This revision establishes a new information posting category, “Gas Electric Coordination,” for use, when applicable, by a transportation service provider to help streamline the process for Regional Transmission Organizations/Independent System Operators (RTO/ISO) and other parties accessing this data during extreme weather or emergency events. One new standard facilitates the posting of applicable scheduled quantity information for power plants that are directly connected to the pipeline as part of the “Gas Electric Coordination” category. The second new standard supports the inclusion of the geographic information of impacted area(s), location(s), and/or pipeline facility(ies) by a transportation service provider when issuing a critical notice. Pipelines are currently required to make this information available through computer-to-computer electronic data interchange in addition to other batch file downloadable formats they may provide.
9. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), we propose to incorporate by reference in our regulations the three modifications to Version 4.0 of the NAESB WGQ consensus business practice standards. As an initial matter, we note that the modified WGQ Version 4.0 standards include two new standards and one revised standard to the following sets of existing Version 4.0 WGQ Business Practice Standards. Each set of Business Practice Standards is hereafter referred to as a “manual.”
10. We discuss below some specific aspects of NAESB's Informational Report.
11. NAESB uses its consensus process to develop and approve WGQ business practice standards. As the Commission found in the Order No. 587 series of orders, incorporation by reference of consensus standards is appropriate, because the consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants representing all segments of the industry. Moreover, because the industry conducts business under these standards, the Commission has found value in incorporating standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
12. The modified WGQ Version 4.0 added a new standard, WGQ Standard No. 0.3.30, to the Additional Standards manual, which supports a natural gas transportation service provider in posting scheduled quantity information for power plants directly connected to the pipeline, as part of the newly established Gas Electric Coordination
13. Additionally, WGQ Standard No. 0.3.30 also includes fields describing the applicable generators' locations including the generator's location (Loc), which may be the transportation service providers' assigned identifier where transactions may take place, Location Name (Loc Name), Location County (Loc Cnty), Location State Abbreviation (Loc St Abbrev). The standard also includes the Measurement Basis (Meas Basis), such or Million British Thermal Units.
14. WGQ Standard No. 0.3.30 includes Posting Date (Post Date) and Posting Time (Post Time) the date and time at which transportation service providers post the relevant information. Finally, the standard includes posting of the RTO/ISO in whose service territory the affected generator is directly connected to the interstate pipeline and Total Scheduled Quantity (TSQ)—the net quantity scheduled to be delivered to each applicable generator at the effective date and time of the posting.
15. The modified WGQ Version 4.0 revised existing standard WGQ Standard No. 4.3.23 under the Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Standards manual by establishing a new information posting category, Gas Electric Coordination, for use by a transportation service provider as part of its Informational Postings website. The revised WGQ Standard No. 4.3.23 creates a central location on an Informational Postings website where a transportation service provider can post publicly available data, including scheduled quantity information, to help RTOs/ISOs and other parties access these data.
16. The modified WGQ Version 4.0 added a new standard, WGQ Standard No. 5.3.74 under the Capacity Release Related Standards manual, to support the inclusion of geographic information when a natural gas transportation service provider issues a critical notice, such as geographic information of impacted areas, locations, and pipeline facilities.
17. We propose to use the compliance filing requirements explained below, as revised and prescribed in Order No. 587-V, to increase the transparency of the interstate natural gas pipelines' incorporation by reference of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the Commission will know which tariff provision(s) implements each standard as well as the status of each standard.
18. We propose that compliance filings to revise pipeline tariffs to reflect the changes in accordance with a final rule be filed with the Commission no later than 120 days after issuance of a final rule by the Commission in this proceeding or, if the compliance filing date falls on a weekend or holiday, on the first business day thereafter, with a proposed effective date 180 days from the date compliance filings are due in this proceeding. As the Commission found in Order No. 587-V, incorporation by reference of the revised compliance filing requirements would increase the transparency of the interstate natural gas pipelines' incorporation by reference of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the Commission would know which tariff provision(s) implements each standard as well as the status of each standard.
19. Consistent with the Commission's practice since Order No. 587-V, each interstate natural gas pipeline must designate a single tariff section under which every NAESB WGQ Standard incorporated by reference by the Commission is listed.
(a) whether the standard is incorporated by reference;
(b) for those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff provision that complies with the standard; or
(c) for those standards with which the pipeline does not comply, an indication in the tariff section of whether the pipeline has been granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with respect to compliance with the standard.
20. For those standards with which the pipeline does not comply, the pipeline must provide an explanatory statement in the transmittal letter of whether the pipeline has been granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with respect to compliance with the standard.
21. Likewise, consistent with past practice, we will post on the Commission's eLibrary website (under Docket No. RM96-1-044) a sample tariff format to provide filers with an illustrative example to aid them in preparing their compliance filings.
22. Consistent with our policy since Order No. 587-V,
23. If a pipeline is requesting a continuation of an existing waiver or extension of time, it must include a table in its transmittal letter that identifies the standard for which the Commission granted the waiver or extension of time, and the docket number or order citation to the proceeding in which the Commission granted the waiver or extension of time. The pipeline also must present an explanation for why such waiver or extension of time should remain in force with regard to the modified WGQ Version 4.0 Standards incorporated by reference in any final rule.
24. This continues the Commission's practice of having pipelines include in
25. Office of Management and Budget Circular A 119 (February 10, 1998) provides that Federal Agencies should publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or revise a regulation proposing to incorporate by reference a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference a new WGQ Version 4.0 Additional Business Practice Standard No. 0.3.30, a revised WGQ Version 4.0 Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Business Practice Standard No. 4.3.23, and a new WGQ Version 4.0 Capacity Release Related Business Practice Standard No. 5.3.74, which are voluntary consensus standards developed by the WGQ.
26. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies proposing to incorporate material by reference into their regulations to discuss the ways that the materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials.
27.
28.
29.
30. Commission regulations provide that copies of the standards incorporated by reference may be obtained through purchase or otherwise from the North American Energy Standards Board, 1415 Louisiana, Suite 3460, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 356-0060, website:
31. The procedures used by NAESB make its standards reasonably available to those affected by Commission regulations, which generally is comprised of entities that have the means to acquire the information they need to effectively participate in Commission proceedings. Participants can join NAESB, for an annual membership cost of $8,000, which entitles them to full participation in NAESB and enables them to obtain these standards at no additional cost. Non-members may obtain any of the ten individual standards manuals for $250 per manual, which in the case of these standards would total $750 for all three manuals. Non-members also may obtain the complete set of Standards Manuals for $2,000.
32. NAESB provides ample opportunities for non-members, including agents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of NAESB members, to obtain access to the copyrighted standards through a no-cost limited copyright waiver. The limited copyright waivers are issued by the NAESB office and are granted to non-members on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of evaluating standards prior to purchase and/or reviewing the standards to prepare comments to a regulatory agency. Following the granting of a limited copyright waiver, the non-member is provided with read-only access to the standards through the end of the comment period or some other set period of time via Locklizard Safeguard Secure Viewer.
33. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements (information collection) imposed by an agency.
34. We solicit comments on our need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
35.
36. The collections of information related to this NOPR fall under FERC-545 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal))
Computer and Information Systems Manager (Occupation Code: 11-3021), $110.62.
Computer and Information Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1210), $68.34.
Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071), $71.19.
Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000), $140.76.
The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits), weighting these skill sets evenly, is $97.728. We round it to $98/hour.
The total one-time burden (for both the FERC-545 and FERC-549C) would take place in Year 1 as follows:
37.
38. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426; email:
39. Comments concerning the collection of information(s) and the associated burden estimate(s), should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503: attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-0710; fax: (202) 395-4718. A copy of the comments on information collection should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RM96-1-044 by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Delivery of filings other than by eFiling or the U.S. Postal Service should be delivered to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
40. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
42. Approximately 193 interstate natural gas pipelines, both large and small, are potential respondents subject to the requirements proposed in this NOPR. Most of the natural gas pipelines regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity,
43. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,
44. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be incorporated by reference, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due January 20, 2026. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM96-1-044, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
45. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
46. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
47. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
48. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
49. 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
50. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined this regulatory action is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OIRA has not reviewed this regulatory action for compliance with the analytical requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Continental shelf, Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Chang is concurring with a separate statement attached.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 18 CFR part 284 as follows.
15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) WGQ Additional Standards (Version 4.0, September 29, 2023), adding Standard No. 0.3.30, November 25, 2024;
(ii) * * *
(iii) * * *
(iv) WGQ Invoicing Related Standards (Version 4.0, September 29, 2023), with Minor Correction MC24002 applied May 17, 2024;
(v) WGQ Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards (Version 4.0, September 29, 2023), revising Standard No. 4.3.23, November 25, 2024;
(vi) WGQ Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 4.0, September 29, 2023), adding Standard No. 5.3.74, November 25, 2024; and
(vii) WGQ Cybersecurity Related Standards (Version 4.0, September 29, 2023).
CHANG, Commissioner,
1. I concur with the Commission's order proposing to incorporate the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) gas-electric coordination standards into Commission-jurisdictional natural gas tariffs. I applaud NAESB and industry stakeholders for years of effort to address critical findings and recommendations from the Commission and North American Electricity Reliability Corporation's reports following Winter Storms Uri and Elliott. I write separately to urge NAESB and industry stakeholders to continue working to improve communication between transportation service providers (interstate pipelines) and generators and electricity system operators and to address outstanding gas-electric coordination matters.
2. The NAESB standards proposed here exemplify the type of brick-by-brick incremental improvements needed to address pressing gas-electric coordination challenges. However, these proposed standards alone may not be enough to fully address the on-going challenges. More information sharing will improve situational awareness for grid operators and power generators, which would help improve service to customers, particularly when the systems are stressed. I therefore encourage NAESB and industry stakeholders to continue this work and further enhance such information-sharing standards, potentially including providing information related to the natural gas scheduled by generators that are not directly connected to interstate pipelines. I further encourage continued collaboration between pipelines, suppliers, natural gas marketers, and owners of upstream gas gathering systems to update pipeline operators and ultimately downstream gas users and electricity system operators of changes in system conditions, such as wellhead freezes, that could affect natural gas users and consumers.
3. Given the criticality of natural gas for the electricity sector, combined with increasingly tight supply and demand balance, continued improvements in gas-electric coordination are paramount for ensuring reliability. In addition to providing feedback on the NAESB standards proposed in this NOPR, I urge stakeholders to provide comments in this proceeding on areas where additional improvements on gas-electric coordination would be valuable, particularly regarding information-sharing along the chain of entities that physically control or have financial rights to natural gas deliveries, starting at the wellhead and ending at generators or the gas local distribution companies. Further, I welcome input from stakeholders to help inform the Commission's next steps as we address this critical issue.
With these interests in mind, I respectfully concur.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “Agency”) is proposing to determine that the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area (“Phoenix-Mesa area”) would have attained the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the August 3, 2024 “Moderate” area attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If we finalize this proposed action, the Phoenix-Mesa area would no longer be subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to reclassification upon failure to attain and therefore would remain classified as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action, when finalized, will fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the Phoenix-Mesa area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date.
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2025-2833 at
Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 725-8713, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS (or “standards”) for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979, 1997, and 2008.
Section 107(d) of the CAA provides that when the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether an area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emissions control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) also requires the EPA to classify each ozone nonattainment area at the time of designation, based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (based on the area's DV). Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas range from “Marginal” to “Extreme.” CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone nonattainment area based on its classification. CAA section 182, as interpreted in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1308 through 51.1317, also establishes the timeframes by which air agencies must submit and implement SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable attainment planning elements, and the timeframes by which nonattainment areas must attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 51 areas throughout the country, including Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona, nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The list of applicable requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate includes a baseline emissions inventory, source emission statement rules, nonattainment new source review program requirements, an attainment demonstration, a reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) demonstration, a reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, and contingency measures for failure to attain or achieve RFP.
Attainment contingency measures are triggered upon the EPA's determination that an area failed to attain a given NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. For ozone nonattainment areas, such a finding would be made pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), as described in section I.C of this document. However, CAA section 179B(b) provides that where a state demonstrates to the EPA that the area would have attained the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S., the area is not subject to the reclassification provisions in section 181(b)(2) and will not be reclassified to a higher nonattainment level. Therefore, following the EPA's approval of a demonstration under section 179B(b), attainment contingency measures will not be triggered. Given these considerations, the EPA interprets the CAA not to require the state to have EPA-approved contingency measures for failure to attain for the NAAQS at issue in an area with an approved section 179B(b) demonstration.
RFP contingency measures under 172(c)(9) are generally triggered upon the EPA's determination that an area failed to achieve RFP. However, in the case of Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, the EPA's long-standing interpretation is that RFP contingency measures can be triggered only by a finding that the area has failed to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date under 181(b)(2).
In the case of Moderate areas, there are no RFP milestone compliance demonstration requirements.
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that within six months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's design value as of that date. If the EPA determines that an area failed to attain, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's design value as of the determination of failure to attain.
The EPA's proposed determination that the Phoenix-Mesa area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for international emissions is based in part upon data that have been collected and quality-assured by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD), and the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
The level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070 parts per million (ppm).
For the Phoenix-Mesa area, the Moderate attainment date was August 3, 2024. Because the DV is based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year prior to the attainment date (
CAA section 179B(b) provides that where a state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that an ozone nonattainment area would have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the United States (U.S.), that area shall not be subject to the mandatory reclassification provision of CAA section 181(b)(2).
Anthropogenic emissions sources outside of the U.S. can affect to varying degrees the air quality of nonattainment areas in the U.S. In a nonattainment area affected by international emissions, an air agency may elect under CAA section 179B to develop and submit to the EPA a demonstration intended to show that a nonattainment area would attain, or would have attained, the relevant NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date “but for” emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
CAA section 179B provides the EPA with authority to consider impacts from international emissions in two contexts: (1) a “prospective” state demonstration submitted as part of an attainment plan, which the EPA considers when determining whether the SIP adequately demonstrates that a nonattainment area will attain the NAAQS by its future attainment date (CAA section 179B(a)); or (2) a “retrospective” state demonstration, which the EPA considers after the attainment date in determining whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date (CAA section 179B(b)-(d)).
First, CAA section 179B(a) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an implementation plan or plan revision required under this chapter shall be approved by the Administrator if: (1) such plan or revision meets all the requirements applicable to it . . . other than a requirement that such plan or revision demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the relevant national ambient air quality standards by the attainment date specified under the applicable provision of this chapter, or in a regulation promulgated under such provision; and (2) the submitting state establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the implementation plan of such state
Second, CAA section 179B(b) provides that, for ozone nonattainment areas, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any State that establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that . . . such State
Irrespective of whether developing and submitting a prospective or retrospective CAA section 179B demonstration, states still must meet all nonattainment area requirements
The EPA issued more detailed guidance regarding CAA section 179B on December 18, 2020, which included recommendations to assist state, local, and Tribal air agencies that intend to develop a CAA section 179B demonstration (“179B Guidance”).
The CAA does not specify what technical analyses would be sufficient to demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” that a “State would have attained the [ozone NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date, but for” international emissions. Moreover, the best reading of the phrase “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” is that it provides inherent flexibility to the EPA to determine what analyses are sufficient for this purpose.
In evaluating previous CAA section 179B demonstrations, the EPA has also considered what measures an air agency has implemented to control local emissions. Specifically, the EPA has stated, “(f)or the EPA to concur with a state's CAA section 179B retrospective demonstration, the weight of evidence should show the area could not attain with on-the-books measures and potential reductions associated with controls required for that particular NAAQS and classification that are to be implemented by the attainment date.”
Congress has recognized that it may not be appropriate for the EPA to use
In 2019, the EPA issued guidance clarifying what types of regulatory determinations fall under the Exceptional Events Rule and identifying “other determinations, actions, and analyses that are not covered by the scope of the Exceptional Events Rule, but for which the exclusion, selection, or adjustment of monitoring data may be appropriate and allowable” under the CAA and applicable rules and guidance.
The Phoenix area is located in south-central Arizona along the channel and flood plain of the Salt River and includes the majority of Maricopa County and smaller portions of Gila County and Pinal County. In 2023 the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler metro population was 5.1 million. The elevation of downtown Phoenix is about 350 meters above mean sea level (MSL) and it is surrounded by mountains as high as 1,400 meters above MSL. Given its location in the Sonoran Desert, the area experiences a continental summer climate with hot, dry summers dominated by persistent high-pressure systems.
There are currently 25 ozone monitoring sites in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.
Table 1 of this document shows the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration and 2021-2023 DV for each monitor in the Phoenix-Mesa area. All monitors have violating 2021-2023 DVs, except for the Buckeye monitor, which is located in an upwind rural area, and the Humboldt Mountain monitor, which is located in a downwind rural area.
On September 24, 2025, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) submitted to the EPA for review the “MAG 2025 Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Retrospective Demonstration of the Impact of International Emissions on Ozone Concentrations in the Maricopa Nonattainment Area” (“Demonstration”).
MAG discussed the handling of potential wildfire impacts in section 1.5 of the Demonstration. As an initial step, MAG, ADEQ, MAQD, and PCAQD identified 76 exceedance days as potentially influenced by wildfire in 2021-2023. MAG then selected a subset of 31 days from the original 76 days to exclude from the base DV
The Atypical Events Evaluation, which was included as appendix C to the Demonstration, provided information to support the exclusion of these 31 days at exceeding monitors in the Phoenix-Mesa area as atypical events based on evidence that “wildfire-generated smoke, and ozone precursors from the smoke, have impacted ozone concentrations” in the nonattainment area.
MAG provided a conceptual model describing ozone formation in the Phoenix-Mesa area in section 2 and appendix B of the Demonstration. Overall, MAG cited the following as key ozone formation factors for the area:
• Multiple days of intense solar radiation, high temperatures and stagnant conditions, combined with sustained natural and anthropogenic emissions, lead to a photochemical buildup of ozone pollution.
• Daytime temperatures often exceed 100 °F, while the Urban Heat Island effect causes overnight temperatures to remain elevated.
• Sustained valley/mountain breeze circulation pattern traps ozone in basin.
• The inversion layer traps ozone and ozone precursors from the previous day, enhancing ozone concentration due to strong vertical mixing after sunrise.
• Westerly regional and long-range transport patterns bring pollution and wildfire smoke from throughout western North America.
• Frequent long-range transport due to wind shifts during the summer monsoon season brings ozone and ozone precursors from Mexico into the region.
• Stratospheric intrusions contribute to downward transport of ozone-rich air mass from upper levels.
• High-resolution satellite data link summer ozone exceedances to consistently higher NO
As part of its conceptual model, MAG also provided information regarding ozone and precursor emissions monitoring, ozone exceedances during the 2021-2023 design value period, meteorological evidence of transport from Mexico, and a conceptual model of international transport of emissions. Specifically, MAG discussed two international transport patterns: a lower-level atmospheric flow pattern that brings humid air northward from Mexico into the Sonoran Desert and Great Basin states during July and August, and a mid- to upper-level atmospheric pattern linking Asia to the western U.S., which is more significant during the late spring through early summer.
In the Demonstration, MAG included results of modeling performed by MAG and its consultant Ramboll, using both the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to simulate ozone air quality over southwestern North America during the 2023 summer ozone season.
The primary line of evidence in the Demonstration is CAMx modeling with Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT) performed by Ramboll using MAG's 2023 modeling platform to quantify local, regional, and international contributions to ozone within the nonattainment area. This modeling is described in section 3 and appendix B of the Demonstration and section 3.2 of the Ramboll Report. The MAG modeling platform consists of a set of three nested grids: a southwestern North America domain at 36 km horizontal resolution, an Arizona domain at 12 km resolution, and a domain for Maricopa NAA at 4 km resolution. Each domain resolves the atmosphere in 23 layers spanning from the surface up to the tropopause. MAG modeled the 2023 summer ozone season (April-September) using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to develop three-dimensional meteorological fields for all grids and the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) processing system to develop anthropogenic, biogenic, and fire emission inventories within the domain. MAG developed three-dimensional initial/boundary conditions (IC/BC) for the master domain from Ramboll's application of the GEOS-Chem
Section 3.2.1 of the Ramboll Report describes the modeling configuration. OSAT tracked three emissions sector groups (anthropogenic, natural, and fire sources) and two source apportionment IC/BC groups (one representing global IA ozone and precursors and the other representing global natural and US emissions). Three geographic regions were defined in OSAT at the resolution of each modeling grid: the Maricopa NAA, the rest of the U.S. including 200 km territorial waters, and Mexico. The sum of tracers for ozone formed under NO
Section 3.2 of the Demonstration and section 3.2.2 of the Ramboll Report summarize the 2023 OSAT results for Phoenix-Mesa area monitoring sites, as extracted from the 4-km grid and post-processed to daily maximum 8-hour average (MDA8) concentrations. To quantify IA impacts on 2021-2023 DVs, Ramboll used a modified version of the EPA's recommended “modeled attainment test.”
Ramboll also provided site-averaged stacked area plots of simulated MDA8 ozone contributions from BC IA and Mexico IA sectors to illustrate the change in contributions from different international source regions over time. Ramboll noted that, IA contributions via BC (Asia/Intercontinental) dominate in April through June, and September, when stronger westerly winds are predominant, whereas in July through August, during southerly monsoonal flow, BC IA decreases significantly while Mexican contributions increase.
MAG provided an evaluation of photochemical modeling performance in section 3.3 and appendix B of the Demonstration. In addition, MAG provided additional detail regarding the source apportionment modeling results in section 7.2 of appendix B, including monitor-specific results and month-by-month comparisons of international and local anthropogenic source contributions. The monthly contribution results indicate that during most of the ozone season (April, May, June, and September) the international anthropogenic contribution is greater than the local (non-attainment area) anthropogenic contribution, while the local anthropogenic contribution is greater than the international anthropogenic contribution in July and August.
In section 3.4 and appendix B, sections 7.1and 7.4 of the Demonstration, MAG described the results of “zero-out” CAMx and CMAQ modeling simulations performed for comparison to the CAMx source apportionment modeling. Specifically, MAG performed CAMx zero-out simulations using the GEOS-Chem zero-out of international anthropogenic emissions scenario as the IC/BC and removing Mexico manmade emissions within the CAMx modeling domains. The zero-out simulations were compared to base year modeling to develop RRFs and applied them to the ozone DVs. This produced an estimated 2023 ozone DV in the absence of IA sources of 70 ppb, based on a starting ozone design value of 80 ppb (
4. Additional Analyses
In addition to the photochemical modeling described in section II.C.3. of this document, MAG and Ramboll provided the results of three secondary analyses used as supporting evidence: (1) EPA ozone photochemical modeling for manmade international emissions; (2) air parcel transport pattern analysis; and (3) ozone precursor emissions trends in the nonattainment area and in Mexico.
Section 4.1 of the Demonstration and sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Ramboll Report summarize the results of photochemical modeling performed by the EPA in 2021 and 2023. In the 2021 modeling,
With respect to the Phoenix-Mesa area, Ramboll concluded that “[a]ccording to EPA's modeling, the IA contribution was estimated at 8.5 ppb, but source apportionment modeling would estimate a larger contribution by accounting for some fraction of the 5.1 ppb mixed anthropogenic component (for a total ozone contribution range of 8.5-13.6 ppb) and that “[r]emoving just the IA sector from the 79 ppb DV results in 70.5 ppb;
Ramboll also discussed the results of nationwide CAMx source apportionment modeling performed by the EPA to estimate contributions to 2023 ozone DVs from each state, Tribal lands, offshore marine vessel and oil/gas development, portions of Canada and
Section 5.1 of the Ramboll Report provides the results of a HYSPLIT
Ramboll also recalculated the Maricopa NAA 2021-2023 DVs after excluding days with potential transport from Mexico (
Section 4.0 of the Ramboll Report provides a comparison of ozone precursor emissions inventories and 2017-2023 trends for the Maricopa NAA (developed by MAG and Maricopa County) and the three Mexican border states of Baja California, Sonora, and Chihuahua (developed by the Eastern Research Group, Inc.). Summaries of the results of these analyses for NO
As part of meeting our duty to determine whether the Phoenix-Mesa area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the EPA evaluated air quality monitoring data submitted by ADEQ, MCAQD, PCAQCD, and SRPMIC to determine the attainment status of the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area as of its Moderate area attainment date. As indicated in table 1 of this document, the 2021-2023 DV is 0.080 ppm, indicating that the Phoenix-Mesa area did not attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by its August 3, 2024 attainment date.
The EPA has also evaluated MAG's Demonstration. Our evaluation is included in the “EPA Evaluation of the Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Demonstration for the Phoenix-Mesa 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area—Modeling and Impact of International Emissions Technical Support Document” (“179B(b) TSD”) and the Atypical Events TSD provided in the docket for this rulemaking and our findings are summarized here. Overall, MAG's retrospective 179B(b) demonstration includes multiple lines of evidence focusing on 2021, 2022, 2023, which are the key years for evaluating attainment for a 2015 ozone Moderate nonattainment area. MAG provided a conceptual model showing that the area's ozone production is a complex mix of local emissions, inter-state and international transport, and other meteorological factors. The primary line of evidence provided by MAG was photochemical source apportionment modeling, which indicated an international anthropogenic contribution of 14 ppb to the 2021-2023 DV of 80 ppb in the Phoenix-Mesa area which, when subtracted, would be an attaining value.
Other photochemical modeling, including zero-out modeling performed by the EPA and MAG, indicated an international anthropogenic contribution of 8.5-10.0 ppb to the Phoenix-Mesa area DV. Variation among modeling approaches means that there can be a range in credible estimates. Information regarding potential wildfire influences on 31 exceedance days in 2021-2023, while not conclusive, adds additional supporting evidence. MAG also provided emissions estimates that ozone precursor emissions in the NAA are decreasing, while emissions in Mexico are increasing. Air parcel transport provided additional qualitative evidence of influence of emissions from Mexico on the Phoenix-Mesa area.
Based on the weight of evidence provided in these analyses collectively, the EPA proposes to find that MAG has established to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the Phoenix-Mesa area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States. Specifically, as described in detail in the 179B(b) TSD, we find that, collectively the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that the 2023 ozone design values at all monitoring sites in the Phoenix area would have been at or below 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) but for the influence of international emissions. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to approve the Demonstration and determine that the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area (“Phoenix-Mesa area”) would have attained the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the August 3, 2024 “Moderate” area attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If finalized, this action will fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine whether the Phoenix area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of the attainment date of August 3, 2024.
For the reasons discussed in this document and the associated technical support documents, the EPA proposes to find that MAG has established to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the Phoenix area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of August 3, 2024, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If finalized, per CAA section 179B(b), Arizona will no longer be subject to the provisions of CAA section 181(b)(2), and the EPA's obligation under those provisions with respect to the Phoenix-Mesa Moderate 2015 ozone nonattainment area will therefore be fulfilled. The area will remain designated nonattainment and thus the State must continue to comply with applicable requirements for a Moderate ozone nonattainment area, except with respect to contingency measures, as described below.
In addition, the EPA also proposes to find that, if we finalize our 179B(b) determination as proposed, the contingency measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) would no longer apply to the Phoenix-Mesa Moderate 2015 ozone nonattainment area. Specifically, as explained in section I.B. of this document, attainment contingency measures and RFP contingency measures can only be triggered for a Moderate ozone nonattainment area by a finding of failure to attain under CAA section 181(b)(2). As previously noted, if the EPA finalizes our determination under 179B(b), Arizona will no longer be subject to the provisions of 181(b)(2). Therefore, neither contingency measures for failing to attain nor RFP contingency measures could ever be triggered for this area. According, the EPA proposes to find that, if we finalize the 179B(b) determination for the Phoenix-Mesa Moderate 2015 ozone nonattainment area, the requirement for the state to submit attainment and RFP contingency measures will no longer apply to this area.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 19, 2025 and will consider comments before taking final action.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because it is not a significant regulatory action and is therefore exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management and Budget. This action proposes to find that the Phoenix-Mesa Moderate ozone nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. Thus, the proposed action does not establish any new information collection burden that has not already been identified and approved in the EPA's information collection request.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed determination that the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for international emissions does not in and of itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations and does not directly regulate any entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states and Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the Federal Government and the states for the purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.
This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
The EPA has identified Tribal areas within the nonattainment area covered by this proposed rule that would be potentially affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, and Tohono O'odham Nation are located within the boundaries of the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area.
The EPA has communicated with the potentially affected Tribes located within the boundaries of the nonattainment area addressed in this proposal.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FMCSA proposes amendments to its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (HMSPs) regulations to incorporate by reference the updated Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) handbook containing inspection procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) for inspections of shipments of transuranic waste and highway route-controlled quantities (HRCQs) of radioactive material (RAM). The OOSC provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections. Currently, the regulations reference the April 1, 2024 edition of the handbook. Through this notice, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2025 edition.
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2025-0104 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the material proposed for incorporation by reference at the National Transportation Library, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-4000. Copies of the material are available as indicated in the “Incorporation by Reference” section of this preamble.
David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 961-1373,
FMCSA organizes this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0104), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the 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 the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), FMCSA solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
This NPRM proposes to update an incorporation by reference found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.4(b)(1) and referenced at § 385.415(b). The provision at § 385.4(b)(1) currently references the April 1, 2024, edition of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” The CVSA handbook contains inspection procedures and OOSC for inspections of shipments of transuranic waste and HRCQs of RAM. The OOSC, while not regulations, provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections. The material is available for
In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference the HMSP-related provisions contained in the April 1, 2025 edition of the handbook. This NPRM will discuss all proposed updates to the currently incorporated 2024 edition of the handbook.
Fourteen HMSP-related updates distinguish the April 1, 2025 handbook edition from the April 1, 2024 edition. The incorporation by reference of the 2025 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements.
Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce. Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(d), relating to inspections of motor vehicles carrying certain hazardous material, and 49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to HMSPs for motor carriers, the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) is required to promulgate regulations as part of a comprehensive safety program on HMSPs. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 U.S.C. 113(f) and 49 CFR 1.87(d)(2) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary related to HMSPs. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has promulgated regulations under 49 CFR part 385, subpart E to address the congressional mandate on HMSPs. Those regulations are the underlying provisions to which the material incorporated by reference discussed in this notice is applicable.
Congress authorized DOT by statute to promote safe transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures for inspections and safety permits for motor vehicles carrying certain hazardous materials (49 U.S.C. 5105(d); 49 U.S.C. 5109). The purpose of this rulemaking is to incorporate by reference the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook outlining the OOSC and inspection procedures for commercial highway vehicles transporting RAMs.
Unless stated otherwise, FMCSA generally considers provisions that are not inextricably intertwined to be severable, meaning that if any provision in a rulemaking is later held to be invalid, the remainder of the rulemaking is not affected (49 CFR 389.41). The CVSA Handbook being incorporated by reference in this rulemaking contains numerous, unrelated provisions that focus on unique aspects of FMCSA's regulations. Therefore, FMCSA finds that the various provisions of the CVSA Handbook are severable and able to operate functionally if severed from each other. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the CVSA Handbook's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand.
In 1986, the U.S. Department of Energy and CVSA entered into a cooperative agreement to develop a higher level of inspection procedures, out-of-service (OOS) conditions and/or criteria, an inspection decal, and a training and certification program for inspectors to conduct inspections on shipments of transuranic waste and HRCQs of RAM. CVSA developed the North American Standard Level VI Inspection Program for Transuranic Waste and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Material. This inspection program for select radiological shipments includes inspection procedures, enhancements to the North American Standard Level I Inspection, radiological surveys, CVSA Level VI decal requirements, and the “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” As of January 1, 2005, all vehicles and carriers transporting HRCQs of RAM are covered by the U.S. Department of Transportation's HM Safety Permit rules (June 30, 2004; 69 FR 39350). All HRCQs of RAM must pass the North American Standard Level VI Inspection prior to the shipment being allowed to travel in the United States. All HRCQs of RAM shipments entering the United States must also pass the North American Standard Level VI Inspection either at the shipment's point of origin or when the shipment enters the United States.
Operational requirements for motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a HMSP is required are prescribed by § 385.415. Section 385.415(b) requires that motor carriers ensure a pre-trip inspection is performed on each motor vehicle to be used to transport a HRCQ of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the requirements of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.”
According to 2021 through 2024 data from FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), approximately 3 million Level I through Level VI inspections were performed annually. Nearly 96 percent of these were Level I,
The changes to the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are generally editorial or ministerial. As discussed below, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
Section 385.4(b)(1), as amended on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67560), references the April 1, 2024, edition of the CVSA handbook. This NPRM proposes to amend § 385.4(b)(1) by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2024, edition date with a reference to the new edition date of April 1, 2025.
The HMSP-related changes made in the 2025 edition of the handbook, and proposed for incorporation by reference herein, are outlined below. It is necessary to update the materials incorporated by reference to ensure motor carriers and enforcement officials have convenient access to the correctly identified inspection criteria referenced in the rules.
FMCSA spoke with CVSA on April 29, 2025, during the Vehicle Committee meeting, to discuss the use of the term tractor protection valve (TPV). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) use the term TPV whereas the inspections guidance from CVSA uses the term trailer supply valve for the same piece of equipment. To ensure consistency between the FMCSR and the CVSA guidance, it was agreed to standardize on the term tractor protection system (TPS) as described in the 2025 edition of the OOSC Handbook. CVSA provided the information needed for FMCSA to proceed with drafting the NPRM. FMCSA has placed a memorandum in the rulemaking docket documenting these communications.
Fourteen HMSP-related changes in the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook distinguish it from the April 1, 2024, edition:
1. Part I, Item 3.b.1 (“Commercial Learner's Permit”) was amended to clarify that an accompanying driver of a commercial learner's permit (CLP) holder cannot be unauthorized to drive for any reason. This change follows FMCSA's clarification that the accompanying driver must be a valid CDL holder authorized to operate the vehicle for that trip. Language was added to ensure consistency with the FMCSR. The change is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
2. Part I, Items 2.b and 3.c (“Endorsements and Restrictions”) were updated to provide clarity on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) certificate. Specifically, it reflects changes in Canadian TDG regulations, which do not require hazardous materials or dangerous goods classes to be listed on the certificate, though drivers can only transport classes listed if they are present in the certificate. This amendment applies to both CDL and non-CDL drivers, specifically in the enforcement of Canadian regulations. These updates will not impact the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
3. Part I, Item 4.b.3 (“Medical Examiner's Certificate”) was amended to include both passenger-carrying and property-carrying vehicles. Part I, Item 4.b.4 was removed, as its language was incorporated into the revised 4.b.3. The change ensures consistency with the OOSC's emphasis on imminent hazards and clarifies that operating without a medical examiner's certificate, Form MCSA-5876, is an imminent hazard. The updates are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
4. Part II, Items 1.a.7.h (“Defective Brakes”) and 9 (“Lighting Devices (Headlamps, Tail Lamps, Stop Lamps, Turn Signals, and Lamps/Flags on Projecting Loads)”) were amended to include an OOS condition for inoperative brakes due to an unplugged electrical cable. Previously, electric trailer brakes that were non-functional due to a disconnected electrical line could result in multiple violations, with each inoperative brake being cited separately. This amendment ensures that only a single OOS violation is recorded for this condition, aligning the treatment of inoperative electric brakes with that of inoperative lamps on the rear of a trailer due to an unplugged electrical connection. In addition, a note was added instructing inspectors to reference both the “Lighting Devices” and “Brakes” sections to ensure all relevant conditions are properly considered. The updates are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
5. Part II, Item 1.h.7 (“Air Brake Hose/Tubing”) was amended to include an OOS condition for inoperative brakes due to a disconnected service gladhand. Previously, a trailer with non-functional air brakes caused by a disconnected service gladhand could result in multiple violations, with each inoperative brake being cited separately. This amendment ensures that only a single OOS violation is recorded for this condition, aligning it with the treatment of inoperative lamps on the rear of a trailer due to an unplugged electrical connection. The change is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
6. Part II, Item 1.h.5 (“Air Brake Hose/Tubing”) was amended to remove the OOS condition for crimped air hoses and tubing that restrict airflow. During roadside inspections, it is challenging for inspectors to determine whether an air hose or tube restriction is severe enough to warrant an OOS violation. Industry discussions revealed that a crimped air hose or tube primarily impacts brake release rather than brake application. CVSA determined that if a brake fails to apply or release entirely, other detectable violations would likely result in an OOS determination. While a kinked or crimped air hose or tube remains a violation requiring repair before the next dispatch, the subjectivity of the previous language led to its removal from the OOSC. This update makes the OOS conditions more objective and ensures that enforcement focuses on clearly unsafe conditions rather than subjective assessments of crimp severity. The change is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
7. Part II, Item 1.h (“Air Brake Hose/Tubing”) and Item 1.o.3 (“Hydraulic Brakes”) were amended to include language specifying that brake hoses or lines marked for applications other than brake systems constitute an OOS violation. During a roadside inspection,
8. Part II, Item 1.I (“Tractor Protection System”) was amended to clarify that a vehicle will be declared OOS if the TPS fails to close automatically before pressure drops below 20 pounds per square inch (psi) in both the primary and secondary air systems, rather than either system. In a dual-circuit brake system, air is supplied to the TPS by a two-way check valve that is connected to both the primary and secondary circuits. The two-way check valve only takes air from the highest-pressure circuit, which prevents loss of air from a failed circuit. This will allow the TPS to close automatically in the event of a significant drop in air pressure in one of the circuits. This automatic closure mechanism activates when the air pressure in both circuits falls between 20 and 45 psi. This design helps prevent a large amount of air from escaping the towing vehicle's air brake system, which could otherwise lead to a dangerous reduction in braking power. However, if the air pressure reaches 20 psi and the TPS has not automatically closed, it likely indicates that both circuits have failed to supply air. This condition would compromise the trailer's ability to engage the parking or emergency brakes. It is important to note that this section was initially developed when single-circuit systems were common, and as such, the evolution and widespread adoption of dual-circuit systems were not fully reflected in the original language. The amendment addresses this gap by incorporating the operational characteristics of modern dual-circuit systems, providing clearer guidance on when the TPS should automatically close. The clarification stems from discussions with brake manufacturers regarding the overall functionality of single and dual-circuit brake systems. Therefore, FMCSA agrees it is appropriate that the vehicle will be declared OOS if the TPS fails to close automatically before pressure drops below 20 psi in both the primary and secondary air systems. The update is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
9. Part II, Item 2.a (“Cargo Securement”) was amended to clarify that violations for loose dunnage, vehicle components, and similar items are considered vehicle OOS conditions. The inspectors believed that the driver was OOS when cargo, load components, spare tires, dunnage, or other unsecured items fell onto the roadway. However, CVSA clarifies that the intention of the OOS criteria is specific to the vehicle and would not affect driver status. The driver would be placed OOS based on driver-specific violations. As such, language was added to specify that the vehicle will be declared OOS which will help clarify this OOS condition. The update is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
10. Part II, Item 9.b (“Lamps on Projecting Loads”) was amended to add a section specifically addressing projecting load lamps. This change is necessary due to a previous update (89 FR 36742) to this section regarding lamps required to be on during specific times of the day. The previous update aimed to clarify situations where drivers may have lights turned off on the power unit. Unlike headlamps or tail lamps, projecting load lamps operate differently and may not have a traditional on/off switch, requiring them to be addressed separately. Therefore, an OOS condition was added to address this unique scenario. The update is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
11. Part II, Item 11.a.1 (“Axle Parts/Members”) was amended to clarify that a U-bolt bottom plate is part of the U-bolt assembly and should be considered an OOS condition if cracked or broken. This clarification addresses potential confusion during inspections by explicitly including the bottom plate as a critical component of the U-bolt assembly. The update is intended to ensure consistency in the identification of OOS conditions and is not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
12. Part II, Items 12.b.1 and 12.b.3 (“All Tires Other Than Those Found on the Front Steering Axle(s) of a Power Unit”) were amended to address leaks in tires with and without automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS). Previously, a tire without an ATIS was considered OOS if it had a noticeable leak that could be heard or felt, or if it had 50 percent or less of the maximum inflation pressure marked on the tire sidewall. Item 12.b.1 has now been revised to specify that the tread area is the relevant location for identifying a noticeable leak on tires without an ATIS. Item 12.b.2 remains unchanged and continues to address leaks in the tread area of tires equipped with an ATIS. In addition, the original language of Item 12.b.3 has been relocated to Item 12.b.4. New language has been introduced in Item 12.b.3 to state explicitly that any tire with a leak in the sidewall, regardless of ATIS presence, is an OOS condition. The updates are intended to ensure consistency in the application of OOS conditions and are not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
13. Part II, Item 12.a.8 and 12.b.4 (“Any Tire on Any Front Steering Axle(s) of a Power Unit”) were amended to add a note clarifying that if only the rubber portion of a mudflap is contacting a tire, it should not be considered an OOS condition. This clarification aims to prevent misinterpretation during inspections and ensures that minor rubber contact does not incorrectly result in an OOS violation. Due to the revised language introduced in Item 12.b.3, discussed above, and the relocation of the original 12.b.3 content to 12.b.4, as noted in the previous change, the existing Item 12.b.4 has been renumbered as 12.b.5. The updates are intended to ensure consistency in the application of OOS conditions and are not expected to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
14. Part II, Items 12.b.7, 12.b.8, 12.b.9, and 12.b.10 (“All Tires Other Than Those Found on the Front Steering Axle(s) of a Power Unit”) were amended to remove the distinction between radial and bias tires. Previously, the criteria for OOS conditions were separated by tire type, radial tires and bias tires, despite being identical in nature. This separation caused confusion due to the differing item numbers and slightly varied wording. CVSA has removed the radial and bias tire language and clarified that the OOS condition applies to all tires, regardless of construction type. With the reorganization resulting from the new language introduced in the preceding changes, these items have now been shortened and simplified into two consolidated items: 12.b.8 and 12.b.9. This consolidation simplifies and clarifies the confusion and makes it easier to apply the OOS criteria
Section 385.4(b)(1), as amended on August 21, 2024, references the April 1, 2024, edition of the CVSA handbook. This NPRM proposes to replace the reference to the April 1, 2024, edition of the CVSA handbook with a reference to the new edition date of April 1, 2025.
FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.
The proposed rule, if finalized, would update an incorporation by reference from the April 1, 2024, edition to the April 1, 2025, edition of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” FMCSA reviewed its MCMIS data on inspections performed from 2021 to 2024 and does not expect the HMSP-related handbook updates to have a significant effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections. Therefore, the proposed rule's impact would be de minimis.
This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 or in section 11 of DOT Order 2100.6B, and therefore does not meet the significance criterion for being an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. Consequently, this rulemaking is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action and no further action under E.O. 14192 is required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rule is not expected to impact a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would update an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4(b)(1) and 49 CFR 385.415(b), and would incorporate by reference the April 1, 2025, edition of the CVSA handbook. The changes to the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook from the 2024 edition are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are generally editorial or ministerial. As noted above, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the 2025 edition of the CVSA handbook to affect significantly the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States. Accordingly, FMCSA certifies that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this NPRM would not result in such an expenditure, and the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result, FMCSA discusses the effects of this rulemaking elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
FMCSA will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing PII. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.
This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rulemaking can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter III, part 385, as set forth below:
49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(d), 5109, 5113, 13901-13905, 13908, 31135, 31136, 31144, 31148, 31151, 31502; sec. 113(a), Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 958; sec. 350, Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833, 864; sec. 5205, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(b) * * *
(1) “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting
Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403,” April 1, 2025, incorporation by reference approved for § 385.415(b).
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of special closed meeting.
The ASC is convening a Special Closed Meeting to discuss and take vote on personnel matters, pursuant to section 1104(b) of title XI (12 U.S.C. 3333(b)).
United States Section, USMCA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of USMCA Request for Panel Review.
A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales, S.A. de C.V. with the United States Section of the USMCA Secretariat, pursuant to USMCA Article 10.12. Panel Review was requested of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Final Results in the 2022-2023 Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico. The USMCA Secretariat has assigned case number USA-MEX-2025-10.12-01 to this request. The Request for Panel Review was timely filed on October 2, 2025. Due to a lapse in appropriations for the U.S. federal government, the United States Section of the USMCA Secretariat was closed from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025. Thus, the Request for Panel Review was docketed on November 13, 2025, upon the office resuming operations; as such, November 13, 2025, shall be considered the start date for the dispute. The dispute timeline has been determined based on this date.
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, USMCA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-5438.
The final determination was published in the
Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established USMCA
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 44 no later than 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (due to the adjusted start date, the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 15, 2025);
(b) A Party, an investigating authority or other interested person who does not file a Complaint but who intends to participate in the panel review shall file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 45 no later than 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (due to the adjusted start date, the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is December 29, 2025);
(c) The panel review will be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
United States Section, USMCA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Completion of Panel Review in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019 (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2021-10.12-04).
The USA-CDA-2021-10.12-04 Panel has granted a joint motion for voluntary dismissal filed on behalf of:
The Government of Canada; the Governments of Ontario and Québec; the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council; Resolute FP Canada Inc. and affiliates; the Ontario Forest Industries Association, the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec, and individual members of each; Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.; Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd., Tolko Industries Ltd., and Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.; and West Fraser Mills Ltd.; the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations; and Sierra Pacific Industries, including its subsidiary Seneca Sawmill Company.
The motion requested the termination of panel review in the Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019 (Softwood Lumber AD AR2) dispute.
Given the Panel's ruling on this motion, and pursuant to Rule 75(1) of the
As a result, and in accordance with Rules 81(a) and 82(b), notice is hereby given that panel review of the Softwood Lumber from Canada AD AR2 dispute has been completed effective October 23, 2025.
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established USMCA
United States Section, USMCA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Completion of Panel Review in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2017-2018 (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2020-10.12-02).
The USA-CDA-2020-10.12-02 Panel has granted a joint motion for voluntary dismissal filed on behalf of:
The Government of Canada; Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd. (collectively, “Canfor”); Resolute FP Canada Inc. and affiliates (“Resolute”); West Fraser Mills Ltd.; and the Ontario Forest Industries Association (“OFIA”), the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec (“CIFQ”), and the individual members of OFIA and CIFQ (collectively, the “Canadian Parties”).
The motion requested the termination of panel review in the Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2017-2018 (Softwood Lumber AD AR) dispute.
Given the Panel's ruling on this motion, and pursuant to Rule 75(1) of the
As a result, and in accordance with Rules 81(a) and 82(b), notice is hereby given that panel review of the Softwood Lumber from Canada AD AR dispute has been completed effective October 30, 2025.
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established USMCA
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “Agency”), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0022 (Deposit of Biological Materials). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor at: Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-7728; or
This information collection covers information from patent applicants who seek to deposit biological material for patent purposes according to 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. The information collected from such patent applicants consists of information and documentation demonstrating the applicant's compliance with regulatory requirements, as well as information regarding the biological sample after it is deposited. This collection also covers applications from institutions that wish to be recognized by the USPTO as a suitable depository to receive deposits for patent application purposes. The information collection requirements for these actions are separate, as discussed below.
The deposit of biological material for patent purposes is authorized by 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2). The term “biological material” is defined in § 1.801 as including material that is capable of self-replication, either directly or indirectly. When an invention involves a biological material, words and figures may not sufficiently describe how to make and use the invention in a reproducible manner as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. In such cases, the inventive biological material must be known and readily available to the public or be capable to be made or isolated without undue experimentation (see § 1.802). In order to satisfy the “known and readily available” requirement, the biological material may be deposited in a suitable depository that has been recognized as an International Depository Authority (IDA) established under the Budapest Treaty per § 1.803(a)(1), or any other depository recognized to be suitable by the USPTO per § 1.803(a)(2). Under the authority of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), the deposit rules (§§ 1.801-1.809) set forth the examination procedures and conditions of deposit which must be satisfied in the event a deposit is required.
In cases where a deposit of biological material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly is made, and the deposit is not made under the Budapest Treaty, the USPTO collects information to determine whether the deposit meets the viability requirements of § 1.807. This information includes a viability statement under § 1.807 identifying:
(1) The name and address of the depository where the deposit was made;
(2) The name and address of the depositor;
(3) The date of the deposit;
(4) The identity of the deposit and the accession number given by the depository;
(5) The date of the viability test;
(6) The procedure used to obtain a sample if the test was not done by the depository; and
(7) A statement that the deposit is capable of reproduction.
A viability statement is not required when a deposit is made and accepted under the Budapest Treaty.
This information collection also covers additional information that may be gathered by the USPTO after a biological material is deposited into the recognized depository. For example, depositors may be required to submit verification statements for biological material deposited after the effective filing date of a patent application, or written notification that an acceptable deposit will be made. As another example, occasionally a deposit may become lost, contaminated, or incapable of functioning as described in the specification, and a replacement or supplemental deposit needs to be made. This information collection includes the written notification that the depositor must submit to the USPTO disclosing the particulars of the need for a replacement or supplemental deposit, as well as the request for certificate of correction that is required when the replacement or supplemental deposit is being made in connection with a patent.
The USPTO does not provide forms for the information it collects in connection with the deposit of biological material. The International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization provides forms for the deposit of biological material at an IDA under the Budapest Treaty.
Institutions that wish to be recognized by the USPTO as a suitable depository to receive deposits for patent purposes are required by § 1.803(b) to make a request demonstrating that they are qualified to store and test the biological material submitted to them under patent applications (see also MPEP 2405). This information collection covers the information that a depository must submit when seeking recognition by the USPTO as a suitable depository under § 1.803(a)(2). Depositories should comply with the requirements of § 1.803(b) when requesting to become a recognized depository.
This information enables the USPTO to evaluate whether such a depository has internal practices (both technical and administrative) and the technical ability sufficient to protect the integrity of the biological material being stored by U.S. patent applicants. The information that the depository provides includes:
(1) The name and address of the depository seeking recognition under § 1.803(a)(2),
(2) Detailed information as to the capacity of the depository to comply with the requirements of § 1.803(a)(2), including information on its legal status, scientific standing, staff, and facilities;
(3) An indication that the depository intends to be available, for the purposes of deposit, to any depositor under these same conditions;
(4) Where the depository intends to accept for deposit only certain kinds of biological material, such kinds must be specified; and
(5) An indication of the amount of any fees that the depository will, upon acquiring the status of a suitable depository under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, charge for storage, viability statements and furnishings of the samples of the deposit.
This collection also includes additional information gathered by the USPTO that may be needed after a depository has been recognized by the USPTO under § 1.803(a)(2). This information could include requests to handle additional types of biological
Items in this information collection may be submitted electronically. Applicants may also submit the information in paper form by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
Depositories charge fees to depositors, and all depositories charge about the same rates for their services. For example, the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), one of the world's leading biological supply houses and recognized patent depositories, offers comprehensive patent services for $2,500 per deposit.
Biological deposits are generally shipped to the depository “Domestic Overnight” by Federal Express (FedEx). Since depositors are urged to supply frozen or freeze-dried materials, it must be packed in dry ice. Dry ice itself is considered a dangerous good and requires special packaging. Additional FedEx special handling charges for inaccessible dangerous goods shipments is $73 per shipment,
An average cost for shipping by FedEx “Domestic Overnight” can vary depending on the size of the package, the delivery time, and the delivery distance. For purposes of this information collection, the USPTO estimates that the FedEx Domestic Overnight charge for a biological deposit is $120 per shipment. If the shipment requires a pick-up by FedEx, there is an
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information for those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be advised that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “Agency”), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0034 (Secrecy and License to Export). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before January 20, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jeffrey West, Senior Legal Advisor at: United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-2226; or
In the interest of national security, patent laws and regulations place certain limitations on the disclosure of information contained in patents and patent applications and on the filing of applications for patents in foreign countries.
This information collection includes the information needed by the USPTO to review the various types of petitions regarding secrecy orders and foreign filing licenses. This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C. 181-186 and is administered by the USPTO through 37 CFR 5.1-5.5, 5.11-5.15, 5.18-5.20, and 5.25.
Whenever the publication or disclosure of an invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent is, in the opinion of the head of an interested Government agency, determined to be detrimental to national security, the USPTO Commissioner for Patents must issue a secrecy order and withhold the publication of a patent application and the grant of a patent for such period as the national security interest requires. A patent will not be issued on the application, nor will the application be published, as long as the secrecy order is in force. If a secrecy order is applied to an international application, the application will not be forwarded to the International Bureau as long as the secrecy order is in effect.
The Commissioner for Patents can issue three types of secrecy orders, each of a different scope. The first type, Secrecy Order and Permit for Foreign Filing in Certain Countries, is intended to permit the widest utilization of the technical data in the patent application while still controlling any publication or disclosure that would result in an unlawful exportation. The second type, the Secrecy Order and Permit for Disclosing Classified Information, is to treat classified technical data presented in a patent application in the same manner as any other classified material. The third type of secrecy order, the General Secrecy Order, is used where the other types of orders are not applicable, including orders issued by agencies other than the Department of Defense.
Under the provision of 35 U.S.C. 181, a secrecy order remains in effect for a period of one year from its date of
When the USPTO places a secrecy order on a patent application, the regulations authorize the applicant to petition the USPTO for permits to allow disclosure, modification, or rescission of the secrecy order, or to obtain a general or group permit. In each of these circumstances, the petition is forwarded to the appropriate defense agency for decision. Also, the Commissioner for Patents may rescind any order upon notification from the heads of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who issued the order that the disclosure of the invention is no longer deemed detrimental to national security.
Unless expressly ordered otherwise, action on the application and prosecution by the applicant will proceed during the time the application is under a secrecy order to a specific point as indicated under 37 CFR 5.3. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Section 130 (9th ed., rev. 01.2024, November 2024). For example, prosecution of a national application under a secrecy order may proceed only to the point where it is found to be in condition for allowance. See 37 CFR 5.3(c). Prosecution of international applications under a secrecy order, on the other hand, will proceed only to the point before record and search copies would be transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant. See 37 CFR 5.3(d). National applications under a secrecy order that come to a final rejection must be appealed or otherwise prosecuted to avoid abandonment. Appeals in such cases must be completed by the applicant, but unless specifically indicated by the Commissioner of Patents, will not be scheduled for hearing until the secrecy order is removed.
This information collection also covers information gathered with respect to foreign filing licenses. The filing of a patent application is considered a request for a foreign filing license. However, in some instances an applicant may need a license for filing patent applications in foreign countries prior to a filing in the USPTO or sooner than the anticipated licensing of a pending patent application.
For such circumstances, this information collection covers petitions for a foreign filing license either with or without a corresponding United States application. In addition, this information collection covers petitions to change the scope of a license and petitions for a retroactive license for instances when a patent application is erroneously filed in a foreign country without the appropriate filing license.
Items in this information collection may be submitted as electronic submissions. Applicants may also submit the information in paper form by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
There are four filing fees associated with this information collection. The fees are listed in Table 2 below.
Although the USPTO prefers that the items in this information collection be submitted electronically, responses may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that 1% of the 7,318 items will be submitted in the mail, resulting in 73 mailed items. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a mailed submission, using a Priority Mail legal flat-rate envelope, will be $11.20. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total mailing costs for this information collection is $818.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be advised that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “Agency”), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0020 (Patent Term Extension and Adjustment). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this information collection must be received on or before January 20, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to: Jeffrey West, Senior Legal Advisor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-7728; or
The patent term restoration portion of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417), which is codified at 35 U.S.C. 156, permits the USPTO to extend the term of protection under a patent to compensate for delay during regulatory review and approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Only patents for drug products, medical devices, food additives, or color additives are potentially eligible for extension. The maximum length that a patent may be extended under 35 U.S.C. 156 is 5 years. The USPTO administers 35 U.S.C. 156 through 37 CFR 1.710-1.791.
This information collection covers information gathered in patent term extension applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 156(d). Under this provision, an application for patent term extension must: identify the approved product; the patent to be extended; and the claims included in the patent that cover the approved product, a method of using the approved product, or a method of manufacturing the approved product. 35 U.S.C. 156(d) also requires the submission of information that enables the USPTO to determine the eligibility of the patent for extension, and the rights that will be derived from the extension, and information to enable the USPTO and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the period of the extension. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 156(d) requires the applicant for patent term extension to provide a brief description of the activities undertaken by the applicant during the regulatory review period with respect to the approved product and the significant dates of these activities.
This information collection also covers information gathered in requests for interim extensions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) and 156(e)(2). Under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5), an interim extension may be granted if the applicable regulatory review period that began for a product is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration of the patent term in effect. Under 35 U.S.C. 156(e)(2), an interim extension may be granted if the term of an eligible patent for which an application for patent term extension has been submitted would expire before a certificate of extension is issued. In addition, this information collection covers requests for review of final eligibility decisions, and requests to withdraw an application requesting a patent term extension after it is submitted.
Apart from the extension provisions of 35 U.S.C. 156, the USPTO may in some cases adjust the term of an original patent under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154 due to certain delays in the prosecution of the patent application, including delays caused by interference proceedings, secrecy orders, or appellate review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or a Federal court in which the patent is issued pursuant to a decision reversing an adverse USPTO determination of patentability. The USPTO administers 35 U.S.C. 154 through 37 CFR 1.701-1.705. The patent term provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b), as amended by Title IV, Subtitle D of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, allow the applicant an opportunity to request reconsideration of the USPTO's patent term adjustment determination. This information collection covers information gathered in such a request.
In addition, this collection covers information collected when the USPTO reduces the amount of a granted patent term adjustment if delays were caused by an applicant's failure to make a reasonable effort to respond to a communication from the USPTO within three months of the communication's mailing date. Applicants may petition for reinstatement of a reduction in patent term adjustment with a showing that, in spite of all due care, the applicant was unable to respond to a communication from the USPTO within the three-month period.
Items in this information collection may be submitted electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery to the USPTO.
The items with filing fees are listed in the table below.
Although the USPTO prefers that the items in this information collection be submitted electronically, responses may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that 1% of the 903 items in this information collection will be submitted in the mail, resulting in 9 mailed items. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a mailed submission, using a Priority Mail legal flat-rate envelope, will be $11.20. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total mailing costs for this information collection at $101.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be advised that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While one may request to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is hereby giving notice of the names of the members appointed to the Commission's Performance Review Board. The function of the Board is to make recommendations to the appropriate appointing authority relating to the performance of senior executives in the agency.
Margaret A. Evans, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of the Executive Director, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; Phone: (301) 504-7204.
Sections 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense.
Notice.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114, the DoN announces its decision to conduct training and testing activities within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area as described in Alternative 1 of the AFTT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS).
Alternative 1 is the DoN's preferred alternative and is representative of an annual level of training and testing activities that accounts for the natural fluctuations of training cycles, deployment schedules, use of synthetic training opportunities, and testing programs.
The complete text of the Record of Decision (ROD) and the AFTT Final Supplemental EIS/OEIS is available on the project website at
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Vitol Inc. (the Applicant or Vitol) has applied for renewed authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before December 19, 2025.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Marina Fennel, (240) 702-6156,
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On April 10, 2023, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment
On June 30, 2025, Vitol filed an application with DOE (Application or App.) for renewal of their export authority for an additional five-year term. App. at 2.
According to the Application, Vitol is a “power marketer and dealer of other energy products” and “has received blanket authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to sell wholesale energy, capacity and/or ancillary services at market-based rates[.]”
The Applicant represents that its energy exports would be “surplus to the needs of the relevant system, and the exportation of the energy would not impair the adequacy of electric power supply with the United States[.]” App. at 5. The Applicant further states that “the requested authorization would not impede or tend to impede regional coordination of electric utility planning or operation. Applicant's export transactions will be completed using the relevant procedures and/or market structures and coordinated with all relevant parties as required pursuant to the applicable market rules.”
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Vitol Inc.'s Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-407-B. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Averill H. Conn, Vitol Inc., 2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77098-3133,
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after DOE reviews the action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (June 2025), including 10 CFR part 1021, and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Amended notice of intent.
On October 25, 2024, the Grid Deployment Office (GDO), Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed North Plains Connector Project, Colstrip, Montana to Center/St. Anthony, North Dakota. The previous NOI indicated that DOE did not have decision making authority related to the North Plains Connector Project (NPC). This amended NOI (ANOI) clarifies that DOE does have a decision-making role with respect to the North Plains Connector Interregional Innovation (NPCII) conditional award pursuant to DOE's Grid Resilience and Innovations Partnership (GRIP) Grant Program.
Please direct any questions about this amended NOI to Kira Treich, NEPA Document Manager, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Further information regarding the NPC EIS, including the original NOI, may be found at
Kira Treich, GDO NEPA Document Manager,
Separately, as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58 (2021)), DOE is administering the $10.5 billion GRIP Program to enhance grid flexibility and improve the resilience of the power system against growing threats of extreme weather. This funding award program will accelerate the deployment of transformative projects that will help to ensure the reliability of the power sector's infrastructure, so all American communities have access to affordable, reliable electricity.
In August 2024, DOE announced a conditional GRIP award of up to $700 million, subject to completion of required environmental reviews and other applicable conditions, to Montana Department of Commerce (MTDOC) for
The scope of the EIS analysis described in the original NOI is not altered by DOE's pending decision regarding GRIP funding of the Proposed Project, nor does it alter, in any way, the scope of decisions put before ARS, BLM, or USFS. Therefore, DOE is not reopening the scoping period for this EIS.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 24, 2025, by Tina Francone, Director of the Grid Deployment Office. 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
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice.
EIA submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with changes to its Oil and Gas Reserves System, OMB Control Number 1905-0057. The surveys included in the Oil and Gas Reserves System are the Form EIA-64A,
Comments on this information collection must be received no later than December 19, 2025. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kenneth Pick, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 558-5562. The forms and instructions are available on EIA's website at
This information collection request contains
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Government also uses the resulting information to develop national and regional estimates of proved reserves of domestic crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids to facilitate national energy policy decisions. These estimates are essential to the development, implementation, and evaluation of energy policy and legislation. Data are used directly in EIA Web reports concerning U.S. crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids reserves, and are incorporated into a number of other Web reports and analyses;
(4a)
EIA proposes a minor modification to Form EIA-23L instructions to align the disclosure language with other EIA surveys, without substantially changing the intention of the disclosure language.
EIA proposes six minor modifications to Form EIA-64A instructions to clarify the data requested:
1. Page 1 of the instructions describing who must file the form indicates that “facilities” refers to natural gas processing plants. EIA proposes adding “including gas sweetening plants” to clarify the respondent frame.
2. Page 4 of the instructions includes a diagram to assist respondents when filling out Section 2 of the form. EIA proposes defining residue gas as “dry natural gas after liquids extraction” in the text describing the diagram. This is the first place EIA uses the term residue natural gas other than in the Section title.
3. Page 4 of the instructions for Section 2.1 requests the total outlet of residue natural gas. EIA proposes clarifying the current definition of residue natural gas from “dry gas” to “dry natural gas after liquids extraction”.
4. Page 4 of the instructions for Section 2.2 requests the total natural gas used on site as plant fuel. EIA proposes modifying the current instruction to clarify that this data should include natural gas that is used to generate electricity consumed by the plant.
5. EIA proposes changing all instances of “residue gas” to “residue natural gas” for consistency within the instructions.
6. Pages 6 and 7 of the instructions include a form glossary. EIA proposes adding a definition to this glossary for gas sweetening plants: “A type of natural gas processing plant designed for removal of impurities such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, sulfur, etc. from sour gas to make it suitable for transport and use.”;
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
§ 284.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/26.
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.
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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice concerning fiscal year 2026 base charge and rates for electric service.
The Deputy Secretary confirms, approves, and places into effect on a final basis the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Desert Southwest Region's (DSW) fiscal year (FY) 2026 base charge and rates for Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) electric service under Rate Schedule BCP-F11. The base charge is increasing 2.5 percent, from $74.3 million in FY 2025 to $76.2 million in FY 2026. This change is primarily due to a decrease in anticipated prior year carryover funds from FY 2025.
The FY 2026 base charge and rates are effective October 1, 2025, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2026.
Scott R. Lund, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, or Tina Ramsey, Rates Manager, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, (602) 812-2355, or email:
On March 31, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved and confirmed Rate Schedule BCP-F11, under Rate Order No. WAPA-204, on a final basis through September 30, 2027.
The rate-setting methodology for BCP electric service requires calculation of an annual base charge rather than a unit rate for Hoover Dam hydropower. The base charge recovers an annual revenue requirement that includes projected costs of investment repayment, interest, operations, maintenance, replacements, payments to states, and Hoover Dam visitor services. Non-power revenue projections such as water sales, Hoover Dam visitor revenue, ancillary services, and late fees offset these projected costs. Hoover power contractors are billed a percentage of the base charge in proportion to their power allocation. Unit rates are calculated for comparative purposes but are not used to determine the charges for electric service.
Rate Schedule BCP-F11 and the BCP Electric Service Contract require WAPA to calculate the annual base charge and rates for the next fiscal year before October 1 of each year. The FY 2025 BCP base charge and rates expire on September 30, 2025.
The base charge for BCP electric service is increasing from $74.3 million in FY 2025 to $76.2 million in FY 2026.
The Bureau
WAPA made reductions to both its FY 2025 and FY 2026 budgets totaling $1.5 million over both fiscal years. WAPA's FY 2025 O&M budget was reduced by $500,000 impacting the carryover from FY 2025 to FY 2026. WAPA's FY 2026 budget is decreasing $1 million from $10.1 million to $9.1 million, a 10 percent decrease from FY 2025. These adjustments were made after publication of the FRN, stemming from strategic cost-containment initiatives and a comprehensive review of expenditures.
Non-power revenue projections for Reclamation and WAPA are decreasing $81,000 to $18.3 million, due to lower estimated revenue from ancillary services.
The projected FY 2025 to FY 2026 carryover is $429,000. While carryover was originally projected to be a shortfall in the FRN, the updated figure is a result of WAPA's previously mentioned cuts to their FY 2025 O&M budget. This amount represents a $3.7 million decrease from the FY 2025 projected carryover. This decrease occurred due to higher than anticipated execution rates in FY 2024 and the application of previously collected multi-year project funds to ongoing and upcoming work.
The composite rate is increasing 6.2 percent, the energy rate is increasing 6.1 percent, and the capacity rate is increasing 4.6 percent from FY 2025. These unit rate calculations use forecasted energy and capacity values which decreased by 3.5 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively, when compared to FY 2025.
DSW followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions (10 CFR part 903) and General Regulations for the Charges for the Sale of Power from the BCP (10 CFR part 904). DSW took the following steps to involve interested parties in the rate process:
1. DSW provided a website where information is posted about this rate process. The website is located at
2. On April 28, 2025, a
3. On April 28, 2025, DSW notified contractors and interested parties of the proposed rates and provided a copy of the published FRN by email.
4. On May 28, 2025, DSW held a public information forum, with options to attend virtually or in person, at the Desert Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, Arizona. DSW representatives explained the proposed base charge and provided contractors and interested parties an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments for the record.
5. On June 25, 2025, DSW posted on its website responses to questions asked at the public information forum. These questions focused on the increase in Reclamation's maintenance budget and the projected monthly billing for the BCP base charge for FY 2026.
6. On June 27, 2025, DSW held a public comment forum, with options to attend virtually or in person, at the Desert Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, Arizona, to provide an opportunity for contractors and other interested parties to provide comments for the record.
7. On July 28, 2025, the public consultation and comment period ended with DSW receiving one oral comment and several questions at the public information forum (see #5 previously listed) and written comments from Arizona Power Authority, Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona and Colorado River Commission of Nevada.
8. The comments appear below, paraphrased where appropriate without compromising the meaning.
WAPA's Administrator certified the FY 2026 base charge and rates under Rate Schedule BCP-F11 are the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The base charge and rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws.
Information used by WAPA to develop the base charge and rates for electric service is available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Regional Office, located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85009. Many of these documents are also available on DSW's website at
DOE is setting rates for BCP electric service in accordance with section 302 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This provision transferred to, and vested in, the Secretary of Energy certain functions of the Secretary of the Interior, along with the power marketing functions of Reclamation.
DOE regulations governing charges for the sale of BCP power, 10 CFR 904.7(e), require annual review of the BCP base charge and an “adjust[ment], either upward or downward, when necessary and administratively feasible, to assure sufficient revenues to effect payment of all costs and financial obligations associated with the [p]roject.” WAPA's Administrator provided all BCP contractors an opportunity to comment on the proposed base charge adjustment, consistent with DOE procedures for public participation in rate adjustments. The BCP Electric Service Contract states that for years other than the first year and each fifth year thereafter, when the rate schedule is approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy on a provisional basis and by FERC on a final basis, adjustments to the base charge “shall become effective upon approval by the Deputy Secretary of Energy.” Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of Energy may approve the FY 2026 base charge and rates for BCP electric service, as authorized by the BCP Electric Service Contract and DOE's procedures for public participation in rate adjustments set forth at 10 CFR parts 903 and 904.
Following DOE's review of WAPA's proposal, and as authorized by applicable provisions of the BCP Electric Service Contract, I have confirmed, approved, and placed the FY 2026 base charge and rates for BCP electric service, under Rate Schedule BCP-F11, into effect on a final basis through September 30, 2026.
WAPA has determined that this action fits within the following categorical exclusion listed in appendix B to 10 CFR part 1021 and appendix B of DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures published on June 30, 2025: B4.3 (Electric power marketing rate changes). Under 10 CFR 1021.102, categorically excluded projects and activities do not require preparation of either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 17, 2025, by James Danly, Deputy 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 1,2-dichloroethane (CASRN 107-06-2). The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use (COUs), including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. EPA used the best available science to prepare this draft risk evaluation and to preliminarily determine, based on the weight of scientific evidence, that 1,2-dichloroethane poses unreasonable risk to human health and the environment driven primarily by certain COUs analyzed in the draft risk evaluation.
Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0427, online at
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture (defined under TSCA section 3(9) to include import), processing, distribution, use, and disposal of 1,2-dichloroethane, related industry trade organizations, non-governmental organizations with an interest in human and environmental health, state and local governments, Tribal Nations, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that this action might apply to. If you need help determining applicability, consult the technical contact listed under
The Agency is conducting this risk evaluation under TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, which requires that EPA conduct risk evaluations on chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in the risk evaluations. Each risk evaluation must be conducted consistent with the best available science, be based on the weight of scientific evidence, consider reasonably available information, and not consider costs or non-risk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k). See also the implementing procedural regulations at 40 CFR part 702.
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft risk evaluation under TSCA for 1,2-dichloroethane. The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the COUs, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. EPA has used the best available science to prepare this draft risk evaluation and, based on the weight of scientific evidence, to preliminarily
1.
2.
1,2-Dichloroethane, also known as ethylene dichloride or EDC (CASRN 107-06-2), is a volatile, colorless, oily liquid with a chloroform-like odor that is used primarily in the synthesis of vinyl chloride; over 90 percent of 1,2-dichloroethane is manufactured to be converted to vinyl chloride. It is soluble in water (8,600 mg/L) and is miscible in most organic solvents. Between 2016 and 2019, production volume of 1,2-dichloroethane was reported to be between 30 to 40 billion pounds, based on the 2020 TSCA Chemical Data Reporting data.
In December 2019, EPA announced its designation of 1,2-dichloroethane as a high priority substance for risk evaluation under TSCA (Ref. 1). In April 2020, EPA sought public comment on the draft scope of the 1,2-dichloroethane risk evaluation (Ref. 2), and after considering public comments, issued the final scope in September 2020 (Ref. 3). In July 2024, EPA released the
Due to prior review, EPA is not soliciting additional peer review of the human health hazard assessment. Additional external peer review is also not needed on the other components of the draft risk evaluation because (1) the
EPA seeks feedback on the assessment of risk presented in the draft risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane, a copy of which is available in the docket, and encourages all potentially interested parties, including individuals, governmental and non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, research institutions, and private sector entities to comment on the draft risk evaluation. To the extent possible, the Agency asks commenters to please cite any public data related to or that support comments provided, and to the extent permissible, describe any supporting data that is not publicly available.
EPA welcomes specific input on each section of the draft risk evaluation, particularly input on the following:
• The approach taken to evaluate the byproducts in the
• The COU names and descriptions for “Industrial use—other use—process solvent,” particularly whether there is overlap between this use as a process solvent in chemical reactions (including a proprietary use in pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing) and other processing or industrial and commercial COUs that may duplicate this newly added COU (
• Whether the delineation of occupational exposure scenarios (OESs) associated with the Disposal COU are clear and accurate;
• Whether and how exposure controls and personal protective equipment (PPE) are used during the manufacture, processing, and use of 1,2-dichloroethane for each of the COUs. Although EPA has test order data, additional information on when and where exposure controls and PPE are used would be informative;
• All aspects of the approach for assessing ambient air inhalation exposure for the general population, including exposure input assumptions, uncertainties, as well as the calculation and interpretation of additional cancer cases based on the population exposed;
• Information on environmental releases for OESs for which releases were modeled (Repackaging, Application of adhesives and sealants, Industrial and commercial non-aerosol cleaning/degreasing, Application of lubricants and greases, Industrial and commercial aerosol products, and Laboratory use); and
• Information on OESs for which EPA has slight confidence on exposures to workers and ONUs (Repackaging, Industrial and commercial aerosol products, and Waste handling, treatment, and disposal [landfills]), including on the degree to which 1,2-dichloroethane is used in Industrial and commercial aerosol products. Information to help clarify the approach EPA used to analyze OSHA CEHD, specifically the step of removing data in which all measurements taken at the site were recorded as “0” or below the limit of detection and there was no evidence such as a bulk sample that shows the presence of the chemical at the site as EPA assumed that the chemical of interest may not have been at the site at the time of sampling; and
• Information (
EPA will consider comments received on the draft risk evaluation and announce the availability of the final risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane.
Under TSCA section 6, EPA must determine in the final risk evaluation, based on the weight of scientific evidence, whether or not the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under the chemical's COUs. This includes consideration of risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations who may be at greater risks than the general population, such as children and workers. TSCA prohibits EPA from considering non-risk factors (
If EPA determines in its final risk evaluation that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the chemical will move to risk management action under TSCA section 6(a) for the relevant COUs. EPA would be required to implement, via regulation, regulatory restrictions on the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution, use or disposal of the chemical to eliminate the identified unreasonable risk. TSCA section 6(a) includes a range of risk management options, including labeling, recordkeeping or notice requirements, actions to reduce human exposure or environmental release, and a ban of the chemical or of certain uses. Like the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, there is an opportunity for public comment on any proposed risk management actions.
For more information about the TSCA risk evaluation process for existing chemicals, go to
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, November 20, 2025 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC.
While attendance at the Open Meeting is available to the public, the FCC headquarters building is not open access, and all guests must check in with and be screened by FCC security at the main entrance on L Street. Attendees at the Open Meeting will not be required to have an appointment but must otherwise comply with protocols outlined at:
The meeting will be webcast at:
Press Access—Members of the news media are welcome to attend the meeting and will be provided reserved seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Following the meeting, the Chairman may hold a news conference in which he will take questions from credentialed members of the press in attendance. Also, senior policy and legal staff will be made available to the press in attendance for questions related to the items on the meeting agenda. Commissioners may also choose to hold press conferences. Press may also direct questions to the Office of Media Relations (OMR):
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjami W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than December 4, 2025.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; correction.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the notice published in the March 6, 2024
Sam Cyrus, (443) 896-4827.
In FR Doc. 2024-04674 of March 6, 2024 (89 FR 15994 through 15996), there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On page 15994 in the
In FR Doc 2024-04674 of March 6, 2024 (89 FR 15994 through 15995), make the following corrections:
1. On page 15994,
a. Second column, first partial paragraph (
b. Third column, first bulleted paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the paragraph “• Chemistry, including Routine Chemistry, Toxicology, and Endocrinology.” is corrected to read “• Chemistry, including Routine Chemistry, Toxicology, Endocrinology, and Urinalysis.”.
2. On page 15995, first column, first bulleted paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the paragraph “• Chemistry, including Routine Chemistry, Toxicology, and Endocrinology.” is corrected to read “• Chemistry, including Routine Chemistry, Toxicology, Endocrinology, and Urinalysis.”.
The Director of the Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Kathleen Cantwell, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the second biannual virtual Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II public meeting of 2025 to discuss the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' preliminary coding, Medicare benefit category, and Medicare payment determinations, if applicable, for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set for non-drug and non-biological items and services, as well as how to register for the meeting.
Primary date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Overflow date: Thursday, December 18, 2025, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET.
Sundus Ashar, (410) 786-0750,
On December 21, 2000, Congress enacted the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that the Secretary establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001,
In 2020, we implemented changes to our HCPCS Level II coding procedures, including the establishment of quarterly coding cycles for drugs and biological products and biannual coding cycles for non-drug and non-biological items and services.
In the December 28, 2021,
The list of topics for discussion, which will become available in the
If all of the agenda items are not addressed on December 17, 2025, we will hold a subsequent virtual session on December 18, 2025 at 9 a.m. ET. We will proceed in the order of the HCPCS Level II public meeting agenda, only discussing those items that were not addressed, until complete. We will not go back and discuss any prior agenda items. Original registration will apply to the overflow date. The link to the live stream of the public meeting will be posted in the Guidelines for Participation in HCPCS Public Meetings document on the CMS website.
Every speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation during the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the applicant and manufacturer, if different, of the item that is the subject of the HCPCS Level II application, or with any competitors of that manufacturer with respect to the item. This includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to the speaker by the applicant, manufacturer, or any such competitors.
Each applicant that submitted a HCPCS Level II code application that will be discussed at the public meeting is permitted to designate a primary speaker. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for a primary speaker per agenda item. Any unused time from the primary speaker will be forfeited and cannot be delegated to another speaker. Primary speakers must register as a speaker and submit any supporting PowerPoint presentation by the stated deadline. We will accept PowerPoint presentations (maximum of 10 slides in PowerPoint presentation format, not PDF) that are emailed to
Any individual related to the public meeting agenda item, including but not limited to an employee, competitor, insurer, public consumer, or other interested party, may register as a 5-minute speaker by the stated deadline. Depending on the availability of time, we may limit the number of 5-minute speakers; however, we will ensure an array of interested parties are represented if registered by the stated deadline. We will not accept any other written materials, outside of the written comments, from a 5-minute speaker (that is, 5-minute speakers are not allowed to present a PowerPoint presentation).
All individuals who plan to attend the public meetings to listen and do not plan to speak may access the public meeting using the live stream link posted on the HCPCS Level II website.
Individuals who require special assistance must register and request special assistance services by the stated deadline in the
The registration instructions for the HCPCS Level II public meeting will be posted in the Guidelines for Participation in HCPCS Public Meetings document on the CMS website. All individuals who plan to speak (15 or 5 minutes) at the public meeting must register by 5 p.m. ET on December 3, 2025. The following information must be provided when registering by the stated deadline:
• Name;
• Company name (if applicable);
• Email address;
• Topic item and application number (for speakers only);
• Any special assistance requests;
• Whether the registrant is a primary speaker or a 5-minute speaker for an agenda item; and
• Whether the primary speaker will use a PowerPoint presentation.
The primary and 5-minute speaker(s) must email a brief, written summary (one paragraph) of their comments and conclusions. Written comments from anyone, including the primary and 5-minute speaker(s), will only be accepted when emailed to:
All participants should regularly check the CMS website for updates at
The HCPCS section of the CMS website also includes details regarding the public meeting process for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set, including guidelines for an effective presentation. The HCPCS section of the CMS website also contains a document titled “HCPCS Level II Coding Procedures (PDF),” which is a description of the HCPCS Level II coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures CMS uses to make HCPCS Level II coding determinations.
When CMS refers to a HCPCS Level II code or HCPCS Level II coding application above, CMS may also be referring to circumstances when a HCPCS code has already been issued, but a Medicare benefit category and/or payment has not been determined. CMS is working diligently to address Medicare benefit category and payment determinations for new items and services that may be DME, prosthetic devices, orthotics and prosthetics, therapeutic shoes and inserts, surgical dressings, or splints, casts, and other devices used for reductions of fractures and dislocations under Medicare Part B.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of CMS, Dr. Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces Medicare's Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A) premium for uninsured enrollees in calendar year (CY) 2026. This premium is paid by enrollees aged 65 and over who are not otherwise eligible for benefits under Medicare Part A (hereafter known as the “uninsured aged”) and by certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement. The monthly Medicare Part A premium for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2026 for these individuals will be $565. The premium for certain other individuals as described in this notice will be $311.
The premium announced in this notice is effective on January 1, 2026.
Yaminee Thaker, (410) 786-7921.
Section 1818 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part A, subject to payment of a monthly premium, of certain persons aged 65 and older who are uninsured under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program or the Railroad Retirement Act and do not otherwise meet the requirements for entitlement to Medicare Part A. These “uninsured aged” individuals are uninsured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act, because they do not have 40 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act (or are/were not married to someone who did). (Persons insured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act and certain others do not have to pay premiums for Medicare Part A.)
Section 1818A of the Act provides for voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part A, subject to payment of a monthly premium for certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement. These are individuals who were entitled to coverage due to a disabling impairment under section 226(b) of the Act, but who are no longer entitled to disability benefits and premium-free Medicare Part A coverage because they have gone back to work and their earnings exceed the statutorily defined “substantial gainful activity” amount (section 223(d)(4) of the Act).
Section 1818A(d)(2) of the Act specifies that the provisions relating to premiums for the aged under section 1818(d) through section 1818(f) of the Act will also apply to certain individuals with disabilities as described above.
Section 1818(d)(1) of the Act requires us to estimate, on an average per capita basis, the amount to be paid from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the upcoming calendar year (CY) (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A. We must then determine the monthly actuarial rate for the following year (the per capita amount estimated above divided by 12) and publish the dollar amount for the monthly premium in the succeeding CY. If the premium is not a multiple of $1, the premium is rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 (or, if it is a multiple of 50 cents but not of $1, it is rounded to the next highest $1).
Section 13508 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66) amended section 1818(d) of the Act to provide for a reduction in the premium amount for certain voluntary enrollees (sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act). The reduction applies to an individual who is eligible to buy into the Medicare Part A program and who, as of the last day of the previous month:
• Had at least 30 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act;
• Was married, and had been married for the previous 1-year period, to a person who had at least 30 quarters of coverage;
• Had been married to a person for at least 1 year at the time of the person's death if, at the time of death, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage; or
• Is divorced from a person and had been married to the person for at least 10 years at the time of the divorce if, at the time of the divorce, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage.
Section 1818(d)(4)(A) of the Act specifies that the premium that these individuals will pay for CY 2026 will be equal to the premium for uninsured aged enrollees reduced by 45 percent.
Section 1818(g) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), at the request of a State, to enter into a Medicare Part A buy-in agreement with a State to pay Medicare Part A premiums for Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs). Under the QMB program, State Medicaid agencies must pay the Medicare Part A premium for those not eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A if those individuals meet all of the eligibility requirements for the QMB program under the State's Medicaid State plan. (Entering into a Medicare Part A buy-in agreement would permit a State to avoid any Medicare Part A late enrollment penalties that the individual may owe and would allow States to enroll persons in Medicare Part A at any time of the year, without regard to Medicare enrollment periods.) Other individuals may be eligible for the Qualified Disabled Working Individuals program, through which State Medicaid programs provide coverage of Medicare Part A premiums for individuals eligible to enroll in Medicare Part A by virtue of section 1818A of the Act who meet certain financial eligibility criteria.
The monthly premium for the uninsured aged and certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2026, is $565. The monthly premium for the individuals eligible under section 1818(d)(4)(B) of the Act, and therefore, subject to the 45 percent reduction in the monthly premium, is $311.
As discussed in section I of this notice, the monthly Medicare Part A premium is equal to the estimated monthly actuarial rate for CY 2026 rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 and equals one-twelfth of the average per capita amount, which is determined by projecting the number of Medicare Part A enrollees aged 65 years and over, as well as the benefits and administrative costs that will be incurred on their behalf.
The steps involved in projecting these future costs to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are:
• Establishing the present cost of services furnished to beneficiaries, by type of service, to serve as a projection base;
• Projecting increases in payment amounts for each of the service types; and
• Projecting increases in administrative costs.
We base our projections for CY 2026 on—(1) current historical data; and (2)
For CY 2026, we estimate that 62,921,568 people aged 65 years and over will be entitled to (enrolled in) benefits (without premium payment) and that they will incur about $426.445 billion in benefits and related administrative costs. Thus, the estimated monthly average per capita amount is $564.78 and the monthly premium is $565. Subsequently, the full monthly premium reduced by 45 percent is $311.
The CY 2026 monthly premium of $565 is approximately 9.1 percent higher than the CY 2025 premium of $518. We estimate that approximately 772,000 enrollees will voluntarily enroll in Medicare Part A by paying the full premium. We estimate that over 90 percent of these individuals will have their Medicare Part A premium paid by States, since they are enrolled in the QMB program. Furthermore, the CY 2026 reduced monthly premium of $311 is approximately 9.1 percent higher than the CY 2025 premium of $285. We estimate that an additional 103,000 enrollees will pay the reduced premium. Therefore, we estimate that the total aggregate cost to enrollees paying these premiums in CY 2026, compared to the amount that they paid in CY 2025, will be about $467 million.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual Medicare Part A premium announcement set forth in this notice does not establish or change a substantive legal standard regarding the matters enumerated by the statute or constitute a substantive rule which would be subject to the notice requirements in section 1871(b) of the Act. However, to the extent that an opportunity for public notice and comment could be construed as required for this notice, we find good cause to waive this requirement. Section 1818(d) of the Act requires the Secretary during September of each year to determine and publish the amount to be paid, on an average per capita basis, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the impending CY (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A. Further, the statute requires that the agency determine the applicable premium amount for each CY in accordance with the statutory formula, and we are simply notifying the public of the changes to the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2026. We have calculated the Medicare Part A premiums as directed by the statute; the statute establishes both when the premium amounts must be published and the information that the Secretary must factor into the premium amounts, so we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the Medicare Part A premiums, in accordance with the statute, for CY 2026.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
We have prepared this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) section in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of this notice are fully understood.
This notice announces the CY 2026 Medicare Part A premiums for the uninsured aged and for certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other entitlement, as required by sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act. It also responds to section 1818(d) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication of these amounts in the
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; Executive Order 13132, “Federalism“; Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354); section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act; section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts.). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for a regulatory action that is significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. As stated in section IV. of this notice, we estimate that the overall effect of the changes in the Medicare Part A premium will be a cost to voluntary enrollees (sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act) of about $467 million. Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined this notice is significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of this notice.
In accordance with subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), OIRA has determined that this notice meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). For the reasons given, however, we find for good cause that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest and have determined that this policy will take effect on January 1, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47 million in any 1 year). Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2026 and will have an impact on certain Medicare beneficiaries, but not on small entities as defined by the SBA. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2026 and will have an impact on certain Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act, because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2025, that threshold is approximately $187 million. This notice would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $187 million in any 1 year.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on State or local governments, preempt State law, or otherwise have Federalism implications.
This notice is subject to the Congressional Review Act and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General for review.
Mehemet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on October 31, 2025.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by January 20, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier: ___/OMB Control Number: ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates for aged (age 65 and over) and disabled (under age 65) beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program beginning January 1, 2026. In addition, this notice announces the monthly premium for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the deductible for 2026, and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by beneficiaries with modified adjusted gross income above certain threshold amounts. The monthly actuarial rates for 2026 are $405.40 for aged enrollees and $548.60 for disabled enrollees. The standard monthly Part B premium rate for all enrollees for 2026 is $202.90, which is equal to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (or approximately 25 percent of the expected average total cost of Part B coverage for aged enrollees) plus the $0.20 repayment amount required under current law. (The 2026 premium is 9.7 percent or $17.90 higher than the 2025 standard premium rate of $185.00.) The Part B deductible for 2026 is $283.00 for all Part B beneficiaries. If a beneficiary has to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount, that individual will have to pay a total monthly premium of about 35, 50, 65, 80, or 85 percent of the total cost of Part B coverage plus a repayment amount of $0.30, $0.40, $0.50, $0.60, or $0.70, respectively. Beginning in 2023, certain Medicare enrollees who are 36 months post kidney transplant, and therefore no longer eligible for full Medicare coverage, can elect to continue Part B coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by paying a premium. For 2026, the immunosuppressive drug premium is $121.60.
January 1, 2026.
M. Kent Clemens, (410) 786-6391.
Part B is the voluntary portion of the Medicare program that pays all or part of the costs for physicians' services; outpatient hospital services; certain home health services; services furnished by rural health clinics, ambulatory surgical centers, and comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities; and certain other medical and health services not covered by Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance. Medicare Part B is available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A, as well as to U.S. residents who have attained age 65 and are citizens and to non-citizens who were lawfully admitted for permanent residence and have resided in the United States for 5 consecutive years. Part B requires enrollment and payment of monthly premiums, as described in 42 CFR part 407, subpart B, and part 408, respectively. The premiums paid by (or on behalf of) all enrollees fund approximately one-fourth of the total incurred costs, and transfers from the general fund of the Treasury pay approximately three-fourths of these costs.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1839 of the Social Security Act (the Act) to announce the Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries as well as the monthly Part B premium. The Part B annual deductible, income-related monthly adjustment amounts, and immunosuppressive drug premium are included because their determinations are directly linked to the aged actuarial rate.
The monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled enrollees are used to determine the correct amount of general revenue financing per beneficiary each month. These amounts, according to actuarial estimates, will equal, respectively, one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each aged enrollee (age 65 or over) and one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each disabled enrollee (under age 65).
The Part B deductible to be paid by enrollees is also announced. Prior to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173), the Part B deductible was set in statute. After setting the 2005 deductible amount at $110.00, section 629 of the MMA (amending section 1833(b) of the Act) required that the Part B deductible be indexed beginning in 2006. The inflation factor to be used each year is the annual percentage increase in the Part B actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over. Specifically, the 2026 Part B deductible is calculated by multiplying the 2025 deductible by the ratio of the 2026 aged actuarial rate to the 2025 aged actuarial rate. The amount determined under this formula is then rounded to the nearest $1.00.
The monthly Part B premium rate to be paid by aged and disabled enrollees is also announced. (Although the costs to the program per disabled enrollee are different than for the aged, the statute provides that the two groups pay the same premium amount.) Beginning with the passage of section 203 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-603), the premium rate, which was determined on a fiscal-year basis, was limited to the lesser of the actuarial rate for aged enrollees, or the current monthly premium rate increased by the same percentage as the most recent general increase in monthly Title II Social Security benefits.
However, the passage of section 124 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) (Pub. L. 97-248) suspended this premium determination process. Section 124 of TEFRA changed the premium basis to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). Section 606 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), section 2302 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA 84) (Pub. L. 98-369), section 9313 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA 85) (Pub. L. 99-272), section 4080 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 87) (Pub. L. 100-203), and section 6301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) (Pub. L. 101-239) extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). This extension expired at the end of 1990.
The premium rate for 1991 through 1995 was legislated by section 1839(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as added by section 4301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) (Pub. L. 101-508). In January 1996, the premium determination basis would have reverted to the method established by the 1972 Social Security Act Amendments. However, section 13571 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) (Pub. L. 103-66) changed the premium basis to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees) for 1996 through 1998.
Section 4571 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) permanently extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees).
The BBA included a further provision affecting the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates and premiums for 1998 through 2003. Section 4611 of the BBA modified the home health benefit payable under Part A for individuals enrolled in Part B. Under this section, beginning in 1998, expenditures for home health services not considered “post-institutional” are payable under Part B rather than Part A. However, section 4611(e)(1) of the BBA required that there be a transition from 1998 through 2002 for the aggregate amount of the expenditures transferred from Part A to Part B. Section 4611(e)(2) of the BBA also provided a specific yearly proportion for the transferred funds. The proportions were one-sixth for 1998, one-third for 1999, one-half for 2000, two-thirds for 2001, and five-sixths for 2002. For the purpose of determining the correct amount of financing from general revenues of the Federal Government, it was necessary to include only these transitional amounts in the monthly actuarial rates for both aged and disabled enrollees, rather than the total cost of the home health services being transferred.
Section 4611(e)(3) of the BBA also specified, for the purpose of determining the premium, that the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over be computed as though the transition would occur for 1998 through 2003 and that one-seventh of the cost be transferred in 1998, two-sevenths in 1999, three-sevenths in 2000, four-sevenths in 2001, five-sevenths in 2002, and six-sevenths in 2003. Therefore, the transition period for incorporating this home health transfer into the premium was 7 years while the transition period for including these services in the actuarial rate was 6 years.
Section 811 of the MMA, which amended section 1839 of the Act, requires that, starting on January 1, 2007, the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month be based on that individual's annual income. (The MMA specified that there be a 5-year transition period to reach full implementation of this provision. However, section 5111 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171) modified the transition to a 3-year period, which ended in 2009.) Specifically, if a beneficiary's modified adjusted gross income is greater than the legislated threshold amounts (for 2026,
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) established a new basis for Medicare Part B eligibility for post-kidney-transplant immunosuppressive drug coverage only. Medicare eligibility due solely to end-stage renal disease generally ends 36 months after a successful kidney transplant. Beginning in 2023, post-kidney-transplant individuals without certain types of insurance coverage can elect to enroll in Part B and receive coverage of immunosuppressive drugs only. The premium for this continuation of coverage is 15 percent of a different aged actuarial rate, which is equal to 100 percent of the costs for aged enrollees (rather than the standard aged actuarial rate, which is equal to one-half of the costs for aged enrollees). Enrollees paying the immunosuppressive premium are not subject to the late enrollment penalty and the $3.00 repayment amounts, but they are subject to the hold-harmless provision (described later) and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts. The law requires transfers equal to the reduction in aggregate premiums payable that results from enrollees with coverage only for immunosuppressive drugs paying the immunosuppressive drug Part B premium rather than the standard Part B premium. These transfers are to be treated as premiums payable for general revenue matching purposes.
Section 4732(c) of the BBA added section 1933(c) of the Act, which required the Secretary to allocate money from the Part B trust fund to the State Medicaid programs for the purpose of providing Medicare Part B premium assistance from 1998 through 2002 for the low-income Medicaid beneficiaries who qualify under section 1933 of the Act. This allocation, while not a benefit expenditure, was an expenditure of the trust fund and was included in calculating the Part B actuarial rates through 2002. For 2003 through 2015, the expenditure was made from the trust fund because the allocation was temporarily extended. However, because the extension occurred after the financing was determined, the allocation was not included in the calculation of the financing rates for these years. Section 211 of MACRA permanently extended this expenditure, which is included in the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates for 2016 and subsequent years.
Another provision affecting the calculation of the Part B premium is section 1839(f) of the Act, as amended by section 211 of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA 88) (Pub. L. 100-360). (The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-234) did not repeal the revisions to section 1839(f) of the Act made by MCCA 88.) Section 1839(f) of the Act, referred to as the hold-harmless provision, provides that, if an individual is entitled to benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act (the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Benefit and the Disability Insurance Benefit, respectively) and has the Part B premium deducted from these benefit payments, the premium increase will be reduced, if necessary, to avoid causing a decrease in the individual's net monthly payment. This decrease in payment occurs if the increase in the individual's Social Security benefit resulting from the cost-of-living adjustment under section 215(i) of the Act is less than the increase in the premium. Specifically, the reduction in the premium amount applies if the individual is entitled to benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act for November and December of a particular year and the individual's Part B premiums for December and the following January are deducted from the respective month's section 202 or 223 benefits. The hold-harmless provision does not apply to beneficiaries who are required to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount.
A check for benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act is received in the month following the month for which the benefits are due. The Part B premium that is deducted from a particular check is the Part B payment for the month in which the check is received. Therefore, a benefit check for November is not received until December, but December's Part B premium has been deducted from it.
Generally, if a beneficiary qualifies for hold-harmless protection, the reduced premium for the individual for that January and for each of the succeeding 11 months is the greater of either—
• The monthly premium for January reduced as necessary to make the December monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for January, at least equal to the preceding November's monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for December; or
• The monthly premium for that individual for that December.
In determining the premium limitations under section 1839(f) of the Act, the monthly benefits to which an individual is entitled under section 202 or 223 of the Act do not include retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work. Also, once the monthly premium amount is established under section 1839(f) of the Act, it will not be changed during the year even if there are retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work that apply to the individual's monthly benefits.
Individuals who have enrolled in Part B late or who have re-enrolled after the termination of a coverage period are subject to an increased premium under section 1839(b) of the Act. The increase is a percentage of the premium and is
Section 1839 of the Act, as amended by section 601(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74), specified that the 2016 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older be determined as if the hold-harmless provision did not apply. The premium revenue that was lost by using the resulting lower premium (excluding the forgone income-related premium revenue) was replaced by a transfer of general revenue from the Treasury, which will be repaid over time to the general fund.
Similarly, section 1839 of the Act, as amended by section 2401 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (Pub. L. 116-159), specified that the 2021 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older be determined as the sum of the 2020 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older and one-fourth of the difference between the 2020 actuarial rate and the preliminary 2021 actuarial rate (as determined by the Secretary) for such enrollees. The premium revenue lost by using the resulting lower premium (excluding the forgone income-related premium revenue) was replaced by a transfer of general revenue from the Treasury, which will be repaid over time.
Starting in 2016, in order to repay the balance due (which includes the transfer amounts and the forgone income-related premium revenue from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act), the Part B premium otherwise determined will be increased by $3.00. The 2026 repayment amount is $0.20 and will mark the final amounts collected to fully repay the balance due. The repayment amounts will be added to the Part B premium otherwise determined each year and will be paid back to the general fund of the Treasury.
High-income enrollees pay the $0.20 repayment amount plus an additional $0.30, $0.40, $0.50, $0.60, or $0.70 in repayment as part of the income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) premium dollars, which reduce (dollar for dollar) the amount of general revenue received by Part B from the general fund of the Treasury. Because of this general revenue offset, the repayment IRMAA premium dollars are not included in the direct repayments made to the general fund of the Treasury from Part B in order to avoid a double repayment. (Only the $0.20 monthly repayment amounts are included in the direct repayments.)
The repayment amounts (excluding those for high-income enrollees) are subject to the hold-harmless provision. The original balance due was $9,066,409,000, consisting of $1,625,761,000 in forgone income-related premium revenue plus a transfer amount of $7,440,648,000 from the provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The increase in the balance due in 2021 was $8,799,829,000, consisting of $946,046,000 in forgone income-related premium income plus a transfer amount of $7,853,783,000 from the provisions of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act. The balance due is expected to be zero by the end of 2026.
The Medicare Part B monthly actuarial rates applicable for 2026 are $405.40 for enrollees age 65 and over and $548.60 for disabled enrollees under age 65. In section II.B. of this notice, we present the actuarial assumptions and bases from which these rates are derived. The Part B standard monthly premium rate for all enrollees for 2026 is $202.90. The Part B immunosuppressive drug premium is $121.60.
The following are the 2026 Part B monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns.
For beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns, the 2026 Part B monthly premium rates are as follows:
In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The Part B annual deductible for 2026 is $283.00 for all beneficiaries.
The actuarial assumptions and bases used to determine the monthly actuarial rates and the monthly premium rates for Part B are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS') Office of the Actuary (OACT). The estimates underlying these determinations are prepared by actuaries meeting the qualification standards and following the actuarial standards of practice established by the Actuarial Standards Board.
Under section 1839 of the Act, the starting point for determining the standard monthly premium is the amount that would be necessary to finance Part B on an incurred basis. This is the amount of income that would be sufficient to pay for services furnished during that year (including associated administrative costs) even though payment for some of these services will not be made until after the close of the year. The portion of income required to cover benefits not paid until after the close of the year is added to the trust fund and used when needed.
Because the premium rates are established prospectively, they are subject to projection error. Additionally, legislation enacted after the financing was established, but effective for the period in which the financing is set, may affect program costs. As a result, the income to the program may not equal incurred costs. Trust fund assets must therefore be maintained at a level that is adequate to cover an appropriate degree of variation between actual and projected costs, and the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses. Numerous factors determine what level of assets is appropriate to cover variation between actual and projected costs. For 2026, the three most important of these factors are: (1) the difference from prior years between the actual performance of the program and estimates made at the time financing was established; (2) the likelihood and potential magnitude of expenditure changes resulting from enactment of legislation affecting Part B costs in a year subsequent to the establishment of financing for that year; and (3) the expected relationship between incurred and cash expenditures.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated actuarial status of the trust fund as of the end of the financing period for 2024 and 2025.
The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older is one-half of the sum of monthly amounts for: (1) the projected cost of benefits; and (2) administrative expenses for each enrollee age 65 and older, after adjustments to this sum to allow for interest earnings on assets in the trust fund and an adequate contingency margin. The contingency margin is to be an amount appropriate to provide for possible variation between actual and projected costs and to amortize any surplus assets or unfunded liabilities.
The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older for 2026 is determined by first establishing per enrollee costs by type of service from program data through 2024 and then projecting these costs for subsequent years. The projection factors used for financing periods from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026 are shown in Table 2 and reflect the skin substitute policies included in the calendar year 2026 Physician Fee Schedule final rule (90 FR 49486).
As indicated in Table 3, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for enrollees age 65 and over for 2026 is $398.21. The monthly actuarial rate of $405.40 provides an adjustment of $10.44 for a contingency margin and −$3.24 for interest earnings.
Starting in 2011, manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs pay a fee that is allocated to the Part B account of the SMI trust fund. For 2026, the total of these brand-name drug fees is estimated to be $2.8 billion. The contingency margin for 2026 has been reduced to account for this additional revenue.
The traditional goal for the Part B reserve has been that assets minus liabilities at the end of a year should represent between 15 and 20 percent of the following year's total incurred expenditures. To accomplish this goal, a 17-percent reserve ratio, which is a fully adequate contingency reserve level, has been the normal target used to calculate the Part B premium. At the end of 2025, the reserve ratio is expected to be 16.0 percent. When the reserve ratio is somewhat below 17 percent, the typical approach in the premium determination is to target a reserve ratio of 17 percent the following year. OACT has estimated that a target reserve ratio of 14 percent is the minimally financially adequate level for the Part B premium determination. The 2026 financing targets a 17-percent reserve ratio.
The actuarial rate of $405.40 per month for aged beneficiaries, as announced in this notice for 2026, reflects the combined effect of the factors and legislation previously described and the projected assumptions listed in Table 2.
Disabled enrollees are those persons under age 65 who are enrolled in Part B because of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits for more than 24 months or because of entitlement to Medicare under the End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program. Projected monthly costs for disabled enrollees (other than those with ESRD) are prepared in a manner parallel to the projection for the aged using appropriate actuarial assumptions (see Table 2). Costs for the ESRD program are projected differently because of the different nature of services offered by the program.
As shown in Table 4, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for disabled enrollees for 2026 is $513.50. The monthly actuarial rate of $548.60 also provides an adjustment of −$4.31 for interest earnings and $39.41 for a contingency margin, reflecting the same factors described previously for the aged actuarial rate at magnitudes applicable to the disabled rate determination. Based on current estimates, the assets associated with the disabled Medicare beneficiaries at the end of 2025 are not sufficient to cover the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses and to provide for a significant degree of variation between actual and projected costs, and accordingly a positive margin is needed.
The actuarial rate of $548.60 per month for disabled beneficiaries, as announced in this notice for 2026, reflects the combined net effect of the factors described previously for aged beneficiaries and the projection assumptions listed in Table 2.
Several factors contribute to uncertainty about future trends in medical care costs. It is appropriate to test the adequacy of the rates using alternative cost growth rate assumptions, the results of which are shown in Table 5. One set represents increases that are higher and, therefore, more pessimistic than the current estimate, and the other set represents increases that are lower and, therefore, more optimistic than the current estimate. The values for the alternative assumptions were determined from a statistical analysis of the historical variation in the respective increase factors.
As indicated in Table 5, the monthly actuarial rates would result in an excess of assets over liabilities of $120,996 million by the end of December 2026 under the cost growth rate assumptions shown in Table 2 and under the assumption that the provisions of current law are fully implemented. This result amounts to 17.5 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.
Assumptions that are somewhat more pessimistic (and that therefore test the adequacy of the assets to accommodate projection errors) produce a surplus of $61,183 million by the end of December 2026 under current law, which amounts to 7.9 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year. Under fairly optimistic assumptions, the monthly actuarial rates would result in a surplus of $170,663 million by the end of December 2026, or 27.7 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.
The sensitivity analysis indicates that, in a typical year, the premium and general revenue financing established for 2026, together with existing Part B account assets, would be adequate to cover estimated Part B costs for 2026 under current law, should actual costs prove to be somewhat greater than expected.
As determined in accordance with section 1839 of the Act, the following are the 2026 Part B monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns.
For beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns, the 2026 Part B monthly premium rates are as follows:
In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The Part B annual deductible for 2026 is $283.00 for all beneficiaries.
This document does not impose information collection requirements—that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates and premium rates, as required by section 1839(a) of the Act, and the annual deductible, as required by section 1833(b) of the Act, for beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program beginning January 1, 2026. It also responds to section 1839(a)(1) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication of these amounts in the
We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; Executive Order 13132, “Federalism“; Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354); section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act; section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts.). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for a regulatory action that is significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
The 2026 standard Part B premium of $202.90 is $17.90 higher than the 2025 premium of $185.00. We estimate that the total premium increase, for the approximately 65 million Part B enrollees in 2026, will be $14.0 billion. Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined this notice is significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, we have prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Therefore, OMB has reviewed these proposed regulations. Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), OIRA has also determined that this notice is a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). For the reasons given in section V. of this notice, however, we find for good cause that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest and have determined that this policy will take effect on January 1, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As discussed earlier, this notice announces that the monthly actuarial rates applicable for 2026 are $405.40 for enrollees age 65 and over and $548.60 for disabled enrollees under age 65. It also announces the 2026 monthly Part B premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns.
For beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns, the 2026 Part B monthly premium rates are announced and shown below.
In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are also announced and listed in the following table:
The monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with immunosuppressive drug only Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are announced and listed in the following table:
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule or other regulatory document has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates for aged (age 65 and over) and disabled (under age 65) beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the Medicare SMI program beginning January 1, 2026. Also, this notice announces the monthly premium for aged and disabled beneficiaries as well as the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by beneficiaries with modified adjusted gross income above certain threshold amounts. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule or other regulatory document may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. As we discussed previously, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2025, that threshold is approximately $187 million. Part B enrollees who are also enrolled in Medicaid have their monthly Part B premiums paid by Medicaid. The cost to each State Medicaid program from the 2026 premium increase is estimated to be more than the threshold. This notice does not impose mandates that will have a consequential effect of the threshold amount or more on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it publishes a proposed rule or other regulatory document (and subsequent final rule or other regulatory document) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have determined that this notice does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this notice.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual updated amounts for the Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged
Section 1839 of the Act requires the Secretary to determine the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries, as well as the monthly Part B premium (including the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by beneficiaries with modified adjusted gross income above certain threshold amounts), for each calendar year in accordance with the statutory formulae, in September preceding the year to which they will apply. Further, the statute requires that the agency promulgate the Part B premium amount, in September preceding the year to which it will apply, and include a public statement setting forth the actuarial assumptions and bases employed by the Secretary in arriving at the amount of an adequate actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older. We include the Part B annual deductible, which is established in accordance with a specific formula described in section 1833(b) of the Act, because the determination of the amount is directly linked to the rate of increase in actuarial rate under section 1839(a)(1) of the Act. We have calculated the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the Part B deductible, and the monthly Part B premium as directed by the statute; since the statute establishes both when the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries and the monthly Part B premium must be published and what information must be factored into those amounts by the Secretary, we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice, and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries and the Part B deductible, as well as the monthly Part B premium amounts and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by certain beneficiaries, in accordance with the statute, for CY 2026.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; correction.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the notice published in the May 24, 2024,
Raymond Castillo, (312) 886-3595.
In FR Doc. 2024-11421 of May 24, 2024 (89 FR 45900 through 45901), there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On page 45900, in the
In FR Doc. 2024-11421 of May 24, 2024 (89 FR 45900 through 45901), make the following correction:
1. On page 45900,
a. First column, sixth full paragraph (
b. Second column,
(1) Third bulleted paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “Toxicology, and Endocrinology.” is corrected to read, “Toxicology, Endocrinology, and Urinalysis.”.
(2) Sixth bulleted paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the paragraph “• Pathology, including Histopathology, and Oral Pathology, and Cytology.” is corrected to read as follows:
“• Histocompatibility.
• Radiobioassay.
• Clinical Cytogenetics.”
• Pathology, including Histopathology, and Oral Pathology, and Cytology.”
c. Third column,
(1) Third bulleted paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “Toxicology, and Endocrinology.” is corrected to read, “Toxicology, Endocrinology, and Urinalysis.”.
(2) Sixth bulleted paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the paragraph “• Pathology, including Histopathology, and Oral Pathology, and Cytology.” is corrected to read as follows:
“• Pathology, including Histopathology, and Oral Pathology, and Cytology.
• Histocompatibility.
• Radiobioassay.
• Clinical Cytogenetics.”
The Director of the Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Kathleen Cantwell,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts for services furnished in calendar year (CY) 2026 under Medicare's Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute specifies the formulae used to determine these amounts. For CY 2026, the inpatient hospital deductible will be $1,736. The daily coinsurance amounts for CY 2026 will be as follows: $434 for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period; $868 for lifetime reserve days; and $217 for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility in a benefit period.
The deductible and coinsurance amounts announced in this notice are effective on January 1, 2026.
Suzanne Codespote, (410) 786-7737 or Yaminee Thaker (410) 786-7921.
Section 1813 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for an inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary. It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to determine and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
Section 1813(b) of the Act prescribes the method for computing the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible. The inpatient hospital deductible is an amount equal to the inpatient hospital deductible for the preceding CY, adjusted by the Secretary's best estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases (as defined in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Act) used for updating the payment rates to hospitals for discharges in the fiscal year (FY) that begins on October 1 of the same preceding CY, and adjusted to reflect changes in real casemix. The adjustment to reflect real casemix is determined on the basis of the most recent case-mix data available. The amount determined under this formula is rounded to the nearest multiple of $4 (or, if midway between two multiples of $4, to the next higher multiple of $4).
Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)(XX) of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates for FY 2026 for hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) is the IPPS operating market basket percentage increase, otherwise known as the IPPS market basket update, reduced by an adjustment based on changes in the economy-wide productivity (productivity adjustment) (see section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act). Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act, for FY 2026, the applicable percentage increase for hospitals that do not submit quality data as specified by the Secretary is reduced by one quarter of the market basket update. We are estimating that after accounting for those hospitals receiving the lower market basket update in the payment-weighted average update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals submit quality data and receive the full market basket update. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act requires that any hospital that is not a meaningful electronic health record (EHR) user (as defined in section 1886(n)(3) of the Act) will have three-quarters of the market basket update reduced by 100 percent for FY 2017 and each subsequent FY. We are estimating that after accounting for these hospitals receiving the lower market basket update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals are meaningful EHR users and are expected to receive the full market basket update.
Under section 1886 of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates (or target amounts, as applicable) for FY 2026 for hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system is as follows:
• The percentage increase for long term care hospitals (LTCH) is the LTCH market basket percentage increase reduced by the productivity adjustment (see section 1886(m)(3)(A) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments and the site-neutral payment rates (see section 1886(m)(5) and (6) of the Act).
• The percentage increase for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) is the IRF market basket percentage increase reduced by the productivity adjustment in accordance with section 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments (see section 1886(j)(7) of the Act).
• The percentage increase used to update the payment rate for inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPF) is the IPF market basket percentage increase reduced by the productivity adjustment (see section 1886(s)(2)(A)(i) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments (see section 1886(s)(4) of the Act).
• The percentage increase used to update the target amounts for other types of hospitals that are excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system and that are paid on a reasonable cost basis, subject to a rate-of-increase ceiling, is the IPPS operating market basket percentage increase, which is described at section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VIII) of the Act and 42 CFR 413.40(c)(3). These other types of hospitals include cancer hospitals, children's hospitals, extended neoplastic disease care hospitals, and hospitals located outside the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
The IPPS operating market basket percentage increase for FY 2026 is 3.3 percent and the productivity adjustment is 0.7 percentage point, as announced in the final rule that appeared in the
To develop the adjustment to reflect changes in real casemix, we first calculated an average casemix for each hospital that reflects the relative costliness of that hospital's mix of cases compared to those of other hospitals. We then computed the change in average casemix for hospitals paid under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system in FY 2025 compared to FY 2024. (We excluded from this calculation hospitals whose payments are not based on the inpatient prospective payment system because their payments are based on alternate prospective payment systems or reasonable costs.) We used Medicare bills from prospective payment hospitals that we received as of July 2025. These bills represent a total of about 5.4 million Medicare discharges for FY 2025 and provide the most recent case-mix- data available at this time. Based on these bills, the change in average casemix in FY 2025 -is 0.9 percent. Based on these bills and past experience, we expect the overall FY 2025 casemix change to be 0.9 percent as the year progresses and more FY 2025 data become available.
Section 1813(b) of the Act requires that the inpatient hospital deductible be adjusted only by that portion of the case mix change that is determined to be real. Real casemix is that portion of casemix that is due to changes in the mix of cases and not due to coding optimization. We are assuming that this increase in casemix is real and not a result of coding optimization.
Thus, the estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases used for updating the payment rates is 2.62 percent, and the real case-mix adjustment factor for the deductible is 0.9 percent. Therefore, using the statutory formula as stated in section 1813(b) of the Act, we calculate the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in CY 2025 to be $1,736. This deductible amount is determined by multiplying $1,676 (the inpatient hospital deductible for CY 2025 (89 FR 68986)) by the payment-weighted average increase in the payment rates of 1.0262 multiplied by the increase in real casemix of 1.009, which equals $1,735.39 and is rounded to $1,736 (based on rounding to the nearest multiple of 4).
The coinsurance amounts provided for in section 1813 of the Act are defined as fixed percentages of the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in the same CY. The increase in the deductible generates increases in the coinsurance amounts. For inpatient hospital and extended care services furnished in CY 2026, in accordance with the fixed percentages defined in the law, the daily coinsurance for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period will be $434 (one-fourth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(A) of the Act); the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days will be $868 (one-half of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(B) of the Act); and the daily coinsurance for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in a benefit period will be $217 (one-eighth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(3) of the Act).
Table 1 summarizes the deductible and coinsurance amounts for CYs 2025 and 2026, as well as the number of each that is estimated to be paid.
The estimated total increase in costs to beneficiaries is about $860 million (rounded to the nearest $10 million) due to: (1) the increase in the deductible and coinsurance amounts; and (2) the change in the number of deductibles and daily coinsurance amounts paid. We determine the increase in cost to beneficiaries by calculating the difference between the 2025 and 2026 deductible and coinsurance amounts multiplied by the estimated change in the number of deductible and coinsurance amounts paid.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts announcement set forth in this notice does not establish or change a substantive legal standard regarding the matters enumerated by the statute or constitute a substantive rule which would be subject to the notice requirements in section 1871(b) of the Act. However, to the extent that an opportunity for public notice and comment could be construed as required for this notice, we find good cause to waive this requirement.
Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires publication of the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts between September 1 and September 15 of the year preceding the year to which they will apply. Further, the statute requires that the agency determine and publish the inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts for each CY in accordance with the statutory formulae, and we are simply notifying the public of the changes to the deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2026. We have calculated the inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts as directed by the statute; the statute establishes both when the deductible and coinsurance amounts must be published and the information that the Secretary must factor into the deductible and coinsurance amounts, so we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice, and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts, in accordance with the statute, for CY 2026.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have prepared this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) section in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of this notice are fully understood.
This notice announces the Medicare Part A inpatient hospital deductible and associated coinsurance amounts for hospital and extended care services applicable for care provided in CY 2026, as required by section 1813 of the Act. It also responds to section 1813(b)(2) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication of these amounts in the
We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; Executive Order 13132, “Federalism“; Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”; Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354); section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act; section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, or the President's priorities.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for a regulatory action that is significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. As stated in section IV. of this notice, we estimate that the total increase in costs to beneficiaries is about $860 million due to: (1) the increase in the deductible and coinsurance amounts; and (2) the change in the number of deductibles and daily coinsurance amounts paid. Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined this notice is significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of this notice.
In accordance with subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), OIRA has determined that this notice meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). For the reasons given, however, we find for good cause that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest and have determined that this policy will take effect on January 1, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47.0 million in any 1 year). Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2026 and will have an impact on the Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2026 and will have an impact on the Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2025, that threshold is approximately $187 million. This notice would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $187 million in any 1 year.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on State or local governments, preempt State law, or otherwise have Federalism implications.
This notice is subject to the Congressional Review Act and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General for review.
Mehmet Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on October 31, 2025.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
RWHAP Parts A, B, C, and D recipients and subrecipients must follow statutory requirements for the establishment of clinical quality management programs to assess the extent to which their HIV services are consistent with the most recent HHS Clinical Treatment guidelines and to develop strategies to improve access to quality HIV services. In support of these requirements, HRSA created the HIV Quality Measures (HIVQM) Module as an online tool to assist recipients in meeting the clinical quality management program requirement by allowing recipients to input data for the HRSA performance measures. HRSA maintains over 40 performance measures across the following categories: (1) core, (2) all ages, (3) adolescent/adult, (4) pediatric HIV, (5) HIV-exposed children, (6) medical case management, (7) oral health, (8) AIDS Drug Assistance Program, and (9)
• “Gender” will be removed and replaced with “Sex at Birth.”
• The available response options are: “Male,” “Female,” “Unknown.”
A 60-day notice was published in the
The average burden per response declined from 1 hour to 0.2333 hours (approximately 14 minutes) based on pilot testing of the HIVQM Module.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice; reopening of comment period.
The Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) is reopening the comment period for the Notice, “Agency Information Collection Request; 60-Day Public Comment Request”, published in the
The comment period for the Notice published September 11, 2025, at 90 FR 44077, is reopened. Comments must be received by 5 p.m., eastern time, on January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments on this information collection request, identified by Docket No. OS-0945-New-60D, by emailing Conner O'Brien at
Conner O'Brien at
On September 11, 2025, the Department published a Notice in the
Because of a technical issue, the Department was unable to receive public comments on the information collection request for part of the comment period, between September 27, 2025, and November 10, 2025.
Therefore, to fulfill the requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide 60 days for public comment on an information collection request, the Department is reopening the comment period until January 5, 2026.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting 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.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting 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.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, institutes of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, are contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the patent applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before December 4, 2025 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated an Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Todd Testerman, Ph.D., Technology Transfer Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: 240-620-0822; Email:
1. US Provisional Patent Application No. 61/845,055 filed July 11, 2013, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-US-01];
2. International PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/046294 filed July 11, 2014, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-PCT-02];
3. US Patent No. 10,393,745 issued 8/27/2019, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-US-04];
4. US Patent No. 11,555,818 issued 1/17/2023, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-US-05];
5. Europe Patent No. 3019871 issued 10/16/2019, and entitled Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-EP-03];
6. German Patent No. 3019871 issued 10/16/2019, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-DE-06];
7. French Patent No. 3019871 issued 10/16/2019, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-FR-07]; and
8. United Kingdom Patent No. 3019871 issued 10/16/2019, and entitled “Method for the Diagnosis And Prognosis of Cancer” [HHS Reference No. E-121-2013-0-GB-08].
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide where patent rights exist and the field of use may be limited to the following: “Use of the Patent Rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Premarket Approval (PMA)—creatine riboside, metabolite 561+, cortisol sulfate, and N-acetylneuraminic acid metabolite-based prognostic, diagnostic/companion diagnostic, and general screening tests for cancers of the lung/thoracic, breast, colorectal, kidney/bladder, prostate, liver, stomach, pancreatic, GYN (ovary, uterine, cervix) and brain from urine samples.” After a negotiated period of time, the exclusive field of use will be reduced to a subset of three cancer indications with strict developmental benchmarks for each indication.
The subject technology is a unique, non-invasive screening tool and diagnostic that can detect cancers, including lung cancer, at an early stage utilizing liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for the detection of four biomarkers—creatine riboside, metabolite 561+, cortisol sulfate, and N-acetylneuraminic acid—from human clinical samples, particularly urine samples. Urine samples minimize patient discomfort, unlike current early detection methods that are invasive, such as blood or tissue biopsy or bronchoscopy, and can be performed easily during a routine exam.
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license. In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting 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.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of recertification.
The Coast Guard announces the recertification of the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (CIRCAC) as an alternative voluntary advisory group for Cook Inlet, Alaska. On June 13, 2025, CIRCAC requested an annual recertification in accordance with the 2002 revised recertification procedures. Based on the submitted recertification application, there have been no substantive changes to the information provided at the last triennial recertification.
This recertification is effective for the period from September 1, 2025, through August 31, 2026.
For information about this document, call or email LT Case Kuikhoven, United States Coast Guard Arctic District, by phone at (907) 463-2809 or email at
On December 31, 1992, the Coast Guard published Guidelines for Recertification of Alternative Voluntary Groups In Lieu of a Council (57 FR 62600) to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732) (the OPA 90 Act). On July 7, 1993, the Coast Guard published a notice (58 FR 36504) identifying the factors that the Coast Guard would consider in making its determination as to whether advisory groups should be certified in accordance with the OPA 90 Act, and the procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its recertification responsibilities under the OPA 90 Act. On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published revised recertification procedure for alternative voluntary advisory groups established in lieu of councils (67 FR 58440). According to the revised procedures, an applicant alternative group requesting recertification is required to provide the Coast Guard with a comprehensive application once every 3 years (triennially). For each of the two years between the triennial application procedures, the applicant utilizes a streamlined process and submits a recertification application describing any substantive changes to the information provided at the previous triennial recertification. Public comment is only solicited during the triennial comprehensive review. 2025 is the year for the streamlined process.
Since the last triennial recertification application submitted by CIRCAC on June 20, 2023 (88 FR 39857), there have been no substantive changes to the CIRCAC's plans and activities and CIRCAC can be recertified based on the information previously presented to the Coast Guard. We published the last recertification announcement on August 31, 2023 (88 FR 60221).
By letter to CIRCAC dated September 1, 2025, the Commander, Coast Guard Arctic District, recertified that the CIRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on August 31, 2026.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The U. S. Coast Guard is resoliciting applications from persons interested in membership on the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (Committee). On June 17, 2025, the Coast Guard published in the
Complete applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before January 5, 2026.
Applications must include: (a) a cover letter that expresses the applicant's interest in an appointment to the Committee and detailing the applicants qualifications to serve as a Special Government Employee representing the general public, and/or as a representative in one or more of the 18 other membership positions, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the position applied for, and (c) a brief 2-3 paragraph biography written in third person. Applications should be submitted via email with subject line “NCFSAC Vacancy Application” to
Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; telephone 202-372-1245; or email at
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal
The Committee provides advice and recommendations in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to the (1) safe operation of vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies, including the matters of—(A) navigation safety; (B) safety equipment and procedures; (C) marine insurance; (D) vessel design, construction, maintenance, and operation; and (E) personnel qualifications and training; (2) review regulations proposed under chapter 45 of this title (during preparation of the regulations); and (3) review marine casualties and investigations of vessels covered by chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code and make recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve safety and reduce vessel casualties.
The Committee is required to meet at least twice a year in accordance with 46 U.S. Code 15109(a)(2)(A). We expect the Committee to meet at least twice a year, but it may meet more frequently. The meetings are selected by the U.S. Coast Guard and are generally held across the country as close as possible to commercial fishing communities.
Under provisions in 46 U.S. Code 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment. The Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate security background examination before appointment to the Committee, per 46 U.S. Code 15109(f)(4).
All members will serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, with the exception that members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.
In this resolicitation for Committee members, we will consider applications for all 18 positions:
(A) Ten members shall represent the commercial fishing industry and—
(i) as a group, shall together reflect a regional and representational balance; and (ii) as individuals shall each have experience—
(I) in the operation of vessels in which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies; or
(II) as a crew member or processing line worker on a fish processing vessel.
(B) One member shall represent naval architects and marine engineers.
(C) One member shall represent manufacturers of equipment for vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies.
(D) One member shall represent education and training professionals related to fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, and fish tender vessel safety and personnel qualifications.
(E) One member shall represent underwriters that ensure vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies.
(F) One member shall represent owners of vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code .
(G) Three members shall represent the general public and, to the extent possible, shall include-
(i) an independent expert or consultant in maritime safety;
(ii) a marine surveyor who provides services to vessels to which chapter 45 of Title 46 United States Code applies; and
(iii) a person familiar with issues affecting fishing communities and the families of fishermen.
The members who will fill positions (A) through (F) as described above will be appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and viewpoints and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S. Code 202(a). As representatives, the members are expected to represent and speak on behalf of interests, views, or perspectives of a recognizable group of persons or class of stakeholders.
If you are selected to fill position (G) as described above, as a member drawn from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in 18 U.S. Code 202(a). Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (Office of Government Ethics Form 450) for new entrants online and receive ethics training. The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “
If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous Services Agreement.
In order for the Department to fully leverage a wide range of experience and education, the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee must be varied, with regard to professional and technical expertise.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your complete application to
Once we receive your application we will send you an email confirming receipt.
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applicants for appointment to the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is requesting that individuals who are interested in serving on the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee) apply for membership. The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Secretaries of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security on all matters involving the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and related functions.
Applications for membership should be submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as indicated in the
If you wish to apply for membership, your application should be submitted by one of the following means:
•
•
Ms. Latoria Martin, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229. Email:
Section 109 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, February 24, 2016) established the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. chapter 10, and Section 109 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. The Committee advises the Secretaries of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and Department of Homeland Security on the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and related Treasury and Department of Homeland Security functions. In accordance with Section 109 of Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, the Committee shall:
(1) advise the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security on all matters involving the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including advising with respect to significant changes that are proposed with respect to regulations, policies, or practices of U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
(2) provide recommendations to the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security on improvements to the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
(3) collaborate in developing the agenda for Committee meetings; and
(4) perform such other functions relating to the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as prescribed by law or as the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security jointly direct.
The Committee consists of 20 members who are selected from representatives of the trade or transportation communities served by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or others who are directly affected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection commercial operations and related functions. The members shall represent the interests of individuals and firms affected by the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and be appointed without regard to political affiliation. The members will be appointed by the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security from candidates recommended by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In addition, members will represent major regions of the country.
The Committee meets once each quarter, although additional meetings may be scheduled. The Committee meetings may be held in Washington, DC, or near a U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The members do not receive travel reimbursement or per diem.
Membership on the Committee is specific to the appointee and a member may not send an alternate to represent him or her at a Committee meeting. The length of the member's term is determined by the Secretaries, not to exceed three years. Regular attendance is essential; a member who is absent for two public meetings within a calendar year, or does not participate in the Committee's work, may be removed from the Committee.
Members currently serving on the Committee are eligible to re-apply for membership if they are not in their second consecutive term and they have met the attendance requirements. A new application letter is required and may incorporate copies of previously filed application materials noted herein. Members will not be considered Special Government Employees and will not be paid compensation by the Federal Government for their representative services with respect to the Committee.
• Statement of interest and reasons for application;
• Complete professional resume;
• Home address and telephone number;
• Work address, telephone number, and email address;
• Statement of the industry you represent; and
• Statement agreeing to submit to pre-appointment mandatory background and tax checks.
All documents must be in Microsoft Word format. A national security clearance is not required for the position.
Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for purposes of publication in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Notice of inflationary fee adjustment.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is announcing Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 inflationary adjustments to certain immigration-related fees required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR-1). HR-1 requires that DHS annually adjust certain immigration-related fees for inflation. This notice sets the inflation-adjusted FY 2026 fee amounts for the following immigration fees required by HR-1: the fee for enrollment in the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS), the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee, and the fee for an alien paroled into the United States. In accordance with HR-1, the existing fee for Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record applications will not change for FY 2026.
Melanie Mataxas, Director, Electronic Systems Travel Authorization, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at 202-325-1372 or at
On July 4, 2025, the President signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (HR-1). HR-1 was a comprehensive legislative package that changed many laws and added new laws that touch many areas of the United States Government. Among those changes, the law established new immigration fees and increased existing fees for certain immigration-related actions. The statute established minimum fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and required annual adjustments to the fees in subsequent fiscal years based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Among other immigration fees specified in HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee by any alien who is paroled into the United States, unless an exception in Public Law 119-21 section 100004(b) applies (the HR-1 parole fee).
CBP also administers several other fees specified in HR-1,
In accordance with HR-1, most immigration-related fees required by HR-1 are subject to annual inflation adjustments. This notice states the FY 2026 rates for the HR-1 parole, I-94, ESTA, and EVUS fees (collectively, the HR-1 fees).
Generally, HR-1 requires the multiplication of an HR-1 fee or a portion of an HR-1 fee from the prior FY by the percentage, if any, by which the CPI-U for the month of July preceding the date on which the adjustment takes effect exceeds the CPI-U for the July of the preceding calendar year (the inflation adjustment). In July 2024, the CPI-U was 314.540, and in July 2025, the CPI-U was 323.048. Therefore, between July 2024 and July 2025, the CPI-U increased by 2.70 percent.
Pursuant to HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee by any alien who is paroled into the United States, unless an exception in Public Law 119-21 section 100004(b) applies.
During FY 2026 and each subsequent FY, DHS is required to adjust the HR-1 parole fee for inflation.
Pursuant to HR-1, DHS is required to adjust the HR-1 parole fee by adding an inflation adjustment amount, rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10, to the amount of the fee for the most recently concluded fiscal year.
Accordingly, the inflation-adjusted HR-1 parole fee for FY 2026 will be $1,020 ($1,000 + $20). The HR-1 parole fee will not be assessed if the alien establishes, to the satisfaction of DHS, on an individual, case-by-case basis, that the circumstances of the alien's parole align with at least 1 of the 10 exceptions found in HR-1.
The $1,020 HR-1 parole fee is required in addition to any other fee authorized by law.
CBP issues an electronic CBP Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record to all arriving aliens who are legally required to submit that form (unless otherwise exempted).
Pursuant to HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee for any alien who submits an application for a Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record (the HR-1 I-94 fee).
During FY 2026 and each subsequent FY, CBP is required to adjust the HR-1 I-94 fee for inflation.
The HR-1 I-94 fee is required in addition to any other fee authorized by law.
ESTA is the online system through which aliens intending to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) must obtain an electronic travel authorization in advance of travel to the United States.
The FY 2025 ESTA authorization fee of $40, as required by HR-1, is the sum of three fees, including: $17 per travel authorization as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(I), $10 as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(II) to ensure recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the ESTA System, and $13 per travel authorization as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(III). The 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(II) cost recovery fee is required for all applications, regardless of authorization or denial; thus, in the event the ESTA application is denied, HR-1 set a $10 fee for FY 2025.
During FY 2026 and each subsequent FY, CBP is required to adjust the 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(II) cost recovery fee for inflation.
As noted previously, the 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(II) cost recovery fee is one of three fees that, when combined, comprise the total ESTA authorization fee for each FY. This notice does not alter the $17 or $13 fees required under 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(I) and 8 U.S.C. 1187(h)(3)(B)(i)(III), respectively. Thus, as required by HR-1, the inflation-adjusted FY 2026 ESTA fee will be $40.27 ($17 + $10.27 + $13) per travel authorization. In the event the ESTA application is denied, the FY 2026 fee is $10.27 to ensure recovery of the costs of providing and administering the ESTA System.
EVUS is an online system currently used by nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) holding a 10-year B-1, B-2, or B-1/B-2 (visitor) visa to provide required information to DHS prior to travel to the United States.
Pursuant to HR-1, the Secretary of Homeland Security must require the payment of a fee by any alien enrolling in EVUS. Public Law 119-21 sec. 100015 (8 U.S.C. 1813). The alien must pay the fee at the time of enrollment.
During FY 2026 and each subsequent FY, CBP is required to adjust the HR-1 EVUS fee for inflation.
This $30.75 HR-1 EVUS fee is required in addition to any other fee applicable by law.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 22, 2024.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 22, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2900.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 8402 Laurel Fair Circle, Suite 110, Tampa, FL 33610, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (Tampa, FL), is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (New Haven, CT), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (New Haven, CT), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 28, 2024.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (New Haven, CT) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 28, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2900.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 31 Fulton Street, Unit A, New Haven, CT 06513, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (New Haven, CT) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Camin Cargo Control, Inc. (New Haven, CT), is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (281) 560-2900. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR), as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 5, 2024.
Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR) was approved, as a commercial gauger as of September 5, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2027.
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2937.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc., 228 Sabanetas Industrial Park, Ponce, PR 00716 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13.
Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Certispec Services USA, Inc. (Texas City, TX), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Certispec Services USA, Inc. (Texas City, TX), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 5, 2024.
Certispec Services USA, Inc. (Texas City, TX) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of September 5, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2027.
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2900.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Certispec Services USA, Inc., 1448 Texas Avenue, Texas City, TX 77590, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain
Certispec Services USA, Inc. (Texas City, TX) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Certispec Services USA, Inc. (Texas City, TX) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of Arizona.
This determination takes effect on November 19, 2025.
Important mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has mandated DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, section 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated that in carrying out the authority of section 102(a), I provide for the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to achieve and maintain operational control of the border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to
The United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector is an area of high illegal entry. From fiscal year 2021 through June 2025, the United States Border Patrol (“Border Patrol”) apprehended over 1,318,640 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the Tucson Sector. In that same time period Border Patrol seized over 16,600 pounds of marijuana, over 473 pounds of cocaine, over 145 pounds of heroin, over 8,224 pounds of methamphetamine, and over 3,079 pounds of fentanyl.
Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history. More can and must be done, however. As the statistics cited above demonstrate, the Tucson Sector is an area of high illegal entry where illegal aliens regularly attempt to enter the United States and smuggle illicit drugs, and given my mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the border, I must use my authority under section 102 of IIRIRA to install additional barriers and roads in the Tucson Sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct additional barriers and roads in segments of the border in the Tucson Sector. The segments where such construction will occur are referred to herein as the “project area,” which is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the State of Arizona within the United States Border Patrol Tucson Sector, is an area of high illegal entry (the “project area”):
• Starting at Border Monument 195 and extending east to Border Monument 163; and
• Starting approximately 1.15 miles west of Border Monument 141 and extending east to Border Monument 70.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project area pursuant to section 102(a) and 102(b) of IIRIRA. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of physical barriers and roads (including, but not limited to, accessing the project areas, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project area, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede any other waiver determination made pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA. Such waivers shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. I reserve
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of Texas.
This determination takes effect on November 19, 2025.
Important mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has mandated DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, section 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated that in carrying out the authority of section 102(a), I provide for the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to achieve and maintain operational control of the border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol Del Rio Sector is an area of high illegal entry. Between fiscal year 2021 and July 2025, Border Patrol apprehended over 1,408,600 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the Del Rio Sector. In that same time period Border Patrol seized over 275 pounds of marijuana, over 131 pounds of cocaine, over 18 pounds of heroin, over 353 pounds of methamphetamine, and over five pounds of fentanyl.
Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history. More can and must be done, however. As the statistics cited above demonstrate, the Del Rio Sector is an area of high illegal entry where illegal aliens regularly attempt to enter the United States and smuggle illicit drugs, and given my mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the border, I must use my authority under section 102 of IIRIRA to install additional barriers and roads in the Del Rio Sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct additional barriers and roads in a segment of the border in the Del Rio Sector. The segment where such construction will occur is referred to herein as the “project area,” which is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the State of Texas within the U. S. Border Patrol Del Rio Sector, is an area of high illegal entry (the “project area”): Within the Del Rio Sector, starting at approximately GPS point 29.085296, −100.664131 and extending south and east to approximately GPS point 28.020252, −100.005314.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project area pursuant to section 102(a) and 102(b) of IIRIRA. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of physical barriers and roads (including, but not limited to, accessing the project areas, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project area, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede any other waiver determination made pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA. Such waivers shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. I reserve the authority to execute further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary under section 102 of IIRIRA.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf NJOY, LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Altria Client Services LLC on September 22, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 vaporizer devices, cartridges used therewith, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondent: JUUL Labs, Inc. of Washington, DC. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondent alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Notice of Receipt of Complaint was published on September 25, 2025 (90 FR 46255 (2025)). Due to the lapse in appropriations, the Commission was unable to accept written submissions on the date specified in the notice. Given these circumstances, the notice is amended to permit public interest comments in this matter as indicated below.
Proposed respondent, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3849”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
November 17, 2025.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), 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 September 16, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 45245, September 19, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: requests to appear at the conference should be provided by noon on November 19, 2025; parties shall file written testimony and supplementary material in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 20, 2025; the staff conference is on November 21, 2025 beginning at 9:30 a.m.; written briefs containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the proceeding are due on or before 5:15 p.m. on November 25, 2025. The Commission must reach preliminary determinations by December 17, 2025, and the Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by December 24, 2025.
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 and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (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 has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf Adeia, Inc., Adeia Semiconductor Bonding Technologies, Inc., and Adeia Holdings Inc. on November 17, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 semiconductor devices, computing products containing the same, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA; Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, NC; Lenovo Group Limited of Hong Kong; Lenovo Information Products (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China; and Super Micro Computer, Inc. of San Jose, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3855”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
November 14, 2025.
Laurel Schwartz (202-205-2398), 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 September 29, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 47820, October 2, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: requests to appear at the conference should be provided by noon on December 2, 2025; parties shall file written testimony and supplementary material in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 3, 2025; the staff conference is on December 4, 2025 beginning at 9:30 a.m.; written briefs containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the proceeding are due on or before 5:15 p.m. on December 9, 2025. The Commission must reach preliminary determinations by December 30, 2025, and the Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by January 6, 2025.
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 and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (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 has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf Align Technology, Inc. on September 23, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 clear aligners and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Angelalign Technology Inc. of China; Wuxi EA Medical Instruments Technologies Co., Ltd. of China; Wuxi EA Bio-Tech Co., Ltd. of China; Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. of China; and USA Angelalign Technology Corp. of Newark, DE. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Notice of Receipt of Complaint was published on September 25, 2025 (90 FR 46256 (2025)). Due to the lapse in appropriations, the Commission was unable to accept written submissions on the date specified in the notice. Given these circumstances, the notice is amended to permit public interest comments in this matter as indicated below.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3850”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that the Response of the United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment in
Copies of the Exhibits and the Public Comments and the United States' Response are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the “APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States submits this response to the public comments received regarding the proposed Final Judgment resolving this case.
The United States respectfully submits this response to public comments and urges the Court to approve the amended proposed Final Judgment without an evidentiary hearing. The original proposed Final Judgment, submitted on June 27, 2025, achieved what the Tunney Act requires: it directly remedied competitive harms alleged in the Complaint through a targeted divestiture and licensing requirements that promote competition in the relevant market. Not a single consumer or competitor submitted a comment opposing it. The amended proposed Final Judgment, submitted today, includes several provisions added in response to public comments that improve the original proposal. The Court should approve it promptly and decline invitations to conduct an inquiry into the Department of Justice's internal deliberations—an inquiry that would undermine future merger enforcement.
On January 30, 2025, the United States brought this antitrust enforcement action against Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co. (“HPE”) and Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), alleging that HPE's proposed $14 billion acquisition of Juniper threatened to substantially lessen competition in the market for enterprise-grade wireless
After months of intensive litigation—including extensive discovery, depositions, expert reports, and pre-trial motions—the parties reached a settlement on the eve of trial that directly addresses these competitive harms through two remedies: (1) HPE must divest its “Instant On” enterprise-grade WLAN business, which operates in the relevant market alleged in the Complaint and may create or strengthen an independent competitor; and (2) HPE must license the source code for Juniper's Mist AI Ops technology—the innovative network management solution that the Complaint credits with enabling Juniper's rapid growth and disruptive competitive impact in the market—allowing other firms to access this valuable technology and compete more effectively. This settlement seeks to protect competition in enterprise-grade WLAN solutions while avoiding the substantial risk, uncertainties, delays, and expenses of a trial where the outcome was not assured.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b), the United States filed the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement on June 27, 2025, and invited public comments over a 60-day period.
The remaining comments were submitted largely by politicians and advocacy groups. They primarily focus not on the settlement's competitive impact but on speculative allegations about the Department of Justice's internal decision-making process—matters that fall outside the Tunney Act's purview.
The United States has carefully reviewed all comments and, where substantively warranted, negotiated amendments with HPE to strengthen the proposed Final Judgment. In direct response to concerns raised by former Antitrust Division professionals, the amended judgment now expressly requires that both the divestiture buyer and source code licensees possess “the intent and capability, including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability, to compete effectively in the market for the provision of enterprise-grade WLAN solutions in the United States,” and further requires them to satisfy the United States that they will use these assets to compete in the relevant market. Exh. A-1 at 18-19. Additional enhancements include requiring HPE to use “best efforts” to complete the divestiture and licensing “as expeditiously as possible,” extending potential transition services from 12 to 18 months, strengthening trustee oversight provisions, and providing explicit authority for the United States to seek contempt sanctions for violations.
This Court should find that entry of the amended proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest and conclude that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. The reasons supporting this conclusion fall into three categories: (1) the settlement's substantive terms readily satisfy the Tunney Act's deferential “public interest” standard by providing effective relief directed to the alleged harms; (2) the public comments—dominated by process-oriented speculation rather than competitive analysis—do not warrant expanded proceedings; and (3) convening a hearing would negatively impact future antitrust enforcement while implicating deliberative process privilege and constitutional separation of powers principles. Moreover, the Court's role under the Tunney Act is limited to a binary choice—approval or disapproval of the amended proposed Final Judgment.
Here, the amended proposed Final Judgment is designed to address the competitive harms alleged in the Complaint. The divestiture of Instant On—a fully operational enterprise-grade WLAN business, including hardware, software, customer relationships, and intellectual property—may create or strengthen an independent competitor in the market at issue. The mandatory licensing of Mist AI Ops source code will provide access to the technology that enabled Juniper to “spur both price and product innovation,” Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 6-11, 44-48, and could allow multiple firms to develop or strengthen competing solutions. These remedies address concerns about the loss of head-to-head competition alleged in the Complaint while preserving any procompetitive aspects of the merger. The amendments to the proposed Final Judgment further enhance the remedies by requiring acquirers and licensees to demonstrate competitive capability and intent, extending transition support, and incorporating robust enforcement tools including trustee monitoring and contempt authority. Exh. A-1 at 8, 11, 16-18, 22-23.
Critically, the settlement embodies a prudent compromise that accounts for litigation risk. While the United States was prepared to present a strong case, the Defendants advanced credible defenses that introduced meaningful uncertainty.
For all these reasons, the Court should find that the amended proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest under the Tunney Act and enter it without further proceedings.
On January 30, 2025, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Juniper by HPE. The Complaint alleges that the acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition in the United States for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. Dkt. No. 1. The Complaint defines enterprise-grade WLAN solutions to include wireless access points, the separate network-management hardware or software systems to monitor or manage them, and related logistical support.
HPE and Juniper were the second- and third-largest enterprise-grade WLAN solutions providers in the United States, with both trailing market leader Cisco. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5. The Complaint alleges that Juniper utilized its innovative network management software platform, Mist, to grow rapidly in the enterprise-grade WLAN market and spur both price and product innovation competition with HPE.
On June 27, 2025, the United States and both Defendants filed a Joint Stipulation and Order and proposed Final Judgment that helps remedy the Section 7 of the Clayton Act violation and allows the merger to proceed. Dkt. No. 217. The Court entered the Joint Stipulation on June 30, 2025. Dkt. No. 220.
After considering the public comments submitted, the United States and HPE have agreed to amend the proposed Final Judgment to include additional provisions to further ensure that the process for the divestiture and license protects competition in the relevant market, and to provide enhanced enforcement provisions. Exh. A-1.
The proposed Final Judgment requires that within 180 calendar days after the filing of the proposed Final Judgment, or five days after the entry of the Final Judgment, whichever is later, HPE must divest HPE's worldwide Instant On campus and branch business. Exh. A-1 at 5; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 5. The Instant On business operates in the market for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions alleged in the Complaint.
HPE's Instant On divestiture will include all tangible and intangible assets related to or used in connection with this business, including all contracts, agreements, and customer relationships included in the business. Exh. A-1 at 5; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 5. To the extent any contract or agreement requires the consent of another party to assign or otherwise transfer, HPE must use best efforts to accomplish the assignment or transfer. Exh. A-1 at 5; Dkt. 217-1 at 5
In the event that HPE does not divest Instant On within the required time frame, the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a Divestiture Trustee selected by the United States to sell the business. Exh. A-1 at 6; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 6. HPE would be required to pay all costs and expenses related to the Trustee, and it cannot object to a sale consummated by the Trustee except on grounds of malfeasance. Exh. A-1 at 6-7; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 6-7. Should the Trustee not sell Instant On within six months of his or her appointment, the Trustee must file with the Court a report documenting efforts to sell the business, the reasons for not accomplishing the sale of the business, and recommendations for future action. Exh. A-1 at 8; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 8.
Crucially, the United States has sole discretion on whether to accept any divestiture acquirer. Exh. A-1 at 5; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 5.
All of the terms described in this section are included in both the original
The proposed Final Judgment requires that within 180 calendar days after the filing of the proposed Final Judgment, or five days after the entry of the Final Judgment, whichever is later, HPE must hold an auction to issue one or more perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive licenses for the AI Ops for Mist source code. Exh. A-1 at 10; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 10. As the Complaint alleges, Mist's AI Ops capabilities competitively differentiated Juniper's enterprise-grade WLAN solutions offerings and increased its market share. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 6-7. Indeed, customers often associate Juniper's WLAN solutions with Mist's AI Ops capabilities.
Under the terms of the auction, HPE must issue two licenses if more than one bid exceeds $8 million. Exh. A-1 at 12-13; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 12. This requirement ensures that a robust market response to this competitive opportunity is accommodated. Both licensees, one of whom would be deemed the primary licensee, would have the right to utilize and further develop the licensed source code for their networking products, and any further improvements developed after the license date would be owned by the licensee—a term that will encourage further innovation in the market. Exh. A-1 at 13; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 13. The primary licensee also has the right to contract with HPE for 12 months of support services, including the transfer of up to 30 engineers familiar with the source code and up to 25 sales personnel experienced in selling Mist. Exh. A-1 at 11; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 11. HPE must also facilitate introductions for the primary licensee to: (1) Juniper's original design manufacturer suppliers for WLAN hardware; (2) Juniper's distributors for WLAN in the United States; and (3) channel partners that worked with Juniper to sell WLAN in the United States. Exh. A-1 at 12; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 11-12. These transition services will provide the primary licensee with the expertise and support needed to fully integrate the Mist source code into its product lines and develop new business opportunities.
The proposed Final Judgment also provides for the appointment of a Trustee should HPE not license the source code in a timely manner. Exh. A-1 at 13-17; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 13-16. In addition, the United States has sole discretion on whether to accept any proposed licensee. Exh. A-1 at 10; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 10.
All of the terms described in this section are included in both the original and the amended proposed Final Judgment.
In addition to specifying detailed terms and procedures for carrying out the Instant On divestiture and source code licensing, the proposed Final Judgment requires HPE to submit affidavits to the United States every 30 days documenting the company's efforts to sell the divestiture assets and conduct the source code auction. Exh. A-1 at 20; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 18. HPE has been timely submitting these affidavits, and the United States is satisfied that the company is making adequate efforts to complete the divestiture and the licensing.
The proposed Final Judgment also provides a mechanism for the United States to inspect HPE's records and operations to ensure compliance with the terms of the judgment. Exh. A-1 at 20-22; Dkt. No. 217-1 at 19-20. Specifically, the United States could require HPE to: (1) produce copies of books, records, data, and documents related to any matters contained in the proposed Final Judgment; (2) make officers, employees, and agents of the company available for interview by the United States about matters contained in the proposed Final Judgment; and (3) submit written reports about matters contained in the proposed Final Judgment.
All of the terms described in this section are included in both the original and the amended proposed Final Judgment.
After carefully reviewing and considering the comments to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States has proposed amendments to provide additional procedural protections to support the divestiture and licensing agreed in the proposed Final Judgment, to which HPE has agreed. The amended proposed Final Judgment is attached to this response as Exhibit A-1.
First, the amended proposed Final Judgment requires HPE to use best efforts to divest Instant On and license the source code as expeditiously as possible. Exh. A-1 at 18. In addition, the Trustee(s) must sell Instant On and/or license the source code as quickly as possible. Exh. A-1 at 6, 14. The amended proposed Final Judgment also specifies that the Trustee(s) will serve until Instant On is divested and/or the source code is licensed (unless otherwise ordered by the Court), and that the United States may seek the replacement of the Trustee(s) if he or she is not acting diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner. Exh. A-1 at 8, 16-17.
Though the proposed Final Judgement grants the United States sole discretion on whether to accept any divesture acquiree or licensee, the amendments make clear that the divestiture and license(s) must be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole judgment, that Instant On and the AI Ops for Mist source code can and will be used by the acquirer and licensee(s) to compete in the market for the provision of enterprise-grade WLAN solutions in the United States. Exh. A-1 at 18-19. In addition, the amendments add a provision by which the transition services for the source code may be extended by an additional 6 months at the request of the primary licensee and with the approval of the United States. Exh. A-1 at 11.
Finally, the amended proposed Final Judgment includes enhanced enforcement provisions beyond those in the original proposed Final Judgment. Specifically, it allows the United States to seek relief from the Court, including contempt sanctions, should HPE not comply with the terms of the final judgment. Exh. A-1 at 22-23.
At the same time as the filing of the proposed Final Judgment with the Court, a Competitive Impact Statement was filed as required by 15 U.S.C. 16(b). Dkt. 217-2. The United States published the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, and the Competitive Impact Statement, together with directions for the submission of written comments relating to the proposed Final Judgment, in the
The Tunney Act provides for a 60-day period for the public to submit comments to the United States regarding the proposed Final Judgment. 15 U.S.C. 16(b). That 60-day comment period has ended.
The Tunney Act sets forth a specific form of judicial review for entry of antitrust consent judgments between the United States and another party. Specifically, the Tunney Act states:
(e) Public interest determination
(1) Before entering any consent judgment proposed by the United States under this section, the court shall determine that the entry of such judgment is in the public interest. For the purpose of such determination, the court shall consider—
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.
As the text of the statute makes clear, Tunney Act review concerns an assessment of whether the entry of the proposed Final Judgment is in the “public interest” as that term is defined by the statute. In applying the statutory factors set forth in Sections 16(e)(1)(A) and (B), the court looks to the terms of the proposed judgment and considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's complaint, whether the proposed judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether it may harm third parties.
The current iteration of Section 16(e)(1)(A) and (B) reflects a 2004 amendment to the Tunney Act, Public Law 108-237, enacted in response to complaints that some courts were limiting their review solely to whether the proposed judgment would make a “mockery of the judicial function.”
Absent from the list of enumerated factors is any suggestion that courts should inquire into the internal processes or motivations of a co-equal branch of government. Such an inquiry is not warranted by the Tunney Act and would be barred by longstanding judicial precedent.
The United States received 12 comments, which are attached to this response as Exhibits A-4 through A-14.
Notably, the United States received no comments from consumers in the relevant product market or competitors to the merging companies. None of the comments expressed concerns that the remedies in the proposed Final Judgment would harm consumers or competing businesses. Instead, 11 of the 12 comments expressed varying concerns with the adequacy of the remedies or the alleged process.
The Court's analysis pursuant to the Tunney Act should focus on evaluating whether the amended proposed Final Judgment satisfies the specific “public interest” factors provided in Sections 16(e)(1)(A) and (B). As this section explains in more detail, the substantive terms of the amended proposed Final Judgment satisfy these requirements.
As an initial matter, the United States observes that some commenters, parroting public news reports, ask why neither the proposed Final Judgment nor the Competitive Impact Statement discloses or discusses the existence of an alleged agreement between the parties for HPE to make further investments in the United States.
The proposed Final Judgment (as amended) embodies the entirety of the agreement between the parties to resolve this litigation. Indeed, HPE's President and Chief Executive Officer, Antonio Neri, submitted a sworn declaration as an exhibit to a recent HPE brief confirming that the proposed Final Judgment represents the entirety of the agreement between the parties to resolve this litigation.
Some commenters assert that the settlement is at odds with allegations in the Complaint about the nature of the enterprise-grade WLAN market and the inherent competitive concerns with allowing two companies to control roughly 70% of the market.
Here, the United States determined that the settlement is a reasonable compromise between the parties that addresses competitive concerns, given the risk inherent in successfully litigating the matter to a court judgment. The divestiture of Instant On and licensing of the Mist AI Ops source code should provide opportunities for other companies to grow, increase market share, and innovate in the enterprise-grade WLAN market. At the same time, the settlement avoids the possibility of the United States losing at trial and securing no remedies for the anticompetitive allegations outlined in the Complaint. The compromises embodied in the amended proposed Final Judgment are reasonable and “within the reaches of the public interest.”
Numerous commenters assert that the divestiture of Instant On, an enterprise-grade WLAN solution that has been aimed at small businesses, will not address the competitive concerns alleged in the Complaint, either because they mistakenly believe Instant On falls outside the United States' alleged market for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions or because they perceive that the Complaint focuses exclusively on competitive concerns surrounding enterprise-grade WLAN solutions for larger enterprises.
Many of these criticisms are not supported by the record in this case. For example, the Complaint alleges a market for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions and does not distinguish customers by size of enterprise.
The record also does not support commenters' contention that divesting Instant On will have no positive impact on the market for large-enterprise WLAN. First, while Instant On as marketed today lacks features common in large-enterprise WLAN offerings, the purchaser of Instant On will receive code for some additional features not currently available in HPE's offering (such as location services, automatic quality of service, and firewall capabilities). The purchaser could add those and other features to Instant On to make it more competitive for large enterprises, or integrate Instant On into their existing products for larger-enterprise customers.
Second, over the years, WLAN vendors that were more successful in specific segments of the U.S. market for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions have expanded their offerings to compete more effectively in other segments. For example, Ubiquiti Inc. historically focused on smaller or mid-market enterprises but has recently tried to
Finally, some large, distributed enterprises purchase solutions designed for smaller enterprises. For example, many hotels forgo installation of sophisticated, feature-rich WLAN solutions in individual hotel rooms and turn instead to products that support fewer devices across a smaller geographic area. Instant On may be a useful solution for those customers.
For these reasons, the commenters' critique of the Instant On divestiture does not change the United States' conclusion that the settlement is in the public interest.
Nonetheless, the United States has reviewed and considered the comments carefully and has reached agreement with HPE for certain amendments to the proposed Final Judgment to help ensure the acquirer will use the divestiture to restore competition lost by the merger. In response to a concern raised in the Former Division Professionals Letter, Exh. A-11 at 6, the amended proposed Final Judgment now includes language stating that the divestiture of Instant On must be made to an acquiring company that has “the intent and capability, including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability, to compete effectively in the market for the provision of enterprise-grade WLAN solutions in the United States.” Exh. A-1 at 18-19. Further, the divestiture acquirer must satisfy the United States that it will use the Instant On assets to compete in the enterprise-grade WLAN market.
Other comments focus on the licensing of the Mist AI Ops source code as a remedy. Some commenters suggest that the source code may no longer have much competitive significance because other companies' AI offerings have caught up to Juniper's.
The State AGs Letter also questions why the proposed Final Judgment requires the licensing of the source code rather than full divestiture. Exh. A-8 at 10. These commenters fail to recognize that this remedy arises from a pre-trial compromise of disputed claims, not a trial victory on the merits. The United States has determined that licensing the source code is a reasonable remedy to increase competition in the market and avoid the risks of further litigation.
For all these reasons, the commenters' concerns about the licensing remedy are not well grounded, and do not change the United States' conclusion that the settlement is in the public interest.
However, as discussed above, the United States considered the comments carefully and made certain amendments to the proposed Final Judgment. The amended proposed Final Judgment addresses two concerns raised by the Former Division Professionals Letter. Exh. A-11 at 6. First, the amended proposed Final Judgment includes more detailed information delineating the metes and bounds of the source code. Exh. A-1 at 3. Second, it includes language stating that the source code must be licensed to companies that have “the intent and capability, including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability, to compete effectively in the market for the provision of enterprise-grade WLAN solutions in the United States.” Exh. A-1 at 18-19. Further, the licensees must satisfy the United States that they will use the source code to compete in the enterprise-grade WLAN market.
Commenters raised a handful of other substantive concerns about the proposed Final Judgment. The American Economic Liberties Project questions why the parties did not arrange upfront a specific divestiture acquirer for Instant On or specific licensees for the Mist source code. Exh. A-10 at 11-12. While the United States prefers naming a divestiture acquirer at the time of settlement, it is not always possible, and some recent settlements have not provided for upfront divestiture buyers.
Both the Former Division Professionals Letter and the State AGs Letter express concerns about the timeline for the divestiture of Instant On and the licensing of the source code. The Former Division Professionals Letter argues that the 180-day timeline is too long, while the State AGs Letter argues that the proposed Final Judgment lacks any mechanism to prevent HPE from endlessly delaying the divestiture or the licensing. Exh. A-8 at 11; Exh. A-11 at 8. With regard to the 180-day timeline, a longer timeline is necessary for the United States to conduct adequate due diligence on potential acquirers or licensees. As for potential further delays, these concerns are alleviated by Section VII, Paragraph A of the proposed Final Judgment (as amended), which requires HPE to submit affidavits to the United States every 30 days documenting the company's efforts to sell the divestiture assets and conduct the source code
Two commenters assert that allowing the HPE-Juniper merger to proceed will create a monopoly. Exh. A-6. The United States did not allege that the merger would create a monopoly and does not believe it will do so. As mentioned in the Competitive Impact Statement, HPE and Juniper have a combined market share below 30% in the enterprise-grade WLAN market, while market leader Cisco has an approximately 48% share.
Other commenters question why the Competitive Impact Statement does not discuss reported national security justifications for the merger.
Several commenters expressed concern about the Department of Justice's internal deliberative process in reaching and finalizing the settlement. For example, four United States Senators stated in a comment that “there have been reports regarding the abnormally close involvement in this settlement of . . . appointees in the senior leadership offices of the Justice Department, who signed onto the settlement and reportedly overruled the Antitrust Division's analysis.” Exh. A-5 at 3 (footnotes omitted).
Any such alleged internal disagreements within the Department of Justice are beyond the scope of Tunney Act review. The Tunney Act's public interest standard directs the Court to review the terms and the competitive impact of the proposed Final Judgment, not the internal decision-making process and motivations of the Department of Justice. The text of 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) requires the Court to determine whether the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. While the statute does not define the term “public interest,” the Supreme Court has “long held that the words `public interest' in a regulatory statute do not encompass the general public welfare but rather take meaning from the purposes of the regulatory legislation.”
In the Tunney Act, the term “public interest” keeps company with the rest of 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1), which states that the district court “shall consider” a number of factors as part of its public interest determination.
Legislative history also supports this reading of the Tunney Act's public interest standard. Senator Tunney introduced the legislation in 1973 in response to concerns about the substantive adequacy of several consent judgments negotiated by the Department of Justice over a multi-decade period.
This last modification is particularly telling. It confirms that Congress wished to focus the Court on
The American Antitrust Institute tries to shoehorn its process concerns into a different section of the Tunney Act, § 16(b)(3), which requires the Competitive Impact Statement to provide “an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise” to the proposed Final Judgment or any of its sections. Exh. A-9 at 3-9. But the legislative history shows that the intent of this language was ensuring the court was informed of unique substantive reasons that would justify terms of the settlement, such as weaknesses in the government's case or changed economic or competitive circumstances since the filing of the complaint.
The concerns raised by commenters about the Department of Justice's internal deliberations are not germane to the inquiry under the Court's public interest review pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1).
A number of the commenters expressed concerns about the identity of the specific signatories on documents submitted with the original proposed Final Judgment. For example, certain state attorneys general stated: “In a highly unusual move, none of the DOJ trial staff signed the Settlement documents submitted to the Court,” which were instead signed by “other higher-level officials at the DOJ.” Exh. A-8 at 7;
There is no dispute that the Department of Justice personnel who signed the settlement documents were authorized to approve a settlement for the United States. Indeed, the documents cited by commenters were signed by Abigail Slater, Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division as well as more senior Department leaders. Dkt. No. 217 at 10; Dkt. No. 217-2 at 17.
At bottom, the identity of the specific Department of Justice signatories on documents submitted with the original proposed Final Judgment is not relevant to the Court's public interest review under 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). All that matters is that the proposed Final Judgment reflects the considered judgment and decision of the United States, as represented by the Department of Justice.
Multiple commenters raise questions about the adequacy of HPE's required disclosure under 15 U.S.C. 16(g). This section, which is separate from the Tunney Act's public interest analysis in § 16(e)(1), requires HPE to “file with the district court a description of any and all written or oral communications” by or on behalf of HPE by the company's officers, directors, employees, or agents “with any officer or employee of the United States” regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Specifically exempted from this disclosure requirement are “any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone.” The commenters suggest that HPE failed to disclose certain individuals representing the company or did not provide adequate details of its meetings with the government.
As a threshold matter, 15 U.S.C. 16(g) places the responsibility on HPE, not the United States, to file an adequate disclosure with the Court. The United States does note, however, that some commenters are incorrect as a matter of law about Section 16(g)'s requirements.
First, the Protect Democracy Center suggests that the Court ignore Section 16(g) by ordering the parties to disclose communications between party counsel of record and the Department of Justice. Exh. A-12 at 2. That action would directly contravene the statute, and the commenter provides no alternative statutory justification. It would also undermine the purpose of this specific Section 16(g) carveout, which, according to Senator Tunney, was aimed at ensuring “the free flow of opinion” between counsel for the United States and defendants about the “various ramifications of the settlement.”
Second, one commenter argues that Section 16(g) requires defendants to disclose contacts with the Legislative and Judicial Branches in addition to those with the Executive Branch. Exh. A-4. This argument misconstrues Section 16(g), as the D.C. Circuit explained at length in
Reference is made to “United States” 18 times in the Tunney Act. See §§ 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h). In all 17 references other than the disputed one in § 16(g) the term plainly denotes only the Executive Branch.
For the same reasons, additional comments relating to the process by which the settlement was reached are outside the scope of Tunney Act review. For example, some commenters include allegations of unspecified insider trading by unknown persons.
Under the Tunney Act's enumerated factors and the relevant case law, entry of the amended proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. The forced divestiture of Instant On and the licensing of the Mist AI source ops code are remedies intended to address the competitive harms in the U.S. market for enterprise-grade WLAN solutions that were alleged in the Complaint. The proposed Final Judgment also lays out detailed procedures for carrying out the divestiture and licensing. In response to public comments, the United States added additional provisions in the amended proposed Final Judgment to ensure that the divestiture and licensing are carried out in a timely manner and to ensure that the divestiture buyer and licensees will use the assets to compete in the enterprise-grade WLAN market. In addition, third parties are not harmed by the proposed judgment. Indeed, no third-party consumers or competitors filed a comment opposing the proposed Final Judgment.
The remedies are particularly reasonable in light of the risks associated with proceeding to trial. While the United States outlined a strong case-in-chief in its pre-trial briefing,
Accordingly, the United States and Defendants negotiated a reasonable compromise that is well “within the reaches of the public interest.”
Should the Court disagree with the United States' conclusion, however, the Tunney Act limits the Court in what it can do based on its review of the amended proposed Final Judgement.
The United States has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to challenge this merger, litigate it for months, and determine that this settlement represents fair and adequate relief that better serves the public interest. This judgment embodies the Department's considered assessment—informed by extensive investigation, litigation, and evaluation of trial risks—of the relief appropriate to remedy the alleged competitive harm. The Department brought this case because it believed the merger threatened substantial harm; having secured meaningful remedies, it has fulfilled its enforcement obligations.
The task before the Court is approval or disapproval of the amended proposed Final Judgment. If the Court concludes the settlement falls within the reaches of the public interest—as the United States respectfully submits it does—it should approve the decree. If the Court were to reject the settlement, the United States would face a choice about how to proceed in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. The Executive Branch possesses unreviewable discretion over whether to pursue enforcement actions, and that discretion extends to decisions about whether continued litigation serves the public interest when negotiated relief is unavailable.
The United States does not request that this Court take any action at this time based on this response to public comments. Instead, the next step is for the United States to provide notice in the
Multiple comment letters call for the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing, take testimony from witnesses, request evidentiary submissions from the United States and HPE, or allow intervention by outside parties and amici.
In its 2004 amendment to the Tunney Act, Public Law 108-237, 221, Congress added the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
Accordingly, most proposed consent judgments are approved under the Tunney Act solely on the papers. It is rare for courts to hold a hearing and even rarer to hold an evidentiary hearing with live witnesses. Indeed, courts have forgone hearings for high-profile mergers involving much larger companies in more consumer-facing industries than here. For example, in the Tunney Act proceeding for the $26 billion Sprint-T-Mobile merger, the United States received 32 comment letters, including several from industry participants, and yet the court saw no need for a hearing.
To the extent that commenters ask the Court to conduct an intrusive examination into the Department of Justice's internal processes, motivations, or alleged non-competitive considerations for settling this case, such an inquiry would be unwarranted under the Tunney Act, as discussed in Section IV.B
Much of the evidence sought by commenters would be shielded by the common law deliberative process privilege, which protects internal governmental communications that are “predecisional” and “deliberative in nature, containing opinions, recommendations, or advice about agency policies.”
Further, to the extent commentators suggest taking testimony from high-ranking Department of Justice officials, courts have recognized the serious separation of powers concerns at play when a senior Executive Branch official is compelled to testify about their reasons for taking official actions.
Indeed, courts of appeals have issued writs of mandamus when district courts, absent clear necessity and legal justification, sought to compel production of privileged evidence from Executive Branch agencies or force testimony from senior Executive Branch officials.
The principles highlighted above also counsel against the Court utilizing its inherent powers to conduct an inquiry into the process leading to the settlement, which some commenters have suggested.
For these reasons, the Court should decline the invitations to hold an evidentiary hearing, take testimony, require additional evidentiary submissions, or allow participation by outside parties.
After careful consideration of the public comments, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment, as negotiated and amended, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after this response is published in the
Dated: November, 14 2025.
The United States received 12 public comments in response to this matter. 11 of the 12 comments expressed concern with or outright opposition to the proposed Final Judgment. The remaining comment argued that there were insufficient grounds to bring the underlying complaint and expressed no views on the remedies in the proposed Final Judgment.
Below are brief descriptions of each public comment received.
• Connor Lundrigan (received July 25, 2025)—This comment opposes the proposed final judgment because it does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint and also has concerns about the process.
• U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal (received July 28, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint while also questioning the process. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• Sarah Ovink (received by the Court on August 1, 2025, noticed by the Court on August 6, 2025)—This comment expresses support for the U.S. Senators' letter and alleges that the merger will create a monopoly. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• Rachel Kohler (received by the Court on August 1, 2025, noticed by the Court on August 6, 2025)—This comment alleges that the merger will create a monopoly and questions circumstances surrounding the settlement.
• Dekleptocracy Project (received by the Court on August 4, 2025, noticed by Court on August 14, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that the proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint while also questioning the process. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• Attorneys General of Colorado, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia (received September 5, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that the proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint while also questioning the process. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• Former Professional Employees of the Antitrust Division (received September 6, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that the proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint and deviates from standard DOJ consent agreements. It also questions the process. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• American Antitrust Institute (received September 8, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that United States did not explain various “unusual circumstances” relating to the settlement. It also questions the adequacy of the settlement in addressing allegations in the complaint.
• Protect Democracy Project (received September 8, 2025)—This comment calls on the United States and defendants to make additional disclosures regarding the negotiation of the settlement.
• U.S. Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jerrold Nadler (received September 8, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint while also questioning the process. It calls on the Court to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it.
• American Economic Liberties Project (received September 8, 2025)—This comment expresses concern that the proposed final judgment does not adequately remedy allegations in the complaint while also questioning the process. It also calls on the Court to conduct its own national security analysis of the merger, and to use Tunney Act procedures to scrutinize the settlement and circumstances surrounding it
• Alden Abbott and Satya Marar of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (received September 12, 2025)—This comment argues that the United States was not justified in filing the underlying complaint and that therefore no remedies are necessary. It takes no position on the remedies in the proposed Final Judgment.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that the Response of Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment has been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in
Copies of the Public Comments and the United States' Response are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (the “Tunney Act”), the United States submits this response to the public comments it received regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case. The United States received 173 comments about the proposed remedy, which are summarized and addressed below. After careful consideration of the submitted comments, the United States continues to believe that the proposed remedy is in the public interest because it will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations the Complaint alleged. The proposed Final Judgment remedies most of the lost competition that the Complaint alleged would otherwise have resulted from the acquisition of Amedisys, Inc. (“Amedisys”) by UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“UnitedHealth”). The proposed Final Judgment will also remedy Amedisys's violation of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (“HSR Act”), 15 U.S.C. 18a.
Specifically, the proposed Final Judgment will protect competition by requiring Defendants to divest 152 home health locations, 11 hospice locations, and 1 palliative care location in local markets in 19 states throughout the country to BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. (“BrightSpring”), The Pennant Group, Inc. (“Pennant”), or another acquirer acceptable to the United States. Further, it will remedy Amedisys's violation of the HSR Act by requiring Amedisys to pay a civil penalty of $1.1 million and to conduct antitrust compliance training for corporate leadership and their direct reports and certain Amedisys field leadership for all lines of business.
After this Response has been published in the
On November 12, 2024, the United States, along with the Attorneys General of Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York (collectively, the “Plaintiff States”), filed a civil antitrust Complaint (Dkt. 1) seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The Complaint alleges that UnitedHealth's acquisition of Amedisys threatens to substantially lessen competition in local home health, hospice, and nurse labor markets throughout the country in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. In the Complaint, the United States also alleges that Amedisys erroneously and inaccurately certified compliance with its obligations under the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a.
On August 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the proposed Final Judgment, as well as a stipulation signed by all parties that consent to entry of the proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the requirements of the Tunney Act.
The United States arranged for the publication of the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, and the Competitive Impact Statement in the
Under the Clayton Act and Tunney Act, proposed Final Judgments, or “consent judgments,” in antitrust cases
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
In considering these statutory factors, the Court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one, as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.”
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the Tunney Act, a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's complaint, whether the proposed final judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether it may positively harm third parties.
The United States' predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court.
Moreover, the Court's role under the Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement
The proposed Final Judgment is the culmination of a thorough investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding UnitedHealth's proposed acquisition of Amedisys and Amedisys's violation of the HSR Act, as well as eight months of intensive litigation regarding the transaction. Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation, the United States concluded that (a) the proposed acquisition was likely to substantially lessen competition in local home health, hospice, and nurse labor markets throughout the country, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 18; and (b) Amedisys's erroneous and inaccurate certification related to its production of documents and information during the Antitrust Division's investigation violated the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a.
UnitedHealth is the owner of LHC Group, Inc. (“LHC”), which is the nation's largest home health provider and a large provider of hospice services. (Dkt. 202 at 3). UnitedHealth's acquisition target, Amedisys, is the second-largest home health provider in the United States and third-largest provider of hospice services. (Dkt. 202 at 4). UnitedHealth's acquisition of Amedisys would have eliminated the direct competition between UnitedHealth and Amedisys and increased concentration enough to render the acquisition presumptively anticompetitive in hundreds of local home health markets, local hospice markets, and local home health and hospice nurse labor markets. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 51).
The proposed Final Judgment provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the likely competitive harms arising from UnitedHealth's acquisition of Amedisys. The proposed Final Judgment has several components, which the parties agreed to abide by during the pendency of the Tunney Act proceeding, and which the Court ordered in the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, entered on August 11, 2025. (Dkt. 203).
First, Defendants must divest all offices and contracts for 152 home health, 11 hospice, and one palliative care branches and agencies across 19 states. These facilities, which are identified in the proposed Final Judgment, must be divested to BrightSpring, Pennant, or another acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, after consultation with any affected Plaintiff State. In addition, six of the home health locations that Defendants must divest share licenses or certifications and federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) identification numbers with locations that Defendants are retaining. Defendants may be required to divest up to eight additional home health locations if these six divested locations are not able to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals to operate as they did on July 17, 2025, or to bill CMS for the treatment of Medicare or Medicaid patients.
Second, the proposed Final Judgment contains provisions intended to facilitate the acquirers' efforts to hire certain employees. The divested assets must include employment contracts for more than 1,800 “Relevant Personnel,” who are full-time, part time, or contract employees of the Defendants whose work supports the operations of the divested home health, hospice, and palliative care agencies and branches.
Third, the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants to provide certain services to maintain the viability and competitiveness of the divestiture assets during the transition to the acquirers. These transition services must be provided for a period of up to 365 calendar days on terms and conditions reasonably related to market conditions for the provision of transition services. The United States can approve one or more extensions of this period in its sole discretion, for up to an additional 180 calendar days. An acquirer may terminate the transition services agreement, or any portion of it, without cost or penalty at any time upon 30 days' notice.
The proposed Final Judgment also includes robust mechanisms that will allow the United States and the Court to monitor the effectiveness of the relief and to enforce compliance. For example, the proposed Final Judgment provides for the appointment of a monitor who has the power and authority to investigate and report on Defendants' compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment and the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order during the pendency of the divestitures and is required to file reports with the United States at least every 90 days. On November 4, 2025, the Court appointed William Berlin as the monitor. (Dkt. 241). He is actively working to ensure that all outstanding divestitures proceed appropriately.
In addition, the proposed Final Judgment provides the United States with the ability to investigate Defendants' compliance with the Final Judgment and expressly retains and reserves all rights for the United States to enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, including its rights to seek an order of contempt from the Court.
Finally, the proposed Final Judgment resolves the United States' claim relating to Amedisys's violation of the HSR Act by requiring Amedisys to pay a civil penalty of $1.1 million within 30 days of the Court's entry of the Final Judgment. Amedisys must also conduct antitrust compliance training, the form and content of which must be approved by the United States, for its corporate leadership and their direct reports and certain field leadership for all lines of business.
Together, these requirements of the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition in local home health, hospice, and nurse labor markets and provide an appropriate remedy for Amedisys's violation of the HSR Act.
The United States received 173 comments about the proposed Final Judgment. Of those, 169 (or 97%)—of which 164 were emails of a page or less—did not specifically address any local home health, hospice, and nurse labor markets or the proposed remedy, raised issues far broader than the merger such as general concerns about monopolization in healthcare, or otherwise made complaints outside the
However, in addition to these very general comments, the United States received more detailed comments from the American Economic Liberties Project; the owner of a home health company; the CEO of a healthcare consulting firm; and an individual comparing Pennant's employee benefits plans to those of LHC and Amedisys.
Several comments assert that the acquisition will harm home health or hospice patients or nurses (or patients or workers generally), including by eliminating competition.
These comments do not discuss any of the local home health, hospice, or labor markets that were alleged in the Complaint or how the proposed remedy is allegedly inadequate to resolve the competitive harm that would be created by the merger in those markets. The United States agrees that the proposed merger, unremedied, poses a substantial threat to competition. But the divestitures Defendants agreed to in the proposed Final Judgment address those concerns.
As described in the Competitive Impact Statement (Dkt. No. 202), the proposed Final Judgment requires significant divestitures to restore most of the lost competition that the Complaint alleges would have otherwise resulted from UnitedHealth's acquisition of Amedisys and is therefore in the public interest. In settling a contested litigation, the United States was not required to secure a remedy that addresses the harm in every market alleged in the Complaint or to obtain the same relief that would have resulted from a successful challenge in litigation.
Some comments criticize consolidation or monopolization in healthcare generally, “Big Medicine,” or the business practices of UnitedHealth or Amedisys.
These comments do not discuss the local home health, hospice, and labor markets alleged in the Complaint or how the proposed remedy is allegedly inadequate to resolve the competitive harm that would be created by the merger in those markets. Because these comments do not relate to whether the proposed Final Judgment reasonably addresses the harms alleged in the Complaint, they are beyond the scope of this Tunney Act proceeding and do not provide a basis for rejecting the proposed Final Judgment.
Several comments suggest that the proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest because the United States settled the case after previously filing a lawsuit challenging the merger.
The Tunney Act is designed to provide the United States with the flexibility to settle antitrust cases when the settlement is in the public interest.
The American Economic Liberties Project (“AELP”) submitted a comment on behalf of themselves and other organizations asking the Court to reject the proposed Final Judgment under the Tunney Act.
The AELP further asserts that the divestitures do not address all the markets that were alleged in the Complaint and that the merger would further consolidate UnitedHealth's “standing as the dominant force in nearly every corner of the American healthcare system.”
The proposed Final Judgment reflects a compromise of claims. The fact that the proposed Final Judgment does not address all markets alleged in the Complaint is not a basis for finding that the proposed Final Judgment is “so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest.'”
The AELP also raises concerns with proposed divestiture buyers BrightSpring and Pennant. The AELP argues that BrightSpring is “owned by the highly-leveraged private-equity firm KKR,” noting that KKR is a defendant in a Department of Justice lawsuit alleging violations of the HSR Act.
Finally, the AELP claims that the $1.1 million civil penalty that Amedisys must pay is incommensurate with the merger's $3.3 billion purchase price and would fail to deter corporate misconduct. The AELP, however, compares the civil penalty to the purchase price of the merger, rather than the maximum potential fine available under the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a. The maximum civil penalty during the period of the violation was $51,744 a day for a violation that the United States alleged to have occurred from December 18, 2023, to August 26, 2024. The maximum total potential civil penalty is thus $13,091,232. The $1.1 million civil penalty imposed by the proposed Final Judgment, which is approximately 8.4% of the total penalty, along with the additional injunctive relief, will appropriately penalize Amedisys and deter it and others from future violations of the HSR Act. The penalty is also appropriate here because Amedisys agreed to take corrective action internally before submitting a second certificate of compliance on August 26, 2024, and because it is willing to resolve the matter through the proposed Final Judgment, thereby avoiding the risks and costs associated with litigation.
The CEO of a home health company submitted a comment asking the Court to reject the proposed Final Judgment. The commenter contends that the divestitures “fail to address the profound vertical harms of this merger.”
Another commenter, the CEO of a healthcare consulting firm, similarly alleges that the merger will “deepen [UnitedHealth's] chokehold” on U.S. healthcare, allowing it to steer patients to its own agencies, deny or delay approvals to competing home health providers, and pay independent home health providers far below cost while overpaying its subsidiaries.
The United States did not allege any harm related to vertical theories—that is, harm to home health or hospice competition by virtue of Amedisys being acquired by an insurer—in its Complaint. Vertical concerns therefore are outside the scope of the Tunney Act proceeding.
One commenter raises concerns about the transfer of employees from Amedisys and LHC to Pennant.
The divesture to Pennant is intended to preserve competition, including competition for labor, in the local markets in which Pennant is acquiring assets. After a thorough vetting of the divestiture buyers, the United States concluded that Pennant would likely have the incentive to compete in the areas in which it is acquiring divestiture assets. As the commenter acknowledges, Pennant will harm its own business if it fails to offer competitive wages, benefits, and working conditions. By establishing Pennant as an independent competitor in the local labor markets in which it acquired home health or hospice agencies, the remedy in the proposed Final Judgment gives Pennant the incentive to compete for home health and hospice nurses.
After careful consideration of the public comments, the United States continues to believe the proposed Final Judgment provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after this response is published in the
Dated: November 14, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
This data collection is necessary for the determination of the beginning, continuance, or termination of an Extended Benefit (EB) period in any State, which determine the EB trigger rate. Also, data on initial and continued claims are used to help determine economic indicators. This information collection request is associated with the Final Rule amending 20 CFR 615, Extended Benefits, by implementing the Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) indicator, an optional calculation methodology for triggering on Extended Benefits, in regulations. The Final Rule deletes paragraphs (c) and (d) under the regulatory requirements at § 615.15, pertaining to records and reports State agencies must submit. The reporting instructions for the proper and timely submission of data are provided in ET Handbook No. 401, which governs Unemployment Compensation required reporting. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
DOL 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 DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice describing the conditions for submitting a Pre-Application for 2025 Pro Bono Innovation Fund grants.
Pre-applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. EST on Friday, January 10, 2025.
Letters of Intent must be submitted electronically at
Katherine Harris, Special Grant Program Coordinator, Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation, 1825 I Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006; (202) 295-1572 or
Since 2014, Congress has provided an annual appropriation to LSC “for a Pro Bono Innovation Fund.”
Since its inception, the Pro Bono Innovation Fund (PBIF) has advanced LSC's goal of increasing the quantity and quality of legal services by funding efforts that more efficiently and effectively involve pro bono volunteers in serving the critical unmet legal needs of LSC-eligible clients. PBIF has three funding categories that are described in further detail below: Project, Sustainability, and Project Incubation Grants. In addition, PBIF is offering Grantee Engagement Scholarships to select FY26 Applicants.
To be eligible for PBIF grants, Applicants must be current grantees of LSC Basic Field-General, Basic Field-Migrant, or Basic Field-Native American Grants. To be eligible for a Sustainability Grant, Applicants must also have a 2024 PBIF Project Grant. To be eligible for a Project Incubation Grant, an organization must have never received PBIF funding, have not received a PBIF Grant since 2019, or have applied unsuccessfully for a PBIF Grant in 2025. Organizations eligible to apply for a Project Incubation Grant will receive a direct email from LSC confirming their eligibility.
PBIF Grants develop, test, and replicate innovative pro bono efforts that can enable LSC grantees to use pro bono volunteers to serve more significant numbers of low-income clients and improve the quality and effectiveness of the services provided. The key goals of the PBIF are to:
1. Address gaps in the delivery of legal services to low-income people;
2. Engage more lawyers and other volunteers in pro bono service;
3. Develop, test, and replicate innovative pro bono efforts.
Project Grants aim to leverage volunteers to provide client-centered legal assistance in areas of critical need. Consistent with the key goals of PBIF, Applicants are encouraged to focus on engaging volunteers to increase free civil legal aid for Americans with low incomes by proposing new, replicable ideas.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to research previous PBIF projects to replicate and improve them. LSC is particularly interested in applications that replicate projects previously funded with “Sustainability” Grants.
Project Grants can have either an 18 or 24-month term.
Sustainability Grants are available to current PBIF grantees who received a 2024 Project Grant. Sustainability Grants provide the most promising and replicable PBIF projects with an additional 24 months of funding, enabling grantees to leverage new sources of revenue for the project and collect meaningful data to demonstrate its results and outcomes to clients and volunteers. Applicants for Sustainability Grants are asked to propose an ambitious strategy to reduce reliance on PBIF funding during the Sustainability Grant term.
Sustainability Grants have a 24-month term.
Project Incubation Grants provide funds for organizations to improve an existing pro bono opportunity using pro bono best practices and PBIF guidance provided through a structured program and other resources. Project Incubation Grants have a 24-month term.
Applicants who apply for, but do not receive, a Project Incubation Grant in FY26 can receive a PBIF Grantee Engagement Scholarship. Grantee Engagement Scholarships provide
The availability of funds for FY26 PBIF Grants depends on LSC's appropriation. LSC's FY26 funding level remains unknown. Decisions on FY26 PBIF Grants will be made in summer 2026, with LSC providing updated funding details as they become available.
PBIF awards have grant terms of 18 or 24 months, depending on the grant category.
Applicants for Project Grants may apply for either an 18- or a 24-month grant. Applicants for Sustainability and Project Incubation Grants will apply for a 24-month grant. The grant activities described in the application must cover the full proposed grant term, which commences on October 1, 2026.
The PBIF Application process is managed in LSC's grants management system, GrantEase. Applicants must first submit a Pre-Application to LSC in GrantEase by January 15, 2026, to be considered for funding. After review by LSC staff, LSC's President decides which Applicants will be invited to submit a Full Application. Applicants will be notified of invitations by early March 2026. Full Applications are due to LSC in the GrantEase system on May 8, 2026. Once received, Full Applications will undergo a rigorous review by LSC staff and other subject matter experts. LSC's President makes the final decision on funding for all PBIF grants.
LSC may consider a request to submit a Pre-Application after the deadline, but only if the Applicant has submitted an email to
Applicants may submit multiple Pre-Applications under the same or different funding categories. If applying for multiple grants, Applicants should submit separate Pre-Applications for each funding request.
Additional guidance and instructions on the PBIF Pre-Application and Full Application processes will be available and regularly updated at
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors will meet virtually on November 20, 2025. The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time and continue until the Board concludes its agenda.
Public Notice of Virtual Meeting.
LSC will conduct the November 20, 2025, meeting via videoconference. Unless otherwise noted herein, the meeting will be open to public observation via LSC's YouTube channel:
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Matters to be discussed include a presentation by the LSC Inspector General of its Semiannual Report to Congress; a vote on the Board of Directors' transmittal letter to accompany the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period of April 1 through September 30, 2025; and consideration of and action on a resolution in recognition and appreciation of distinguished service to the members of LSC's Rural Justice Task Force.
Matters to be discussed include future board meetings.
Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to the Office of the Corporate Secretary at
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Notice.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.
Sarah Whittle Spooner. 202-395-4665.
Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with
The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
This is a virtual meeting. Members and the public may attend this meeting virtually via Zoom.
Registration and attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the advisory committee website:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by December 19, 2025. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 or
Andrew Titmus, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-4479.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 16 U.S.C. 2401
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Andrew Titmus, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 603-292-4479; email:
On September 11, 2025, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
On September 26, 2025, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received and permit issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification issued.
November 6, 2025 to February 28, 2026.
Andrew Titmus, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-4479; email:
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 16 U.S.C. 2401
The applicant proposes a modification to the permit to study subsurface water movement under the Lower Taylor Glacier by accessing the sub-aerial component of ASPA 172 to deploy up to eight SmartSolo IGU-16HR 3C geophones on the glacier's surface. Each instrument has a footprint of approximately 4 inches x 4 inches and would be attached to the glacier's
The ACA Permit Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and that the permitted work will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
The permit modification was issued on November 6, 2025
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice of a change in rates and classifications of general applicability for competitive products.
This notice sets forth changes in rates and classifications of general applicability for competitive products.
Applicability date: January 18, 2026.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
On November 13, 2025, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3632, the Governors of the Postal Service established price and classification changes for competitive products. The Governors' Decision and the record of proceedings in connection with such decision are reprinted below in accordance with section 3632(b)(2). Mail Classification Schedule language containing the new prices can be found at
Pursuant to our authority under section 3632 of title 39, as amended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (“PAEA”), we establish prices and classifications of general applicability for the Postal Service's competitive products. The changes are described generally below, with a detailed description of the changes in the Postal Service's associated draft Mail Classification Schedule change document. That document contains the draft Mail Classification Schedule sections with classification changes in legislative format, and new prices displayed in the price charts.
As shown in the nonpublic annex being filed under seal herewith, the changes we establish should enable each competitive product to cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)) and should result in competitive products as a whole complying with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), which, as implemented by 39 CFR 3035.107(c), requires competitive products collectively to contribute a minimum of 8.0 percent to the Postal Service's institutional costs. Accordingly, no issue of subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products should arise (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)). We therefore find that the new prices and classification changes are in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3632-3633 and 39 CFR 3035.102 and 104.
Overall, the Priority Mail Express price change represents a 5.1 percent increase on average. The existing structure of zoned Retail and Commercial price categories is maintained. Retail prices will increase 5.0 percent on average, while the Commercial price category will increase 5.9 percent on average. The Dimension Noncompliance fee, introduced in 2022 for packages that cause the Postal Service to incur manual handling costs when the dimensions of the package exceed sortation requirements, will increase to $3.00.
On average, Priority Mail prices will be increased by 6.6 percent, and the existing price structure will be maintained.
Retail prices will increase by an average of 6.3 percent. Retail Flat Rate Box prices will be: Small, $12.65; Medium, $22.95; Large, $31.50 and Large APO/FPO/DPO, $30.15. Thus, the Large APO/FPO/DPO Flat Rate Box will be $1.35 less than the Large Flat Rate Box. The regular Flat Rate Envelope will be priced at $11.95, with the Legal Size and Padded Flat Rate Envelopes priced at $12.25 and $12.95, respectively. The Commercial price category will increase by 6.9 percent on average. The Dimension Noncompliance fee for Priority Mail packages will also increase to $3.00.
On average, Parcel Select prices as a whole will increase 6.0 percent. For destination delivery unit (DDU) entered parcels, the average price increase is 5.9 percent. For destination sectional center facility (DSCF) destination entered parcels, the average price increase is 5.9 percent. For Connect Local, introduced in 2022, the average price increase is 4.9 percent. The Dimension Noncompliance fee for Parcel Select packages will also increase to $3.00.
USPS Ground Advantage, introduced in July 2023, is the Postal Service's flagship ground package product. Overall, USPS Ground Advantage prices will increase 7.8 percent on average, and the existing structure will be maintained. Retail prices will increase 5.9 percent on average, while Commercial prices will increase 9.6 percent on average. The Alaska Limited Overland Routes (LOR) price category will see a 9.9 percent average increase for January 2026. The Dimension Noncompliance fee for USPS Ground Advantage packages will also increase to $3.00.
Premium Forwarding Service (PFS) prices will increase between 6.8 and 6.9 percent in 2026. The retail counter enrollment fee will increase to $28.70. The online enrollment option, introduced in 2014, will increase to $26.40. The weekly reshipment fee will increase to $29.70. The reshipment fee for PFS Local, which was introduced in 2019 for P.O. Box customers, will increase to $29.70. Package Intercept
Finally, in 2026, the Postal Service is introducing a fee for a new solution, called USPS Delivered Duty Paid (DDP), under the Competitive Ancillary Services product. For this solution, the Postal Service facilitates the sender prepaying any applicable customs duties, taxes, and fees before the item is mailed, as opposed to such charges being due upon delivery. The fee that the Postal Service will charge for facilitating payment does not include any applicable taxes, duties, and non-USPS fees, which are collected separately and passed through to a third party.
Priority Mail Express International (PMEI) will be subject to an overall 5.9 percent increase. Commercial Plus prices will be equivalent to Commercial Base.
The overall increase for Priority Mail International (PMI) will be 5.9 percent. Commercial Plus prices will be equivalent to Commercial Base.
Published prices for International Priority Airmail (IPA) will increase by 5.9 percent.
The published prices for Airmail M-Bags will increase by 44.0 percent. New for 2026, some changes to the product description for Airmail M-Bags will be made to reflect that as of January 1, 2025, at the Universal Postal Union (UPU), M-bags (special bags for printed matter and certain other articles that relate exclusively to the printed matter sent to a single foreign addressee at a single address) became an optional supplementary service for UPU-designated postal operators, and that the United States has provided to the UPU written notification that it will continue to offer M-bag service but opted to restrict the service solely to printed matter.
The overall increase for First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) prices will be 5.9 percent. Commercial Plus prices will be equivalent to Commercial Base.
Prices for International Certificate of Mailing will increase by 14.3 percent. Prices for International Insurance will increase by 17.1 percent. Prices for the Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee will increase by 5.6 percent.
The changes in prices and classes set forth herein shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 18, 2026. We direct the Secretary of the Board of Governors Office to have this decision published in the
By The Governors:
Consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632(a), I hereby certify that, on November 13, 2025, the Governors voted on adopting Governors' Decision No. 25-6, and that a majority of the Governors then holding office voted in favor of that Decision.
Date: November 13, 2025.
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
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231e), lump-sum death benefits are payable to surviving widow(er)s, children, and certain other dependents. Lump-sum death benefits are payable after the death of a railroad employee only if there are no qualified survivors of the employee immediately eligible for annuities. With the exception of the residual death benefit, eligibility for survivor benefits depends on whether the deceased employee was “insured” under the RRA at the time of death. If the deceased employee was not insured, jurisdiction of any survivor benefits payable is transferred to the Social Security Administration and survivor benefits are paid by that agency instead of the RRB. The requirements for applying for benefits are prescribed in 20 CFR 217, 219, and 234.
The collection obtains the information required by the RRB to determine entitlement to and amount of the survivor death benefits applied for. To collect the information, the RRB uses Forms AA-21,
The RRB proposes the following changes to Form G-273a:
• In field 3, changed 3rd sentence and added 4th sentence to “If paid by prearrangement, please show the name of the person who made the prearrangement and any beneficiary, not the insurance company or financial institution making the final payment. If there was a pre-need agreement, please attach a copy of the contract.”
• In the Paperwork Reduction Act and Privacy Act Notices section, propose minor change to address.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the additional incentive provided to Qualified Market Makers in Equity 7, Section 114(e) (Market Quality Incentive Programs) and to introduce a new credit for non-displayed midpoint quotes/orders under Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1) (Fees for Execution and Routing of Orders).
These amendments are effective upon filing. However, the Exchange has designated the amendments to become operative on October 1, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of rebates, at Equity 7, Section 114(e) (Qualified Market Maker Program) to adjust the additional incentive provided to Qualified Market Makers (“QMMs”) and to amend Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1) (Fees for Execution and Routing of Orders) to introduce a new credit for non-displayed midpoint quotes/orders.
Currently, the Exchange provides a member designated as a QMM with an additional rebate of $0.000075 per share executed in Tapes A and C and $0.00005 per share executed in Tape B for a QMM's market participant identification (“MPID”) if the MPID (i) executes shares of liquidity provided that represents above 1.25% of Consolidated Volume
The Exchange proposes to modify this additional rebate in various ways. First, the revised rebate would only be available to QMMs that qualify for the QMM Tier 2 rebate. Second, the amount of the rebate would increase to $0.0001 per share executed, and this rebate would be the same amount regardless of whether the execution is in Tape A, B, or C. Third, the Exchange also proposes to modify the criteria to qualify for this new rebate. The new criteria are that the MPID adds liquidity that represents above 0.325% of Consolidated Volume during the month and that the MPID achieves at least a 95% ratio of its liquidity adding activity to its total activity on the Exchange during the month. The Exchange hopes that this new additional rebate will incentivize QMMs to qualify for the Tier 2 rebate and to add more displayed liquidity to the Exchange, which will improve overall market quality.
Additionally, the Exchange currently provides credits to members for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity. The Exchange is proposing to add a credit of $0.0027 per share executed to Tapes A, B and C in midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO). The credit will be available to a member who adds during the month an average daily volume (“ADV”) of 20 million or more shares of midpoint liquidity. The Exchange hopes that by proposing the new credit it will incentivize members to increase their liquidity providing activity at the midpoint on the Exchange, which will improve overall market quality.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to modify the additional rebate for QMMs in Section 114(e) to only make it available to QMMs that qualify for the Tier 2 rebate; to increase the amount of this additional rebate to $0.0001 per share executed, and make this amount the same regardless of whether the execution is in Tape A, B, or C; and to modify the criteria to qualify for this new rebate so that an MPID has to add liquidity that represents above 0.325% of Consolidated Volume during the month and has to achieve at least a 95% ratio of its liquidity adding activity to its total activity on the Exchange during the month. The Exchange believes that the modified QMM additional rebate will encourage QMMs to provide increased displayed liquidity on the Exchange, which will improve the market quality overall, to the benefit of all market participants.
Likewise, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to establish a new credit under Section 118(a)(1) for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) by offering members a credit in the amount of $0.0027 per share executed, regardless of Tape, for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) if the member provides an ADV of 20 million or more shares of mid-point liquidity on the Exchange during the month. The Exchange believes that this new credit will encourage members to provide even more midpoint liquidity on the Exchange.
To the extent that these proposed changes succeed in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed rebate and credit are voluntary. The Exchange further believes that the rebate and credit are not unfairly discriminatory because they will be applied uniformly to all members that meet the specified criteria.
The Exchange notes that if there are market participants who are dissatisfied with these proposals, they are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that may offer more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange 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 Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. The Exchange intends for its proposals to incentivize liquidity adding activity. The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the proposals are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which adding a supplemental rebate or a credit in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the modification of the additional QMM rebate under Section 114(e) and the introduction of a new credit under Section 118(a)(1) are intended to incentivize liquidity adding activity on the Exchange and do not impose a burden on competition. By
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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.
On August 5, 2025, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Texas, Inc., and on August 15, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc., (collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notices,
• The price of the last consolidated trade of at least one round lot of that trading day, or
• If there were no such trades, the midpoint of the Auction NBBO, or
• If the Auction NBBO is locked, the locked price, or
• If there is no Auction NBBO, the prior trading day's Official Closing Price for the initial calculation of the Auction Reference Price, and for each subsequent calculation of the Auction Reference Price, the most recently calculated Auction Reference Price.
With the addition of the price of the last consolidated trade of at least one round lot of that trading day as a benchmark for calculating the Auction Reference Price for the Core Open Auction, the Exchanges propose to distinguish between the initial calculation of the Auction Reference Price for the Core Open Auction and subsequent calculations pursuant to the cascading calculation, in the event that there is no Auction NBBO. For the initial calculation, the Exchanges propose that, if there is no Auction NBBO, the Auction Reference Price would, as currently, be the prior trading day's Official Closing Price. However, for subsequent calculations of the Auction Reference Price when there is no Auction NBBO, the Exchanges propose that the Auction Reference Price would instead be the most recent Auction Reference Price, which the Exchanges believe would provide a more recent reference price for the auction.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchanges' statements in support of the proposals, which are set forth in the Notices,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved by December 10, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 24, 2025.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Arizona dated November 14, 2025.
Issued on November 14, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 213458 and for economic injury is 213460.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Arizona.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated November 14, 2025.
Issued on November 14, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 213475 and for economic injury is 213480.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration are New York, New Jersey.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky dated November 15, 2025.
Issued on November 15, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 213490.
The Commonwealth and State which received an EIDL Declaration are Indiana, Kentucky.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to January 20, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Under Section 101(a)(27)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, and INA section 203(b)(4), an alien may be issued a special immigrant visa as a returning resident if he or she is an immigrant, previously admitted as a lawful permanent resident or conditional resident, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad of more than one year due to circumstances beyond his or her control. The DS-117 is used to collect the information necessary to determine a returning resident's eligibility for such a visa.
Aliens will submit the DS-117 electronically via email, or they will print the form and submit it in person to a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Department uses the Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration (DS-260) to obtain the information needed to fulfill the legal requirements for the issuance of an immigrant visa (IV). The information required on the form is limited to what is necessary for consular officers to determine the eligibility and classification of an individual seeking an IV to the United States. Please note this information collection will no longer seek to renew the paper version of the form (DS-230), which will be discontinued effective November 1, 2025.
The DS-260 is submitted electronically over an encrypted connection to the Department via the internet. The applicant will be instructed to print a confirmation page containing a barcoded record locator, which will be physically scanned at the time of processing.
The Department published a notice in the
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submitted a comment on behalf of the over 15,000 member attorneys who practice immigration law in the United States. The Department appreciates AILA's thoughtful feedback and has reviewed and addressed recommendations in the space below.
AILA recommended rephrasing the question, “Have you traveled to any
In addressing this suggestion, the Department is first clarifying that the proposed version of the form, which was available for public comment through
AILA suggested simplifying the language of complex questions to ensure applicants understand their intent and scope.
The Department acknowledges and agrees with the importance of clarity in these questions and is actively engaging in a large-scale modernization project that will address these concerns. The modernization will include technical improvements and plain language rephrasing of these and other questions throughout the form. The Department appreciates AILA's continued patience while it works to improve its systems, as the modernization project cannot be completed in the limited time left in this PRA renewal cycle.
AILA proposed requiring only city, state/province, country, and dates for address history, with an option to mark street addresses as “unknown.” While the Department recognizes the challenges applicants may face in recalling detailed address information, particularly for elderly applicants, past addresses are used for multiple purposes beyond police certificate requirements, including fraud prevention and enhanced vetting. At this time, the Department will not implement this suggestion, but it will re-open discussions with vetting partners to determine whether adding an “unknown” checkbox to the address field is possible without significantly impacting U.S. national security interests in the future.
AILA recommended rephrasing questions about family members' immigration intentions.
The Department agrees to rephrase these questions and will replace the word “immigrating” with the more specific phrase “applying for a U.S. immigrant visa.”
AILA suggested providing additional context to the question, “Have you belonged to, contributed to, or worked for any professional, social, or charitable organization?”
The Department understands AILA's suggestion to be motivated by applicants' possible misunderstanding of the scope of information sought. Due to resource and time constraints, the Department will need to further consider this recommendation as part of the ongoing modernization project.
AILA recommended rephrasing the question, “Has the Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States ever determined that you knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum?”
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will revise the form to reference “an immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals” instead of “the Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States.”
AILA proposed retitling the page, making grammatical adjustments, and including language clarifying that the visa application is not formally made until the consular interview. While the Department is open to considering these changes, these issues will be addressed as part of the aforementioned modernization project.
AILA questioned a reference to the Australian Department of Home Affairs (ADHA) and raised privacy and security concerns regarding language about medical examinations and data storage in the eMedical system.
In response to this comment, the Department is revising language to better explain the role that ADHA plays in the eMedical system and clarify its relevance to all applicants subject to medical examination. For greater transparency, the Department also is adding language to better explain how applicants' medical information may be temporarily stored in the eMedical system and providing additional data privacy assurances, as records access by the ADHA is strictly limited to providing technical support to the U.S. government and its designated panel physicians. This language is now included in a new “Medical Examination Disclosure and Consent” subsection, which is separate from the e-signature section where the information currently displays.
AILA highlighted certain technical issues, including timeouts, login errors, and the inability to amend the form post-submission.
The Department's modernization project also aims to address many of these technical challenges, and attempts to resolve these issues are underway.
AILA advocated for the option to provide explanatory information, either through a tick box next to each question or a stand-alone final page, similar to the overflow sheet option in the old paper DS-230 form.
The Department has determined that these changes are neither necessary nor feasible and will not implement them at this time.
The DS-230 previously contained the following instruction that allowed for an “overflow” sheet: “If there is insufficient room on the form, answer on a separate sheet using the same numbers that appear on the form. Attach any additional sheets to this form.” The intention behind this instruction was to allow applicants to provide required information that did not fit in the limited space provided on the paper form. This included information about additional family members, additional social media, etc. The instruction was not designed to allow applicants to provide explanatory information beyond the explicit information the Department requested. Furthermore, space is not limited in the DS-260, as the e-form allows applicants to select “add another” for questions that might have required an additional sheet when completing the paper form. Applicants wishing to provide explanatory information for responses have the opportunity to do so during the required in-person interview.
The comment expresses “concern for the volume of applications for the registration of individuals applying and the extreme annual cost of $156B” and recommends the Department review the “authenticity and the number of applications” for this collection.
The Department assures the public that every application undergoes adequate vetting. Furthermore, the Department clarifies that the cost to process the DS-260 is not $156 billion, as the comment states, but rather $94,022,024 in federal government expenditures. Consular fees are generally set based on the policy of full cost recovery, which means the full cost is offset by the DS-260 application fee. The net cost to the American taxpayer is $0.
9:00 a.m. CT on November 6, 2025.
Oxford Conference Center, Oxford, Mississippi.
Open.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on November 6 at the Oxford Conference Center, 102 Ed Perry Boulevard, in Oxford, Mississippi. The meeting will be called to order at 9:00 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below. While the Board currently lacks a quorum, it is anticipated that the Board will take an action in accordance with Section 1.6 of its Bylaws.
On November 5, at the Oxford Conference Center, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a Board-hosted public listening session which begins at 2:00 p.m. CT and will last until 4:00 p.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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites the public to make comments about our intention to request the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Shantel Young by email at:
Congress has designated the Registry as the exclusive United States Entry Point for transmissions to the International Registry. To transmit certain types of interests or prospective interests to the International Registry, interested parties must file a completed FAA Entry Point Filing Form—International Registry, AC Form 8050-135, with the Registry. Upon receipt of the completed form, the Registry issues a unique authorization code. The submission of the information in question is not an FAA requirement for aircraft registration. Its sole purpose is to obtain an authorization code to transmit information to the International Registry. The FAA's regulations addressing the transmission of information to the International Registry are found under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 49 Subpart F.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Cancellation of Emergency Order Establishing Operating Limitations on the Use of Navigable Airspace.
This Order cancels the November 12, 2025, “Emergency Order Establishing Operating Limitations on the Use of Navigable Airspace,” as amended by the November 14, 2025, Addendum, (November 12 Emergency Order) reducing and temporarily prohibiting certain operations in the navigable airspace to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). This Order cancels all requirements of the November 12 Emergency Order including to reduce operations at certain airports by 3 percent, and restores normal operating levels on the effective date of this Order. This Order also cancels the prohibition on operations by general aviation 14 CFR part 91 aircraft, non-scheduled 14 CFR part 135 aircraft, and 14 CFR part 380 public charter aircraft at certain airports, and the prohibition on commercial space launches and reentries during peak hours, and resumes normal air traffic control (ATC) services limited by the November 12 Emergency Order.
This Order takes effect at 6 a.m. EST on November 17, 2025.
If you wish to review the background documents or comments received in this proceeding, you may go to
Al Meilus, Slot Administration and Capacity Analysis, FAA ATO System Operations Services, AJR-G5, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-2822; email
This Order cancels the November 12 Emergency Order, reducing and prohibiting certain operations in the navigable airspace. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this Order because data reviewed by the agency shows a sufficient reduction in the risks that initially prompted the reductions.
The U.S. Government has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States.
The FAA's statutory authority to ensure “the safety of aircraft” and “the efficient use of airspace” encompasses its management of the nationwide system of air commerce and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. Ensuring the safe and efficient use of the airspace means that the FAA must take all necessary steps to prevent safety risks to, or situations potentially adversely affecting the overall safety of the ATC system for which the FAA is responsible.
Due to a lapse in appropriations, air traffic controllers worked without pay from October 3, 2025, to November 12, 2025. During that time, the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) continued to review, monitor, and evaluate ATC safety. As part of this review, the FAA assessed voluntary safety reports submitted for the month of October. The reports indicated users of the system had concerns about its performance even with current mitigations in place. The FAA observed evidence of increased stress on the national airspace system (NAS) in aviation safety data, particularly at 40 high traffic airports, identified in Appendix A (“High Impact Airports”) of the November 12 Emergency Order. This data indicated a correlation between ATO staffing and stress on the NAS, prompting the FAA to issue an order entitled “Emergency Order Establishing Operating Limitations on the Use of Navigable Airspace” on November 7, 2025, to mitigate safety concerns and to address ATC stressors by requiring certain air carriers to reduce their total daily scheduled domestic operations between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local. The order required gradually increasing reductions in domestic operations at High Impact Airports, culminating in a required reduction of 10 percent. However, before required reductions reached the 10 percent level, the FAA's review of pertinent data showed staffing rates reverting towards normal. Accordingly, the FAA issued the November 12 Emergency Order and the subsequent November 14 Addendum adjusting the reductions in operations to 6 percent and then 3 percent, respectively.
The FAA has continued to monitor data on National Airspace System (NAS) operations and has determined that ATO staffing levels have maintained at a consistently sufficient level to reduce stress on the NAS. As such, the FAA is canceling the November 12 Emergency Order.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion (CATEX) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Accordingly, under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, and 46105(c), it is hereby ordered that the November 12, 2025, Emergency Order Establishing Operating Limitations on the Use of Navigable Airspace is hereby cancelled in its entirety, effective at 6:00 a.m. EST on November 17, 2025, except that the FAA may pursue enforcement actions for failure to comply with the November 12 Emergency Order during its effective period.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, and Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety.
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of a joint FAA-PHMSA guidance document on transporting hazardous materials by Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). This document is available at:
This guidance document is available as of November 19, 2025. Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 2025.
Lori Ambers, 405-954-0088, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591-0001 or
Steven Andrews, 202-366-8553, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-000.
Section 933 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, titled “Special Authority for Transport of Hazardous Materials by Commercial Package Delivery Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” directs the Secretary of Transportation to use a risk-based approach to establish the operational requirements, standards, or special permits necessary to approve or authorize an air carrier to transport hazardous materials by UAS providing common carriage under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 135, or under successor authorities, as applicable, based on the weight, amount, and type of hazardous material being transported and the characteristics of the operations subject to such requirements, standards, or special purposes (see subsection (a)). The FAA and PHMSA addressed subsection (e)(1) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 by hosting a joint public meeting on August 22, 2024.
In addressing the statutory requirement, the FAA and PHMSA are providing guidance that will enable operators to account methodically for what can be unique risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by UAS. This guidance is intended for 14 CFR part 135 UAS applicants and certificate holders who seek authorization to transport hazardous materials, including those certificate holders seeking to expand the scope of their current hazardous materials programs. The document is available at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites the public to make comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Shantel Young by email at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate a previously approved information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by December 19, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0334 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Michelle Hilary, (860) 803-6481, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
We published a
Overall, the comments expressed strong support for the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program (WCPP) and implementation of wildlife crossings in general, emphasizing protection of both animals and drivers, reducing collisions, saving lives, and preserving habitat connectivity. Regarding information collection, one of the State DOTs provided the following recommendations for streamlining the reporting process:
• Use electronic technology for submissions and reporting (
• Leverage existing data and studies (use already collected traffic, crash, and wildlife/habitat data) to avoid duplicate reporting and reduce burden on applicants;
• Minimize reporting requirements to the essentials by prioritizing data that directly supports program oversight and outcomes, and eliminate redundant fields or requests; and
• Streamline and standardize reporting templates and procedures so applicants can complete requirements more quickly and consistently.
FHWA is committed to improving safety for the traveling public through the reduction of WVCs. FHWA is open to utilizing technology to the extent possible to reduce the information collection burden for applicants and grantees, allowing for more streamlined information collection and improvements in the project delivery process under the WCPP.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Brightline West (BW) petitioned FRA for a modification of relief from certain regulations concerning Tier III rolling stock for passenger service.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by December 19, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Harold Weisinger, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-0036, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated July 24, 2025, BW petitioned FRA for a modification of an existing waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, and 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2020-0096.
The existing relief in this docket pertains to BW's Tier III rolling stock it plans to utilize for new passenger service from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Southern California. BW explains that, with certain exceptions, the rolling stock will comply with FRA's standards related to Tier III equipment, including the requirements FRA proposed on April 3, 2023.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by December 19, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) petitioned FRA to extend an existing waiver of certain regulations related to a shared use property.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by December 19, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
John Mardente, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Engineering & Technology Division, telephone: 202-493-1335, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated September 12, 2025 NJ Transit petitioned FRA for a one-year extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 219, 221, 222, 223, 229, 231, 234, 236, 238, 239, 242, 243, and 270. The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2007-0030.
Specifically, NJ Transit seeks to extend the terms and conditions of its existing shared use waiver, requesting the following extended relief:
• partial relief from parts 221, 223, 229, 234, 236, and 238; and
• full relief from parts 219, 222, 231, 238, 239, 242, 243, and 270.
NJ Transit requests extended relief for one year, as NJ Transit has transitioned operations and maintenance tasks for the Southern New Jersey Light Rail system (RiverLINE) from Alstom Transportation, Inc. to NJ Transit. The petition explains that the extension would allow NJ Transit “sufficient time to develop a transition plan, policies, and procedures as well as the data to support a future petition” about the RiverLINE. NJ Transit explains that requesting a full, 5-year extension of relief at this time would not provide FRA with “sufficient, real-time information and documentation to consider a waiver renewal.”
The relief in this docket supports the continued operation of the RiverLINE rail fixed guideway public transit system operating between Camden and Trenton, New Jersey. The passenger service uses non-FRA compliant articulated diesel multiple units and is temporally separated from freight service on Consolidated Rail Corporation's track.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by December 19, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning recording devices on locomotives.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by December 19, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Harry Weisinger, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-0036, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated August 12, 2025, LIRR petitioned FRA for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 229 (Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2025-0588.
Specifically, LIRR seeks temporary relief from the deadline by which to implement § 229.136(a)(1,5) and (c)(1)(iii),
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by December 19, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that the BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning track inspections.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by December 19, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Yujiang Zhang, Staff Director, FRA Track & Structures Division, telephone: 202-493-6460, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter received July 9, 2025, BNSF petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 213 (Track Safety Standards). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-0064.
BNSF requests extended relief from § 213.233(b) and (c),
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by December 19, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by December 19, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Scott Johnson, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 406-210-3608, email:
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that by letter received September 10, 2025, Amtrak petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2025-0754.
Specifically, Amtrak requests to remove all automatic block signals on its New York Terminal District Main Line (East River Tunnel Lines 1 and 2) on the New York Division from milepost (MP) 0.1 to MP 3.0. Amtrak adds that the existing cab with wayside signal configuration will be replaced with block points without wayside signals and a control point will be added. In its petition, Amtrak states that removing these signals will “increase capacity, eliminate maintenance and operation of unnecessary hardware no longer needed, and . . . reduce delays to trains caused by failures of the signals.” Amtrak further states that safety in the subject area will be upheld as the cab signal system and positive train control will enforce train speed and positive train stop. This request is part of Amtrak's efforts to renew infrastructure in this area. Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit are both tenants on this line and have provided concurrence with the application.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by December 19, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Motor Carrier Identification Report,” which is used to identify FMCSA regulated entities, help prioritize the agency's activities, aid in assessing the safety outcomes of those activities, and for statistical purposes. This ICR is necessary to ensure regulated entities are registered with the DOT. On June 17, 2025, FMCSA published a 60-day notice in the
Comments on this notice must be received on or before December 19, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Jeffrey Secrist, Office of Registration, Chief, Registration Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 385-2367;
Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) section 504(b)(2) provides the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require carriers, lessors, associations, or classes of these entities to file annual, periodic, and special reports containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary. The Secretary may also prescribe the form of records required to be prepared or compiled and the time period during which records must be preserved (see 49 U.S.C. 504(b)(1) and (d)). FMCSA will use this data to administer its safety programs using a database of entities that are subject to its regulations. This database necessitates that these entities notify FMCSA of their existence. For example, under 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 390.19(a), FMCSA requires all motor carriers beginning operations to file Form MCS-150, “Motor Carrier Identification Report,” Form MCS-150B titled, “Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Applications,” or Form MCS-150C titled, “Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report.” This report is filed by all motor carriers conducting interstate operations, intrastate operations transporting HM, or international commerce before beginning operations. It asks the respondent to provide the name of the business entity that owns and controls the motor carrier operation; address and telephone of principal place of business; assigned identification number(s), type of operation, types of cargo usually transported; number of vehicles owned, term leased and trip leased; driver information; and certification statement signed by an individual authorized to sign documents on behalf of the business entity. Existing applicants will use Form MCS-150, MCS-150B, or MCS-150C to update their information in the Motor Carrier Management Information System. Applicants filing for the first time will be required to file online. Form MCS-150, MCS-150B will be used for Mexico-domiciled carriers that seek authority to operate beyond the United States municipalities on the United States-Mexico border and their commercial zones, or MCS-150C will be used by IEPs beginning operations that interchange intermodal equipment with a motor carrier or have contractual responsibility for the maintenance of intermodal equipment. The information collected from the respondents is readily available to the public. This revised ICR captures the burden of continued use of Form MCS-150, MCS-150B for motor carriers updating their registration information and for the registration of Mexico-domiciled carriers, or MCS-150C for IEPs. No public comments were received in response to the 60-day
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on October 29, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On October 29, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons, designated pursuant to Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003 (“Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001” hereinafter “E.O. 13304”), Executive Order 14033 of June 8, 2021 (“Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Certain Persons Contributing to the Destabilizing Situation in the Western Balkans” hereinafter “E.O. 14033”), and/or for those designated on or after January 8, 2025, pursuant to E.O. 14033, as amended by Executive Order 14140 (“Taking Additional Steps with Respect to the Situation in the Western Balkans”), are unblocked and they have been removed from the SDN List.
1. AGAPE GORICA DODIK I IVANA DODIK S.P. BANJA LUKA (a.k.a. RESTORAN AGAPE GORICA DODIK I IVANA DODIK S.P. BANJA LUKA), Trg Krajine 2, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Tax ID No. 4510153630006 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Gorica).
2. AGRO VOCE D.O.O. LAKTASI (a.k.a. AGRO VOCE D.O.O.; a.k.a. AGRO VOCE D.O.O. ZA VOCARSTVO PROIZVODNJU I TRGOVINU LAKTASI), Aleksandrovac BB, Laktasi 78250, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Tax ID No. 4402836840009 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 1-16884-00 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Gorica).
3. ALTERNATIVNA TELEVIZIJA D.O.O. BANJA LUKA (a.k.a. ALTERNATIVNA TELEVIZIJA DRUSTVO ZA INFORMISANJE D.O.O. BANJA LUKA; a.k.a. ALTERNATIVNE TELEVIZIJE; a.k.a. “ALTERNATIVE TV”; a.k.a. “ATV”), Ulica Gunduliceva 33, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 1997; Tax ID No. 4400946870008 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Registration Number 1-9857-00 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Milorad).
4. BEST SERVICE D.O.O. BANJA LUKA (a.k.a. AGAPE BEST D.O.O. BANJA LUKA; a.k.a. NAJBOLJA USLUGA DRUSTVO SA OGRANICENOM ODGOVORNOSCU BANJA LUKA), Trg Krajine br. 2, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 27 Nov 2023; Organization Type: Restaurants and mobile food service activities; Tax ID No. 4405158280005 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0554-23 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DOBRIC, Aleksandar).
5. ELPRING D.O.O. LAKTASI, XVI Krajiske Motorizovane Brigade 63, Laktasi 78250, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 17 Jul 2024; Tax ID No. 4405278340001 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0312-24 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
6. FRUIT ECO D.O.O. GRADISKA (a.k.a. DRUSTVO SA OGRANICENOM ODGOVORNOSCU ZA PROIZVODNJU I PROMET VOCA I POVRCA FRUIT ECO D.O.O. GORNJI PODGRADCI, GRADISKA; a.k.a. FRUIT ECO D.O.O.), Gornji Podgradci BB, Gradiska 78400, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Tax ID No. 4402717080004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 1-16289-00 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
7. GLOBAL LIBERTY D.O.O. LAKTASI (a.k.a. DRUSTVO SA OGRANICENOM ODGOVORNOSCU GLOBAL LIBERTY LAKTASI; a.k.a. GLOBAL LIBERTY D.O.O.), Gradiska cesta 57, Laktasi 78250, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Tax ID No. 4403756190000 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0286-14 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor; Linked To: DODIK, Gorica).
8. INFINITY INTERNATIONAL GROUP D.O.O. BANJA LUKA, Trg Srpskih Junaka 4, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 20 Jul 2020; Tax ID No. 4404593160007 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0179-20 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DJURIC, Djordje).
9. INFINITY MEDIA D.O.O., Trg Srpskih Junaka 4, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 31 Jul 2021; Tax ID No. 4404748110001 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 11207138 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: INFINITY INTERNATIONAL GROUP D.O.O. BANJA LUKA).
10. K-2 AUDIO SERVICES BANJA LUKA D.O.O. (a.k.a. K-2 AUDIO USLUGE BANJA LUKA D.O.O.; a.k.a. “K-2 D.O.O.”), Gunduliceva 33, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 02 Dec 2002; Tax ID No. 4401652230007 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 01962426 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: INFINITY MEDIA D.O.O.).
11. KALDERA COMPANY EL PGP D.O.O., Kobatovci BB, Laktasi 78250, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 30 Mar 1998; Tax ID No. 4401185190004 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
12. NIMBUS INNOVATIONS D.O.O. BANJA LUKA, Brace Pantica 2, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 23 Jul 2024; Tax ID No. 4405275080009 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0301-24 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
13. PROINTER ITSS D.O.O. BANJA LUKA CLAN INFINITY INTERNATIONAL GROUP (a.k.a. PROINTER ITSS D.O.O. BANJA LUKA), Ulica Vidovdanska 8, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 28 Apr 2015; Tax ID No. 4403865130009 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0142-15 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
14. SEE MEDIA RESEARCH LTD, Floor 1, 1 Goergiou Gennadiou, Larnaca 6031, Cyprus; Organization Established Date 05 Oct 2023; Business Registration Number HE452094 (Cyprus) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: GUJANICIC, Marko).
15. SIRIUS 2010 D.O.O. BANJA LUKA (a.k.a. INFORMACIONI INZINJERING SIRIUS 2010 DRUSTVO SA OGRANICENOM ODGOVORNOSCU BANJA LUKA; a.k.a. SIRIUS 2010 D.O.O. KOTOR VAROS), Brace Pantica 2, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Ul. Prvog Krajiskog Korpusa 18, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Kralja Petra I Karadordevica 109, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 27 Sep 2007; Tax ID No. 4402692070009 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 1-16223-00 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: DODIK, Igor).
16. UNA WORLD NETWORK D.O.O. (a.k.a. UNA SVIJET MREZA D.O.O.), Bulevar Srpske Vojske 17, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 03 Aug 2021; Tax ID No. 4404752810000 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 11207553 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: INFINITY MEDIA D.O.O.).
17. VORTO D.O.O., Ulica Jevrejska 67, Banja Luka 78000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date 02 Mar 2020; Organization Type: Management consultancy activities; Tax ID No. 4404565110002 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0074-20 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [BALKANS-EO14033] (Linked To: VUKOTIC, Vlatko).
18. ZELENA JABUKA D.O.O. (a.k.a. GREEN APPLE D.O.O.), Gornji Podgradci bb, Gradiska 78400, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Organization Established Date Apr 2024; Organization Type: Growing of other tree and bush fruits and nuts; Tax ID No. 4405236420005 (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Business Registration Number 57-01-0166-24 (Bosnia and
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on October 14, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On October 14, 2025, OFAC determined that that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 76 FR 44757 (July 27, 2011), as amended by Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 84 FR 10255 (March 19, 2019) (E.O. 13581, as amended) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
2. CHEN, Xiao'er, Frigate Bay, Saint Kitts and Nevis; DOB 01 May 1982; nationality Saint Kitts and Nevis; Gender Male; Passport RE00660066 (Saint Kitts and Nevis) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
3. HUANG, Chieh, Koror, Palau; Hsinchu, Taiwan; DOB 05 Jan 1994; nationality Taiwan; Gender Female; Passport 351788588 (Taiwan) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
4. SHIH, Ting-yu (a.k.a. “SHIH, Vivian”), Koror, Palau; DOB 08 Nov 1990; nationality Taiwan; Gender Female; Passport 353058635 (Taiwan) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
5. WANG, Michelle Reishane, Koror, Palau; DOB 05 Mar 1994; nationality Taiwan; Gender Female; Passport 360272295 (Taiwan) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
6. WANG, Guodan (a.k.a. “WANG, Rose”), P.O. Box 8064, Koror, Palau; DOB 22 Jan 1977; nationality China; Gender Female; Passport E85782076 (China) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
7. YANG, Jian, Room No. 1115, No. 66 Jinkaidadao, Yubei District, Chongqing, China; DOB 25 Aug 1983; nationality Cyprus; Gender Male; Passport K00441025 (Cyprus) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
8. YANG, Yanming (a.k.a. “YANG, Kimi”), Room No. B314 Siamese Gioia Condo Sukhumvit 31, Sukhumvit Rd, North Klongton, Wattana, Bangkok, Thailand; 287-91 Moo 1 Sukhumvit 72 Alley Samrong Nuea, Mueang Samut Prakan, Thailand; Koror, Palau; DOB 24 Mar 1991; nationality Cambodia; alt. nationality Vanuatu; Gender Male; Passport N02404035 (Cambodia); alt. Passport RV0107373 (Vanuatu); Tax ID No. 100060 (Palau) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
9. TANG, Nigel Wan Bao Nabil, Singapore; DOB 02 Sep 1993; POB Singapore; nationality Singapore; Gender Male; Passport E6790628B (Singapore) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
10. CHEN, Xiuling (a.k.a. “CHEN, Karen”), Singapore; DOB 14 Jun 1982; POB Singapore; nationality Singapore; Gender Female; Passport K2325996K (Singapore); National ID No. S8217005G (Singapore) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
11. CHHAY, Guy, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; DOB 09 Jul 1987; POB Phnom Penh, Cambodia; nationality Cambodia; citizen Cambodia; Gender Male; Passport N0718897 (Cambodia); National ID No. 01052634401 (Cambodia) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
12. DARA, Ing, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; DOB 04 Sep 1981; POB Phnom Penh, Cambodia; nationality Cambodia; citizen Cambodia; Gender Male; Passport N00453333 (Cambodia); National ID No. 010929329 (Cambodia) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
1. PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, Cambodia; Target Type Criminal Organization [TCO].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 76 FR 44757 (July 27, 2011), as amended by Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 84 FR 10255 (March 19, 2019) (E.O. 13581, as amended), for being a foreign person that constitutes a significant transnational criminal organization.
2. AQUA PURE WATER INC. (a.k.a. “FRIENDLIN”), P.O. Box 8064, Ngetkib, Airai, Palau; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GUODAN WANG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
3. GRAND LEGEND INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP CO. LTD., Ngerbelas Island, Kayangel, Palau; Tax ID No. 016290 (Palau) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
4. JING PIN INC. (a.k.a. “JING PIN CENTURY HOTEL”; a.k.a. “JING PIN INC. CHINA KITCHEN”; a.k.a. “JING PIN OCEAN STAR HOTEL”; a.k.a. “OCEAN STAR GIFT SHOP”; a.k.a. “OCEAN STAR RESTAURANT”), P.O. Box 8064 Ngerbeched, Koror, Palau; Tax ID No. 015177 (Palau) [TCO] (Linked To: WANG, Guodan).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, GUODAN WANG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
5. PRINCE BANK PLC. (a.k.a. PRINCE FINANCE PLC), 175cd Mao Tse Toung Blvd., Phum 5, S.tuol Svay Prey 1, K.chamkar Mon, Phnom Penh 12308, Cambodia; SWIFT/BIC PINCKHPPXXX; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
6. BRIGHT TEAM GLOBAL LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1984336 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
7. MIGHTY DIVINE FINE ART FUND, Cayman Islands; Organization Type: Trusts, funds and similar financial entities; Company Number 356843 (Cayman Islands); Global Intermediary Identification Number XCRTNS.99999.SL.136 [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
8. MIGHTY DIVINE FUND SPC, Cayman Islands; Organization Type: Trusts, funds and similar financial entities; Company Number 339930 (Cayman Islands); Global Intermediary Identification Number KT1M7G.99999.SL.136 [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
9. MIGHTY DIVINE GLOBAL FUND SPC, Cayman Islands; Company Number 341500 (Cayman Islands); Legal Entity Number 25490097TSPULKFOF602 [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having
10. MIGHTY DIVINE HK LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2623747 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
11. MIGHTY DIVINE INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2806520 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
12. MIGHTY DIVINE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 62230883 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
13. MIGHTY DIVINE LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1961510 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
14. MIGHTY DIVINE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, Cayman Islands; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Company Number 341114 (Cayman Islands); Global Intermediary Identification Number JRDHUP.99999.SL.136 [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
15. MIGHTY DIVINE PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2994832 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
16. MIGHTY DIVINE SECURITIES LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2838290 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
17. MIGHTY DIVINE TRUST HONG KONG LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 3095311 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
18. SUN AND SUN LIMITED (a.k.a. SUN & SUN LIMITED), Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2706961 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: ZHOU, Yun).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ZHOU YUN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
19. CHEER CAPITAL LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 51220263 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
20. GEORESOURCES LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 1003297 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
21. GEOTECH ENGINEERING LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 0485362 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
22. GEOTECH HOLDINGS LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 66512554 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
23. KHOON GROUP LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 69884417 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
24. NOVA LUXE GLOBAL LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 72690162 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
25. NOVA MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 70367989 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
26. PRAISE MARBLE LIMITED, Cayman Islands; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1903478 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
27. RICHWAY CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 52401658 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
28. STAR MERIT GLOBAL LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1984550 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
29. YAU WING CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Business Registration Number 53681314 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
30. PACIFIC CHARM HOLDINGS INVESTMENT LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1977603 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
31. PRINCE GLOBAL GROUP LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1988522 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
32. PRINCE GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1988528 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
33. PRINCE GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2673683 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
34. RESPECTFUL STEED LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1971898 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
35. RETAIN PROSPER LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 2022874 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
36. ROBUST HARMONY LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1971181 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
37. SIMPLY ADVANCED LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 2035067 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
38. STARRY BLOOM LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 2035066 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
39. ATLASWISE CONSULTANTS PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 201713998H (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
40. AWESOME GLOBAL INVESTMENT GROUP CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901705474 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE HOLDING GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE HOLDING GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
41. BELT ROAD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901704485 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE HOLDING GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE HOLDING GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
42. CAPITAL ZONE WAREHOUSING PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 202122650M (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
43. CLOUD XERO MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 202129704C (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
44. DW CAPITAL HOLDINGS PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 201833892H (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
45. LUMINOUS GLOW LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1992019 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
46. PRINCE HOROLOGY VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTER (a.k.a. PRINCE HOROLOGY), Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Organization Established Date 2020; Organization Type: Higher education [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE HOLDING GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE HOLDING GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
47. SKYLINE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 201622975H (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
48. TAIWAN PRINCE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Taipei, Taiwan; Company Number 42992024 (Taiwan) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
49. WARPCAPITAL YACHT MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 201900147W (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
50. GOOD EQUITY TEAM PTE. LTD., Singapore; Organization Type: Management consultancy activities; Identification Number 202446827M (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
51. PRINCE CULTURE AND MEDIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901636016 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
52. PRINCE GROUP PLC., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901907416 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
53. PRINCE HOLDING PLC., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901907141 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
54. PRINCE HUAN YU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K004-901900288 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: LEI, Bo).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, LEI BO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
55. PRINCE HUAN YU CAMBODIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DESIGN CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K004-901903021 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: LEI, Bo).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, LEI BO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
56. PRINCE SEASHORE NO. 1 CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901903144 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
57. STERLING CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 202130572K (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Xiuling).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN XIULING, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
58. AWESOME CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ENGINEERING CO. LTD.,
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
59. AWESOME SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901704018 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
60. BELT ROAD CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901805561 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
61. CANOPY SANDS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901906001 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
62. CITYLINK CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-100077668 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
63. CK ID CO. LTD, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-100135641 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
64. HIGH VIEW SKYLINE INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K003-901639643 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
65. PRINCE BUSINESS OPERATING MANAGEMENT CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901639891 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
66. PRINCE CLUB MANAGEMENT CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Colombia; Tax ID No. K008-901701158 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
67. PRINCE CULTURE AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., Kandal, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B108-901806256 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
68. PRINCE HAPPINESS PLAZA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901903143 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
69. PRINCE HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., Kandal, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B108-901702269 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
70. PRINCE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901903966 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
71. PRINCE KOH TA KIEV CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901903212 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
72. PRINCE MARKETING PLANNING AGENCY CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901639799 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
73. PRINCE MEDIA GALLERY CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K003-901504226 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHHAY, Guy).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHHAY GUY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
74. PRINCE PLAZA INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
75. PRINCE PROPERTY CAMBODIA MANAGEMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K003-901503542 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
76. PRINCE REAL ESTATE CAMBODIA GROUP CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901501075 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
77. PRINCE REAL ESTATE DECORATION ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901503558 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
78. PRINCE SMART GARDEN CO. LTD., Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901900678 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
79. PRINCE SUPER MARKET CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901700042 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
80. PRINCE TIAN XI WAN CO. LTD., Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901907509 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
81. PRINCE TIMES HOTEL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD., Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B117-901701939 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
82. PRINCE TIMES PLAZA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-902100458 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
83. PRINCE VANGUARD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-902201692 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
84. PRINCE YACHT CLUB CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B117-901701217 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
85. TGC CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K003-901903576 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHHAY, Guy).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHHAY GUY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
86. XIN TIAN JIAN CAMBODIA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-107034018 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
87. ZHI XIN INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B117-901701963 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
88. ZHI XU INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B117-901701964 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
89. ZHI XU KOH RATANAK HOTEL CO. LTD., Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia; Tax ID No. B117-901908506 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
90. AUSPICIOUS TYCOON LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1984330 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf
91. DELIGHTFUL THRIVE LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1992053 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
92. EVEN SINCERITY LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1970592 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
93. FULAM INVESTMENT LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1542112 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
94. GIANT VICTORY HOLDINGS LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1930566 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
95. GOLDEN ASCEND HK LIMITED, Hong Kong, China; Company Number 2713133 (Hong Kong) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
96. GOLDEN ASCEND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1976645 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
97. HARMONIC STATE LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 2030628 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
98. JUMBO HIGH LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1984889 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
99. NOBLE TITLE LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Company Number 1925678 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf
118. MAJESTY PROPERTIES PTE. LTD., Singapore; Identification Number 201900446K (Singapore) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
119. CAMBODIAN HENG XIN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-107015455 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
120. GOLDEN FORTUNE RESORTS WORLD CO. LTD., Cambodia; Tax ID No. K002-901803517 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
121. JIN BEI GROUP CO. LTD. (a.k.a. JINBEI CASINO), Cambodia; Tax ID No. K003-901704045 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
122. PRINCE HOLDING GROUP, Prince Holding Group Building, Plov Koh Pich, Phum 14, Tonle Basak Sangkat, Chamkar Mon Khan, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended
123. PRINCE HUAN YU REAL ESTATE CAMBODIA GROUP CO. LTD. (a.k.a. PRINCE HUAN YU CAMBODIA INVESTMENT CO. LTD.; a.k.a. PRINCE HUAN YU REAL ESTATE GROUP; a.k.a. “UNI MORE GROUP CO. LTD.”), Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. L001-901801128 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE HOLDING GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE HOLDING GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
124. WARP DATA TECHNOLOGY LAO SOLE CO. LTD., Laos; Tax ID No. 164420736-900 (Laos) [TCO] (Linked To: PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, PRINCE GROUP TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
125. SURE TYCOON LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 2030676 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
126. SWORD RIVER LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1971899 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
127. TOWARDS SUNSHINE LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1970125 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
128. UNITED RICHES GLOBAL LIMITED, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Virgin Islands, British; Company Number 1984537 (Virgin Islands, British) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CHEN ZHI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on November 13, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On November 13, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. BAKU, Eselda (a.k.a. HYSA, Eselda), Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico; DOB 24 Jun 1987; POB Elbasan, Albania; nationality Albania; Gender Female (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: ENTRETENIMIENTO PALERMO S.A. DE C.V.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 76 FR 44757 (July 27, 2011), as amended by Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 84 FR 10255 (March 19, 2019) (E.O. 13581, as amended) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ENTRETENIMIENTO PALERMO S.A. DE C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
2. HYSA, Arben, Mexico; DOB 15 Sep 1970; POB Belsh, Albania; nationality Albania; Gender Male; Passport BJ4897370 (Albania) expires 09 Mar 2024; C.U.R.P. HAXA700915HNEYXR02 (Mexico) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
3. HYSA, Fabjon, Canada; DOB 27 Sep 1993; POB Elbasan, Albania; nationality Albania; Gender Male; Passport 1893770 (Albania) expires 15 Jun 2006 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
4. HYSA, Fatos, Albania; DOB 15 Jun 1972; nationality Albania; Gender Male; Passport BF5921175 (Albania) expires 07 Jan 2031 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
5. HYSA, Luftar, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Mexico; DOB 01 Mar 1967; POB Elbasan, Albania; nationality Albania; Gender Male; Passport BC5833174 (Albania) expires 22 Jul 2020; C.U.R.P. HAXL670301HNEYXF01 (Mexico) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
6. HYSA, Ramiz, Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico; DOB 08 Sep 1962; POB Belsh, Albania; nationality Albania; Gender Male; Passport BC5006114 (Albania) expires 05 Oct 2026 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
7. LOPEZ LOPEZ, Gilberto, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico; DOB 25 Feb 1981; POB Culiacan, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. LOLG810225HSLPPL07 (Mexico) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: ENTRETENIMIENTO PALERMO S.A. DE C.V.).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ENTRETENIMIENTO PALERMO S.A. DE C.V., a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
1. HYSA ORGANIZED CRIME GROUP, Mexico; Albania; Target Type Criminal Organization [TCO].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being a foreign person that constitutes a significant transnational criminal organization.
2. BLIRI S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 28 Feb 2007; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 102358 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar; Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
3. CUCINA DEL PORTO S.A. DE C.V., Sinaloa, Mexico; Organization Established Date 31 May 2023; Organization Type: Other food service activities; Folio Mercantil No. 5331 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: LOPEZ LOPEZ, Gilberto).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gilberto Lopez Lopez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
4. DIVERSIONES LOS MOCHIS S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 03 Jun 2009; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 115186 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in
5. EL ARTE DE COCINAS Y BEBER S.A. DE C.V., Sinaloa, Mexico; Organization Established Date 31 May 2023; Organization Type: Other food service activities; Folio Mercantil No. 5330 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: LOPEZ LOPEZ, Gilberto).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gilberto Lopez Lopez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
6. ENTRETENIMIENTO PALERMO S.A. DE C.V., Sonora, Mexico; Organization Established Date 13 Feb 2009; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 3833 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
7. ENTRETENIMIENTO VILLAHERMOSA S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 05 Oct 2009; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 117297 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
8. ENTRETENIMIENTO Y ESPECTACULOS B.C. S.A. DE C.V., Baja California, Mexico; Organization Established Date 13 Sep 2011; Organization Type: Gambling and betting activities; Folio Mercantil No. 33240 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
9. GRUPO INTERNACIONAL CANHYSAMEX S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 06 Aug 2012; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Folio Mercantil No. 134828 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
10. H HIDROCARBUROS S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 08 Jun 2015; Organization Type: Manufacture of refined petroleum products; Folio Mercantil No. 153471 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
11. HYSA FORWARDERS S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 10 Jun 2021; Organization Type: Retail sale of clothing, footwear and leather articles in specialized stores; Folio Mercantil No. 35583 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar; Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
12. HYSA HOLDINGS INC (a.k.a. GESTION HYSA INC), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Organization Established Date 27 Oct 2011; Company Number 798018-3 (Canada); Business Number 842067886RC0001 (Canada) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
13. LH PRO-GAMING S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 25 Apr 2019; Organization Type: Other amusement and recreation activities; Folio Mercantil No. 48625 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar; Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
14. LH RENTAL S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 20 May 2019; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 48939 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
15. OPERADORA ALEJIL S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 24 Jan 2014; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Folio Mercantil No. 143781 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: LOPEZ LOPEZ, Gilberto).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gilberto Lopez Lopez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
16. OPERADORA DE EMPRESAS LH S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 29 May 2013; Organization Type: Financial and Insurance Activities; Folio Mercantil No. 140893 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar; Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for
17. PROCESADORA DE ALIMENTOS HS S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 25 Sep 2015; Organization Type: Other food service activities; Folio Mercantil No. 157133 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
18. ROSETTA GAMING INC (a.k.a. JEUX ROSETTA INC), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Organization Established Date 17 Dec 2014; Company Number 912385-7 (Canada); Business Number 819833187RC0001 (Canada) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Luftar).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
19. ROSETTA GAMING S.A. DE C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Organization Established Date 08 Aug 2016; Organization Type: Manufacture of industrial, electric and electronic machinery; Folio Mercantil No. 33158 (Mexico) [TCO] (Linked To: HYSA, Arben; Linked To: HYSA, Luftar).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Arben Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Luftar Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
20. ROSETTA GAMING SPOLKA Z OGRANICZONA ODPOWIEDZIALNOSCIA (Latin: ROSETTA GAMING SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ) (a.k.a. ROSETTA GAMING SP ZOO), Krakow, Poland; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Fabjon Hysa, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing updates to the identifying information of one or more persons currently included in OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on October 30, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On October 30, 2025, OFAC updated the entry on the SDN List for the following persons, whose property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction continue to be blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
2. YEO, Sin Huat Alan, Singapore; DOB 27 Sep 1972; POB Singapore; nationality Singapore; Gender Male; Passport 7234580J (Singapore); alt. Passport E5665088N (China)
The listing for the individual now appears as follows:
YEO, Sin Huat Alan, Singapore; DOB 27 Sep 1972; POB Singapore; nationality Singapore; Gender Male; Passport 7234580J (Singapore); alt. Passport E5665088N (Singapore) (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
1. PRINCE CLUB MANAGEMENT CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Colombia; Tax ID No. K008-901701158 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
The listing for the entity now appears as follows:
PRINCE CLUB MANAGEMENT CAMBODIA CO. LTD., Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Tax ID No. K008-901701158 (Cambodia) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEN, Zhi).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on November 4, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On November 4, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person, sanctioned pursuant to Executive Order 14038 of August 9, 2021 (“Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Belarus” hereinafter “E.O. 14038”), are unblocked and they have been removed from the SDN List.
1. OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY BELAVIA BELARUSIAN AIRLINES (a.k.a. BELAVIA BELARUSIAN AIRLINES; a.k.a. JOINT STOCK COMPANY AVIACOMPANY BELAVIA; a.k.a. OAO AVIAKOMPANIYA BELAVIA (Cyrillic: ОАО АВИАКОМПАНИЯ БЕЛАВИА)), 14A, Nemiga str., Minsk 220004, Belarus; Tax ID No. 600390798 (Belarus); Government Gazette Number 011286185000 (Belarus) [BELARUS-EO14038].
1. EW-301PJ; Aircraft Model CRJ-200ER; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 8057; Aircraft Tail Number EW-301PJ (aircraft) [BELARUS-EO14038] (Linked To: OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY BELAVIA BELARUSIAN AIRLINES).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on November 7, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On November 7, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person, designated pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 are unblocked and they have been removed from the SDN List.
1. KHATTAB, Anas Hasan (a.k.a. ABU HAMZAH; a.k.a. AL-KHAYAT, Samir Ahmed; a.k.a. “HANI”); DOB 07 Apr 1986; POB Damascus, Syria; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 00351762055 (individual) [SDGT].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Joint Committee Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform. In exceptional circumstances, such as a lapse in appropriations, the agency or an independent Presidential advisory committee may give less than 15 calendar days notice. That is the case for this meeting.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227, 202-317-4115, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee Project Committee will be held on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at the contact information above no later than Friday, November 21, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding the burden associated with the quarterly federal excise tax returns.
Written comments should be received on or before January 20, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and recommendations to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email at
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the burden of information reporting for debt instruments with original issue discount; contingent payments; anti-abuse rule.
Written comments should be received on or before January 20, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala, at (202) 317-5746, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding the burden associated with the procedures for requesting a determination of whether a particular substance should be added to or removed from the list of taxable substances in section 4672(a)(3) of the IRC.
Written comments should be received on or before January 20, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and recommendations to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala, (202)-317-5746, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or via email at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding the burden associated with the guidance governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
Written comments should be received on or before January 20, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and recommendations to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email at
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by December 19, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
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
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
DHS proposes to rescind the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations. The 2022 regulations are not the best implementation of the statute, inconsistent with congressional intent, unduly restrictive, and hamper DHS's ability to make accurate, precise, and reliable determinations of whether certain aliens are likely at any time to become a public charge. Rescission would restore broader discretion to evaluate all pertinent facts and align with long-standing policy that aliens in the United States should be self-reliant and government benefits should not incentivize immigration. DHS also proposes to address the breach and cancellation of public charge bonds.
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments submitted in a manner other than via
If you cannot submit your comment by using
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to remove the current public charge inadmissibility provisions promulgated by the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule (2022 Final Rule),
DHS intends to remove the regulatory provisions in the 2022 Final Rule with the exception of certain public charge bond provisions and technical corrections, which will pave the way for DHS to, in the future, formulate appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide DHS officers in making individualized, fact-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations, based on a totality of the alien's circumstances, that are consistent with the statute and congressional intent, and comply with past precedent.
DHS notes that while it is proposing to remove the public charge inadmissibility regulations in the short-term, DHS intends, after the removal of these regulations, to formulate appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide public charge inadmissibility determinations while empowering officers to consider: (1) the mandatory statutory factors in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B); (2) all individualized case-specific factors and circumstances relevant to an alien's case; and (3) any empirical data relevant to an alien's self-sufficiency. Consideration of these, in the totality of the circumstances, will allow officers to more accurately assess an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge using their good judgment and discretion, as Congress intended. Consequently, through this NPRM, DHS proposes to move away from a bright line primary dependence standard, which would allow officers to make public charge inadmissibility determinations consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A) and reflected in established administrative case law prior to the 2022 Final Rule, and removing limitations on the types of public resources that are relevant for considering whether an alien is dependent, including the references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. DHS welcomes feedback and recommendations on what to include in
The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) for the proposed rescissions and regulatory amendments is found in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), which governs public charge inadmissibility determinations; section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, which addresses applicants for admission; and section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, which addresses eligibility criteria for applications for adjustment of status. In addition, section 103(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3), authorizes the Secretary to establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out the Secretary's authority under the INA.
DHS proposes the following changes:
• Amend 8 CFR 103.6(c), Cancellation and breach
• Remove 8 CFR 212.20, Applicability of public charge inadmissibility
• Remove 8 CFR 212.21, Definitions
• Remove 8 CFR 212.22, Public charge inadmissibility determination
• Remove 8 CFR 212.23, Exemptions and waivers for public charge ground of inadmissibility
DHS proposes to remove most provisions implemented in the 2022 Final Rule to allow DHS to better implement the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The proposed rule is expected to impose new benefits and transfers. To assess the impacts of the proposed rule, DHS considers the potential impacts of the rule relative to a no-action baseline, which reflects the current state of the world absent this regulatory action.
The primary source of unquantified benefits of this proposed rule is the removal of overly-restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this proposed rule would ensure that officers would be able to make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach would prevent the application of overly restrictive criteria that unnecessarily limits DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The proposed rule would also result in a reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in a public benefits program. Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program include aliens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status households. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $8.97 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted Federal and State transfer payments reduction of this proposed rule could be approximately $76.48 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $62.97 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. This total includes DHS' estimate that Federal transfer payments could decrease by approximately $45.12 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $37.15 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. Using the average Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), DHS further estimates that State transfer payments could decrease by approximately $31.35 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $25.82 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. DHS notes there may be additional reductions in transfer payments that we are unable to quantify. DHS also recognizes that the estimated reductions in transfer payments are approximations and could be influenced by external factors unrelated to this proposed rule. For example, the recent enrollment changes to Medicaid and SNAP implemented in the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill are expected to impact enrollment rates, adding complexity to quantification efforts.
Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare providers, such as hospitals and nonprofits, participating in Medicaid, companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for purchase using SNAP benefits, or landlords participating in federally funded housing programs.
Table II.1
The Secretary's authority for issuing this rule is found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101
In addition to establishing the Secretary's general authority for the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, enumerates various related authorities, including the Secretary's authority to establish such regulations, prescribe such forms of bond, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority.
Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), provides that any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge.
In general, under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has the discretion to admit into the United States an alien who is determined to be inadmissible based only on the public charge ground upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary.
Under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, certain aliens are required to submit a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA executed by a sponsor who agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable. The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA is intended to ensure that an intending immigrant has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to rely on the U.S. government for financial support.
Section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, addresses the inspection of applicants for admission, including inadmissibility determinations of such aliens.
Section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, generally establishes eligibility criteria for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
The United States has a long history of permitting aliens to enter the United States, whether permanently or on a temporary basis. At the same time, Congress has sought to exclude aliens who pose a threat to the safety or general welfare of the country or who seek to violate immigration laws.
Congress has exercised this authority in part by establishing the concepts of admission
Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), states that any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if in the opinion of the consular officer or immigration officer, as applicable, the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies to aliens applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily or permanently, for admission at or between ports of entry, and for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
The INA does not define the terms “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.” However, it does specify that when determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, consular officers and immigration officers must, at a minimum, consider the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills.
The United States has denied admission to aliens on public charge grounds since at least 1882.
While the INA of 1952 left the public charge ground of inadmissibility unchanged, it added language explicitly emphasizing officers' discretionary authority in determining an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. The INA of 1952 excluded aliens who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the government at the time of application for admission, were likely at any time to become public charges.
The totality of the circumstances framework for public charge inadmissibility determinations was codified in relation to one specific class of aliens in the 1980s. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), providing eligibility for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident to certain aliens who had resided in the United States continuously prior to January 1, 1982.
In
The Immigration Act of 1990 reorganized section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), and redesignated the public charge provision as section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
PRWORA significantly restricted alien eligibility for many Federal, State, and local public benefits.
With certain exceptions, Congress defined the term “Federal public benefit” broadly as: (A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and (B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.
Among the exceptions established by Congress allowing for eligibility for all aliens are provision of medical assistance for the treatment of an emergency medical condition; short-term, in-kind, non-cash emergency disaster relief; and public health assistance related to immunizations and treatment of the symptoms of a communicable disease.
PRWORA identified three types of benefits and related eligibility rules. First, there are “specified Federal programs,” for which even “qualified aliens” are generally not eligible. 8 U.S.C. 1612(a). Second, there are “Federal means-tested public benefits,” for which “qualified aliens” are generally eligible after a 5-year waiting period. 8 U.S.C. 1613(a). And finally, there are “designated federal programs,” for which States are allowed to determine whether and when a “qualified alien” is eligible, subject to certain restrictions. 8 U.S.C. 1612(b). Subsequent legislation has added additional categories of aliens, many with humanitarian statuses, to PRWORA's various exceptions and special provisions in order to meet the needs of those vulnerable populations. The following is a list of immigration categories that are “qualified aliens” under PRWORA, who, as noted above and subject to certain exceptions, are generally eligible for Federal public benefits after 5 years:
• An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(1).
• An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(2).
• A refugee who is admitted to the United States under section 207 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(3).
• An alien who is paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d), for a period of at least 1 year.
• An alien whose deportation is being withheld under section 243(h)
• An alien who is granted conditional entry under section 203(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7), as in effect before April 1, 1980. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(6).
• An alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrant as defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(7).
• An individual who lawfully resides in the United States in accordance with the Compacts of Free Association between the Government of the United States and the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau referred to in 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(G) (but only with respect to Medicaid). 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(8).
• An alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or a parent or by a member of the spouse or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented to, or acquiesced in, such battery or cruelty but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending that sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(1).
• An alien whose child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or a parent of the alien (without active participation by the alien in such battery or cruelty), or by a member of the spouse or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented to, or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty (and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty), but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending which sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(2).
• An alien child who resides in the same household as a parent who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by that parent's spouse or by a member of the spouse's family residing in the same household as the parent, and the spouse consented to, or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending which sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(3).
• An alien who has been granted nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), or who has a pending application that sets forth a prima facie case for eligibility for such nonimmigrant status. 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(4).
There are additional categories of aliens who may be eligible for certain benefits notwithstanding limitations set under PRWORA. For instance, the following aliens are treated as though they are refugees for benefits eligibility purposes, under other provisions of law:
• An alien who is a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, or an alien classified as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(T)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(ii). 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(A).
• An Iraqi or Afghan alien granted special immigrant status under section
• A citizen or national of Afghanistan (or a person with no nationality who last habitually resided in Afghanistan) paroled into the United States after July 31, 2021, who meets certain requirements, until March 31, 2023, or the term of parole granted, whichever is later. Public Law 117-43, sec. 2502(b) (Sept. 30, 2021).
In addition, in the Medicaid context, States may also elect to provide medical assistance under Title XIX of the Social Security Act to cover all lawfully residing children under age 21 or pregnant individuals.
Congress, in IIRIRA,
• Age;
• Health;
• Family status;
• Assets, resources, and financial status; and
• Education and skills.
Section 531(a) of IIRIRA amended section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), to require an enforceable affidavit of support under newly added section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a,
Furthermore, in enacting PRWORA and IIRIRA very close in time, Congress made certain public benefits available to limited categories of aliens who are also subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, because Congress recognized that certain aliens present in the United States who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility might find themselves in need of public benefits. Except in very limited circumstances,
On May 26, 1999, INS issued a proposed rule, Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds (1999 NPRM) (64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999)), and on that same day issued interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (1999 Interim Field Guidance).
INS sought to reduce negative public health and nutrition consequences generated by that confusion and to provide aliens, their sponsors, health care and immigrant assistance organizations, and the public with better guidance as to the types of public benefits that INS considered relevant to the public charge determination.
When developing the 1999 NPRM, INS consulted with Federal benefit-granting agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Deputy Secretary of HHS, which administers Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other benefits, advised that the best evidence of whether an individual is relying primarily on the government for subsistence is either the receipt of public cash benefits for income maintenance purposes or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.
While these letters supported the approach taken in the 1999 NPRM and 1999 Interim Field Guidance, the letters specifically focused on the reasonableness of a given INS interpretation (
INS defined public charge in the 1999 NPRM, as well as in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, to mean, for purposes of admission and adjustment of status, “an alien who is likely to become . . . primarily dependent
The 1999 Interim Field Guidance was issued as an attachment to the 1999 NPRM in order to “provide additional information to the public on the Service's implementation of the public charge provisions of the immigration laws . . . in light of the recent changes in law.”
Until both agencies published new regulations and policy guidance, including changes to the FAM, in 2018 and 2019, USCIS continued to follow the 1999 Interim Field Guidance in its adjudications and DOS continued following the public charge guidance set forth in the FAM in 1999.
In 2000, Congress amended section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, to include a provision that prohibited consideration of the receipt of public benefits by ”certain battered aliens” in a public charge inadmissibility determination.
In October 2018, DHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (2018 NPRM) (83 FR 51114 (Oct. 10, 2018)), which proposed regulatory changes regarding the definition of public charge and related terms and public charge ground inadmissibility determinations. DHS also included in the 2018 NPRM a withdrawal of the proposed regulation on public charge, the 1999 NPRM, that the former INS published on May 26, 1999.
Following public comments on the 2018 NPRM, DHS issued a final rule in August 2019, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (2019 Final Rule). The 2019 Final Rule changed DHS's public charge standards and procedures.
The 2019 Final Rule also provided an evidentiary framework under which USCIS would determine public charge
The 2019 Final Rule also contained a list of negative and positive factors that DHS would consider as part of this inadmissibility determination and directed officers to consider these factors “in the totality of the circumstances.”
Additionally, the 2019 Final Rule added provisions that rendered certain nonimmigrants ineligible for extension of stay or change of status if they received one or more public benefits, as defined in the rule, for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period since obtaining the nonimmigrant status they wished to extend or change.
The 2019 Final Rule was set to take effect on October 15, 2019, but, before it did, numerous plaintiffs filed suits challenging the 2019 Final Rule in five district courts, across four circuits.
In 2021, DHS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2021 ANPRM),
Following public comments on the 2022 NPRM, DHS published a final rule, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2022 Final Rule).
The 2022 Final Rule defined public charge more narrowly than in the 2019 Final Rule as likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, and did not include mandatory consideration of past, current, and future receipt of certain supplemental public benefits that did not represent a primary dependence on such benefits for subsistence.
The 2022 Final Rule did not revise DOS or DOJ standards or processes related to public charge inadmissibility determinations, and does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking extension of stay or change of status in the United States.
In January 2023, the State of Texas filed a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging DHS' repeal of the 2019 Final Rule and the promulgation of the 2022 Final Rule. On September 30, 2024, the District Court found the plaintiff lacked standing, denied the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and terminated the case. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 2, 2024. On February 25, 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted the joint motion to stay further proceedings until May 27, 2025. On May 29, 2025, the Fifth Circuit further extended the stay of proceedings until August 27, 2025. On September 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted DHS motion for abeyance for an additional 90 days until December 2, 2025.
As reflected in Executive Order 14218, Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders, the Trump administration is taking steps to “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”
This NPRM does not propose to revise DOS or DOJ standards or processes related to public charge inadmissibility determinations. Further, this NPRM does not propose to interpret or change DHS's application of the public charge ground of deportability at section 237(a)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).
The regulations implemented by the 2022 Final Rule and its predecessor, the 2019 Final Rule, are inconsistent with the national policy contained Executive Order 14218 and PRWORA and the spirit of the broad statutory text in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), in that both rules severely and unduly limited the factors that DHS could consider in making a public charge inadmissibility determination. This discouraged officers from considering relevant evidence essential to making an accurate and valid public charge inadmissibility determination that is consistent with the statute, the spirit of PRWORA, and past precedent decisions. This may have resulted in USCIS finding aliens eligible for adjustment of status even when their past receipt of means-tested public benefits may have demonstrated that they lacked self-sufficiency and were likely at any time to become a public charge, due to officers' inability to consider all benefits the alien depended on and any other relevant case-specific factor that has bearing on the inadmissibility determination.
Section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), states that “any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the [immigration officer] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), lists the minimum, non-exhaustive list of factors the consular officer or immigration officer must consider when making a public charge inadmissibility determination: the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. In addition to those five factors, the consular officer or immigration officer may also consider any Affidavit of Support under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. As the statutory language makes clear by stating that officers “shall at a minimum” consider these five factors, Congress clearly intended for officers to consider case-specific additional factors and information relevant to the public charge inadmissibility determination.
However, both the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule provided a finite list of factors that officers are required to consider without expressly providing officers with the authority to consider other factors that are relevant in any individual case. The 2022 Final Rule, in particular, failed to clarify for officers that their public charge inadmissibility determination was not limited to consideration of the factors enumerated in 8 CFR 212.22(a). While section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), clearly lists the “minimum” and non-exhaustive factors that officers must consider when making inadmissibility determinations, the 2022 Final Rule unduly restricts officers primarily to these five factors plus two additional factors, leaving little opportunity for discretion or deviation from considering these seven factors in the totality of the circumstances. Indeed, the current regulation at 8 CFR 212.22(a) has no provision for officers to consider any other factors than the express factors listed. See 8 CFR 212.22(a). Significantly, the 2022 Final Rule failed to include a provision in 8 CFR 212.22(a) that expressly permits
Moreover, both the 2019 Final Rule and 2022 Final Rule, in providing narrow and finite lists of factors that officers were required to consider, are in significant tension with the inherently discretionary nature of the public charge inadmissibility determination. Indeed, because the statute requires the officer to determine inadmissibility in his or her opinion, the officer may, in his or her discretion, determine what factors other than the statutory minimum factors are relevant to any individual case. This includes a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, if one is required, and any other factors relevant to this ground of inadmissibility as tailored to the specific facts of a given case. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted in 1950, “[s]ince the elements constituting likelihood of becoming a public charge are varied, there should be no attempt to define the term in the law, but rather to establish the specific qualification that the determination of whether an alien falls into that category rests within the discretion of the consular officers or [former INS].”
Additionally, both the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule provided narrow and finite lists of public benefits that could be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. The 2019 Final Rule limited consideration of receipt of public benefits to Federal, State, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance,
The 2022 Final Rule limits consideration of public benefits to only the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance
In addition to being inconsistent with administration policy and congressional intent, DHS notes that any narrow and finite lists of public benefits that may be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination and similar limitations on the types of information that immigration officers may consider are incongruent with past agency guidance and public-facing communications materials documenting the expansive, fact-specific, totality of the circumstances, and discretionary nature of the public charge analysis, including:
• A March 1946 INS article discussing the inherently fact-specific nature of the public charge analysis. “The proof in these cases usually consists of what is known as a Form I-234 (formerly 534), `Proof that alien has become a public charge,' which is executed by the proper hospital officials, showing that the alien is being maintained or has been maintained at public expense. This form shows the demand for payment and obligations due. The proof also consists of evidence, documentary or oral, establishing whether the cause arose before or after
• A March 1949 INS article describing the administrative discretion inherent in the public charge analysis. “In executing his mandate to exclude `persons likely to become a public charge,' the immigration officer at a seaport or border is confronted with a difficult task. The statute's terms are highly ambiguous but they must be construed in consonance with the Congressional design and the American tradition. Moreover, the statute speaks of one `likely' to become a public charge, and thus it thrusts upon the immigration officer's shoulders the mantle of prophecy.
• A May 1950, INS article documenting aliens deported as public charges to instruct INS officers on how to appropriately evaluate public charge, expressly stating that “further light may be thrown on the matter by a detailed examination of the actual cases deported in recent years.” The article noted that “likely to become a public charge” is a delineated term in immigration law and offered a highly factual analysis of recent cases, specifically addressing the types of charges, the cause of disability in the reported cases, status at last entry, length of residence in the United States before entering an institution, and facts regarding the social characteristics of the aliens (
• On May 25, 1999, INS issued a Public Charge Fact Sheet that discussed the 1999 NPRM's criteria for public charge determinations, but then expressly stated “The law requires that INS and DOS officials consider several additional issues as well. Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis.”
• In 2009, the USCIS Public Charge web page was updated to provide additional guidance, including “Inadmissibility based on the public charge ground is determined by the totality of the circumstances. This means that the adjudicating officer must weigh both the positive and negative factors when determining the likelihood that someone might become a public charge. At a minimum, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer must consider the following factors when making a public charge determination: Age, Health, Family status, Assets, Resources, Financial status, and Education and skills . . . In assessing the totality of the circumstances, including the statutory factors above, an officer may consider the individual's receipt of certain publicly funded benefits.”
• In 2011, USCIS issued a Public Charge Fact Sheet stating “Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances. In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care—such as a nursing home or mental health institution—may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations.”
Even if some past agency policy or practice is inconsistent with these examples, DHS notes these examples of past practice as the most consistent with the statute and best means of reaching accurate, precise, and reliable determinations. Indeed, even the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which the 2022 Final Rule substantively tracks in most other respects, emphasized “Officers must consider, at a minimum,” the statutory factors and mandated “Every denial order based on public charge must reflect consideration of each of these factors and specifically articulate the reasons for the officer's determination.”
These examples of past agency guidance and public-facing materials relating to public charge support DHS's position that the public charge determination is extremely fact-specific and discretionary in nature, but also that the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule were far too narrow in terms of reducing officer discretion and that the 2022 Final Rule continues to straitjacket DHS officers because it unduly limits the scope of factors officers may consider when arriving at a case-by-case determination in the totality of each alien's circumstances.
For these reasons, DHS believes that it must completely remove the public charge inadmissibility framework established by the 2022 Final Rule in order to be more consistent with PRWORA's directive that “aliens within the Nation's borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations,” as well as with section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), which directs DHS to deny admission and adjustment of status to aliens who are likely at any time to become a public charge. Indeed, DHS believes that the 2022 Final Rule's public charge inadmissibility provisions do not faithfully implement PRWORA and section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), insofar as they straitjacket DHS officers by limiting what public benefits DHS can consider in the totality of the circumstances and by precluding officers from considering factors beyond the seven factors outlined in the regulations.
To address the 2022 Final Rule's inconsistency with administration policy and the clear directives in PRWORA and section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), in this NPRM, DHS proposes to remove 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, 212.22, and 212.23. In removing 8 CFR 212.21 and 8 CFR 212.22, DHS
Additionally, DHS believes that it should remove the limitation on factors to be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations in order to more faithfully implement PRWORA and section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS believes that the current regulations are inconsistent with section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), by focusing on consideration of seven exclusive factors. Instead, DHS contends that Congress clearly signaled the inadmissibility determination must be a subjective, individualized, and case-specific determination based on consideration of all relevant factors rather than an enumerated, finite set of factors.
Simply put, DHS believes that the narrow definitions as well as the limitations on what public benefits and what factors can be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations that exist in 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, and 212.22 impede DHS's ability to robustly execute administration and congressional policy concerning aliens who depend on public resources to meet their needs instead of relying on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. Put another way, the administration and clear congressional national policy on welfare and immigration point to the view that an alien who lacks self-sufficiency should not be admitted to the United States or be granted adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
DHS believes that the existing regulatory framework can lead to irrational outcomes where officers are precluded from finding aliens inadmissible under the public charge ground when it is evident that these aliens are clearly not self-sufficient, which can lead to both more aliens remaining in the United States who are likely at any time to become a public charge and more aliens being dependent on public benefits programs. For example, under the 2022 Final Rule, DHS officers could find aliens who receive multiple forms of means-tested benefits to meet their needs not inadmissible due to the restrictive definition of “likely at any time to become a public charge,” which exclusively focuses on public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense and ignores the vast majority of public assistance aliens could potentially depend on in the future.
If this proposed rule is finalized, while DHS works on formulating appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide DHS officers for public charge inadmissibility determinations, officers will be empowered to consider not only the mandatory statutory factors, but also all evidence and information specific to the alien and relevant to the public charge ground of inadmissibility that is before them as they determine whether that alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. This will restore an inadmissibility determination process that trusts in and relies on DHS officers' good judgment and sound discretion as envisioned by Congress.
DHS also believes that removing the current regulations would provide DHS greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits as well as changes to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R. 1-One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (“HR-1”). As the administration persists in its efforts to reduce the siloing of data,
Upon removal of 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, and 212.22, and until such time that DHS establishes its new public charge inadmissibility policy and interpretive tools, DHS will ensure that public charge inadmissibility determinations are made consistent with the statute and in accordance with the totality of the circumstances including those established by past precedent decisions.
DHS proposes to remove its regulations governing the public charge ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), because those regulations conflict or are in significant tension with congressional intent, administration and congressional national policy with respect to welfare and immigration,
By removing overly restrictive provisions, DHS seeks to ensure that DHS officers more accurately and appropriately evaluate an alien's likelihood of becoming dependent on public resources to meet their needs by following the plain language of the statute and past precedent decisions that have guided public charge inadmissibility determinations for decades. DHS believes that removal of these overly restrictive provisions would lead to fewer aliens remaining in the United States who are likely at any time to become a public charge, which would also result in a reduction in the number of aliens dependent on public benefits programs, as intended by Congress in PRWORA.
DHS proposes to amend its regulations governing the cancellation and breach of public charge bonds at 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) to reflect the rescission of 8 CFR 212.21 as well as to more fully address when a public charge bond will be considered breached, and to explicitly address administrative appeals from a determination that the alien breached a bond.
Under the proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(A), a public charge bond posted for an alien will continue to be cancelled when the alien dies, departs permanently from the United States, or is naturalized, provided the alien did not breach the bond as described in proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B). However, under proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B), a public charge bond submitted on or after the effective date of a forthcoming final rule would be breached if the bonded alien were to receive any means-tested public benefits prior to death, permanent departure, or naturalization, or otherwise violate a condition of the bond.
Since DHS proposes to remove references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS relatedly proposes to replace that language prohibiting the cancellation of a public charge bond if the bonded alien has received public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense with language that prohibits cancellation if the bonded alien has breached the bond by receiving any means-tested public benefits or is otherwise noncompliant with any conditions of the bond. This amendment is intended to ensure that the government
DHS also proposes to amend 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) to modify the standard for cancellation of a public charge bond after the fifth anniversary of the alien's admission or adjustment of status to reflect the removal of 8 CFR 212.21. Under the proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1), if an alien files Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, USCIS may cancel the bond if USCIS determines that the alien did not breach the bond by receiving any means-tested public benefit or otherwise being noncompliant with the conditions of the bond.
In addition, DHS proposes to remove language from 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) stating that DHS can cancel a public charge bond at any time if it determines “that
DHS also proposes to restructure the current 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) for clarity. It proposes to move content relating to the breach of bonds to a new 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B). This proposed paragraph explains how the receipt of means-tested public benefits (or, for public charge bonds accepted before the effective date of the final rule, public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense), as well as any other noncompliance with a condition of the bond, will result in a breach. DHS also proposes to re-order and restructure 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(A), which outlines the bases for cancellation of a public charge bond. If finalized, this will help officers and the public better understand the separate bases for bond cancellation and the related requirements, and understand that cancellation requires the submission of a request on the form designated by DHS.
Apart from these changes, DHS is retaining the technical amendments from the 2022 Final Rule in 8 CFR 213.1 that facilitate the efficient administration of public charge bonds as well as the clarification concerning DHS's authority to offer public charge bonds, in its discretion, to certain adjustment of status applicants.
DHS is proposing to remove 8 CFR 212.21, which contains definitions codified by the 2022 Final Rule. The definitions DHS proposes to remove include “likely at any time to become a public charge,” “receipt (of public benefits),” “public cash assistance for income maintenance,” and “long-term institutionalization at government expense.” DHS also proposes to eliminate the definitions for “government” and “household.”
The INA does not define “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.”
The 2019 Final Rule specifically defined a public charge as “an alien who receives one or more public benefits, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).” See 8 CFR 212.21(a) (2019). The 2019 Final Rule also defined likely at any time to become a public charge to mean “more likely than not at any time in the future to become a public charge, as defined in 212.21(a), based on the totality of the alien's circumstances.” See 8 CFR 212.21(c) (2019). These definitions were based on the longstanding national policy that aliens inside the United States must be self-sufficient and not rely on public benefits to meet their needs. See 84 FR 41292, 41295 (August 14, 2019).
The 2022 Final Rule did not define public charge, but defined “likely at any time to become a public charge” to mean “likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.”
However, DHS finds that the definitions for “likely at any time to become a public charge” in both the 2019 Final Rule and 2022 Final Rule are too restrictive and, as a result, prevented officers from assessing whether an alien is self-sufficient and is likely to depend on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations to meet their needs, as intended by Congress when enacting 8 U.S.C. 1601 close in time to the changes to section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), in IIRIRA. DHS does not believe that limiting the types of benefits and the time frame of receipt of such benefits in determining an alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge, as was done in the 2019 Final Rule, or a bright line primary dependence on the government for subsistence standard, as was done in the 2022 Final Rule, are the best implementation of the public charge inadmissibility statute given Congress' clear statement that “aliens within the Nation's borders not
DHS is therefore proposing to eliminate the 2022 definition of “likely at any time to become a public charge,” which was defined as “likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” This would allow officers to focus on Congress' unequivocal policy goal that aliens not depend on public resources to meet their needs,
Moreover, DHS notes that neither the statute nor case law prescribe the degree to which an alien must receive public benefits to be considered likely at any time to become a public charge. As concluded in past precedent, in general, an alien who is incapable of earning a livelihood, who does not have sufficient funds in the United States for support, who has no person in the United States willing and able to ensure that the alien will not need public support, and who, in fact, receives such public support generally is inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.
Moreover, ignoring an alien's dependence on any benefit intended to help the alien meet their needs incentivizes immigration to the United States and is inconsistent with the clear national policy regarding welfare and immigration.
DHS believes that it is any dependence on a means-tested public benefit to meet the alien's needs—and not just receiving more than a designated public benefit for a specific period of time or being primarily dependent on public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense—that Congress intended to address with the public charge ground of inadmissibility as it has existed since IIRIRA. Limiting what it means to be likely at any time to become a public charge as it was done in the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule is inconsistent with congressional intent and DHS therefore declines to limit it in this way.
Consequently, through this NPRM, DHS proposes to move away from a bright line primary dependence standard, which would allow officers to make public charge inadmissibility determinations consistent with the dependence standard contemplated in 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A) and reflected in past precedent decisions. DHS proposes to remove all regulatory limitations on the types of public resources that are relevant for considering whether an alien is dependent by removing the references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. This will allow officers to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that are consistent with Congress' intent.
DHS notes that the litigation on the 2019 Final Rule did not culminate in a decision on the merits from the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore DHS does not have a nationally binding judicially established best interpretation of likely at any time to become a public charge.
To align this rule with the removal of the definition for “likely at any time to become a public charge”, DHS proposes to eliminate the definitions for public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense that are present in 8 CFR 212.21(b) and (c). As mentioned above, limiting consideration to primary dependence on only public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense is unnecessarily restrictive. Given the statute does not prescribe a primary dependence standard or consideration of only a narrow and specific list of public benefits for these inadmissibility determinations, DHS believes that it is appropriate to allow for consideration of the receipt of any means-tested public benefit when determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge.
In light of DHS's elimination of the definitions for likely at any time to become a public charge, public cash assistance for income maintenance, and long-term institutionalization at government expense, DHS is removing the definition from the 2022 Final Rule for receipt (of public benefits). The definition is not necessary and reflects an inappropriate limitation on immigration officer's ability to consider relevant evidence.
Similarly, in light of the rescission of the key policy elements of the 2022 Final Rule, no purpose would be served in retaining the definitions for “government” or “household” found in 8 CFR 212.21(e) and (f). DHS believes that the ordinary meaning of various terms (
The stated aim of the 2022 Final Rule was to maintain the framework set forth in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance.
Under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), officers are required to consider specific minimum factors in determining whether an alien applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge—the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and
If the removal of this regulation is finalized, the statute, DHS would continue to collect information pertinent to the statutory minimum factors and relevant considerations, such as the alien's household size, the alien's income, assets, and liabilities, the alien's education level and any skills, and whether the alien has or is receiving means-tested public benefits. DHS would continue to use this information to determine, in the totality of the circumstances, whether the alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge. INA sec. 212(a)(4); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
While DHS is adjusting the Form I-485 to account for the proposed removal of the regulatory provisions, DHS is not proposing to substantively change the collection of information related to the statutory minimum factors but will continue to request information in a manner that maximizes practical utility of the information collection and relevance to the totality of the circumstances analysis, consistent with governing precedent. For example, information pertaining to the health factor will continue to be obtained from Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, Form I-693, and USCIS will continue to use Form I-485 and information obtained during any interview, if any, to collect information about the alien's age; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; education and skills; and receipt of means-tested public benefits.
As with any benefit request, officers may request additional evidence relating to any of the statutory minimum factors as needed, on a case-by-case basis, when indicated by evidence in the record, including responses to questions during an interview or on Form I-485 or other forms.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, DHS's very purpose in proposing the removal of the 2022 Final Rule is to restore the case-by-case and inherently discretionary nature of the determination intended by Congress without constraining officers from considering information and evidence that is relevant to an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. DHS believes that relevant precedent decisions that have guided public charge inadmissibility determinations for decades and as well as recent circuit case law would provide officers with sufficient guidance to conduct subjective individualized determinations based on the specific facts and circumstances of each alien's case. DHS believes that this approach falls within the explicit discretionary authority Congress delegated to the Secretary regarding public charge inadmissibility determinations.
Furthermore, with respect to existing provisions informing the totality of the circumstances analysis, such as the consideration of current and/or past receipt of enumerated public benefits and the provision indicating that disability alone is not a sufficient basis to determine whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, DHS believes that these provisions are already embedded in historical practice as dictated by past precedent decisions. DHS further believes that in following these past precedent decisions, officers would consider all information and evidence specific to an applicant in the context of all other information and evidence. For example, following past precedent, an officer would not conclude that an alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge simply because that alien received a means-tested public benefit.
IIRIRA amended the INA by setting forth requirements for submitting an enforceable affidavit of support (
Under section 212(a)(4)(C) and (D) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D), most family-based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants are required to submit an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA executed by a sponsor to avoid being found inadmissible based on the public charge ground.
A sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA does not, alone, result in a finding that an alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge due to the statute's requirement to consider the statutory minimum factors and the clear statutory authority to consider any other factors, evidence, information, or circumstances relevant to the public charge inadmissibility determination.
With the proposed removal of 8 CFR 212.22, officers would no longer be required by regulation to favorably consider a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA. Consistent with section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii), officers would instead use their discretion to determine whether and how to consider the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA on a case-by-case basis and in the totality of the circumstances, as intended by Congress when making the public charge inadmissibility determination in the officer's opinion. DHS does not believe that Congress intended DHS to always consider a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA. Notably, Congress could have mandated the consideration of the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA when it also mandated consideration of the five statutory minimum factors. However, Congress decided to leave consideration of the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA to the officer's discretion, DHS does not believe it necessary to mandate such consideration. DHS reminds the public that the statute already requires that an alien's application for adjustment of status be denied due to inadmissibility under the public charge ground if the alien fails to submit a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, if such an affidavit is required.
If the changes proposed in this rule are finalized, consistent with the statute and past precedent decisions, DHS would consider not only the mandatory statutory factors, but also all relevant evidence and information specific to the alien and relevant to determining that individual alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. This could include, but is not required to include a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA. Indeed, DHS believes that Congress intended that officers would decide, on a case-by-case basis and in the totality of the circumstances, whether and how to consider an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA.
Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), does not require consideration of the receipt of public benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination. However, as noted previously, the 2022 Final Rule requires DHS officers to consider the alien's current and/or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense in the totality of the circumstances.
DHS believes, as noted previously, that an alien's dependence on any means-tested public benefit to meet his or her needs—and not just his or her dependence on public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense—is what that Congress intended to address with the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Indeed, DHS believes that the current and/or past receipt of any means-tested public benefit is a key gauge in determining an alien's likelihood of dependence on the government and therefore to determining whether an alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). DHS has determined that current regulations, which restrict consideration of receipt of public benefits to only public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, prevent officers from making public charge inadmissibility determinations that align with the longstanding national policy that aliens within the Nation's borders are to be self-sufficient and not depend on public resources to meet their needs. DHS is therefore proposing to remove 8 CFR 212.22(a)(3).
Moreover, consistent with how DHS has proposed to broaden the universe of public benefits that may be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS is also proposing to remove language that limited consideration of receipt of benefits other than public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, such as SNAP or other nutrition programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, or housing benefits. DHS is also proposing to remove the provision that excluded application for an
If the proposed removal of 8 CFR 212.22 is finalized, DHS officers would, consistent with the statute and past precedent decisions, determine an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge by “consider[ing] of all the factors bearing on the alien's ability or potential ability to be self-supporting.”
Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B) requires DHS to consider an alien's health when assessing his or her likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge,
However, insofar as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act expressly prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability solely on the basis of that disability under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any federally conducted program or activity, DHS is already precluded from treating an alien's disability alone as outcome determinative in a public charge inadmissibility determination.
Therefore, DHS has determined that it is unnecessary to retain current 8 CFR 212.22(a)(4), which merely restates the prohibition on relying solely on an alien's disability to make a public charge inadmissibility determination. Since this is already binding on DHS officers when making public charge inadmissibility determinations, it is not necessary to duplicate it in the regulatory text.
If this NPRM is finalized in a final rule, DHS officers would, consistent with section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), make public charge inadmissibility determinations on a case-by-case basis in the totality of the circumstances, considering all relevant case-specific factors, including, where applicable, an alien's disability. DHS would, however, not treat an alien's disability as outcome determinative, in compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Under section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), officers are required, at a minimum, to consider the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills, and may consider a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, where required. Although the statute does not expressly include a totality of the circumstances test, this test “has been developed in several Service, BIA [Board of Immigration Appeals], and Attorney General decisions and has been codified in the Service regulations implementing the legalization provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.”
Insofar as DHS is already required under past precedent decisions to make public charge inadmissibility decisions in the totality of the circumstances,
DHS regulations require that USCIS officers “explain in writing the specific reasons for a denial.”
DHS notes that if this NPRM is finalized, DHS will continue to issue denial decisions consistent with 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i).
Under PRWORA, many aliens, whether present in the United States in a lawful immigration status or not, are ineligible to receive many types of public benefits.
Additionally, as discussed in previous sections, DHS believes that any prior receipt of means-tested public benefits is a key gauge to determining the likelihood of future dependence on the government for subsistence. This is true even if those benefits were received while in a status that is exempt. And Congress intended that receipt of public benefits, regardless of when they were received, should be considered.
For these reasons, DHS is proposing to eliminate the regulation at 8 CFR 212.22(d), which removes from consideration the receipt of public benefits by an alien in an exempt category in an adjudication for an immigration benefit for which the public charge ground of inadmissibility applies.
This change would not affect those categories of aliens who are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility and who then pursue adjustment of status in an exempt category using the humanitarian path set out by Congress. For example, aliens admitted as refugees are eligible for means-tested public benefits
In contrast, this change will affect those categories of aliens who have been in a category exempt from a public charge inadmissibility determination and who are seeking adjustment of status under a nonexempt category. For example, Congress did not provide a pathway to lawful permanent resident status for aliens granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), who are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
Congress made discrete populations of aliens who have not been admitted to the United States under section 207 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, eligible for resettlement assistance, entitlement programs, and other benefits available to refugees, including services described under 8 U.S.C. 1522(d)(2) provided to an “unaccompanied alien child” as defined under 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2).
DHS proposes that the regulation at 8 CFR 212.22(e) should be removed. Similar to the regulation at 8 CFR 212.22(d), DHS has determined that any means-tested public benefit received by an alien should be considered if the alien is applying for adjustment of status in a category that is not exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, regardless of previous status or the basis for his or her eligibility for public benefits.
As it relates specifically to aliens in categories who have previously been granted benefits available to refugees, DHS notes that these aliens are no different than any other alien whom Congress made eligible for public benefits while simultaneously making them subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Indeed, DHS believes that Congress must have recognized that it made public benefits available to certain aliens who may be or may later become subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, even though receipt of such benefits would be considered in a public charge inadmissibility determination. If an alien, subsequent to receiving public benefits to which they are eligible, wishes to become a lawful permanent resident in the United States, the receipt of those benefits may be considered, consistent with IIRIRA and PRWORA, for future public charge inadmissibility determination purposes.
Moreover, the initial grant of such benefits to certain Afghan nationals and Ukrainians has since expired and most aliens in those categories can no longer receive those benefits.
DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 212.23. The first two paragraphs of this section enumerate the categories of aliens to whom the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply under the INA or various other laws. For example, Congress established in section 209(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1159(c), that the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to refugees or asylees seeking adjustment of status under that section of law. Similarly, Congress exempted aliens applying for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act
DHS, and former INS, included a similar list of exemptions and waivers in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, the 1999 NPRM, and the 2019 Final Rule. As explained in 2022, DHS included this list because doing so would “better ensure that the regulated public understands which applicants for admission and adjustment of status are either exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility or may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility ground.”
DHS notes that this regulatory text is redundant to several other publicly available sources. First, DHS already publishes the same lists of exemptions and waivers in the USCIS Policy Manual.
As a conforming amendment to DHS's proposal to remove 8 CFR 212.21, through 212.23, DHS proposes to remove 8 CFR 212.20. This section serves two purposes: it introduces the three sections that follow and states that the provisions of those three sections apply to an applicant for admission or adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, unless the alien
In light of the proposed removal of the three other sections, retaining 8 CFR 212.20 in its current, or even an amended form, would serve no purpose. There are no longer other sections that require an introduction, and with or without this section the public charge ground of inadmissibility applies to an applicant for admission or adjustment of status, unless that alien is exempt.
DHS acknowledges that the regulated public may be relying on aspects of the regulatory scheme in the 2022 Final Rule, which, in many respects substantively aligns with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. In this proposed rule, DHS has explained why neither the 2022 Final Rule nor the 2019 Final Rule provides an appropriate future path for conducting public charge inadmissibility determinations that are consistent with the statute and congressional intent. DHS has, to the greatest extent possible, explained how officers would conduct public charge inadmissibility determinations if DHS finalizes the proposed rescission of the 2022 Final Rule, including referencing controlling precedent and case law that officers would take into consideration in public charge inadmissibility determinations, and that largely but not exclusively formed the basis for the 1999 Interim Field Guidance and the 2022 Final Rule. DHS also plans to provide interpretive and policy tools to guide public charge inadmissibility determinations once DHS has had a chance to fully consider how to best (1) balance the need to conform the implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility with the clear congressional intent that aliens be self-sufficient and that the availability of public benefits not create an incentive for immigration, (2) fortify officer discretion, and (3) support accuracy, consistency, and reliability in individual determinations. DHS is seeking comments from the public on what aspects of the 2022 Final Rule might have engendered reliance interests, and how DHS should best address such reliance interests given its stated objective for the rulemaking.
DHS is proposing that certain proposed changes to 8 CFR 103.6(c) be severable from the proposed full rescission of regulatory provisions in 8 CFR part 212. To the extent DHS issues a final rule based on this NPRM that rescinds the public charge inadmissibility regulations in 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.23, and a court finds that such rescission is invalid or unenforceable, DHS intends that certain proposed changes to 8 CFR 103.6(c) nevertheless be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to those provision(s) permitted by law, unless any such provision(s) are also held to be wholly invalid and unenforceable.
Specifically, if finalized and effective, DHS intends to continue to give effect to the removal of the ground for cancellation 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) stating that DHS can cancel a public charge bond at any time if it determines “that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge” because, as discussed in section V.B.1. of this preamble, the rationale for the proposed removal of that ground of cancellation is based on the practical infeasibility of applying it rather than the broader justification for rescinding DHS regulations in 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.23. Similarly, if finalized and effective and not separately invalidated or deemed unenforceable, DHS intends to keep the revised restructuring of 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) namely the separation of cancelation and breach provisions into paragraphs (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) for clarity.
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant, under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.
DHS proposes to remove most provisions implemented in the 2022 Final Rule to allow DHS to better implement the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The proposed rule is expected to impose new benefits and transfers. To assess the impacts of the proposed rule, DHS considers the potential impacts of the rule relative to a no-action baseline, which reflects the current state of the world absent this regulatory action.
The primary source of unquantified benefits of this proposed rule is the removal of overly-restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this proposed rule would ensure that officers would be able to make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach would prevent the application of overly restrictive criteria that unnecessarily limits DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The proposed rule would also result in a reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in a public benefits program. Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program include aliens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status households. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $8.97 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public
Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on State and local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare providers, such as hospitals and nonprofits, participating in Medicaid, companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for purchase using SNAP benefits, or landlords participating in federally funded housing programs.
Table VI.1 provides a detailed summary of the regulatory
Table VI.2 presents the prepared accounting statement, as required by OMB Circular A-4, showing the costs, benefits, and transfers associated with this regulation.
As discussed in the preamble, DHS seeks to ensure the appropriate application of the public charge ground of inadmissibility by amending the regulations implemented in the 2022 Final Rule under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Under the INA, an alien who, at the time of applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, is deemed likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States. While the INA does not define public charge, Congress has specified that consular and DHS officers must, at a minimum, consider certain factors when making this determination. These factors include the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. Additionally, DHS may consider any affidavit of support submitted under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, on behalf of the alien. For most family-based and some employment-based immigrant visas or adjustment of status applications, a sufficient affidavit of support is required by statute; without it, applicants will be found inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.
DHS has determined that the 2022 Final Rule's consideration of a set number of factors—the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, education and skills, sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (if one was required), and any current and/or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense—prevented DHS officers from considering other evidence that might be in DHS records or systems that bears on an alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge. Thus, DHS proposes to remove or amend provisions related to public charge definitions, public charge inadmissibility determinations, public charge bonds, and other aspects outlined in the preamble. This proposed rule would align public charge inadmissibility determinations with INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). By removing restrictive provisions, DHS ensures that officers will be able to make a comprehensive evaluation of an alien's inadmissibility under the public charge ground in the totality of the circumstances.
With this proposed rule DHS officers will be able to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that focus on aliens' self-sufficiency and reliance “on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations” rather than depending on the government to meet their needs.
This proposed rule, through removal of certain provisions from the 2022 Final Rule, would remove the limitations on considering only past and current receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It would also remove the current limitation on DHS officers' forward-looking public charge inadmissibility determination, which only allowed them to consider the future use of those two limited benefit types. Additionally, DHS proposes to amend public charge bond provisions to state that the receipt of any means-tested public benefit during the effective period of the bond, or otherwise being noncompliant with the conditions of the bond, will result in the breach of the public charge bond.
This proposed rule, if finalized, would also provide DHS with greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits as well as changes to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R.1—One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (“HR-1”).
The estimation of costs and benefits for this proposed rule focuses on individuals applying for adjustment of status with USCIS using Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Such individuals apply from within the United States, rather than apply for a visa from a DOS consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. This analysis does not account for aliens arriving at ports of entry seeking admission with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). However, DHS acknowledges that aliens at ports of entry seeking admission to the United States are generally subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, though some may be exempt by law. Moreover, DHS notes that CBP may incur costs pursuant to this proposed rule, but it is unable to determine this potential cost due to data limitations. For example, CBP employees spend time examining noncitizens arriving at a port of entry seeking admission, either pursuant to a previously issued visa or as a traveler for whom visa requirements have been waived and determining if they are likely to become a public charge if they are admitted. However, DHS is not able to quantify the number of aliens who would appear to be inadmissible by CBP based on a public charge determination as a consequence of this proposed rule, and thus qualitatively acknowledges the potential impact.
The population affected by USCIS' implementation of this proposed rule would consist of aliens who are present in the United States and apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. By statute, an alien who seeks adjustment of status and is at any time likely to become a public charge is ineligible to adjust their status, unless the alien is exempt from or has received a waiver of the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
In this analysis, DHS uses historical filing data of Form I-485 to estimate the population seeking an adjustment of status. Specifically, DHS uses a 6-year average to estimate the annual total population seeking an adjustment of status. These population estimates are used in the “Cost-Benefit Analysis” section to estimate the economic impact of the proposed rule.
DHS estimates the affected population based on historical data from FY 2019 through FY 2024. Table VI.3 shows the annual Form I-485 receipts and approvals from FY 2019 through FY 2024.
The number of receipts from aliens seeking an adjustment of status over the period FY 2019 through FY 2024 decreased from 600,104 in FY 2019 to a period low of 577,972 in FY 2020 before increasing to a period high of 983,241 in FY 2024. In addition, the number of approvals over the same 6-year period decreased from 581,623 in FY 2019 to a period low of 442,764 in FY 2020, before increasing to a period high of 787,331 in FY 2024. DHS believes the decrease observed in 2020 was likely due to external factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, USCIS closed Application Support Centers (ASCs), and those that remained open operated at reduced capacity. The increases observed in the data after 2020 reflect recovery from these same factors.
Certain classes of admission of aliens are exempt from being subject to a determination of inadmissibility based on the public charge ground. The following table shows the classes of applicants for admission, adjustment of status, or registry according to statute or regulation that are exempt from inadmissibility based on the public charge ground.
To estimate the annual total population of aliens seeking to adjust status who would be subject to review for inadmissibility based on the public charge ground, DHS examined the annual total population of aliens who applied for adjustment of status for FY 2019 through FY 2024. DHS uses a 6-year average for this analysis.
For each fiscal year, DHS removed aliens from the population whose class of admission is exempt from review for inadmissibility on the public charge ground (see Table VI.5), where the remaining total population would be subject to public charge review. DHS estimates the total population subject to a public charge review of inadmissibility based on historical data from FY 2019 through FY 2024.
DHS estimates the projected annual average total population of aliens seeking an adjustment of status that would be subject to review for inadmissibility on the public charge ground is 587,706.
Certain aliens seeking immigrant visas or adjustment of status are required to submit an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA executed by a sponsor on their behalf. This requirement applies to most family-sponsored immigrants and some employment-based immigrants.
Table VI.6 shows the estimated total annual applications of aliens who filed Form I-485 that were approved by USCIS, split out between applications filed by aliens who were required or not required to have a sponsor execute an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA on their behalf over the period FY 2019 through FY 2024. The estimated total annual applications for adjustment of status that were approved by USCIS for aliens who were required to have a sponsor submit an affidavit of support on their behalf over the 6-year period was 438,227. Over the 6-year period, the estimated total population of aliens whose applications were
DHS estimates the denial population based on historical data from FY 2020 through FY 2024.
Over the 5-year period, denials on public charge grounds accounted for an average of 0.0958 percent adjustment of status denials. Relative to the entire Form I-485 applicant population, such denials represented only 0.0087 percent. During the effective period of the 2019 Final Rule (October 15, 2019, through March 21, 2021), covering FY 2020 and FY 2021, approximately 88 adjustment of status applications were denied on public charge grounds. Of these, only three denials (later reopened and approved) and two Notices of Intent to Deny (later rescinded, with applications subsequently approved) were based on the totality of circumstances public charge inadmissibility determination under section 212(a)(4)(A) and (B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A) and (B), as outlined in the 2019 Final Rule. A review of the data under the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule indicated that many denials were due to a missing or insufficient Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, rather than a totality of circumstances analysis, highlighting the rarity of adjustment of status denials on public charge grounds, even during the period of heightened restrictions.
DHS expects this proposed rule to produce costs and benefits associated with the procedures for conducting reviews of aliens on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. DHS estimates the potential impacts relative to the no-action baseline. Each section of the cost-benefit analysis lays out the assumptions and estimates used in calculating any costs and benefits of this proposed rule. The no-action baseline represents the current state of the world absent regulatory action. The no-action baseline for this proposed rule includes how DHS applies the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with the 2022 Final Rule. For this proposed rule, DHS estimates the no-action baseline according to current operations and requirements and compares the estimated costs and benefits of the provisions set forth in this proposed rule to the baseline.
DHS anticipates this proposed rule will produce benefits but is limited to providing a qualitative analysis. The primary benefit of the proposed rule is the removal of overly-restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this proposed rule would ensure that officers will be able to make highly individualized, fact specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach prevents the application of overly restrictive criteria that unnecessarily limits DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.
The removal of overly-restrictive provisions codified in the 2022 Final Rule would allow DHS to more accurately, precisely, and reliably assess public charge inadmissibility, leading to fewer inadmissible aliens entering the United States and, as a result, leading to fewer aliens entering or remaining in the United States who are likely to receive public benefits. DHS is unable to quantify this benefit due to data limitations; however, DHS believes that over time this policy change will result in a quantifiable benefit that reflects a reduction in the number of inadmissible aliens who enter the United States and a reduction in the number of aliens who rely on public benefits programs.
The amendments to the cancellation and breach of public charge bonds also establishes a policy that aligns more closely with the broader policy of the United States that aliens should be self-sufficient and not reliant on public resources.
DHS has analyzed the potential effects of the proposed regulatory changes on transfer payments from Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local governments to individuals receiving public benefits. As stated in the preamble, this proposed rule eliminates restrictive criteria from the 2022 Final Rule, such as the definitions of “likely at any time to become a public charge” and “receipt (of public benefits).” This proposed rule also removes the limitations on considering only public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense when making public charge inadmissibility determinations. While the intent of this proposed rule is to allow DHS to better apply the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with congressional intent, as noted above, the elimination of certain definitions may lead to public confusion or misunderstanding of the proposed rule, which could result in decreased participation in public benefit programs by individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Therefore, transfer
DHS acknowledges the estimated reduction in transfer payments may have a disproportionally larger impact on the individuals and households discussed in this analysis because they are more likely to be low-income. Low-income households tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume because they allocate a larger percentage of their income towards essential goods and services to meet basic needs. A reduction in payments to these households could have a negative impact on the economy by their reduced spending. Additionally, these households tend to have a higher marginal utility of consumption because increases in disposable income tend to be allocated toward fulfilling unmet needs, thus leading to a decrease in total welfare.
DHS recognizes that the removal of 8 CFR 212.21 and 212.22, the core elements of the 2022 Final Rule, may cause some aliens to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefit programs beyond those included in the estimates of this analysis. However, due to variations in programs across States and differences in eligibility criteria, DHS cannot quantify the number of individuals affected across all means-tested public benefits programs. For this analysis, DHS will focus on Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Federal Rental Assistance.
The 2019 Final Rule described and analyzed expected indirect effects, particularly among populations that were not subject to the 2019 Final Rule such as U.S.-citizen children in mixed-status households, longtime lawful permanent residents, and aliens in a category exempt from public charge considerations.
As noted below, DHS is unable to estimate the downstream effects that would result from such decreases. DHS expects that in some cases, a decrease in transfers associated with one program or service would include an increase in transfers associated with other programs or services, such as programs or services delivered by nonprofits or hospitals.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS estimated the reduction in transfer payments by multiplying a disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate of 2.5 percent by an estimate of the number of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include aliens (
In both the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS estimated the 2.5 percent and 3.1 percent disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate by dividing the annual number of approved aliens who adjusted status annually by the estimated alien population of the United States. 84 FR 41292, 41463 (Aug. 14, 2019), 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). DHS estimated the disenrollment rate as the 5-year average annual number of persons adjusting status as a percentage of the estimated alien population in the United States. The estimate reflects an assumption that 100 percent of such aliens and their household members are either enrolled in or eligible for public benefits and will be sufficiently concerned about the potential consequences of the policies in the prior final rules to disenroll or forgo enrollment in public benefits. Consequently, the resulting transfer estimates would therefore likely tend towards overestimation, particularly regarding the population directly regulated by the 2019 Final Rule. DHS applies this same assumption as a low estimate for this proposed rule.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS assumed that the population most likely to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs in any year would be public benefits recipients who were members of households (or, in the case of rental assistance, households as a unit) including aliens, adjusting their immigration status annually. However, this approach may have resulted in an underestimate due to the documented chilling effects of the 2019 Final Rule on other segments of the alien and citizen populations, including those not classified as adjustment applicants, members of households of adjustment applicants, or other aliens outside the adjustment applicant category. Despite this, the methodology remained consistent in the 2022 Final Rule, and DHS assumes the same underestimation applies to this proposed rule. For the low estimate, DHS uses the same methodology, but with updated data, to estimate that the low rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment due to the proposed rule would be 3.3 percent.
Studies conducted between 2016 and 2020 have shown reductions in enrollment due to a “chilling effect,” ranging from 4.1 percent to 48 percent.
Similarly, the Urban Institute (2022) reported that many adults in immigrant families avoided applying for safety net programs because of immigration-related fears.
Due to the uncertainty of the rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs related to the prior 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS uses a range of rates to estimate the change in Federal Government transfer payments that would be associated with this proposed rule. For estimating the lower bound of the range, DHS uses a 3.3 percent rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs based on the estimation methodology from the 2019 and the 2022 Final Rule (as discussed above).
DHS bases the upper bound of the range on the results of studies that were discussed earlier in the economic analysis, which provided an average of 17.3 percent rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs. As with the lower estimate discussed above, DHS acknowledges that this upper estimate could be an underestimate or an overestimate. The upper bound estimate of 17.3 percent may result in an underestimate because many of the studies reviewed did not include SSI and TANF or focused less on these programs. Conversely, this estimate may result in an overestimate due to variations in the populations studied, which led to higher reported percentages and observed populations that are not the intended focus of this analysis. Additionally, differences in methodologies, such as data collection, inclusion or exclusion criteria, and analysis, across studies may have introduced observed changes that would not appear in a true longitudinal study with consistent methods.
DHS uses 10.3 percent as the primary estimate in order to estimate the annual reduction in Federal Government transfer payments associated with this proposed rule, which is the midpoint between the lower estimate (3.3 percent) and the upper estimate (17.3 percent) of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs. DHS chooses to provide a range due to the difficulty in estimating the effect on various populations. DHS welcomes public comments on the estimation of the disenrollment or forgone enrollment rate used in this analysis.
Using the primary estimate rate of disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs of 10.3 percent, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs. Based on the data presented below, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs could be approximately $5.29 billion for an estimated 950,124 individuals and 35,294 households across the public benefits programs examined.
To estimate the reduction in transfer payments under this proposed rule, DHS must multiply the estimated disenrollment/forgone enrollment rate of 10.3 percent by: (1) the population of analysis (
Table VI.8 shows the estimated population of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include aliens. DHS assumes that this is the population of individuals who may disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits under this proposed rule. The table also shows estimates of the number of households with at least one alien family member that may have received public benefits.
In order to estimate the population of public benefits recipients who are members of households that include at least one alien, DHS uses a 6-year average of public benefit recipients' data from FY 2019 through FY 2024 to remain consistent with the averages that were used earlier in the economic analysis.
Consistent with the approach DHS took in the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, DHS's methodology was as follows. First, for most of the public benefits programs analyzed, DHS estimated the number of households with at least one person receiving such benefits by dividing the number of people that received public benefits by the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average household size of 2.54 for the U.S. total population.
DHS then estimates the number of aliens who received benefits by multiplying the estimated number of households with at least one alien who receives public benefits
In order to estimate the economic impact of disenrollment or forgone enrollment from public benefits programs, it is necessary to estimate the typical annual public benefits a person receives for each public benefits program included in this economic analysis. DHS estimated the average annual benefit received per person for each public benefit program in Table VI.9. For each benefit, except for Medicaid, the average benefit per person is calculated for each public benefit program by dividing the average annual program payments for one public benefit by the average annual total number of recipients.
As discussed earlier, using the midpoint reduction rate of 10.3 percent, Table VI.10 shows the estimated population that may disenroll or forgo enrollment in a federally funded public benefits program under this proposed rule.
Table VI.11 shows the estimated population that would be likely to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in federally funded public benefits programs due to this proposed rule's indirect chilling effect. The table also presents the previously estimated average annual benefit per person who received benefits for each of the public benefits programs.
Since the Federal share of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) varies by State, DHS uses an average Federal
For this analysis, DHS conservatively assumes that the Federal Government pays 100 percent of benefits values for SNAP, TANF
As shown in Table VI.12, applying the same calculations using the low estimate of 3.3 percent, DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs would be approximately $1.70 billion for an estimated 305,549 individuals and 11,350 households across the public benefits programs examined. For the high estimate of 17.3 percent DHS estimates that the total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the Federal Government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs would be approximately $8.88 billion for an estimated 1,594,622 individuals and 59,235 households across the public benefits programs examined.
DHS acknowledges prior studies that examines disenrollment or forgone enrollment due to public charge regulatory effects, which reported higher disenrollment rates. Particularly the 2019 Final Rule referenced studies on the impact of PRWORA in 1996 that observed a reduction in enrollment from 21 to 54 percent, though it stated that it is unclear how many individuals would actually disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits programs due to the 2019 Final Rule. While DHS recognizes this, DHS does not believe disenrollment or forgone enrollment will reach levels as high as 54 percent, as such percentages were not observed following the implementation of either the 2019 or 2022 Final Rules.
Finally, DHS recognizes that the estimated reductions in transfer payments are approximations and could be influenced by external factors unrelated to this proposed rule. For example, the recent enrollment changes to Medicaid and SNAP implemented in the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill are expected to impact enrollment rates, adding complexity to quantification efforts.
DHS notes that, as described in the 2019 and 2022 Final Rules, the proposed rule may produce indirect effects. For example, a reduction in transfer payments from the Federal government to individuals who receive public benefits due to increased disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefit programs may have indirect effects. Therefore, DHS applies the same analysis used previously, as outlined below. A likely impact of the proposed rule relative to the baseline is that various individuals and other entities will incur costs associated with familiarization with the provisions of the rule. Familiarization costs involve the time spent reviewing a rule. An alien might review the rule to determine whether they are subject to the proposed rule. To the extent an individual who is directly regulated by the rule incurs familiarization costs, those familiarization costs are a direct cost of the rule.
In addition to those being directly regulated by the rule, a wide variety of other entities would likely choose to read the rule and incur familiarization costs. For example, immigration lawyers, immigration advocacy groups, benefits-administering agencies, nonprofit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and religious organizations, among others, may want to become familiar with the provisions of this proposed rule. DHS believes such nonprofit organizations and other advocacy groups might choose to read the rule to provide information to noncitizens and associated households who may be subject to the rule. Familiarization costs incurred by those not directly regulated are indirect costs. Indirect impacts are borne by entities that are not
DHS estimates the time that will be necessary to read the rule is approximately 2 to 3 hours per person, resulting in opportunity costs of time. DHS assumes the average professional reads technical documents at a rate of about 250 to 300 words per minute. An entity, such as a nonprofit or advocacy group, may have more than one person who reads the proposed rule. Using the average total rate of compensation as $48.05 per hour for all occupations, DHS estimates that the opportunity cost of time will range from about $96.10 to $144.15 per individual who must read and review the proposed rule.
Calculation: (Average total compensation for all occupations) * (Time to read rule−upper bound) = (Opportunity cost of time [OCT] to read rule) = $48.05 * 3 hours = $144.15 OCT per individual to read rule, 3 hours = (approximately 39,935 words/250)/60.
Average total compensation for all occupations ($48.05):
Another source of indirect costs of the proposed rule would be costs to various entities associated with familiarization of and compliance with the provisions of the rule, such as for hospitals or state Medicaid agencies. Regulatory compliance costs are all of the costs entities incur in order to ensure they are aware of and follow all applicable government regulations. Compliance costs may include salaries of employees who monitor current and potential regulations, opportunity costs of time related to understanding the requirements of regulations, disseminating information to the rest of an organization (
Additionally, reduced access to public benefit programs by eligible individuals, including aliens and U.S. citizens in mixed-status households, may lead to downstream effects on public health, community stability, and resilience, to include:
• Worse health outcomes, such as increased prevalence of obesity and malnutrition (especially among pregnant or breastfeeding women, infants, and children), reduced prescription adherence, and increased use of emergency rooms for primary care due to delayed treatment.
• Higher prevalence of communicable diseases, including among U.S. citizens who are not vaccinated.
• Increased rates of uncompensated care, where treatments or services are not paid for by insurers or patients.
• Increased poverty, housing instability, reduced productivity, and lower educational attainment.
DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under public benefit programs may also affect State and local economies, businesses, and individuals. For example, reduced enrollment in programs like Medicaid and SNAP could lead to:
• Lower revenues for healthcare providers participating in Medicaid.
• Reduced income for companies manufacturing medical supplies or pharmaceuticals.
• Decreased sales for grocery retailers participating in SNAP.
• Economic impacts on agricultural producers supplying SNAP-eligible foods.
• Financial strain on landlords participating in federally funded housing programs.
In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS acknowledged that reduced disposable income and increased poverty could disproportionately affect certain families and children, including U.S.-citizen children. 84 FR 41292, 41493 (Aug. 14, 2019). One academic provided an estimate in a court filing that as many as 3.2 million fewer individuals might receive Medicaid due to fear and confusion surrounding the 2019 Final Rule, potentially leading to 4,000 excess deaths annually.
Finally, during the 2022 Final Rule, DHS received comments from several states highlighting the administrative costs associated with the 2019 Final Rule. These disruptions led to increased “churn,” where eligible individuals and families cycle on and off public benefit programs more frequently enrolling during times of need and disenrolling due to fear or confusion. This churn increased administrative costs for states, which allocated resources for outreach and education to address misconceptions about the Public Charge rule. Outreach efforts often require materials in individuals' native languages and dissemination through social networks. States also reported dedicating hundreds of hours to planning and training caseworkers and call center staff to address issues stemming from the 2019 Final Rule. DHS anticipates similar administrative costs under this proposed rule but cannot precisely estimate the burden states will face due to increased churn.
DHS is generally not able to estimate all of the additional indirect costs that would likely be incurred because of follow-on economic effects of the initial indirect costs identified in the proposed rule due to the wide range of these costs. DHS requests comments on other possible indirect impacts of the rule and appropriate methodologies for quantifying these non-monetized potential impacts.
To compare costs over time, DHS applied a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate to the total estimated costs associated with the proposed rule. DHS presents the total estimated quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal Government, the State Governments, and a combined reduction in Tables VI.13, VI.14, and VI.15, respectively. The total estimated costs are presented in undiscounted dollars, at a 3-percent discount rate, and at a 7-percent discount rate.
Table VI.13 shows the Federal share of the total estimated amount of transfer payments of the proposed rule. The 10-year undiscounted amount of Federal transfer payments based on the provisions of this proposed rule is about $5.29 billion annually. The 10-year discounted amount of Federal transfer
In addition, since the State share of Federal financial participation (FFP) varies from State to State, DHS uses the average of the FMAP across all States and U.S. territories of 59 percent
The 10-year undiscounted amount of State transfer payments based on the provisions of this proposed rule is about $3.68 billion annually. The 10-year discounted amount of State transfer payments based on the provisions of this proposed rule is approximately $31.35 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $25.82 billion at a 7-percent discount rate.
Finally, DHS presents the combined total estimated quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments of the proposed rule in Table VI.15.
Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the total quantified reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments to members of households that include aliens could be about $89.65 billion (undiscounted). In addition, DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted transfers of this proposed rule is approximately $76.48 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $62.97 billion at a 7-percent discount rate due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in various Federal public benefits programs.
Disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs could occur whether or not such aliens are directly affected by the provisions of the proposed rule, however, DHS was unable to determine the exact percentage of individuals who would disenroll or forgo enrollment. DHS also reiterates that removal of 8 CFR 212.21 and 212.22, the core elements of the 2022 Final Rule may cause some aliens to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefit programs beyond those included in the estimates of this analysis. However, DHS cannot quantify the number of individuals affected across all programs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. 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.
The proposed rule does not directly regulate small entities and is not expected to have a direct effect on small entities. It does not mandate any actions or requirements for small entities in the process of an alien applying for adjustment of status. Rather, this proposed rule regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the RFA. While some employers could experience costs or transfer effects, these impacts would be indirect. DHS recognizes these indirect effects to various entities that this proposed rule does not regulate, such as to hospital systems, and other organizations that provide public assistance to aliens and their households. However, based on the evidence presented in this analysis and throughout this preamble, DHS certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA as it does not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity.
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Agencies must assess whether the regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) if the regulatory action financially impacts families, are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; and (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the determination is affirmative, then the Agency must prepare an impact assessment to address criteria specified in the law. DHS has determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS continues to believe that the benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family. Additionally, because the proposed rule would result in DHS officers considering public benefits for purposes of the inadmissibility determination that were not considered under the 2022 Final Rule, DHS has determined that the aliens found inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), would likely increase over time. However, this potential impact is mitigated by two factors. First, as discussed elsewhere in this proposed rule, Congress, through the Big Beautiful Bill, Public Law 119-21 has further limited immigration-status-based eligibility for certain public benefits that would be considered under this proposed rule but were excluded from consideration under the 2022 final rule. Second, given the compelling need for this rulemaking, including but not limited to ensuring self-sufficiency and minimizing the incentive to immigrate based on the U.S. social safety net, DHS determined that this proposed rulemaking's impact is justified and no further actions are required. DHS also determined that this proposed rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
This interim final rule would not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 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.
DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions:
This proposed rule is limited to removing existing regulatory criteria pertaining to public charge inadmissibility determinations. This proposed rule is strictly administrative and procedural and if finalized, would amend DHS's existing regulations to remove most of the provisions put into place by the 2022 Final Rule, however DHS officers would continue to make public charge inadmissibility determinations governed by existing law. DHS has reviewed this proposed rule and finds, if DHS were to issue a final rule resulting from this NPRM, no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect would result from the amendments being proposed in this NPRM.
Accordingly, DHS finds that this proposed rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fit within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to OMB for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule, unless they are exempt. Please see the accompanying PRA documentation for the full analysis. Table III. Information Collections below lists the information collections that are part of this rulemaking.
DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collections of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0023 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(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 the agency's 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0143 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0141 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Fees, Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1365b, 1372; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
(c)
(i) A public charge bond posted for an alien will be cancelled when the alien dies, departs permanently from the United States, or is naturalized, provided the alien did not breach such bond pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(B) of this section.
(ii) A public charge bond may also be cancelled in order to allow substitution of another bond.
(iii) A public charge bond will be cancelled by USCIS upon review following the fifth anniversary of the admission or adjustment of status of the alien, provided that the alien has filed a request for cancellation of public charge bond on a form designated by USCIS for that purpose, has complied with all conditions on the bond, and USCIS finds that the alien did not breach the bond, as set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(B) of this section.
(B)
6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note); Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note); Pub. L. 115-218; 8 CFR part 2.
Section 212.1(q) and (r) also issued under section 702, Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.
(a) establish a “Fostering the Future” initiative to develop partnerships with agencies and leading private sector organizations, academic institutions, and non-profit entities to create new educational and employment opportunities for individuals who are in or are transitioning out of the foster care system;
(b) develop a plan to launch, in conjunction with the National Design Studio, a “Fostering the Future” online platform to help individuals who have been in foster care by assessing their current needs, providing guidance regarding accessing Federal, State, and local programs and services for which they are eligible, including housing, education, employment, healthcare, and mentoring services offering a searchable database of those and other available resources, and generating customized plans that support their self-sufficiency and success;
(c) develop a strategy to reallocate funds returned by States from Federal programs designed to assist individuals transitioning out of foster care so that such returned funds are used to promote educational success, occupational advancement, and financial literacy and self-sufficiency for individuals transitioning out of foster care;
(d) increase flexibility in Education and Training Vouchers to expand access for individuals transitioning out of foster care to short-term, career-focused, and credential-awarding programs; and
(e) facilitate, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Education, State use of educational scholarships created through tax-credited donations to scholarship-granting organizations for children in foster care.
(a) take appropriate action to address State and local policies and practices that inappropriately prohibit participation in federally-funded child-welfare programs by qualified individuals or organizations based upon their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions; and
(b) take appropriate action to increase partnerships between agencies and faith-based organizations and houses of worship to serve families whose children have been placed in foster care or are at risk of being placed in foster care.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Health and Human Services.