Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
This rule revises the provisions of the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC), and Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programs to conform with provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). OBBBA authorized modifications to the 2025 crop year ARC and PLC programs and the continuation of the ARC and PLC programs for the 2026 through 2031 crop years. The modified provisions are related to the reference prices, the effective reference prices, base acres, program elections, and payment provisions. OBBBA also authorized DMC for calendar years 2026 through 2031, providing participating dairy operations with the ability to establish a new production history. In addition, the Tier 1 coverage level was increased by 1 million pounds of milk to a 6-million-pound limit and eligibility for multi-year (lock-in) contracts was maintained until December 30, 2031. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is also making minor administrative changes and updates to the ARC, PLC, and DMC regulations and the regulations that apply to multiple FSA programs.
This rule is effective on January 12, 2026.
For ARC and PLC, Jamie Garriott; telephone: (202) 253-9843; or email:
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1 (Pub. L. 119-21), also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This rule amends the provisions of the ARC and PLC programs and the DMC program to implement changes made by OBBBA. This rule also makes several discretionary changes to those programs to improve program administration and clarify existing policy, in addition to minor changes such as updating references to the applicable program years and removing outdated provisions. FSA will implement other provisions of OBBBA for other Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs in future rules.
OBBBA amended the Agricultural Act of 2014 (“the 2014 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 113-79), as amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“the 2018 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 115-334), to modify certain provisions for the 2025 crop year ARC and PLC programs and to authorize the continuation of the ARC and PLC programs, with modifications, for the 2026 through 2031 crop years. This rule amends 7 CFR part 1412 to implement those changes and discusses how the ARC and PLC programs will be conducted, which is similar to how they were conducted in recent years. ARC and PLC are CCC programs administered by FSA.
FSA is making the following mandatory changes to implement the OBBBA provisions:
• Revising the ARC guarantee calculation as defined in 7 CFR 1412.3;
• Revising the effective reference price calculation as defined in § 1412.3 for the 2025 crop year forward;
• Updating reference prices as defined in § 1412.3 for the 2025 through 2030 crop years, with a further modification for the 2031 crop year;
• Allocating up to 30 million additional base acres, based on a farm's planting history, to eligible farms beginning with the 2026 crop year;
• Specifying that the higher of ARC-CO
• For base acres that are considered grass, idle, or fallow, continuing the 2018 Farm Bill provision that addresses those acres, but updating the ending year for which producers are ineligible for payment to the 2031 crop year;
• Requiring an election of ARC or PLC for crop year 2026 or, in the case of no election being made, defaulting to the 2025 crop year ARC or PLC election with no payment for the 2026 crop year as explained in § 1412.74;
• Updating the marketing years used to calculate the reference price for temperate japonica rice;
• Updating the payment rate calculation for ARC-CO for the 2025 crop year forward; and
• Increasing the payment limitations.
In addition to changes mandated by OBBBA, this rule also makes discretionary changes to the ARC and PLC programs, including:
• Adding definitions for tree, bush, vine, hemp, and eligible non-covered commodity;
• Updating the definitions of average historical county yield, benchmark revenue for ARC-IC, historical irrigated percentage, marketing year, replacement crop, and subsequently planted crop acreage;
• Updating the years used to calculate the historically irrigated percentage (HIP); and
• Updating the eligible fruit and vegetable (FAV) double crop combination counties.
This rule details the requirements necessary to carry out administration of ARC and PLC. This rule also clarifies and reaffirms which farms are eligible, which producers are eligible, election periods, enrollment periods, and more specifically, the actions that owners and producers must perform in order to ensure producer and farm payment eligibility.
Because of the timing of OBBBA enactment and publication of this rule, producers will have planted and potentially harvested their 2026 crops before: (1) the crop year 2026 ARC or PLC election is made; and (2) the annual enrollment decision is made. Producers will know their 2026 production and yields before they decide whether to elect and subsequently enroll in ARC or PLC for the 2026 crop year. For the 2026 crop year, all producers with an interest in base acres on a farm, at the time the election is made, must unanimously elect ARC or PLC on each covered commodity having base acres and may enroll each or all of those covered commodities. For each of the 2027 through 2031 crop years, the producers with an interest in base acres on a farm, at the time the election is made, are eligible for covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity election of ARC or PLC and subsequent enrollment in each crop year.
The terms “owners” and “producers” under this rule are defined as the person or legal entity for the applicable contract period for which that person or legal entity is signing forms or performing actions under this rule. Many of the actions required under the ARC and PLC programs (program election, enrollment, base allocation update, and subsequent opportunity to perform program election) can only be performed by the farm's owners and producers in that contract or program year. For the 2026 program year, as is discussed in greater detail below, and as required by the 2014 Farm Bill, as amended, the farm's producers must unanimously and irrevocably elect ARC or PLC during the prescribed election period. FSA will announce the election period each year.
Consistent with administration of the ARC and PLC programs in prior years, producers have a choice:
• ARC is an income support program that provides payments when actual crop revenue declines below a specified guarantee level. ARC continues to have 2 options:
○ Agriculture Risk Coverage—County Option (ARC-CO) provides payments when the actual county crop revenue for a covered commodity is less than the ARC-CO guarantee for the covered commodity. The actual county revenue and the revenue guarantee are based on county-level yield data for the physical location of the base acres on the farm and tract.
○ Agriculture Risk Coverage—Individual Option (ARC-IC) provides payments when the actual individual crop revenue for all covered commodities planted on the ARC-IC farm is less than the ARC-IC guarantee for those covered commodities. ARC-IC uses producer's certified yields, rather than county level yields.
• PLC provides payments when the price for a covered crop declines below its “effective reference price.”
Eligible producers may elect to participate in either ARC-CO or PLC, but not both, for a single covered commodity on the farm, for the 2026 through 2031 crop years. An election of ARC-IC will apply to all covered commodities on the farm. Beginning in 2027 and in each subsequent program year, the farm's producers can unanimously choose a different program election for each of their covered commodities.
Under the 2014 and 2018 farm bills, expected yield, revenue, and price were based on the most recent 5 crop years. Because the most recent yield and price data for the immediately preceding 5 crop years is not available in the current crop year, this rule uses the term “most recent 5 crop years available,” which is defined as the 5 years preceding the most immediately preceding crop year. For example, the most recent 5 crops years available for the 2026 crop year are the 2020 through 2024 crop years.
OBBBA has updated the calculation of effective reference prices beginning with crop year 2025. The effective reference price for a covered commodity in any given crop year is the lesser of: (1) 115 percent of the reference price for a covered commodity; or (2) an amount equal to the greater of the reference price for the covered commodity or 88 percent of the average of the market year average (MYA) price
The reference prices are set through crop year 2031, at which time they will be updated to equal the reference price in the previous crop year multiplied by 1.005, with the stipulation that the reference price will not exceed 113 percent of the reference prices stated in OBBBA.
Under OBBBA, all producers with an interest in base acres, on the farm, at the time the crop year 2026 election is made, are required to affirmatively and unanimously elect PLC or ARC and, if an election is not made, the farm's covered commodity will be ineligible for payments in the 2026 crop year and the election on the farm will default to the same ARC or PLC election that was in place for 2025 for each covered commodity on the farm. This 2025 election will be used for the 2027 through 2031 crop years unless a new election is completed. If a new election is completed, it is valid through 2031 unless it is changed again for a subsequent year. These provisions are specified in the OBBBA and FSA does not have discretion to deviate from the ineligibility of producers for payments for the 2026 crop year on farms if they do not have a valid election made during the election period for the 2026 crop year. Producers who do not make a valid election in the 2026 crop year election period will not be eligible for 2026 crop year payments. However, they are eligible to receive payments in the 2027 through 2031 crop years based on their election for the specific year.
The 2018 Farm Bill amended the 2014 Farm Bill to specify that a farm on which all of the cropland was planted to grass or pasture, including cropland that was idle or fallow from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2017, would have base acres and yields maintained for the covered commodities on the farm, except that no payment would be made with respect to those
Any farm that receives a base allocation described below will be permitted to update the applicable election on all covered commodity base acres; however, only the newly established base acres will be eligible for payment.
Base acres are central to the payment formulas for ARC and PLC. Section 1111 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that the base acres in effect under sections 1001 and 1301 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (“2008 Farm Bill”; Pub. L. 110-246; 7 U.S.C. 8702, 8751), as adjusted, that were in effect September 30, 2013, constitute the base acres for the ARC and PLC programs, subject to any reallocation, adjustment, or reduction under section 1112 of the 2014 Farm Bill, as amended. The term “base acres” includes unassigned base acres, which are derived from generic base acres
OBBBA provides the one-time opportunity to allocate an additional 30,000,000 base acres nationwide in crop year 2026. The additional acres are automatically allocated to eligible farms, unless the owner requests not to receive additional base acres. A farm's eligibility to receive an allocation of new base acres is determined by the following:
• Acreage on a farm that was either planted, or prevented from being planted, because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster or condition beyond the control of the producer, to a covered commodity during the 2019 through 2023 crop years; plus
• The lesser of 15 percent of the total acres on the farm, which is the total of cropland acres minus acres enrolled in a federally funded conservation program that restricts the production of an agricultural commodity
In cases where two different covered commodities were planted on the same acreage and were not in an approved double cropping practice, the acreage will only count once. The owner will have the opportunity to select which covered commodity is used for the new base acreage determination.
A farm will be ineligible to receive an allocation of new base acres if:
• The farm does not meet the criteria of a covered commodity planted or prevented from being planted in the 2019-2023 crop years; or
• The 5-year average of planting history as outlined above does not exceed existing base acres on the farm excluding unassigned base acres.
If a farm is ineligible to receive an allocation, and currently has base acres, it will maintain its current base acres.
If a farm is eligible for an allocation of additional base acres and has unassigned base acres, those unassigned base acres will be converted to covered commodity base acres, on an acre-for-acre basis, first. If the amount of the additional base acres does not exceed the amount of unassigned base acres on the farm, the difference will remain as unassigned base acres.
Allocation of new base acres will be in proportion to the ratio of the 5-year average of planted and considered planted
If the total amount to be allocated exceeds the 30 million statutory limit, an across the board pro-rata reduction will be applied by FSA.
FSA is also defining the terms “eligible non-covered commodity”, “tree”, “bush”, and “vine” for the purpose of base allocation. These definitions follow the intent provided by Congress in OBBBA. “Eligible non-covered commodity” means all other commodities that are not considered to be covered commodities, excluding the following:
• Tobacco, consistent with other CCC programs;
• Cannabis that does not meet the definition of hemp;
• Commodities that are reported as a tree, bush, vine, grass, idle, or fallow;
• Cover crops, such as oats, turnip mixture, or rye grass, reported specifically as cover; and
• CRP and other conservation program acres due to being ineligible for dual payments.
The following table provides an example of the base acre allocation on a farm with no current base acres.
The following table provides an example of the base acre allocation on a farm with current base acres.
As provided by OBBBA, for each of the 2025 through 2031 crop years, FSA will:
• Calculate the ARC guarantee at 90 percent of the benchmark revenue; and
• Calculate the ARC payment rate using 12 percent of the benchmark revenue.
FSA is also updating the years used to calculate the HIP to 2019 through 2023 to better align with the years used for the base allocation process. FSA is also updating the counties designated as irrigated counties for crop years 2026 forward. FSA is updating the definitions of “average historical county yield” and “benchmark revenue” for ARC-IC to incorporate the new HIP years as well. FSA is also making conforming changes to 7 CFR part 718, which are discussed below.
Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill allowed no more than 25 counties nationwide to be divided into two administrative units. Eligible counties for consideration of administrative units were those that were larger than 1,400 square miles and that contained more than 190,000 base acres. There were two counties that previously elected to be split into two administrative units and they will continue to be recognized as such through crop year 2031.
During the 2026 crop year election period that will be announced by FSA, all of the producers with an interest in base acres on a farm, at the time the election is made, must make a unanimous election of either of the two following options:
• ARC-CO or PLC on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis (the election can be for ARC-CO, PLC, or a combination of ARC-CO and PLC); or
• ARC-IC for all covered commodities on a farm.
Producers are those with an interest in base acres that perform the election. The election, if valid as described in this rule, will apply to the farm for the 2026 through 2031 crop years, unless unanimously changed by the producers on the farm in any of crop years 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, or 2031. Election of ARC and PLC will occur in a defined period that will be announced by FSA in a press release in each of those crop years.
The election will be based on the farm structure for the 2026 crop year or, as may be applicable, the farm structure in the applicable 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, or 2031 crop years. The term “farm structure” means the farm as last constituted in the crop year. Reconstitutions
If no election is made in 2026 for a covered commodity's base acres, the farm will default to the same coverage for the covered commodity on the farm that was made in the 2025 crop year and the producers on that farm will not be eligible for 2026 crop year payments even if the farm is enrolled in ARC or PLC for the 2026 crop year. During the 2026 election period, all producers with an interest in base acres on the farm, at the time the election is made, must unanimously make the election as discussed in this rule in order to preserve the payment eligibility of all producers of the covered commodity on the farm for the 2026 crop year. If a valid election is submitted by all producers with an interest in base acres on the farm, at the time the election is made, that election will be recognized as valid for the farm in the 2026 through 2031 crop years unless that election is either rescinded or terminated by any 2026 producer on the farm during the election period, or unless the valid election for the 2026 crop year is modified and replaced by another valid election by producers during the 2026 crop year election period. At any time during the election period, a producer on a farm can rescind an election or terminate an election by withdrawing from the election or by providing written notice to FSA requesting to have the election rescinded.
OBBBA specifies the roles of owners and producers, and FSA does not have the discretion to set different requirements. If, within 90 days after FSA notification of a farm's eligibility for an additional allocation of base acres, owners exercise the option to decline additional base acres, that decision will apply to the farm unless the decision to decline is either withdrawn, rescinded, or modified by the owners in writing prior to the end of the same 90 day period. FSA is under no obligation to notify owners on a farm if a base allocation rejection has been filed, rescinded, modified, or withdrawn by one or more other owners during the base allocation period.
All producers with an interest in base acres on a farm for the 2026 crop year, at the time the 2026 crop year election is made, must unanimously elect ARC, PLC, or a combination of ARC and PLC for each covered commodity and farm. If producers cannot agree, the farm's election for each covered commodity
An election in ARC or PLC does not constitute enrollment. In order to be eligible for payments, producers must enroll their respective share interest of covered commodity base acres on the farm in ARC or PLC. Only producers who annually enroll, or who are subject to a valid multiyear enrollment,
As noted earlier, ARC has two options—a county option (ARC-CO) and an individual farm coverage option (ARC-IC). For ARC-CO, the benchmark revenue is based on average revenues at the county level for covered commodities. For ARC-IC, the benchmark revenue is based on the average revenue for a specific farm. For ARC-CO, 85 percent of the specific covered commodity base acres for a commodity will be “payment acres” that are used to calculate payments; for ARC-IC, 65 percent of all covered commodity base acres on the farm will be “payment acres.” On a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, the farm's producers with an interest in base acres, at the time of the crop year 2026 election, can elect ARC-CO, PLC, or a combination of ARC-CO and PLC for a farm. In other words, they can elect ARC-CO for some covered commodities and PLC for others. However, if the farm's current producers with an interest in base acres, at the time the election is made, elect ARC-IC, the election applies to all the covered commodities and the whole farm.
There are several factors that affect payments and, therefore, the decision as to whether to participate in ARC or PLC. ARC payments are limited to 12 percent of the benchmark revenue per acre. The PLC calculation does not include current yields, so if market year prices were above the effective reference price, but current yields were low, there would be no PLC payment.
As noted above, PLC is a counter-cyclical price program that makes a payment to an enrolled producer with a share of base acres when the effective price for a covered commodity falls below its effective reference price. The effective price is the higher of the national market year average (MYA) price or the national average loan rate (the Marketing Assistance Loan rate) for that crop year. Usually, the market price will be the effective price. FSA will continue to establish separate reference prices for temperate japonica rice for high altitude or high latitude areas. This rule updates the years used to calculate the reference price to crop years 2017 through 2021.
PLC payments for a given crop year will be made after October 1 of the following year. For example, 2025 crop year PLC payments will be made after October 1, 2026, and 2026 crop year PLC payments will be made after October 1, 2027. FSA is not changing the PLC payment calculation in this rule. For an explanation of the PLC payment calculation and an example, see 84 FR 45880-45881.
As discussed above, ARC is an income support program that is designed to cover a portion of a farmer's out-of-pocket cost when crop revenues fall below guarantee revenue levels, with the benchmark revenue based on either county level historic revenue for ARC-CO or the individual farm's historic revenue for ARC-IC. Farmers may elect ARC-CO as an alternative to PLC on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, or ARC-IC for all the covered commodities and the whole farm. For both ARC-CO and PLC, the payment calculation is based on covered commodity base acres. For ARC-IC, the payment calculation is based on the entirety of covered commodities grown on the farm during the crop year.
Under ARC-CO, payments are issued when actual county crop revenue for a covered commodity is less than the ARC-CO guarantee for that covered commodity. Since payment is not based on the revenue or yield of the individual farm, the producer does not need to provide any additional price or yield data to FSA to qualify for the ARC-CO payment. The calculation uses county data for yields and national prices, not individual farm data.
The ARC-CO guarantee is 90 percent of the crop's benchmark revenue in the county for each of the 2025 through 2031 crop years. Benchmark revenue is calculated by multiplying the ARC-CO average historical benchmark price by the ARC-CO average historical benchmark yield. The ARC-CO average historical benchmark price is equal to the most recently available previous 5-year MYA price, excluding the years with the highest and lowest prices. The ARC-CO benchmark yield is equal to the most recent 5-year average county yield available, excluding the years with the highest and lowest yields. The ARC-CO payment is equal to 85 percent of a farm's base acres of the covered commodity multiplied by the difference between the county's ARC-CO guarantee and the actual county revenue for the covered commodity.
The ARC-CO payment cannot exceed 12 percent of the county benchmark revenue (the ARC-CO average historical benchmark price times the ARC-CO average historical benchmark yield) for the 2025 through 2031 crop years. The following table provides an example of an ARC-CO payment calculation using estimated 2025 soybean prices and yields. This example uses an estimated 2025 MYA price and estimated 2025 actual average county yield because these values are not available for crop year 2026 at this time.
ARC-IC provides payments when an individual's actual revenues, averaged across all covered commodities planted on the ARC-IC farm, are less than the overall ARC-IC guarantee, averaged across those covered commodities on the farm. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, as amended, the farm for ARC-IC purposes is the sum of the producer's interest in all enrolled ARC-IC farms in a state, meaning that if a producer has an interest in multiple farms that have elected and enrolled in ARC-IC, the ARC-IC benchmark revenue for that producer will be a weighted average of the benchmark revenue from each of those farms. The farm's ARC-IC guarantee equals 90 percent of the farm's individual benchmark guarantee (5-year average of the annual benchmark revenues), excluding the years with the highest and lowest annual benchmark revenues, then averaging across all crops on the farm. Actual revenue is similarly calculated, with both the guarantee and the actual revenue calculated using planted acreage on the farm. The ARC-IC payment is equal to 65 percent of the sum of the base acres of all covered commodities on the farm multiplied by the difference between the individual guarantee revenue and the actual individual crop revenue across all covered commodities planted on the farm. Payments may not exceed 12 percent of the benchmark revenue. Since the payment is based on yields for that individual farm, the producers enrolled on ARC-IC elected farms must report acreage and yield data to qualify for payment.
The following table provides an example of an ARC-IC payment calculation.
Crop insurance is not required as a condition of eligibility for ARC and PLC, but ARC and PLC elections and enrollment may impact eligibility for crop insurance. Producers of upland cotton who choose to enroll upland cotton in ARC or PLC are ineligible for Stacked Income Protection Plan insurance under section 508B of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508b).
Annual enrollment for each covered commodity and crop year or multiyear contract enrollment will be announced by FSA. The contract year is based on the fiscal year, October 1 to September 30 of the next calendar year, with the enrollment occurring in the program year. Due to the timing of OBBBA and this regulation, producers will enroll by a deadline announced by FSA for the 2026 crop year, and that deadline will be in the 2027 contract year for a contract period that ended September 30, 2026. For each subsequent year, the enrollment deadline will be for a contract that began on the previous October 1. For example, the producer will enroll by March 15, 2027, for a 2027 contract that runs from October 1, 2026, to September 30, 2027.
The enrollment deadline announced by FSA will be consistent with the deadline for similar FSA and CCC programs and take into consideration the reporting of cropland and crop acreage on the farm. The date is also in advance of compliance activities that are required to occur for the crop year (acreage and production reporting), and the final date for seeking reconstitution of farms.
The following table provides a summary of deadlines for ARC and PLC:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 1412 specify certain requirements to which the participant must agree to be eligible for payments. One such provision requires producers to effectively control noxious weeds and otherwise maintain the land in accordance with sound agricultural practices.
ARC and PLC continue to have provisions for planting flexibility and reductions of payment acreage for plantings of fruits, vegetables, and wild rice on base acres. FSA is updating the list of counties in § 1412.46(f) that have been determined to be regions having a history of double-cropping covered commodities or peanuts with fruits, vegetables, or wild rice beginning with crop year 2026.
FSA is updating the definitions of “benchmark revenue for ARC-IC”, “historical irrigated percentage”, “replacement crop”, and “subsequently planted crop acreage” for clarity. FSA is also updating the definition of “marketing year” to clarify the dates for long grain and medium grain rice, and to add the period for temperate japonica rice. FSA is adding a definition of “corn” to § 1412.3 that does not exclude popcorn and blue corn; this definition will apply to ARC PLC instead of the definition currently in § 718.2. FSA is removing subpart H of 7 CFR part 1412, because that subpart provides the provisions for the Cotton Transition Assistance Program (CTAP), which has ended. FSA has also updated examples throughout part 1412 to use current dates.
This rule also makes changes to provisions in 7 CFR part 718 that generally apply to FSA and CCC programs, including ARC and PLC. For clarity, FSA is adding the definitions of “administrative county” and “servicing FSA county office” to § 718.2. FSA is removing the definition of “partial reconstitution” because prior rules removed the provisions related to that term and it is no longer used in part 718. FSA is updating the definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher” and “limited resource farmer or rancher” for consistency with the certification statements on the FSA-860 and to update the references to specific years. FSA is also updating the definition of “county” to add a reference to councils of government. FSA is also amending the provisions for reconstitutions to clarify that they are effective for the fiscal year in which they are requested and adding the definition of “fiscal year”.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 1400 specify payment limitations for ARC and PLC for covered commodities and peanuts. Beginning with crop year 2025, payment limitations, prior to the inflation adjustment, are increased and the following payment limitations apply for ARC and PLC:
• $155,000 for covered commodities (other than peanuts); and
• $155,000 for peanuts.
As mandated by OBBBA, and beginning with crop year 2025, FSA will annually adjust the payment limitation for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. FSA will publish the adjusted payment limitation as soon as practicable for each crop year, on or around October 1, on FSA's website.
To calculate the annual adjustment, FSA will compare the average CPI-U for the most recently available September to August 12-month period to the average CPI-U for the September 2022 to August 2023 base period to determine the payment limit adjustment. The adjustment will then be applied to the existing payment limitation for ARC and PLC for both covered commodities and for peanuts, which have a separate payment limit. Each calculated adjusted payment limitation will be rounded to the nearest $1,000.
At no time for crop year 2025 and subsequent years will the payment limitation for ARC and PLC for covered commodities decline from one year to the next. If the calculated adjustment would result in a reduction in the payment limitation, the current payment limitation will remain in effect for the subsequent crop year. Applying the adjustment in this manner ensures that periods of negative inflation will not reduce the maximum payment amount.
An example of how FSA will calculate an adjustment is provided below. This example is for illustration only and does not establish the 2025 or 2026 payment limitations.
To determine the 2025 payment limitation, FSA will complete the following steps:
(1) The average of the September 2023 CPI-U through August 2024 CPI-U is 310.955.
(2) The average of the September 2022 CPI-U through August 2023 CPI-U is 301.3742.
(3) The inflation percentage is equal to 310.955 divided by 301.3742, which is 1.032, or 3.2 percent.
(4) The 2025 payment limitation is $155,000 multiplied by 1.032, rounded to the nearest $1,000, which equals $160,000.
To establish the 2026 payment limitation, FSA will use the same steps, comparing the average of the CPI-U for September 2024 through August 2025 (319.205) to the result of Step 2 above (301.3742), resulting in an adjustment of 1.059 or 5.9 percent. The payment limitation would equal $155,000 times 1.059, rounded to the nearest $1,000, which is $164,000.
FSA is revising the DMC regulations in 7 CFR part 1430, subpart D, as required by OBBBA. Specifically, this rule amends the regulations to provide eligible dairy operations
(1) Shares in the pooling of resources under a common ownership structure;
(2) Is at risk in the production of milk in the dairy operation;
(3) Contributes land, labor, management, equipment, or capital to the dairy operation that are at least commensurate to the producer's share in the operation; and
(4) Has production facilities located in the United States.
Section 1403 of Subtitle D of Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 9053) authorizes DMC, which provides a risk management program for dairy operations that pays producers when the difference between the price of milk and the cost of feed (the margin) falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. Producers are eligible for catastrophic-level margin protection (based on a $4 margin and 95 percent production history coverage) for their dairy operations by paying an annual administrative fee, and they are also able to purchase greater coverage (up to a $9.50 margin on 5 to 95 percent of production history) for an annual premium. A participating dairy operation from 2019 through 2025 enrolled their first 5 million pounds of covered production at the Tier 1 level with the remaining pounds of coverage over 5 million pounds enrolled at the Tier 2 coverage level.
Section 10313 of Subtitle C of Title 1 of OBBBA provides all eligible participants in the DMC program with the opportunity to establish a new milk production history. This new milk production history, first used in the 2026 calendar year, is based on the highest marketed milk production level from any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years, rather than based on the highest annual milk marketings from the 2011, 2012, and 2013 calendar years. Beginning with the 2026 coverage year, all participating dairy operations will establish a new production history based on the specified years. The production history established during the years of 2014 through 2025 will no longer be applicable for coverage under DMC starting with the 2026 calendar year.
OBBBA clarifies the definition of a new dairy operation, for purposes of establishing production history, based on when the dairy operation first began to commercially market milk. Operations that are determined to be “new dairy operations” under this rule are dairy operations that have never established a production history under DMC and have begun producing and commercially marketing milk within 60 calendar days prior to registering to participate in DMC.
For new participating dairy operations that started to commercially market milk after January 1, 2023, OBBBA allows these operations to establish a production history by one of two methods:
• The volume of first-year milk marketings for the months that a participating dairy operation has been in business extrapolated to a yearly amount; or
• An estimate of the actual milk marketings based on the herd size for the first year of milk marketings of the participating dairy operation relative to the national rolling herd average data.
For example, a dairy operation that started commercially marketing milk on January 1, 2025, does not have milk marketings from 2021, 2022, or 2023. Therefore, the dairy operation will be considered new and must select from the two options (either the extrapolation method or the rolling herd average method) to establish production history, even though the dairy operation may have 12 full months of milk marketings in 2025.
The option selected by the new dairy operation will become their production history of record. Previous provisions allowed alternative conditions for establishing production history under DMC; those are no longer authorized and have been removed from the regulations.
Prior to 2026, a participating dairy operation enrolled their first 5 million pounds of covered production at the Tier 1 level with applicable premium fees, and the remaining pounds of coverage over 5 million pounds were enrolled at the Tier 2 coverage level. OBBBA amends the Tier 1 premium rate schedule coverage limit from 5,000,000 pounds to 6,000,000 pounds, allowing mid-size dairy operations that market more than 5 million pounds of annual production to cover an additional 1
OBBBA maintains the provision that a dairy operation can elect a Tier 1 coverage level threshold of $8.00, $8.50, or $9.00 and have the option to select a different coverage level threshold for Tier 2. Premium rate fees for producer-selected coverages under Tier I and Tier II are unchanged.
OBBBA reauthorizes the DMC lock-in option for participating dairy operations. During the 2026 coverage election period, a dairy operation may make a one-time election of coverage level and coverage percentage, “locking-in” those elections for a six-year period beginning January 2026 and ending December 2031. All dairy operations that elect the lock-in option are required to participate in DMC at the same elected premium coverage level for a six-year period beginning in January 2026. DMC participating dairy operations locking in elections for the six-year period will receive a premium discount of 25 percent off the premium rate per cwt in each applicable Tier table. Annually, “locked-in” dairy operations are required to certify to commercially marketing milk and timely pay the administrative and premium fees (if applicable) when due according to FSA.
FSA is also making additional discretionary changes. The administrative provisions of § 1430.401 have been updated to be consistent with other FSA and CCC programs. In addition, the rule clarifies that for an informal joint venture dairy operation, when a non-participating member declines participation in DMC for the coverage year, the premium obligation and payments will be pro-rated for only the participating members and will exclude the share percentage of the non-participating member. Also, to remain consistent in the rule with the 6-million-pound increase of production history coverage under Tier 1, for an intergenerational transfer production history increase according to § 1430.405(h), the amount of production history increase for an intergenerational transfer will also be limited to an amount not more than 6 million pounds. The rule also clarifies the effects of a participating dairy operation's failure to pay the administrative fee and premium fees when due. A participating dairy operation that does not timely pay their administrative fee for a coverage year is not eligible for DMC for that coverage year. Likewise, for a participating dairy operation that fails to pay a premium when due, the rule clarifies that an accrued DMC payment will process if applicable; however, the dairy operation must pay the amount of outstanding premium or receivable before a concurrent DMC contract application can be approved.
The rule also removes unnecessary provisions and language pertaining to supplemental production history that is no longer relevant to DMC. For example, the authority to make DMC payments based on supplemental production history ended on December 31, 2023. In addition, production history “bump” adjustments and the establishment of an adjusted base production history are also no longer authorized under the DMC program.
The Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP-Dairy) was the risk-based predecessor program to DMC. Since DMC replaced MPP-Dairy, FSA is removing all MPP-Dairy related references and language in this rule. FSA is also removing and reserving 7 CFR 1430, subpart A, which contained the regulations for MPP-Dairy.
The modifications to the ARC, PLC, and DMC programs authorized by the OBBBA are distinct and severable from one another, as well as from the minor administrative changes and updates to the regulations. Each provision is designed to function independently, ensuring that the rule as a whole remains effective and aligned with the agency's intent, even if certain provisions were to be invalidated.
The OBBBA amended Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill to reauthorize the ARC, PLC, and DMC programs. As specified in 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(2), the regulations to implement these provisions are exempt from:
• The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), and
• The notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Further, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) provides that the provisions requiring notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to benefits or contracts. This rule governs payments to agricultural producers and therefore falls within the benefits exemption.
In addition, 7 U.S.C. 9091(c)(3) directs the Secretary to use the authority provided in 5 U.S.C. 808 of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Because this rule meets the criteria specified at 8 U.S.C. 804(2), the CRA would ordinarily necessitate delaying its effective date for 60 days (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A)). However, the CRA, at 5 U.S.C. 808(2), allows an agency to make such regulations effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. USDA has determined that such good cause exists here. USDA believes that notice and comment is “unnecessary” under that subsection because it is exempt from the APA's public notice requirements as described above. Further, this rule is implementing mandatory requirements of the OBBBA, and the assistance provided by this rule is necessary to help the beneficiaries of this rule sustain their normal business operations. As a result, USDA finds that notice and public procedure are contrary to the public interest. Therefore, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the
This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) because it .is exempt from the public notice requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 as described above. The requirements for the regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are specifically tied to the requirement for a proposed rule by section 553 or any other law; in addition, the definition of rule in 5 U.S.C. 601 is tied to the publication of a proposed rule.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f)(1), and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full CBA is available on
OBBBA authorized modifications to the 2025 crop year ARC and PLC programs and the continuation of the ARC and PLC programs for the 2026 through 2031 crop years. The modified provisions are related to reference prices, effective reference prices, base acres, program elections, and payment provisions. The numerous changes to ARC and PLC increase the likelihood and the amount of payments in any given year relative to the pre-OBBBA amended programs. Payments for these programs are expected to be $72.19 billion in total for the FY2027-2036 period, an increase of $46.2 billion relative to expected outlays under the 2018 Farm Bill.
OBBBA also increased ARC and PLC payment limits (to $155,000 for covered commodities and to a separate limit of $155,000 for peanuts) and indexes them to inflation as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The indexing will begin with the 2025 crop year payment limits. Each year in early October, USDA will announce the payment limit for the upcoming crop. For example, USDA will announce the 2027 crop ARC and PLC limits in October 2026. Outlays are projected to increase by around $592 million over 10 years due to the combined effect of the ARC and PLC payment limit increasing to $155,000 and the use of indexing.
OBBBA extends the DMC program through the 2031 calendar year and makes two main changes. First, it defines production history as the highest annual milk marketings achieved in any one of the calendar years 2021, 2022, or 2023, allowing producers to establish a more current and often more favorable production benchmark. For new or recently established operations, production history may be calculated either by extrapolating from actual production or by estimating output based on herd size relative to the national rolling herd average published by USDA. Prior to these amendments, production history was based on highest milk production in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Second, OBBBA increases the Tier I coverage limit for a dairy operation from 5 million to 6 million pounds of milk per year. Tier I coverage includes subsidized premiums at higher coverage levels than Tier 2. As a result, OBBBA reduces per-unit program costs for a significant share of U.S. milk production. OBBBA also updates the premium discount and multi-year enrollment provisions and resets the program authority from 2019-2023 to 2026-2031, encouraging producers to commit to multi-year DMC participation. Combined, these DMC changes are estimated to result in about $238.2 million of additional cost over 10 years.
The combined total cost of the above OBBBA changes is approximately $47 billion.
The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b).
This rule implements primarily mandatory changes to the ARC, PLC, and DMC programs required by the OBBBA, with limited discretionary aspects that do not have the potential to impact the human environment as they are administrative. Accordingly, these discretionary aspects are covered by the FSA Categorical Exclusions specified in 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(16)(ix) that applies to safety net programs and § 1b.(c)(16)(vii) that applies to price support programs.
No Extraordinary Circumstances (§ 1b.3(f)) exist because these are administrative payment programs. As such, the implementation of and participation in the ARC, PLC, and DMC programs do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and, consistent with § 1b.3(g), this document serves as the programmatic finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance (FANEC) for this Federal action.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will engage the Office of Tribal Relations as needed, to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The titles and numbers of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, to which this document applies are 10.112—Price Loss Coverage, 10.113—Agriculture Risk Coverage, and 10.127—Dairy Margin Coverage.
Acreage allotments, Drug traffic control, Loan programs—agriculture, Marketing quotas, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agriculture, Grant programs—agriculture, Loan programs—agriculture, Natural resources, Price support programs.
Acreage allotments, Cotton, Feed grains, Oilseeds, Peanuts, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Soil conservation, Wheat.
Dairy products, Fraud, Penalties, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, FSA and CCC amend the regulations in 7 CFR parts 718, 1400, 1412, and 1430 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1501-1531, 1921-2008v, 7201-7334, and 15 U.S.C. 714b.
The additions and revisions read as follows.
(1) A person whose direct or indirect gross farm sales do not exceed $227,100 (2025 program year) in each of the 2 calendar years that precede the most immediately preceding complete taxable year before the relevant program year that corresponds to the relevant program year (for example, for the 2026 program year, the two years would be 2023 and 2024), adjusted upwards in later years for any general inflation; and
(2) A person whose total household income was at or below the national poverty level for a family of four in each of the same two previous years referenced in paragraph (1) of this definition. (Limited resource farmer or rancher status can be determined using a website available through the Limited Resource Farmer and Rancher Online Self Determination Tool through National Resource and Conservation Service at
(3) For legal entities, all members must meet the criteria in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition.
7 U.S.C. 1308, 1308-1, 1308-2, 1308-3, 1308-3a, 1308-4, and 1308-5; and Title I, Pub. L. 115-123.
(f) * * *
(d) The payment limitations described in items (1) and (2) of table 1 to § 1400.1(f) will be annually adjusted for inflation based on the CPI-U beginning with crop year 2025 according to the following:
(1) On or about October 1 of each year, FSA reviews the CPI-U for the most recently available twelve-month period on the date of review;
(2) FSA will average the CPI-U data and compare the average of the previous 12-month period to determine the percentage of inflation;
(3) The result of paragraph (d)(2) of this section will be applied to the limitation specified in items (1) and (2) of table 1 to § 1400.1(f), as adjusted; and
(4) The resulting adjusted limitation will be rounded to the nearest thousand.
7 U.S.C. 1508b, 7911-7912, 7916, 8702, 8711-8712, 8751-8752, 9011-9018, and 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
The revisions read as follows.
(a) The ARC and PLC Programs will be administered under the general supervision and direction of the Executive Vice President, CCC, and will be carried out in the field by FSA State and county committees, respectively.
(b) State and county committees, and representatives and their employees, do not have authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations set forth in this part.
(d) No provision or delegation to an FSA State or county committee will preclude the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, from determining any question arising under this part, or from reversing or modifying any determination made by an FSA State or county committee.
The additions and revisions read as follows.
(1) Tobacco;
(2)
(3) CRP, other Federal Conservation Program Acres;
(4) Cover crops, and
(5) Commodities that are reported as a tree, bush, vine, grass, idle, or fallow.
(1) Barley, oats, and wheat: June 1 through May 31;
(2) Canola, flax and rapeseed, lentils, and dry edible peas: July 1 through June 30;
(3) Peanuts and seed cotton: August 1 through July 31;
(4) Corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers, safflower, mustard, crambe, sesame, and chickpeas: September 1 through August 31;
(5) Long grain and medium grain rice: August 1 through July 31; and
(6) Temperate Japonica rice: October 1 through September 30.
(1) The following for the 2026 through 2030 crop years:
(i) Wheat, $6.35 per bushel;
(ii) Corn, $4.10 per bushel;
(iii) Grain sorghum, $4.40 per bushel;
(iv) Barley, $5.45 per bushel;
(v) Oats, $2.65 per bushel;
(vi) Long grain rice, $16.90 per hundredweight;
(vii) Medium grain rice, $16.90 per hundredweight;
(viii) Soybeans, $10.00 per bushel;
(ix) Other oilseeds, $23.75 per hundredweight;
(x) Peanuts, $630.00 per ton;
(xi) Dry peas, $13.10 per hundredweight;
(xii) Lentils, $23.75 per hundredweight;
(xiii) Small chickpeas, $22.65 per hundredweight;
(xiv) Large chickpeas, $25.65 per hundredweight; and
(xv) Seed cotton, $0.42 per pound.
(2) Beginning with the 2031 crop year, the reference price for the previous crop year multiplied by 1.005, not to exceed 113 percent of the reference price for the covered commodity provided in paragraph (1) of this definition.
(a) An additional 30,000,000 base acres will be allocated to eligible farms for program year 2026. Owners will be notified by CCC and given the opportunity to elect to not receive the additional allocation no later than 90 days after the receipt of the notification. An owner may appeal a determination of ineligibility for an allocation of base acres by requesting a review of the accuracy of information contained in the notification by filing a written request to the County Committee within 30 calendar days after the notice is received. If an adverse decision is made by the County Committee, the owner may appeal the adverse decision to the FSA State Committee or the National Appeals Division, or request mediation.
(b) Effective beginning with the 2026 crop year, a farm is eligible to receive an allocation of base acres if, with respect to the farm, the 5-year average sum exceeds the total number of base acres on the farm. The 5-year average sum is the sum of:
(1) The 5-year average of:
(i) The acreage planted on the farm to all covered commodities for harvest, grazing, haying, silage or other similar purposes for the 2019 through 2023 crop years; and
(ii) Any acreage on the farm that the producers were prevented from planting during the 2019 through 2023 crop years to covered commodities because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers, as determined by CCC; plus
(2) The lesser of:
(i) 15 percent of the total acres on the farm; or
(ii) The 5-year average of:
(A) The acreage planted on the farm to eligible noncovered commodities for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes for the 2019 through 2023 crop years; and
(B) Any acreage on the farm that the producers were prevented from planting during the 2019 through 2023 crop years to eligible noncovered commodities because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers, as determined by CCC.
(c) The total number of base acres for covered commodities, with respect to a farm, is the total number of base acres for covered commodities on the farm, excluding unassigned crop base, as in effect on September 30, 2024.
(d) If the 5-year average planted acreage of covered commodities for a farm is equal to zero, that farm is ineligible to receive an allocation of base acres.
(e) The number of base acres allocated to an eligible farm:
(1) Is equal to the difference obtained by subtracting the total amount of base acres for covered commodities on the farm, excluding unassigned crop base, from the amount determined in the 5-year average sum calculation; and
(2) Includes unassigned crop base.
(f) The allocation of additional base acres for covered commodities is in proportion to the ratio of:
(1) The 5-year average of:
(i) The acreage planted on the farm to each covered commodity for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes for the 2019 through 2023 crop years; and
(ii) Any acreage on the farm that the producers were prevented from planting during the 2019 through 2023 crop years to that covered commodity because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers, as determined by CCC; to
(2) The 5-year average cropping history, as calculated in (b)(1). For the purpose of determining a 5-year acreage average, any crop year in which a covered commodity was not planted will not be excluded.
(g) For the purpose of determining the acreage on a farm that producers planted or were prevented from planting during the 2019 through 2023 crop years to covered commodities, if the acreage that was planted or prevented from being planted was devoted to another covered commodity in the same crop year (other than a covered commodity produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner may elect the covered commodity to be used for that crop year in determining the 5-year average, but may not include both the initial covered commodity and the subsequent covered commodity.
(h) The allocation of additional base acres among covered commodities on a farm may not result in a total number of base acres for the farm in excess of the total number of acres on the farm according to § 1412.24 with the removal of the acres specified in (a)(2).
(i) Unassigned base will be converted to covered commodity base acres on farms eligible for additional base acres. The allocation of additional acres will first be applied on an acre-for-acre basis not to exceed total amount of additional allocation, converting unassigned base acres to specific covered commodity base acres. These converted acres are not counted toward the additional 30 million acres and are not subject to any pro-rata reduction.
(j) If the total number of eligible acres allocated to base acres across all farms in the United States would exceed 30,000,000 acres, CCC will apply an across-the-board, pro-rata reduction to the number of eligible acres to ensure the number of allocated base acres is equal to 30,000,000 acres.
(k) Beginning with crop year 2026, for the purpose of making PLC payments, FSA will establish payment yields for new base acres allocated equal to:
(1) The payment yield established on the farm for the applicable covered commodity; and
(2) If no such payment yield for the applicable covered commodity exists, a payment yield:
(i) Equal to the average payment yield for the covered commodity for the county in which the farm is situated; or
(ii) Equal to a yield for the covered commodity for similarly situated farms.
(l) In the case of a farm for which the owner on the date of base allocation eligibility notification was not the owner for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, CCC will use the planting history of the prior owner or owners of that farm for purposes of determining:
(1) Eligibility;
(2) Eligible acres; and
(3) The allocation of acres.
The revisions and addition read as follows.
(f) * * *
(1)
(13)
(14)
(27)
(43)
(44)
(45)
The revision and addition read as follows.
(e) * * *
(2) Payment is equal to the result of multiplying the payment acres for the covered commodities times the difference between actual crop revenue and the ARC-IC guarantee, not to exceed 12 percent of benchmark revenue for ARC-IC for each of the 2025 through 2031 crop years.
(h) For the 2025 crop year, CCC will make the higher of PLC payments or ARC-CO payments to the producers on a farm for the payment acres for each covered commodity on the farm.
7 U.S.C. 9051-9060 and 9071 and 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
The revisions read as follows.
(a) The Dairy Margin Coverage Program (DMC) will be administered under the general supervision and direction of the Executive Vice President, CCC, and will be carried out in the field by FSA State and county committees, respectively.
(b) State and county committees, and representatives and their employees, do not have authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations set forth in this part.
(d) No provision or delegation to an FSA State or county committee will preclude the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, from determining any question arising under this subpart, or from reversing or modifying any determination made by an FSA State or county committee.
The revisions read as follows.
(1) After January 1, 2023, and does not have one full 365-day calendar year of commercial milk marketings from 2021, 2022, or 2023;
(2) After January 1, 2023, with a full calendar year of commercial milk marketings for 2024 or subsequent year; or
(3) Within 60 calendar days of submitting a contract application under DMC.
The revisions read as follows.
(a) * * *
(1) Produce milk from cows in the United States that is marketed commercially at the time of each annual election for an applicable coverage year in DMC;
(e) CCC will determine additional dairy operations that operate in a manner that are separate and distinct from each other according to paragraph (d) of this section and may be considered an operation even though they may not meet the conditions otherwise imposed in this definition. CCC may combine dairy operations to be considered one dairy operation when the business is operating more than one milking facility that is not separate and distinct and is conducting business as one dairy operation.
The revisions read as follows.
(b) A dairy operation must submit completed contracts and any other supporting documentation, during the annual election period established by CCC to the administrative county FSA office serving the dairy operation. However, the production history must be established only once and approved by CCC before the contract is submitted and considered complete.
(c) * * *
(1) The applicable year of coverage for contracts received during an annual election period will be the following calendar year.
(d) If the dairy producer operates more than one separate and distinct operation, the producer must register each operation for each operation to be eligible for coverage. If the producer moves the same herd of cattle between two facilities, then the two facilities will not be regarded as separate and distinct but as one operation. A separate operation must distinctly, as a single unit, have their own cattle, facilities, milk marketings, tanks, feed, records, State level licenses, and permits. A dairy operation operated by more than one dairy producer will be considered to be a single dairy operation for purposes of participating in DMC and may only submit one contract.
(e) * * *
(2) During the 2026 annual coverage election period only, participating dairy operations that make a one-time election of coverage level and percentage of coverage, according to § 1430.407(j), will be locked in at the same coverage level and percentage of coverage for a 6-year period beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31, 2031. Dairy operations that elect the lock-in option are required to pay the annual administrative fee and submit an annual contract during the annual contract election period for each coverage year to certify that the dairy operation is still in the business of producing and commercially marketing milk. If the operation fails to pay the applicable administrative fees or certify the status of the dairy operation, the dairy operation will remain obligated for all applicable unpaid administrative and premium fees calculated for the lock-in period.
(3) All participating producers in the participating dairy operation must agree to the coverage level threshold and coverage percentage elected by the operation on the contract. Producers in the participating dairy operation that elect not to participate may not submit a separate contract for coverage. All producers that share in risk of the dairy operation's production must be indicated on the contract with their corresponding share in the dairy operation; however, a signature from the non-participating member will not be required for CCC approval. When a member of an informal joint venture declines participation on the DMC contract, the premium amount and potential payments for the participating members are prorated accordingly.
(f) * * *
(2) All information provided is subject to verification by CCC. CCC may require a dairy operation to provide documentation that supports all verifiable records.
(g) At the time the completed contract is submitted to CCC for the first program year in which the operation is to participate in DMC, the dairy operation must also submit a separate form, as prescribed by CCC, to establish the production history for the dairy operation. An established production history and a completed contract are both required to have a complete submission that is subject to approval by CCC.
The revisions read as follows.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) of this section, CCC will establish the production history for a dairy operation for DMC as the highest annual milk marketings of the participating dairy operation during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years.
(b) A participating dairy operation that began marketing milk after January 1, 2023, will be considered a new dairy operation according to § 1430.401. To establish the production history for such a new dairy operation the new dairy operation is required to elect one of the following methods:
(f) * * *
(1) The dairy operation must notify CCC of the intergenerational transfer within 60 days of the purchase of the cows by filing form CCC-800C at the County office. The operation has the option of the additional production history taking effect beginning with the month the producer first began to commercially produce and market milk as part of the dairy operation, or the following January 1. If the additional production history takes effect between January 1 and August 31, the premium is due September 1, as specified in § 1430.407(h)(2). If the additional production history takes effect between September 1 and December 31, the premium is due immediately.
The revision reads as follows.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, dairy operations must pay an administrative fee to CCC in the amount of $100 at the time of enrollment during the annual election period for each applicable coverage year the dairy operation decides to participate in DMC. Annual administrative fees are due and payable to CCC through the administrative county FSA office no later than the close of business on the last day of the annual election period established by CCC for each applicable calendar year of dairy margin coverage under DMC. The administrative fee paid is non-refundable; however, if paid during the Coverage Election Period, and made in
The revisions read as follows.
(i) If the total premium is not paid for an applicable calendar year of coverage as specified in paragraph (g) of this section, the participating dairy operation contract for a concurrent year cannot be approved until the prior year premium or receivable is paid.
(j) For each calendar year 2026 through 2031, a participating dairy operation that makes a one-time election of a coverage level threshold and a percentage of coverage according to this section, for a 6-year period, will have their elected coverage level, as applicable to each tier, reduced by 25 percent. The option to lock in for the premium rate discount must be elected during the 2026 annual coverage election period announced by CCC. Except that, new dairy operations, not in existence during the 2026 annual election period, that elect to participate in DMC according to § 1430.404(b), are eligible to receive the premium rate discount for locking coverage for the period beginning with the first available calendar year and ending in 2031, except that new dairy operations registering for DMC for the first time for coverage year 2031 and dairy operations that stop producing and marketing milk in 2026 that are registering for eligible months in 2031 are not eligible for the multi-year premium rate discount. All dairy operations that elect the lock-in option are subject to full participation in DMC at the same elected premium coverage levels and calculated premium for the duration of DMC according to § 1430.413.
The revision and addition read as follows.
(a) * * *
(2) Upon such failure to pay the administrative fee when due, loses coverage under DMC for the coverage year; and
(3) Upon such failure to pay the premium fee or receivable when due, a subsequent DMC contract cannot be approved.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Final rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is increasing premium processing fees charged by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to reflect the amount of inflation from June 2023 through June 2025 according to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Office of Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone 240-721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Telecommunications Relay Service at 711.
Section 286(u) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u) provides the Secretary with specific authority to establish and collect a premium fee for the premium processing of certain immigration benefit types.
In 2000, Congress added new section 286(u) to the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(u), to permit the former Immigration and Naturalization Service to designate certain employment-based immigration benefit requests for premium processing subject to an additional fee.
On October 1, 2020, the Continuing Appropriations Act, which included the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act (USCIS Stabilization Act), set new fees for premium processing of immigration benefit requests that had been designated for premium processing as of August 1, 2020, and expanded DHS authority to establish and collect new premium processing fees, and to use those additional funds for expanded purposes.
On October 16, 2020, USCIS announced it would increase the fees for premium processing, as required by the USCIS Stabilization Act, effective October 19, 2020.
Effective May 31, 2022, DHS amended its premium processing regulations to codify the fees set by the USCIS Stabilization Act and establish new fees and processing timeframes consistent with the conditions and eligibility requirements set forth by section 4102(b)(1) of the USCIS Stabilization Act.
The USCIS Stabilization Act also provided DHS with the authority to make a biennial inflationary based adjustment to USCIS premium processing fees.
DHS is now increasing its premium processing fees based on the rate of inflation from June 2023 through June 2025, consistent with its statutory authority.
DHS may adjust the premium processing fees on a biennial basis by the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of June preceding the date on which such adjustment takes effect exceeds the CPI-U for the same month of the second preceding calendar year.
The USCIS Stabilization Act established a baseline for premium processing fees and provided the authority for DHS to adjust the premium fees on a biennial basis. DHS's most recent inflationary increase to premium processing fees became effective February 26, 2024.
A request for premium processing postmarked on or after March 1, 2026, must include the new fee, as applicable to the benefit request classification. A premium processing request must be submitted on USCIS Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing, and in the manner prescribed by USCIS in the form instructions. If the request for premium processing is submitted together with the underlying immigration benefit request, all required fees in the correct amount must be paid. The fee to request premium processing service may not be waived and must be paid in addition to, and in a separate remittance from, other filing fees.
DHS is adjusting current premium processing fees to ensure that the premium processing fees keep pace with inflation as contemplated by Congress in the USCIS Stabilization Act. It is DHS's intention that premium processing fees will be adjusted biennially to consistently protect the real dollar value of the premium processing service that USCIS provides. When making an inflationary adjustment to the premium processing fees provided by INA sec. 286(u)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u)(3)(C), the adjustment is limited to the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of June preceding the date on which such adjustment takes effect exceeds the CPI-U for the same month of the second preceding calendar year. By consistently adjusting premium processing fees biennially, the fees will more effectively keep up with the increasing USCIS costs of processing than is accomplished by adjusting them less often.
DHS will use the revenue generated by the premium processing fee increase to provide premium processing services; make improvements to adjudications processes; respond to adjudication demands, including processing
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to issue a proposed rule before issuing a final rule, subject to certain exceptions.
The regulations at 8 CFR 106.4(d) provide that fees to request premium processing service may be adjusted by notice in the
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 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 the new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 (see 5(a)) regulatory action because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and 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 estimates an additional annual transfer to DHS of $77,119,780 (undiscounted) in revenue to be collected from fee-paying applicants and petitioners (public), due to the increase in premium processing fees subject to an adjustment for inflation (Table 1).
In addition to the impacts summarized above, Table 1a. below presents the prepared accounting statement showing the costs and benefits to each individual affected by this final rule.
Table 2 shows the estimated total receipts received and refunds issued by USCIS for Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, filed for Forms I-129 and I-140 petitions, from fiscal year (FY) 2020 through FY 2024. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual receipts for Forms I-907 to be 419,161 for the biennial period after this rule takes effect. In addition, based on the 5-year average, the annual number of refunds issued for Form I-907 is estimated to be 355.
Currently, petitioners requesting certain benefits on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, are eligible to also submit a request for premium processing with their immigration benefit request or while the immigration benefit request is pending with USCIS. Table 3 shows the population of petitioners who submitted Form I-907 for Form I-129 based on the corresponding nonimmigrant classifications from FY 2020 through FY 2024.
Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual receipts from Form I-907 filed for Form I-129 H-2B or R-1 classifications to be 13,649. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual receipts for Form I-907 associated with Forms I-129 to be 318,874, and assumes this annual number for the biennial period after the rule takes effect.
This rule increases the premium processing fees for Forms I-907 filed for Form I-129 benefit requests. The premium processing fee for Forms I-907 requesting H-2B or R-1 nonimmigrant classification will increase from $1,685 to $1,780, an increase of $95, which is the result of a 5.72 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2023 to June 2025.
Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates an additional $1,296,655 annually in transfer payments will be collected from these new, higher premium processing fees for Forms I-129 requesting H-2B or R-1 classification.
The estimated population of petitioners who submitted Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, based on the corresponding employment-based (EB) classifications that are currently designated for premium processing is 100,286 (Table 2) per year. The fee for all Form I-140 petitioners requesting premium processing will increase from $2,805 to $2,965, an increase of $160 based on the 5.72 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2023 to June 2025.
Additionally, as of January 30, 2023, Form I-140 petitions under an E13 multinational executive and manager classification and petitions under an E21 national interest waiver (NIW) classification are eligible to request premium processing. Table 6 shows the E13 multinational executive and manager classification and E21 (NIW) classification populations. Based on FY 2024 data (excluding the partial FY 2023 totals), DHS estimates the annual average receipts of Form I-140, E13 and Form I-140, E21 (NIW) to be 79,119 (Table 6).
Since Forms I-140 for E13 and E21 (NIW) classification have only been recently eligible to request premium processing, DHS estimates the percentage of petitioners who will request E13 or E21 (NIW) classification based on FY 2024 data. The E21(NIW) classification began in 2023. So, in previous years we had reported the E13 and E21 classification for those years rather than the E21(NIW) classification that is actually eligible for premium processing now. In FY 2024, premium processing was requested for 35,350 Forms I-140 with E13 or E21 (NIW) classification from a total of 79,119 Forms I-140 requesting E13 or E21 (NIW) classification (Table 6). DHS calculates 45 percent of the eligible population opting for premium processing.
In Table 7, DHS uses the annual 35,350 premium processing estimate for Forms I-140 requesting E13 or E21 (NIW) classification to estimate transfer payments to DHS. The fee for all Form I-140 petitioners requesting premium processing will increase from $2,805 to $2,965, an increase of $160 based on the 5.72 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2023 to June 2025.
DHS estimates that as a result of the increase in filing fees for premium processing the additional annual transfer payments to DHS from these Form I-140 fee-paying populations will be $5,656,000 (Table 7).
DHS estimates that the combined additional annual transfer payments to DHS for premium processing requests for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, will be $21,701,760 ($16,045,760 + $5,656,000) per year.
The USCIS Stabilization Act authorized USCIS to permit premium processing for newly eligible Form I-539 filers. Per the statute, the fee was originally set at $1,750 and was subsequently increased to $1,965 by the 2023 CPI-U Adjustment.
Because premium processing was allowed for these classifications recently, at the time of this analysis, DHS only has data for one full fiscal year (FY 2024) for eligible Form I-539 applicants that chose to submit premium processing requests. In FY 2024, a total of 6,838 Form I-539 filers requested premium processing of a change of status request to F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, or M-2 nonimmigrant status. In FY 2024, the total number of applications requesting a change of status to F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, or M-2 nonimmigrant status was 45,735. Thus, 15 percent of all F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, and M-2 change of status
For purposes of this analysis, we present historical Form I-539 filing rates for the F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, and M-2 classifications and use the 15 percent premium processing demand rate to estimate premium processing receipts for FY 2020 through FY 2024. Table 8 shows the annual average receipt volumes and estimated premium processing receipts for FY 2020 through FY 2024. DHS estimates the 5-year annual average of the currently eligible F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, M-2 classifications to be 31,104.
Using the estimated number of 5-year annual premium processing requests, DHS estimates there will be 4,666 annual premium processing filings for Form I-539 with the F-1, F-2, J-1, J-2, M-1, and M-2 classifications.
The USCIS Stabilization Act authorized USCIS to permit premium processing of the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. The 2023 CPI-U Adjustment set the fee for the premium processing of Form I-765 at $1,685. USCIS began premium processing for Forms I-765 for students applying for Optional Practical Training (OPT) and students seeking science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) OPT extensions in March 2023.
Table 10 shows the estimated OPT and STEM-OPT populations that are now eligible. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual
DHS had estimated the annual average receipts to be 102,495 from additional categories of Form I-765 that may become eligible for premium processing in the future.
As of March 6, 2023, certain F-1 students seeking Optional Practical Training (OPT) and F-1 students seeking science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) OPT extensions who have a pending Form I-765 and wish to request a premium processing upgrade, were eligible to file Form I-907 online. As of April 3, 2023, all pending and initial Form I-765 applications filed by F-1 students in these categories are eligible to request premium processing. Because premium processing for these Form I-765 categories was turned on mid-2023, DHS will use the percentage of Form I-765 applicants from FY 2024 with a premium processing request to estimate the number of Form I-765 applications filed by F-1 students requesting premium processing after this rule takes effect.
The USCIS Stabilization Rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis further projected 1,136,691 annual Form I-765 receipts belonging to classifications for which USCIS will consider, but has no immediate plans to expand premium processing eligibility as well as a final group of 802,145 belonging to Form I-765 classifications USCIS is unlikely to make eligible for premium processing.
Since Form I-765 OPT and STEM-OPT applicants have only been recently eligible to request premium processing, DHS estimates the percentage of applicants who will apply based on FY 2024 data. In FY 2024, there were 66,312 Form I-765 premium processing receipts for eligible 294,551 Form I-765 OPT and STEM-OPT applicants, resulting in 23 percent requesting premium processing.
In Table 11, DHS uses the 50,231 population estimate from OPT and OPT-STEM population to estimate transfer payments to DHS. The Form I-907 fee for all Form I-765 applicants requesting premium processing will increase from $1,685 to $1,780, an increase of $95 based on the 5.72 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2023 to June 2025.
DHS summarizes the estimated annual transfer payments from currently eligible Form I-129 and I-140 petitioners to DHS, and the estimated annual transfer payments from newly eligible classification Form I-140 petitioners, Form I-539 applicants, and Form I-765 applicants to DHS. Table 12 details that the estimated annual transfer payments of this final rule from the currently eligible Form I-129, Form I-140 and newly eligible Form I-140, Form I-539 and Form I-765 fee-paying population to DHS will be $77,119,780 due to the increase in premium processing filing fees.
The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act, signed into law on October 1, 2020, contained the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act, which set new fees for premium processing of immigration benefit requests that had been designated for premium processing as of August 1, 2020, and expanded USCIS authority to establish and collect new premium processing fees and to use those additional funds for expanded purposes. For FY 2026 and FY 2027, DHS estimates the total annualized transfer payments to be $77,119,780.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on 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 final rule is exempt from the written statement requirement because DHS did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was included as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) by section 804 of SBREFA, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868,
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final 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(a) and 3 (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This final rule will not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this 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) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.
DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family well-being and will not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution.
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: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This rule is limited to adjusting the premium processing fees on a biennial basis. This rule is strictly administrative and procedural and amends DHS's existing regulations by adjusting the fees that must be paid to request premium processing of immigration benefits. DHS has reviewed this rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within the 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, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule unless they are exempt. This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. USCIS will update Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, as appropriate.
Citizenship and naturalization, Fees, Immigration.
Accordingly, DHS amends part 106 chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. L. 107-609; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101 note); Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547; Pub. L. 116-159, 134 Stat. 709.
(c)
(1) Application for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(E)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the INA—$2,965.
(2) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA or section 222(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649—$2,965.
(3) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the INA—$1,780.
(4) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(iii) of the INA—$2,965.
(5) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the INA—$2,965.
(6) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) or (ii) of the INA—$2,965.
(7) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(P)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the INA—$2,965.
(8) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(Q) of the INA—$2,965.
(9) Petition for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(R) of the INA—$1,780.
(10) Application for classification of a nonimmigrant described in section 214(e) of the INA—$2,965.
(11) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the INA—$2,965.
(12) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(1)(B) of the INA—$2,965.
(13) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the INA not involving a waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B) of the INA—$2,965.
(14) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the INA—$2,965.
(15) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the INA—$2,965.
(16) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the INA—$2,965.
(17) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the INA—$2,965.
(18) Petition for classification under section 203(b)(2) of the INA involving a waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B) of the INA—$2,965.
(19) Application under section 248 of the INA to change status to a classification described in section 101(a)(15)(F), (J), or (M) of the INA—$2,075.
(20) Application under section 248 of the INA to change status to be classified as a dependent of a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(E), (H), (L), (O), (P), or (R) of the INA, or to extend stay in such classification—$2,075.
(21) Application for employment authorization—$1,780.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Interim final rule; request for comments.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Board is issuing this interim final rule to make a correction to the numbering of one system of records and to exempt one system of records from certain requirements of the Act. NCUA has previously published System of Records Notices (SORN) for these systems. The Board has found good cause to issue the interim final rule without advance notice-and-comment procedures and with an immediate effective date.
This rule is effective on January 12, 2026. Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2026.
Comments may be submitted in one of the following ways. (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
Elizabeth Harris, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, National Credit Union Administration, or Jennifer Harrison, Senior Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 or by phone at (703) 518-6540.
The Privacy Act of 1974 places requirements on federal agencies regarding the collection, maintenance, distribution, and security of an individual's personal information that is contained in an agency's systems of records. Pursuant to the Privacy Act, NCUA publishes a Systems of Records Notice (SORN) that informs the public of each system of records the agency maintains, describes the nature and routine use of records in the system, identifies the system manager responsible for the system including contact information, and provides procedures whereby individuals may determine whether a system contains a record pertaining to them, gain access to
The Privacy Act also requires each federal agency to publish rules describing its Privacy Act procedures and any system of records it exempts from provisions of the Act, including the reasons for the exemption. NCUA publishes its rules at part 792, subpart E; the rules provide individuals with detailed information regarding the exercise of their rights under the Privacy Act, identify and describe the NCUA systems of records that are exempt from provisions of the Privacy Act, and provide standards for NCUA employees regarding collecting, using, maintaining, or disseminating records.
The Board is revising its Privacy Act regulations at 12 CFR part 792 to correct the number associated with a system of records, NCUA-11 (previously numbered as NCUA-20). The Board has previously promulgated exemptions to the Privacy Act for this system of records in accordance with subsections (k)(2) and (j)(2). The Board is also revising its Privacy Act regulations at 12 CFR part 792 to exempt one system of records, NCUA-28, from certain requirements of the Privacy Act in accordance with subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act. The interim final rule amends 12 CFR 792.66, the provision on exemptions.
The NCUA SORN entitled “Office of Inspector General (OIG) Investigative Records” and currently numbered as NCUA-11, was originally published at 53 FR 37372 (Sept. 26, 1988) as “Investigation Files” and numbered as NCUA-20. A modified SORN was published at 60 FR 18149 (Apr. 10, 1995), renaming the system “Office of Inspector General Investigative Records” and listing exemptions from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Those exemptions were promulgated at 60 FR 31912 (June 19, 1995). The system was renumbered to NCUA-11 at 65 FR 3486 (Feb. 20, 2000). The corresponding reference to the SORN in § 792.66(b)(3) was not updated at that time. Subsequent modifications to the SORN were published at 71 FR 77807 (Dec. 27, 2006),75 FR 41539 (July 16, 2010), and 88 FR 43152 (July 6, 2023), however the corresponding reference to the SORN was still not updated. The NCUA is now updating the SORN number in § 792.66(b)(3) as a technical correction.
The Board is also adopting exemptions under subsection (k)(2) for NCUA-28, Anti-Harassment Case Tracking and Records. NCUA has previously published a SORN for this system in the
Subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act authorizes the head of an agency to exempt a system of records from the applicable subsections if investigatory records are compiled for law enforcement purposes; provided, however if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. Because of the investigatory nature of information that is maintained in this system of records, this rule would add NCUA's Anti-Harassment Case Tracking and Records System to the list of NCUA systems that are exempt from specific provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
Specifically, the Board is exempting this system of records under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from the following provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974:
• Subsection (c)(3) relating to access to the accounting of disclosures;
• Subsection (d) relating to access to the records;
• Subsection (e)(1) relating to the type of information maintained in the records;
• Subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) relating to publishing in the annual system notice information as to agency procedures for access and correction and information as to the categories of sources of records; and
• Subsection (f) relating to developing agency rules for gaining access and making corrections.
The determination to exempt these records was made because it is necessary for NCUA to continue to investigate alleged violations of law, regulation, and NCUA policy and also to determine continued suitability for Federal employment. In accordance with Federal anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires that all Federal agencies have an anti-harassment policy and program. NCUA's specific policy prohibits harassment by all employees, provides an avenue for individuals to report allegations of harassment, and a process by which NCUA factfinders conduct inquiries and investigations. Furthermore, NCUA's policy prohibits retaliation against individuals for raising allegations of harassment or participating in the process. For NCUA to promptly address and resolve potential violations of law, regulation, or NCUA policy, individuals who are participating in this process must be assured that their statements will be kept confidential consistent with law. Without this exemption, the NCUA's ability to address allegations of harassment would be hindered by witnesses' and/or victims' lack of willingness to come forward, fearful that their statements or identities may be revealed. Other agencies, including the EEOC, have exempted similar records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
The Board is promulgating these exemptions on the following bases:
5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)—The release of the disclosure accounting to the individual who is the subject of the investigation would present a serious impediment to NCUA's ability to conduct inquiries or investigations into potential violations of law or policy.
5 U.S.C. 552a(d)—Access to records contained in this system would inform the subject of an actual or potential investigation, of the existence of that investigation, of the nature and scope of the investigation, of the information and evidence obtained as to their activities, and of the identity of witnesses. Such access would impede an investigator's ability to freely investigate such cases, including concerns that some witnesses have been promised confidentiality and would not want their statements provided to the subject of the investigation. Amendment of the records would interfere with the ongoing fact-finding process. Furthermore, subject individuals of the files in this system have access to relevant information as part of the investigatory process and are given the opportunity to explain or contradict such information and to submit any responsive evidence of their own.
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1)—Under the provision of (e)(1), the agency must only maintain such information that is relevant and necessary. It is difficult to
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H)—These subsections are inapplicable to the extent that this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d) and the rules provisions of subsection (f).
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I)—The categories of sources of the records in this system has been published in the
5 U.S.C. 552a(f)—Procedures for notice to an individual pursuant to subsection (f)(1) as to existence of records pertaining to the individual dealing with an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory investigation or prosecution must be exempted because such notice to an individual would be detrimental to the successful conduct and/or completion of an investigation or case, pending or future. In addition, mere notice of the fact of an investigation could inform the subject or others that their activities are under investigation or may become the subject of an investigation and could enable the subjects to avoid detection, to influence witnesses improperly, to destroy evidence, or to fabricate testimony. Since an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d) of the Act, the rules required pursuant to subsections (f)(2) through (5) are inapplicable to this system of records to the extent that this system of records is exempted from subsection (d).
For these reasons, the listed exemptions are both necessary and appropriate.
The Board is publishing these changes in an interim final rule for the following reasons:
A. The correction of NCUA-20 to NCUA-11 is a non-substantive correction. The change merely corrects the system number to match the current number of the corresponding SORN, which is an administrative change. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. Therefore, the Board finds that prior notice and comment are unnecessary.
B. The promulgation of exemptions for NCUA-28 concerns “agency organization, procedure, and practice” and is limited to “agency organization, management, or personnel matters.” The exemption from provisions of the Privacy Act by the interim final rule affects only current NCUA employees and contractors, as described previously. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. Accordingly, this rule is exempt from notice-and-public comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
C. NCUA employees and contractors have had notice of the exemptions for NCUA-28 since
Accordingly, the Board finds good cause exists for making the amendments set forth in this interim final rule effective less than 30 days after publication.
The Board is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Board believes that the public interest is best served by implementing the interim final rule as soon as possible. As discussed in the previous section of this preamble, one of the corrections is non-substantive, while the other concerns internal agency organization, management, or personnel matters, and is thus exempt from notice and comment requirements. For the reasons noted previously, the Board finds that there is good cause consistent with the public interest to issue the rule without advance notice and comment.
While the Board believes that there is good cause to issue the rule without advance notice and comment and with an immediate effective date, it is interested in the views of the public and requests comment on the interim final rule.
For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, the OMB makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule. If a rule is deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication.
The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions, or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
For the same reasons set forth above, the Board is adopting the interim final rule without the delayed effective date generally prescribed under the Congressional Review Act. The delayed effective date required by the Congressional Review Act does not apply to any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of
As required by the Congressional Review Act, the Board will submit the interim final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review. The Board believes the rule is not major.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. OMB has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review”) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This interim final rule does not govern the operations of regulated parties. It updates two of the agency's Privacy Act systems and exemptions. This proposed rule is consistent with Executive Order 13563.
Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires 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 interim final rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it imposes no costs on regulated parties.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The PRA applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates new or amends existing information collection requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information-collection requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA has determined that the changes in the interim final rule do not create a new information collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by the PRA.
Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) encourages certain agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles.
This interim final rule does 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. The rule is administrative and largely governs internal agency procedures. The NCUA has therefore determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule or a final rule pursuant to the APA or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the
As discussed previously, consistent with the APA, the Board has determined for good cause that general notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, and therefore the Board is not issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Rules that are exempt from notice and comment procedures are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the RFA's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Credit unions, Freedom of information, Information, Privacy, Records, Systems of records.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board is amending 12 CFR part 792 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b; 12 U.S.C. 1752a(d), 1766, 1789, 1795f; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.235; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 2009 Comp. p.298.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) System NCUA-28, entitled “Anti-Harassment Case Tracking and Records” consists of investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Baykar Piaggio Aerospace S.p.A. (type certificate previously held by Piaggio Aviation S.p.A.) (Piaggio) Model P-180 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of leakage from the flexible hydraulic hoses connected to the hydraulic pump package (HPP). This AD requires replacing the affected flexible hydraulic hoses. This AD also prohibits installing the affected flexible hydraulic hoses on any airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 17, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 17, 2026.
• For Piaggio Aerospace material identified in this AD, contact Piaggio, P180 Customer Support, via Pionieri e Aviatori d'Italia, snc—16154 Genoa, Italy; phone: +39 331 679 74 93; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Adam Hein, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4116; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piaggio Model P-180 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the affected flexible hydraulic hoses. The FAA also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected flexible hydraulic hoses on any airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA received comments from two individual commenters who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received an additional comment from an individual commenter. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
An individual commenter stated that select Piaggio airframes have faulty flexible hydraulic hoses; therefore, the AD should be expanded to include all airplanes with a similar hose design. The FAA infers that the commenter requested that the proposed AD be revised to expand the applicability to
The FAA disagrees with the inferred request to expand the applicability of this AD. This AD applies to airplanes known to have affected parts installed and is being issued to correct a specific known unsafe condition on the affected airplanes. The manufacturer has provided the serial number ranges listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, which account for all affected hydraulic flexible hoses in service.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.
The FAA has revised the applicability of this AD to identify the type certificate holder's name as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
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 reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed Piaggio Aerospace Service Bulletin 80-0497, Revision 0, dated March 5, 2025 (Piaggio SB 80-0497, Revision 0). This material specifies procedures for replacing the affected flexible hydraulic hoses with new flexible hydraulic hoses that have a non-metallic and non-conductive abrasion sleeve covering the steel braid, which will provide electrical insulation that can prevent arcing and electrostatic discharge in case of accidental contact between the flexible hydraulic hoses and HPP body. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 17, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Baykar Piaggio Aerospace S.p.A. (type certificate previously held by Piaggio Aviation S.p.A.) Model P-180 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 1002, 1004 through 1234, and 3001 through 3018, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2910, Hydraulic System, Main.
This AD was prompted by a report of leakage from the flexible hydraulic hoses connected to the hydraulic pump package (HPP). The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent contact between the flexible hydraulic hoses and the HPP body, which could result in leaks developing in the flexible hydraulic hoses. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of the hydraulic system or fire in the HPP area.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes with flexible hydraulic hoses part number (P/N) AS117-04-0205 or P/N 98E0520FAMA000W (landing gear (LG) up and LG down lines); or flexible hydraulic
After the effective date of this AD, do not install flexible hydraulic hoses with P/N AS117-04-0205 or P/N 98E0520FAMA000W (LG up and LG down lines); or flexible hydraulic hoses P/N MS8006G207AL or P/N 99G0530FDFD000W (return line) on any airplane.
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 (j) of this AD and email to:
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 (IBR) 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) Piaggio Aerospace Service Bulletin 80-0497, Revision 0, dated March 5, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Piaggio Aerospace material identified in this AD, contact Baykar Piaggio Aerospace S.p.A., P180 Customer Support, via Pionieri e Aviatori d'Italia, snc—16154 Genoa, Italy; phone: +39 331 679 74 93; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. 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, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE LLC) Model PW1122G-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127G1A-JM, PW1127G1B-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1428G-JM, PW1428GA-JM, PW1428GH-JM, PW1431G-JM, PW1431GA-JM, and PW1431GH-JM engines. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of fan blade fracture events, three of which resulted in an engine under cowl fire or pool fire. This AD requires removal of one loop cushion clamp from the hydraulic fuel pressure fuel oil cooler fuel tube assembly (CP09 tube assembly), replacement of the thermal management system (TMS) clevis mounts with redesigned TMS clevis mounts, and reinstallation of the loop cushion clamp, as applicable. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 17, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 17, 2026.
• For Pratt & Whitney (PW) material identified in this AD, contact IAE LLC, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (860) 565-0140; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7655; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE LLC) Model PW1122G-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127G1A-JM, PW1127G1B-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1428G-JM, PW1428GA-JM, PW1428GH-JM, PW1431G-JM, PW1431GA-JM, and PW1431GH-JM engines. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a fuel leak resulting from a fan blade fracture. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled engine fire and damage to the airplane.
The FAA received comments from nine commenters. The commenters were
ALPA, United, and the individual expressed support for the NPRM.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that paragraph (g) would require certain parts to be replaced “at the next engine shop visit.” Lufthansa, Delta, and ANA requested that the FAA refine this term. Delta stated that there was no definition of “engine shop visit” in the NPRM. Lufthansa requested that the FAA specify the type of shop visit. Lufthansa stated that during quick-turn shop visits with nose-down procedure, it is not possible to perform the required modification. Lufthansa also noted that the modification requirement could have a significant effect on operations that are intended to minimize turnaround time, and requested that such types of visits be excluded from the rule. ANA indicated that the engine manufacturer's recommended maintenance program defines “shop visit” as “whenever an engine maintenance opportunity entails separating pairs of major mating gas path flanges.” ANA requested clarification on whether this definition of “shop visit” from the engine maintenance program is applicable.
The FAA agrees to define “next engine shop visit,” however, the FAA does not agree to exclude quick-turn shop visits. To clarify, for this AD quick-turn shop visits are defined as limited scope and meant to target specific engine issues. However, regardless of the reason for induction, the FAA considers those quick-turn shop visits to be “engine shop visits,” as defined in paragraph (i) of this final rule. Operators may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, provided sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has revised this final rule by including paragraph (i), which includes the definition of “engine shop visit.”
The individual requested that the FAA account for different compliance schedules in relation to this NPRM. The commenter stated that the compliance schedule of the required actions could affect operators with major operational interruptions and higher maintenance costs if additional down time is necessary to comply with this proposed AD. Additionally, the commenter encouraged the FAA to work with stakeholders to improve the AD, such as by exploring other alternative methods of risk reduction or conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
The FAA disagrees with the request to alter the compliance times of this AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered the recommendations from the manufacturer. These recommendations included the urgency associated with the unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In consideration of these items, the FAA has determined that the specified compliance times will ensure an acceptable level of safety. The NPRM gives all stakeholders and the general public the opportunity to comment on the proposed required actions and compliance times.
As to the commenter's other suggestion, the FAA worked with industry stakeholders, including the manufacturer, and affected operators through the public comment process, to develop this final rule. However, any operator may request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, provided sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD based on this comment.
ProTech stated support for the compliance times for engines that are already installed on airplanes. However, ProTech requested that the FAA specify a compliance time of “Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, or at the time of installation on an airplane, whichever comes later . . .” for engines which are not installed on an airplane.
The FAA agrees to clarify the compliance time and has revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to account for each subset of engines.
PW requested that the FAA remove “due to bird strike” from the Summary, Background, and the Unsafe Condition sections.
The FAA agrees with the request. Although three of the six fan blade fracture events were caused by bird strikes, other events can fracture a fan blade. The FAA has removed all instances of “due to bird strike” in this final rule, except for the description of the NPRM in the Background section.
Delta and ANA requested that the FAA update the required actions to refer to an updated revision of the applicable service material. Delta stated that the later revision allows operators to reuse certain part-numbered bolts that are removed, if the bolts pass certain inspection requirements. Delta stated that this is based on parts availability. Delta also requested the FAA revise the credit for previous actions paragraph to include the updated service material.
ANA stated that the instructions in a certain engine manual do not specify the requirement to discard bolt part number MS9716-08 or to install new bolts. ANA also stated that if the bolts have passed certain inspections and procedures and the required torque was applied, these bolts are not required to be discarded. ANA requested that the FAA allow certain part-numbered bolts to be reused and not discarded if they have passed certain inspections and procedures.
The FAA agrees to allow certain part-numbered bolts to be reused if they have passed certain inspections and procedures. Additionally, since the NPRM was published, the manufacturer has released multiple revisions to PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D. The FAA has revised this AD to reference PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue 006 as the appropriate source of material and has included credit for all previous revisions.
Delta requested that the FAA revise the required actions to require reinstallation of the loop cushion clamp after replacement of the TMS clevis mounts. Delta stated that PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D contains a step for reinstalling the loop cushion clamp after the TMS clevis mounts have been replaced, which the FAA did not include in the NPRM. Delta expressed the expectation that
The FAA agrees. However, since the NPRM was published, PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D has been updated and the FAA has revised this AD to refer to the latest revision of the required material. Additionally, the steps contained in the updated material have changed, which in turn, caused the steps referenced in this AD to change. Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to require the steps in the latest revision of PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, which includes reinstalling the loop cushion clamp with the redesigned TMS clevis mounts after the TMS clevis mounts are replaced.
PW requested that the FAA revise the terminating action paragraph of the NPRM to specify that the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM constitute a terminating action for the entire NPRM. No further justification was provided.
The FAA disagrees with the request to revise the terminating action to apply to the entire AD. The FAA notes that the terminating action paragraph of this AD only applies to the removal of the loop cushion clamp because once the TMS clevis mounts are replaced, this action is no longer necessary. The FAA has not changed this AD based on this request.
PW requested that the FAA revise the wording of the NPRM to specify that the required actions are final and that the NPRM is not considered an interim action. PW stated that the TMS clevis mounts replacement and subsequent reinstallation of the loop cushion clamp addresses the unsafe condition.
The FAA agrees that the TMS clevis mounts replacement and subsequent reinstallation of the loop cushion clamp does address the unsafe condition. However, since the FAA has not included the interim action paragraph in this final rule, there is no need for the FAA to change this final rule based on the request.
ANA requested that the FAA revise paragraphs (c) or (g)(1) of the NPRM to include an exemption for engines that have already complied with ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D. ANA requested clarification whether engines that have replaced the TMS clevis mounts are also required to remove the loop cushion clamp. ANA stated that even though the terminating action removes the requirement to remove the loop cushion clamp, there is still possibility for confusion for the operator, which may accidentally do both actions.
The FAA agrees to clarify. The replacement of the TMS clevis mounts specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD terminates the loop clamp removal specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. As discussed previously in this final rule, the FAA has also included reinstallation of the loop clamp as an additional requirement to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and as such, there is no need to include the language suggested by the commenter. Furthermore, paragraph (f) of this AD states to accomplish the required actions within the compliance times specified, “unless already done.” Therefore, if operators have accomplished the actions required for compliance with this AD before the effective date of this AD, no further action is necessary. The FAA has not revised this AD in this regard.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed the following material.
• PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 006, dated August 19, 2025, which specifies procedures for replacement of the TMS clevis mounts with redesigned TMS clevis mounts and reinstallation of the loop cushion clamp.
• PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 005, dated September 18, 2024, which specifies procedures for removing one loop cushion clamp from the CP09 tube assembly.
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
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 586 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 17, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to International Aero Engines, LLC Model PW1122G-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127G1A-JM, PW1127G1B-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1428G-JM, PW1428GA-JM, PW1428GH-JM, PW1431G-JM, PW1431GA-JM, and PW1431GH-JM engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 1400, Miscellaneous Hardware.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of fan blade fracture events, three of which resulted in an engine under cowl fire or pool fire. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a fuel leak resulting from a fan blade fracture. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled engine fire and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD or upon installation of an affected engine, whichever occurs later, remove one loop cushion clamp, part number ST1540-06, from the hydraulic fuel pressure fuel oil cooler fuel tube assembly (CP09 tube assembly) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, For Engines Installed On Aircraft, paragraph C, or For Engines Not Installed On Aircraft, paragraph A, of Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 005, dated September 18, 2024.
(2) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, replace the thermal management system (TMS) clevis mount with redesigned TMS clevis mounts in accordance with paragraphs AI, AJ, AL through AN, and AZ(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 006, dated August 19, 2025.
The actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD constitute terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. This terminating action may be accomplished instead of the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if done before the effective date of this AD using any of the material specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) through (iv) of this AD inclusive.
(i) PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated October 25, 2022.
(ii) PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated November 07, 2022.
(iii) PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated November 21, 2022.
(iv) PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 004, dated March 15, 2024.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if done before the effective date of this AD using any of the material specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) through (v) of this AD inclusive.
(i) PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated July 19, 2023.
(ii) PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated March 15, 2024.
(iii) PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated May 16, 2024.
(iv) PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 004, dated September 18, 2024.
(v) PW ASB PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 005, dated July 30, 2025.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7655; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0214-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 006, dated August 19, 2025.
(ii) PW ASB PW1000G-C-73-00-0053-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 005, dated September 18, 2024.
(3) For PW material identified in this AD, contact International Aero Engines, LLC, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (860) 565-0140; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
(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.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H engines. This AD was prompted by a determination made by the manufacturer that a high-pressure compressor (HPC) mini-disc anti-rotation block could possibly release into the HPC assembly stage 5 and 6 discs and the cone rotor rear shaft (HPC rear drum) during an engine operation. This AD requires repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of the HPC rear drum cavity and cavities between each HPC rotor disc, and depending on the results of inspection, removal of the engine from service. This AD also allows an alternative method of complying with the repetitive BSIs if certain actions are accomplished. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 27, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 27, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 26, 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 AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. 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 2024-0122, dated June 28, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0122) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on RRD Model Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G and Trent 1000-H engines having Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin (SB) 72-G319 or SB 72-G893 embodied (known as Trent 1000 `Pack B' engine models Trent 1000-A/01, Trent 1000-A/01A, Trent 1000-AE/01, Trent 1000-AE/01A, Trent 1000-C/01, Trent 1000-C/01A, Trent 1000-CE/01, Trent 1000-CE/01A, Trent 1000-D/01, Trent 1000-D/01A, Trent 1000-E/01, Trent 1000-E/01A, Trent 1000-G/01, Trent 1000-G/01A, Trent 1000-H/01, and Trent 1000-H/01A), except those having embodied Rolls-Royce modification 72-AK645 in production, or having embodied the applicable SB in service. The MCAI states that the manufacturer identified a
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HPC assembly stage 5 and 6 discs and the HPC rear drum, and consequent structural failure of the engines critical parts.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0122, which specifies procedures for repetitive BSIs of the HPC rear drum cavity and cavities between each HPC rotor disc for any missing or loose parts, foreign objects, scoring, and impact damage and contacting Rolls-Royce for applicable repair instructions. EASA AD 2024-0122 also specifies an alternative method of complying with the repetitive BSIs if certain actions are accomplished.
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 AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0122, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
Where EASA AD 2024-0122 specifies to contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, instead this AD requires contacting the Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or the Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
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 incorporates EASA AD 2024-0122 by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2024-0122 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0122 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 2024-0122. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0122 for compliance will be available at
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
The FAA justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no domestic operators use this product. It is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from any U.S. operator. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no engines with this type design on the U.S. Registry.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 27, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Model Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H engines as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0122, dated June 28, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0122).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine (Turbine/Turboprop).
This AD was prompted by a determination made by the manufacturer that a high-pressure compressor (HPC) mini-disc anti-rotation block could possibly release into the HPC assembly stage 5 and 6 discs and cone rotor rear shaft (HPC rear drum) during an engine operation. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct any missing or loose parts and foreign objects in the engine. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the HPC assembly stage 5 and 6 discs and the HPC rear drum, and consequent structural failure of the engine's critical parts.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, perform all required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0122.
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0122 requires compliance from its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0122 specifies to “contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG,” this AD requires replacing that text with “contact the Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or the Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
(3) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0122 specifies “REJECT the engine”, this AD requires replacing that text with “remove the engine from service”.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” paragraph of EASA AD 2024-0122.
Although the service material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0122 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, including capturing photos and videos, this AD does not include those requirements.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or 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 (k) 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 Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; 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 2024-0122, dated June 28, 2024.
(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, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class C airspace description for the former Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS, to update the airport name to the “Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport” to match the FAA's National Airspace System Resources (NASR) database information. Additionally, this action further amends the airspace description by updating the header format. This action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class C airspace area.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 19, 2026. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 updates the information in the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS, Class C airspace description.
During a review of the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS, Class C airspace description, the FAA identified the need to update the airport name to the “Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport” to match what is currently published in the NASR database, and to update the airspace description header format to match current formatting requirements.
Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. 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
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the Class C airspace description for the former Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS, as published in FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The airport name “Wichita Mid-Continent Airport” is changed to “Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport” to match the Airport Master Record database. Further, to comply with current FAA airspace description formatting standards, the airport name is removed from the first line in the text header of the description, leaving just the city and state location of the airport.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action is an administrative change and will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS, Class C airspace description to update the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport name to match the FAA's NASR database information qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 to and including 5,300 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Wichita Dwight D Eisenhower National Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 2,700 feet MSL to 5,300 feet MSL within a 10-mile
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Publication of list of rules scheduled for review.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is publishing a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The list is published to provide the public with notice that these rules are scheduled for review by the agency and to invite public comment on whether the rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of small entities.
Comments should be submitted by February 11, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Sandra Sojka, General Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-4928.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, requires an agency to review its rules that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within 10 years of the publication of such rules as final rules. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The purpose of the review is “to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded . . . to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The RFA sets forth specific considerations that must be addressed in the review of each rule:
• The continued need for the rule;
• The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
• The complexity of the rule;
• The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
• The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(b).
The list below includes rules adopted in 2016 that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (but excludes rules that have been substantially changed since adoption, rules that are minor amendments to previously adopted rules, and rules that are ministerial, procedural, or technical in nature).
The Commission particularly solicits public comment on whether the rules listed below affect small businesses in new or different ways than when they were first adopted. The rules and forms listed below are scheduled for review by staff of the Commission.
The Commission also adopted amendments to Rule 504 of Regulation D under the Securities Act to facilitate issuers' capital raising efforts and provide additional investor protections. The amendments to rule 504 are designed to increase the aggregate amount of securities that may be offered and sold in any twelve-month period from $1 million to $5 million and disqualify certain bad actors from participation in Rule 504 offerings. In light of these amendments to Rule 504, the Commission also repealed Rule 505.
By the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final amendment; final order.
With the issuance of this final order, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is permanently placing 2-(4-methoxybenzyl)-5-nitro-1-(2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)ethyl)-1
Effective February 11, 2026.
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
The United States is a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 520 U.N.T.S. 151 (Single Convention), as amended by the 1972 Protocol. Article 3, paragraph 7 of the Single Convention requires that if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs adds a substance to one of the schedules of such Convention, and the United States receives notification of such scheduling decision from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the United States, as a signatory Member State, is obligated to control the substance under its national drug control legislation. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), if control of a substance is required “by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970,” the Attorney General must issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule she deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by 21 U.S.C. 811(a) or 812(b), and without regard to the procedures prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
On November 21, 2024, the Director-General of the World Health Organization recommended to the Secretary-General that
On August 15, 2025, DEA issued a temporary scheduling order, placing
Benzimidazole-opioids, commonly referred to as “nitazenes,” emerged on the recreational drug market in 2019. This class of substances shares a similar pharmacological profile with fentanyl, morphine, and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. In 2023,
Law enforcement reports demonstrate that
Consistent with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), DEA concludes that
In order to meet the United States' obligation under the Single Convention and because
As discussed above,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including
7.
8.
9.
10.
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). DEA scheduling actions are not subject to E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulations, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations. This action makes no change in the status quo, as
This action meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This action does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. This action does 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.
This action does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control is required by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1), scheduling actions for drugs that are required to be controlled by the United States' obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, shall be issued by order, as opposed to scheduling by rule pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a). Therefore, DEA believes that the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under the APA or any other law. As explained above, the CSA exempts this final order from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this action.
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, DEA has determined pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This order is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, DEA is submitting reports under the CRA to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions to read as follows:
(b) * * *
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on January 5, 2025, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules and notifications of enforcement that became effective, primarily between October 2023 and December 2023, and expired before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, at
For questions on this document contact Ambar Ali, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, email
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2023 and December 2023. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Hillsborough Bay, in the vicinity of the Gasparilla Children's Air Show. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the flying demonstrations over the water. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg.
This rule is effective on January 24, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Lieutenant Ryan McNaughton, Sector St. Petersburg Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, or email
The Coast Guard received notification that an airshow will take place on the waters of Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, FL. Hazards from air shows include accidental falling projectiles. The Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg has determined that potential hazards associated with the airshow are a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the event. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of this event too late in the planning process to have time to solicit comments, but we must establish this safety zone by January 24, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.
For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. on January 24, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the vicinity of the air show. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (866) 881-1392. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS is transferring 26.0 metric tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) quota from the General category December 2026 subquota to the January through March 2026 subquota period. The adjusted General category January through March 2026 subquota is 63.7 mt and the adjusted December 2026 subquota is 11.0 mt. This action is intended to provide further harvest opportunities for General category fishermen, based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments and applies to Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT. Note that NMFS
The quota transfer is effective January 8, 2026, through March 31, 2026.
Ann Williamson,
Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 mt (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The General category baseline quota is 710.7 mt. The General category baseline quota is suballocated to time periods. Relevant to this action, the baseline subquotas for the January through March time period and for the December time period are 37.7 mt and 37.0 mt, respectively.
Separate from this action, NMFS is working on a rulemaking that would implement the 2025 ICCAT recommendation (Recommendation 25-05) regarding western BFT management. Consistent with that recommendation, the separate rulemaking action would consider increasing the baseline U.S. BFT quota from 1,316.14 mt to 1,509.98 mt and adjusting any subquotas as needed accordingly. In the next few months, NMFS expects to issue a proposed rule regarding the overall quota increase and resulting subquota calculations. Any final rule implementing ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 would likely be effective in mid-2026 or later.
Under § 635.27(a)(1)(ii), NMFS has the authority to transfer subquota from one time period to another time period through inseason action after considering determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(7). This section focuses on the calculations involved in transferring quota currently available from the 2026 General category December time period subquota to the 2026 General category January through March time period subquota; the consideration of the determination criteria can be found below after this section.
As stated above, the current baseline subquotas for the January through March time period and for the December time period are 37.7 mt and 37.0 mt, respectively. Transferring 26.0 mt from the General category December time period to the General category January through March time period, results in an adjusted January through March time period subquota of 63.7 mt (37.7 mt + 26.0 mt = 63.7 mt), and an adjusted December time period subquota of 11.0 mt (37.0 mt−26.0 mt = 11.0 mt). The General category quota is available for use by Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT. In previous years, NMFS has taken similar action to transfer quota from the General category December subquota to the January through March time period subquota (
In summary, this transfer results in an adjusted January through March 2026 time period subquota of 63.7 mt and an adjusted December 2026 subquota of 11.0 mt. The General category fishery will remain open until March 31, 2026, or until the adjusted January through March 2026 time period subquota is reached, whichever comes first.
NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer (§ 635.27(a)(7)). These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:
Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(7)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the General category during the January-March time period would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.
NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota in the December and January through March time periods over the last several years and the likelihood of closure of the January through March segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ii) and (ix)), as well as daily landing trends and the availability of BFT on fishing grounds (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ix)). Without a quota transfer at this time, based on recent catch rates in comparison to the current available quota (37.7 mt), NMFS would likely need to close the General category fishery shortly. Once the fishery is closed, participants would have to stop BFT fishing activities until the next time period begins in June, even though commercial-sized BFT remain available in the areas where General category permitted vessels operate. A quota transfer at this time provides limited additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota while avoiding exceeding it.
Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the General category to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iii)), NMFS considered General category landings over the last several years and landings to date this year. Landings are highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors. NMFS may adjust each time period's subquota based on overharvest or underharvest in the prior time period and may transfer subquota from one time period to another time period. By allowing for the current quota transfer, NMFS anticipates that the General category quota would be used before the end of the fishing year. Additionally, this quota transfer would allow General category fishermen to take advantage of the current availability of BFT on the fishing grounds and provide a reasonable
NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2026 landings and dead discards (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xi)). With the exception of 2024, the total U.S. BFT landings in recent years are typically below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. When total U.S. BFT landings are above the available U.S. quota, the United States reduces the next year's quota by the overharvest amount. NMFS will need to account for 2026 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do so.
NMFS also considered the effects of the transfer on the BFT stock and on accomplishing the objectives of the HMS FMP (§ 635.27(a)(7)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be within established quotas and subquotas, which are implemented consistent with ICCAT recommendations, ATCA, and the objectives of the HMS FMP and amendments. In establishing these quotas and subquotas and associated management measures, ICCAT and NMFS considered the best scientific information available, objectives for stock management and status, and effects on the stock. This quota transfer is in line with the established management measures and stock status determinations. Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available General category quota without exceeding the annual quota, based on the objectives of the HMS FMP and its amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to allow all permit categories a reasonable opportunity to harvest available BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(x)). Specific to the General category, this includes providing opportunities equitably across all time periods.
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General category and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel owners are required per § 635.27(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded in 2026 or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas as specified under § 635.27(a)(7). If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason adjustments and quota transfers to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the 2026 January through March subquota is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings that exceed the 2026 January through March subquota. Additionally, a delay in implementing this transfer would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are currently available on the fishing grounds and that might otherwise become unavailable. This action does not raise conservation and management concerns and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. Transferring quota from the General category December time period to the General category January through March time period does not affect the overall ICCAT-allocated U.S. BFT quota. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.
For all of the above reasons, the AA finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; possession limit adjustment.
NMFS is implementing a 2,000 pound (lb) (907.2 kilogram (kg)) possession limit for Atlantic herring in Management Area 1B. This is required because NMFS projects that herring catch from Area 1B will reach 92 percent of the Area's sub-annual catch limit before the end of the fishing year. This action is intended to prevent overharvest of herring in Area 1B, which would result in additional catch limit reductions in a subsequent year.
Effective 12:00 hours (hr) local time, January 9, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272.
The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Office monitors Atlantic herring fishery catch in each Management Area based on vessel and
Based on vessel reports, dealer reports, and other available information, the Regional Administrator projects that the herring fleet will have caught 92 percent of the Area 1B sub-ACL by January 9, 2026. Therefore, effective 12:00 (hr) local time January 9, 2026, through December 31, 2026, a person may not attempt or do any of the following: fish for; possess; transfer; purchase; receive; land; or sell more than 2,000 lb of herring per trip or more than once per calendar day in or from Area 1B.
Vessels that enter port before 12:00 hr local time on January 9, 2026, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from Area 1B from that trip, provided that catch is landed in accordance with state management measures. Regulations at §§ 648.201(b) and (c) state that vessels may transit or land in Area 1B with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board while this possession limit adjustment is in effect, provided that: the herring were caught in an area not subject to a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) limit; all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2; and the vessel is issued a permit appropriate to the amount of herring on board and the area where the herring was harvested.
Additionally, effective 12:00 hr local time, January 9, 2026, through 24:00 hr local time, December 31, 2026, federally permitted dealers may not attempt or do any of the following: purchase; receive; possess; have custody or control of; sell; barter; trade; or transfer more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip or calendar day from Area 1B, unless it is from a vessel that enters port before 12:00 hr local time on January 9, 2026 and catch is landed in accordance with state management measures.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, and impracticable. Ample prior notice and opportunity for public comment has been provided for the required implementation of this action. The requirement to implement this possession limit was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council using public meetings that invited public comment on the measures when they were developed and considered along with alternatives. Further, the regulations requiring implementation of this possession limit also were subject to public notice and opportunity to comment, when they were adopted in 2014. Herring fishing industry participants monitor catch closely and anticipate potential possession limit adjustments as catch totals approach Area sub-ACLs. The regulation is not discretionary and is designed for implementation as quickly as possible to prevent catch from exceeding limits designed to prevent overfishing while allowing the fishery to achieve optimum yield.
The 2026 herring fishing year began on January 1, 2026. Data indicating that the herring fleet will have landed at least 92 percent of the 2026 sub-ACL allocated to Area 1B only recently became available. High-volume catch and landings in this fishery can increase total catch relative to the sub-ACL quickly, especially in this fishing year where annual catch limits are unusually low. If implementation of this possession limit adjustment is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the 2026 sub-ACL for Area 1B will likely be exceeded; thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). If sub-ACLs are exceeded, the excess must be deducted from a future sub-ACL and would reduce future fishing opportunities. The public expects these actions to occur in a timely way consistent with the FMP's objectives. For the reasons stated above, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness in accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to amend its rule related to chartering of national banks to clarify the longstanding authority of national banks limited to the operations of trust companies and activities related thereto to engage in non-fiduciary activities in addition to their fiduciary activities.
Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title “National Bank Chartering” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
Christopher Crawford, Acting Assistant Director; Marjorie Dieter, Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office, 202-649-5490, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
The OCC charters national banks under the authority of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1
The OCC has referenced this express endorsement of its authority for nearly fifty years when chartering national banks whose operations are limited to those of a trust company and activities related thereto, which are commonly referred to as “national trust banks.” The OCC currently supervises approximately 60 national trust banks. The majority of the national trust banks are uninsured, but a few hold deposits and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The OCC is proposing amending its chartering regulation, 12 CFR 5.20, to more closely align with its statutory authorization to charter national banks limited to the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto. Section 5.20 provides for the general procedures for filing an application, the OCC's review, procedures for organizing the new bank, and other requirements. Since 1996, § 5.20(e)(1)(i) has addressed certain statutory requirements for the OCC's chartering of a national bank. The
In 2003, the OCC proposed amendments to § 5.20(e)(1)(i) “to clarify that a limited purpose national bank may exist with respect to activities other than fiduciary activities, provided the activities in question are within the business of banking.”
Commenters were concerned that the reference to the business of banking in the proposed rule was “too broad.”
The OCC's addition of language to § 5.20(e)(1)(i) was to address special purpose banks engaging in only activities within the business of banking. As noted in the preamble to the 2003 final rule, “The purpose of this proposed change was to clarify that a limited purpose national bank may exist with respect to activities other than fiduciary activities, provided the activities in question are part of the business of banking.”
Nonetheless, the OCC believes that the language added in 2003 has the potential to raise confusion about the scope of the OCC's chartering authority under 12 U.S.C. 27(a) and the activities of national trust banks. Because the language does not explicitly exclude all national trust bank activities (just fiduciary activities), it could be mistakenly read to also impose limits on the activities of national trust banks that are different than those articulated in the last sentence of section 27(a). Such a reading would conflict with the intent of the regulatory text added in 2003, which did not intend to circumscribe the OCC's authority to charter national trust banks.
Moreover, reading the regulation to apply to national trust bank charters would run contrary to the OCC's long-held interpretation and historical practice. The OCC has never interpreted § 5.20(e)(1)(i) in a way that restricts national trust banks. Both before and after the 2003 final rule, the OCC has chartered national trust banks that engage in activities that are not fiduciary. For example, the OCC considers custody and safekeeping activities to be generally non-fiduciary and authorized for national banks as part of the business of banking under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh).
In sum, given a potential lack of clarity in the regulation and the risk that a misreading of the regulation may impair the exercise of the OCC's statutory authorities granted to it by the National Bank Act, the OCC is proposing to amend § 5.20(e)(1)(i) to replace the term “fiduciary activities” with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto,” as stated in 12 U.S.C. 27(a). The OCC believes that these amendments will eliminate potential confusion as to the intent, and OCC's interpretation, of the existing regulation. The OCC also believes that these revisions will reinforce the OCC's reliance on the statutory terms of its chartering authorities.
The OCC is also proposing to make a conforming amendment to 12 CFR 5.20(
To be clear, by proposing the above noted revisions in 12 CFR 5.20, the OCC intends to neither expand nor contract the OCC's authority to charter a national bank. As discussed above, the National Bank Act “constitute[es] by itself a complete system for the establishment and government of national banks”
The OCC requests feedback on all aspects of the proposed rule. The OCC specifically requests comment on whether there is alternative language that the OCC could use to make the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The OCC currently supervises 1,003 institutions (commercial banks, trust companies, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies of foreign banks),
In general, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest expense. Furthermore, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small entities to be a substantial number, and at present, 30 OCC-supervised small entities would constitute a substantial number. This proposed rulemaking would impose no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions.
The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
This proposed rulemaking would impose no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. The OCC, therefore, concludes that the proposed rule would not result in an expenditure of $187 million or more annually by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802(a), in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, the agencies will consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest: (1) any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions; and (2) the benefits of the proposed rule. The OCC requests comment on any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and their customers, and the benefits of the proposed rule that the agencies should consider in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for a final rule.
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet website
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to amend its rule related to chartering of national banks to clarify the longstanding authority of national banks limited to the operations of trust companies and activities related thereto to engage in non-fiduciary activities in addition to their fiduciary activities.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at
Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget to determine whether a
OMB has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, the OCC proposes to amend chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The OCC charters a national bank under the authority of the National Bank Act of 1864, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1
(l) * * *
(1)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231,-232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a review of the cold working process on the assembly line that detected a deviation to the manufacturing process. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for the nominal design condition of the fastener holes in the pressure deck membrane to center wing box attachment and, as applicable, an inspection for cracking at the affected area and 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 February 26, 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; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 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.
Bill Ashforth, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 404-545-5064; 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 Bill Ashforth, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 404-545-5064; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0066, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0066) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that, during a review of the cold working process on the assembly line, a deviation to the manufacturing process was detected, which could adversely affect the fatigue life of the pressure deck membrane to center wing box attachment. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to crack initiation and propagation, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for the nominal condition of the fastener holes in the pressure deck membrane and, as applicable, an inspection for cracking at the affected area and corrective actions.
EASA AD 2025-0066 specifies procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) for any discrepancy of the fastener holes (
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 EASA AD 2025-0066 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 EASA AD 2025-0066 by
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 477 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 actions 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 these on-condition actions:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the optional actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by February 26, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0066, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0066).
(1) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(2) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(3) Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a review of the cold working process on the assembly line that detected a deviation to the
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, EASA AD 2025-0066.
(1) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0066 specifies “any discrepancy, as defined in the SB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “any fastener hole is not in nominal design condition, as defined in the SB”.
(2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0066 specifies “no discrepancy”, this AD requires replacing that text with “fastener holes are in nominal design condition, as defined in the SB”.
(3) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0066 specifies if “any discrepancy is detected, as defined in the SB, before next flight, contact Airbus for approved repair instructions and, within the compliance time specified therein, accomplish those instructions accordingly”, this AD requires replacing that text with “any cracking is detected, repair the cracking before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature”.
(4) Where paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2025-0066 specifies “no discrepancy”, this AD requires replacing that text with “no cracking”.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0066.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0066 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)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 404-545-5064; 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0066, dated March 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 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 The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the outward lower wing skin at the outboard end of a certain stringer. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the outboard lower wing skin on the left and right wing for any repair, repetitive inspections for cracking and applicable on-condition 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 February 26, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 555 Andover Park West, Suite 200, Tukwila WA 98188; telephone 206-830-7699; email:
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025, is also available at
Owen Bley-Male, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3992; 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 Owen Bley-Male, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; email:
The FAA has received reports indicating that during routine maintenance inspections, cracks were found in the outboard lower wing skin at the outboard end of stringer S-9, common to the most outboard fastener. The cracks extended in the forward and aft direction and ranged from 2 inches to 5 inches in length. The affected airplanes had accumulated between 20,602 to 30,150 flight cycles and 41,777 to 77,993 flight hours at the time of finding. Further analysis determined that stringer S-10 has an equivalent stress level to stringer S-9 and could also be susceptible to early cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to the inability of the principal structural element to sustain limit loads and subsequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025. This material specifies procedures for an external general visual inspection of the outboard lower wing skin on the left and right wings, at the two most outboard fasteners at S-9 and S-10, for any repair; repetitive external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking at the outboard lower wing skin on the left and right wings, at the two most outboard fasteners at S-9 and S-10; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Boeing for alternative inspections or repair instructions and doing the alternative inspections if repairs are found or doing the repair if cracks are found.
The FAA also reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025. This material specifies procedures for an external general visual inspection of the outboard lower wing skin on the left and right wings, at the two most outboard fasteners at S-9 and S-10, for any repair; repetitive external surface HFEC inspections for cracking at the outboard lower wing skin on the left and right wings, at the two most outboard fasteners at S-9 and S-10; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Aviation Partners Boeing for alternative inspections or repair instructions and doing the alternative inspections if repairs are found or doing the repair if cracks are found, and repair for any crack outside of the boundary of the skin cutout. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1356, dated May 14, 2025, at
The earliest initial compliance time for the actions in the Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025, is before 20,000 flight cycles or before 40,000 flight hours, whichever comes first.
The repetitive intervals vary depending on group configuration. The earliest repetitive interval is 3,000 flight cycles.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,857 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs for any crack outside the boundary of the skin cutout that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection specified in Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for other on-condition repairs and alternative inspections specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by February 26, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wing.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the outward lower wing skin at the outboard end of stringer S-9. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks on the left and right wing at outboard fasteners at S-9 and S-10. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to the inability of the principal structural element to sustain limit loads and subsequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Except as specified by paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025.
(2) For all airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27,
(1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing the repair, and doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(4) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025, specifies contacting Aviation Partners Boeing for repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing the repair, and doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, dated April 17, 2025, or Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2025.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Owen Bley-Male, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; email:
(2) For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 555 Andover Park West, Suite 200, Tukwila, WA 98188; telephone 206-830-7699; email:
(3) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (l)(4) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP737-57-022, Revision 2, dated August 27, 2025.
(ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1356 RB, dated May 14, 2025.
(3) For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 555 Andover Park West, Suite 200, Tukwila, WA 98188; telephone 206-830-7699; email:
(4) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) is proposing to amend the rules under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”) and under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) that define the terms “small business” and “small organization” for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”) to increase the asset-based thresholds used in those definitions. The Commission also is proposing a mechanism for periodic future inflation adjustments of the asset-based thresholds used in these definitions. The Commission further is proposing amendments to Form ADV and the rule providing continuing hardship exemptions from filing electronically for investment advisers in connection with the proposed amendments.
Comments should be received on or before March 13, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on the Commission's website (
Andrew Deglin, Senior Counsel, Amanda Hollander Wagner, Senior Special Counsel, or Brian McLaughlin Johnson, Assistant Director, Investment Company Regulation Office, at (202) 551-6792, Alexander Haer, Attorney-Adviser, Neema Nassiri, Senior Counsel, Sirimal R. Mukerjee, Senior Special Counsel, or Robert Holowka, Acting Assistant Director, Investment Adviser Regulation Office, at (202) 551-6787, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The Commission is proposing for public comment amendments to 17 CFR 275.0-7 (“rule 0-7”) and 17 CFR 275.203-3(b) (“rule 203-3(b)”) under the Advisers Act, 17 CFR 270.0-10 under the Investment Company Act (“rule 0-10” and, together with rule 0-7, the “Small Entity Rules”), and Form ADV (17 CFR 279.1) under the Advisers Act.
The Commission has a longstanding commitment to understanding and addressing the concerns of small entities and has established the Office of Small Business Policy, the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation (the “Small Business Advocate Office”), and the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee to be responsive to such concerns.
The Small Business Act gives the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) authority to establish small business size standards for all Federal agencies, in the absence of other specific statutory authority.
As described in more detail below, the Commission in 1982 adopted rule 0-7 for investment advisers and rule 0-10 for investment companies to define “small business” and “small organization” for purposes of Commission rulemakings under the Advisers Act and Investment Company Act, respectively.
Under rule 0-7, an investment adviser is deemed a small entity if it: (i) has regulatory assets under management (“RAUM”) of less than $25 million (the “RAUM Threshold”);
The RFA requires that the Commission conducts an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (an “IRFA”) in connection with a proposed rule and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (a “FRFA”) in connection with a final rule, subject to certain exceptions.
The FRFA complements the IRFA and requires the agency to include, among other items: a statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA; and a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.
The Commission is subject to other substantive requirements under the RFA, in addition to the IRFA and FRFA. The Commission must establish plans for periodically reviewing rules that have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
Shortly after Congress enacted the RFA, the Commission proposed and adopted rules to define which of the entities it regulates would qualify as “small entities” for purposes of the RFA.
For investment companies, the Commission instead developed the initial threshold by analyzing a sample of investment companies' adjusted expense ratios and identifying a net asset threshold below which funds typically disclosed higher than average expense ratios.
As originally adopted, the definition of “small entity” focused only on individual investment companies' assets—that is, whether a given investment company was a small entity depended exclusively on the net asset size of that investment company. In 1996, however, the SBA adopted rules that, depending on certain facts and circumstances, treat multiple entities that have substantially identical business interests as a single entity.
A group of related investment companies was defined to include two or more management companies (including series thereof) that: (i) hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services; and (ii) either (A) have a common investment adviser or have investment advisers that are affiliated persons of each other; or (B) have a common administrator.
The shift to aggregating assets across groups of related investment companies reflected the Commission's understanding that funds within a complex typically use the same administrative, management, and compliance systems to oversee all the funds within the complex, so fees imposed on the fund by the adviser or administrator typically reflect economies of scale that the adviser or administrator achieves from managing other funds.
The Commission initially adopted definitions for “small business” and “small organization” pursuant to the RFA for investment advisers at the same time as it did for investment companies.
The Commission initially chose to define investment advisers as small entities using two alternative thresholds. The first threshold required that an investment adviser manage assets with a total value of $50 million or less (measured in assets under management instead of net assets as for investment companies) because of what the Commission at that time saw as the similarities between the investment company and investment advisory businesses with respect to the management of a portfolio of assets. The second threshold defined investment advisers as small entities if the adviser solely, or in addition to managing assets of $50 million or less, rendered other advisory services, and the assets relating to its advisory business did not exceed $50,000 in value as of the most recent fiscal year end. As a result of this second threshold, approximately 55% of investment advisers were deemed small.
The Commission revised rule 0-7 in 1998 so that an investment adviser would be considered a small entity if: (i) neither the investment adviser, nor any investment adviser it has a control relationship with, has $25 million or more of RAUM, and (ii) neither the investment adviser, nor any person (other than a natural person) in a control relationship with the investment adviser, has $5 million or more of total assets.
The “control relationship” prong was designed to take into account SBA size standards in determining whether to consider an investment adviser as “small.”
We are proposing to amend the definitions of a “small entity” under the RFA for investment companies and investment advisers by raising the asset thresholds for both definitions. The proposal would:
• Amend rule 0-10 to: (i) increase the net asset threshold for investment companies from $50 million to $10 billion; and (ii) refer, for purposes of aggregating the net assets of related funds, to a “family of investment companies” as that term is used in Item B.5 of Form N-CEN rather than to a “group of related investment companies” as used in the current rule;
• Amend rule 0-7 to increase the RAUM Threshold below which an investment adviser is considered to be a “small entity” from $25 million to $1 billion and to conform the assets under management threshold in the Control Relationship Threshold with the revisions made to the RAUM Threshold;
• Request comment on whether to amend the Total Assets Threshold, as well as the total assets threshold contained in the Control Relationship Threshold, in rule 0-7;
• Amend Form ADV to revise the instructions and Item 12 of Part 1A of Form ADV, including through making conforming changes; and
• Amend rule 0-10 and rule 0-7 to allow the Commission to make subsequent inflation adjustments to the asset thresholds by order every 10 years in accordance with the inflation adjustment mechanism set forth in section II.C below (the “Inflation Adjustment Mechanism”).
The proposal is designed to help the Commission more appropriately promote the effectiveness and efficiency of its regulations, with the goal of minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities, consistent with the RFA. The proposal would help better tailor the Commission's analyses of the specific regulatory challenges faced by small entities by expanding the scope of the analyses that the Commission conducts under the RFA to include investment advisers and investment companies that should more appropriately be deemed small entities. These analyses would, in turn, better inform the Commission of the regulatory impacts faced by small entities so that it may consider adapting its rulemaking accordingly.
The Small Entity Rules currently define small entities by reference to assets under management and net assets for investment advisers and investment companies, respectively. There has been substantial growth in assets under management and net assets over the decades since these thresholds were set. To this end, and as discussed in more detail below, the proposal is designed to capture the types and numbers of investment advisers and investment companies that the Commission now considers to be “small” in light of this growth.
The proposal would amend paragraph (a) of rule 0-10 to increase the net asset threshold from $50 million to $10 billion and, as discussed in more detail in section II.C below, establish a mechanism to inflation-adjust this figure every ten years. The proposed increase accounts for the overall growth in the investment company industry since the $50 million threshold was originally set in 1982. In 1982, investment companies held $296.7 billion in net assets among 857 funds.
As discussed above, the Commission established the existing $50 million threshold in 1982 based on an analysis of adjusted expense ratios for a random sample of 500 investment companies. The Commission's approach at the time reflected a belief that funds that bear a higher level of expenses as a proportion of their net assets would be less able to bear regulatory costs relative to their peers with lower expense ratios. Taking into account the substantial changes in the fund industry since that time—including a high degree of concentration of assets in the largest fund complexes,
In determining how to calibrate the new proposed threshold, the Commission considered the distribution of assets across individual funds and fund families with the goal of ensuring that the proportion of funds that may face greater challenges in complying with Commission regulations due to their size be included in the small entity definition. Specifically, the Commission analyzed data reported on Form N-CEN to sort families of investment companies into percentiles according to their cumulative average total net assets. The Commission further analyzed this data to determine the percentage of individual funds and the percentage of average total net assets represented by each percentile. Table 1 below sets out the percentage of fund families, the percentage of individual funds, and the percentage of cumulative average total net assets that would be deemed small entities if the Commission were to set the threshold at the top end of each percentile.
Taken as a whole, registered investment companies have a total of approximately $41.6 trillion in net assets as of December 2024. As evidenced by Table 1, the assets of the investment company industry are heavily concentrated at the largest fund families.
While the Commission seeks to ensure that funds and fund groups that may face greater challenges with regulatory compliance due to their size be deemed small entities, we are also mindful that setting the threshold too high has the potential to be counterproductive and to undermine the purpose of the Commission's RFA analyses. A higher threshold would result in a larger pool of small entities and therefore would increase the number of small entities needed to be affected by a rule for the rule to “have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” which could lead to fewer RFA analyses being performed.
Based on analysis of the distribution of data in Table 1, we are proposing a “small entity” definition that corresponds closely to the 80th percentile threshold of $10.04 billion, which we have rounded for
We considered other approaches for defining investment companies that are small entities, including basing this definition on an entity's gross receipts.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed revisions to the net asset threshold, including the following items:
1. Is the proposed $10 billion threshold useful for identifying investment companies that are “small entities”? Should the Commission adopt a higher or lower threshold? If so, why?
2. Are there alternative metrics other than net assets that would be effective to evaluate if an investment company is a “small entity”? If so, what are they and why would they be more effective than net assets? Please clarify what data that are already reported to the Commission could be used in applying those metrics. If they do not involve data that currently are reported to the Commission, should the Commission require them to be reported, what would be the costs of such reporting, and how are such costs justified?
3. Should the Commission use the SBA's standard for Open-End Investment Funds, which uses a threshold of $40 million in gross receipts? Should the threshold be based on another measure of revenue? If so, how should the Commission measure “gross receipts” (or other revenue measure) of an investment company or a family of investment companies for purposes of the threshold?
4. Are there alternative ways that the net asset threshold should be derived than the distribution-based analysis discussed above? For example, is the Commission's expense ratio approach from 1982 a more appropriate way of setting the small entity threshold? If so, why?
5. Should the Commission consider a fund a “small entity” if its principal adviser is a “small entity” under rule 0-7? What about a sub-adviser that is a “small entity”? If so, why?
6. Should the Commission adjust the existing net asset threshold for inflation rather than setting a new threshold based on an analysis of the distribution of funds and fund assets since the threshold was set in 1982, as discussed above? If so, should the Commission measure the inflation adjustment from the time of the threshold's original adoption in 1982 or from the most recent amendments to the rule in 1998? If the Commission adjusted the existing threshold for inflation, is there a price index, such as the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, the Producer Price Index, or the GDP Price Deflator, that would be best suited for this adjustment?
We are proposing amendments to rule 0-10 to replace the term “group of related investment companies” with “family of investment companies,” as that term is used in Item B.5 of Form N-CEN. This change would enable the Commission to rely on information that is already reported on Form N-CEN to identify small entities for purposes of RFA analyses and to more efficiently consider whether future adjustments to the net asset threshold are warranted.
When the Commission amended rule 0-10 to aggregate net assets across groups of related investment companies, it defined the concept of a “group of related investment companies” in rule 0-10.
We propose to replace the term “group of related investment companies” in rule 0-10 with “family of investment companies” as that term is used in Item B.5 of Form N-CEN.
The definition of “family of investment companies” serves a substantially similar purpose to the definition of “group of related investment companies” in seeking to group together funds that hold themselves out to investors as related (the “holding out prong”) and that share an investment adviser or key service provider (an administrator for a “group of related investment companies” or underwriter for a “family of investment companies”). For comparison, the table below provides the existing definition of “group of related investment companies” from rule 0-10 alongside the existing definition of “family of investment companies” from Form N-CEN:
For management companies, both definitions require as one element that the investment companies hold themselves out to investors as related to one another for purposes of investment and/or investor services. Both definitions also focus on a shared investment adviser or other key service provider. While the specific differences between the two definitions are likely to result in somewhat different outcomes in terms of which funds are or are not “small entities,”
While we believe that the existing “family of investment companies” concept is sufficient and appropriate for this use, there are specific differences from the “group of related investment companies” concept that may produce different outcomes at the margins. For example, the “family of investment companies” definition groups funds that have a common principal underwriter, whereas the “group of related investment companies” definition groups funds that have a common administrator. The “family of investment companies” definition groups funds that have a common investment adviser, whereas the “group of related investment companies” definition groups funds that have
Moreover, notwithstanding the differences between the two terms, funds that are part of the same “family of investment companies” are likely to experience similar economies of scale as those funds that are part of the same “group of related investment companies.” Examples of potential cost savings due to economies of scale might include complex-wide policies and procedures and recordkeeping systems, a shared chief compliance officer or board members, and one legal and compliance function that services the whole complex.
We recognize the proposed changes to the definition would alter the treatment of UITs (including insurance company separate accounts). In current rule 0-10, UITs receive differential treatment from management investment companies. They are not subject to the holding out prong and are considered part of a group of related investment companies only if they share a common sponsor.
There are particular considerations for insurance company separate accounts that are registered as UITs. In current rule 0-10, an insurance company's separate account is aggregated with the general account and all other separate accounts to determine whether the individual separate account is a small entity.
In addition to differences in approach involving aggregation among the general account and separate accounts, the proposed approach may affect the extent to which separate accounts are aggregated to determine whether individual separate accounts are small entities. Under the current approach, the assets of the separate account are cumulated with the assets of all other separate accounts of the insurance company. As discussed when the family of investment companies definition was adopted (and as would be the case if we were to adopt the proposed family of investment companies approach in the investment company small entity definition), insurance company separate accounts that may not hold themselves out to investors as related companies would have their assets aggregated with each other only if the operational or accounting or control systems under which those entities function are substantially similar.
The Commission has previously used the data reported in response to Item B.5 of Form N-CEN, together with other data reported on Form N-CEN, to estimate the number of “groups of related investment companies” that would or would not exceed a particular threshold, such as in the case of staggered compliance dates.
We request comment on all aspects of the change to how the Commission proposes to aggregate funds under rule 0-10, including the following items:
7. Would the “family of investment companies” definition in Form N-CEN be an appropriate way of grouping investment companies for purposes of the small entity threshold? If not, why not?
8. Should the Commission make any changes to the definition of “family of investment companies” in Form N-CEN itself? For example, should that definition group together funds that meet the holding out prong of the definition but whose advisers are only affiliates of one another, as is currently the case under the “group of related investment companies” definition? Should the definition continue to require that funds hold themselves out
9. Should the Commission aggregate funds into groups or families in another manner? If so, how? Should the Commission instead eliminate the concept of “groups” or “families” altogether and look only to individual funds for purposes of assessing whether the fund is a small entity? If so, why?
10. Would the proposed changes to the treatment of UITs be appropriate for the small entity definition and if not, why not? How common is it for UITs that have the same sponsor to also have the same principal underwriter and hold themselves out as related?
11. Would the proposed changes to the treatment of insurance company separate accounts be appropriate for the small entity definition and if not, why not? For example, should the Commission's small entity assessment omit consideration of an insurance company's general account, as would be the case under the proposed changes? Is the instruction relating to separate accounts in Form N-CEN sufficiently clear? Is it correct that insurance company separate accounts generally tend to function under substantially similar operational or accounting or control systems?
12. Should we maintain the current definition of a group of related investment companies and create a new disclosure requirement for this item (for instance, in Form N-CEN)? What would the advantages of such a disclosure be, as compared to using the data already available from Form N-CEN? Or should we maintain the definition of a group of related investment companies and use it in place of “family of investment companies” in Form N-CEN?
The proposal would amend paragraph (a)(1) of rule 0-7 under the Advisers Act to raise the RAUM Threshold to $1 billion from $25 million and, as discussed in more detail in section II.C below, establish a mechanism to inflation-adjust this figure every ten years.
The growth of the investment management industry in assets under management has over time also reduced the number of advisers that are deemed to be “small entities.” According to Form ADV reporting, by 2025, only 451 of the total 15,909 SEC-registered investment advisers (approximately 3% of registered investment advisers) were considered to be “small entities” for purposes of the RFA,
The proposed amendments would increase the total number of investment advisers deemed to be “small entities.” The Commission estimates that approximately 15,850 of the total 21,650 investment advisers, or approximately 75% of advisers,
In light of this significant concentration of RAUM with the very largest advisers, and although it would not result in the same proportion of advisers that were “small entities” as a result of the 1998 amendments, a $1 billion RAUM Threshold would strike an appropriate balance between the level of RAUM per “small” adviser and the proportion of total RAUM in the industry that would be captured by the new threshold. In addition, this proposed revision would capture many advisers that are “not dominant in” their field, which is an element of the statutory definitions of small business and small organization in the RFA, due to the fact that such advisers individually manage much less RAUM relative to the largest advisers.
We considered that the significant concentration of RAUM with the very largest advisers could suggest that an even higher RAUM Threshold than $1 billion should be used. However, a size standard threshold that is set too high could inadvertently cause the Commission's attempts to tailor its rules for small entities to focus on issues of more general concern to the industry, instead of on issues that particularly impact smaller entities, which the RFA was designed to protect.
The Commission has received feedback suggesting alternatives to an asset-based approach to identifying small advisers. For example, the Commission received a petition to initiate rulemaking that recommends the “small entity” definition be amended to depend on whether an investment adviser has no more than a certain number of employees.
Although we considered these suggestions, we are proposing to maintain a RAUM-based size standard. In developing size standards, the Commission has evaluated potential criteria both for their “capacity to differentiate small members of an industry from other members and [their ability to make] use of readily available information to derive [the] standards.”
Accordingly, we are not proposing an employee-based or revenue-based size standard, but we request comment on employee-based, revenue-based, and other alternative size standards below (including whether the Commission should continue to use its own size standards for investment advisers rather than use the default size standards provided by the SBA).
With respect to a revenue-based size standard, as was recommended by AMAC and as reflected in the SBA's default size standards, the Commission does not collect information regarding advisers' revenues and, because the fees and thus revenues of an adviser generally scale directly with its assets under management, the proposal is generally consistent with the approach of the SBA size standards to measure the amount of business carried out by an entity.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to the RAUM Threshold, including the following items:
13. If we maintain a RAUM-based size standard, should we use a threshold amount other than the proposed amount of $1 billion? Would a lesser or greater amount be more appropriate? For example, based on Form ADV reporting data (as shown in Table 3 above), using a $100 million threshold would cover approximately 20% of advisers, a $200 million threshold would cover approximately 35% of advisers, a $300 million threshold would cover approximately 50% of advisers, a $1.5 billion threshold would cover approximately 80% of advisers, a $2.5 billion threshold would cover approximately 85% of advisers, and a $5 billion threshold would cover approximately 90% of advisers. Alternatively, should the RAUM Threshold not be amended?
14. Should we use criteria instead of RAUM for our adviser size standards? For example, are there qualitative criteria that should be used (
15. Consistent with the IAA Petition and AMAC Report's recommendation, should the Commission develop a form of employee-based size standard and, if so, how many employees should establish its threshold?
16. Do commenters agree that the Commission should continue to have its own size standards for investment advisers rather than use the default size standards provided by the SBA? Would using a $47 million “annual receipts” size standard enable the Commission to meaningfully differentiate small advisers from non-small advisers for RFA purposes, and would advisers be capable of reporting this information to the Commission pursuant to potential amendments to Form ADV? Alternatively, should the Commission consider another form of a revenue-based size standard (or another amount)? For example, should the Commission utilize the AMAC's recommendation of annual revenue of less than $25 million? To the extent that a revenue-based size standard would be relevant in combination with another size standard, what is that size standard and how would it be meaningfully combined?
17. Should the RAUM Threshold be tied to adviser registration thresholds, as discussed above? For instance, should the RAUM Threshold be tied to the $100 million registration threshold for mid-sized advisers introduced by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, and if so, should the RAUM Threshold be further adjusted since 2010?
18. Alternatively, should the RAUM Threshold (or other aspects of the small entity definition for investment advisers) be tied to the particular registration status of an investment adviser, such that, for instance, rulemakings that create distinct obligations between registered investment advisers, exempt reporting advisers and/or unregistered advisers would use distinct criteria to identify advisers that are small entities within the distinct classes of registration status?
19. Should the Commission consider using the same figure for investment advisers' RAUM Threshold as for investment companies' net asset threshold (or vice versa) as was the case when initially adopted in 1982?
We are requesting comment on whether to amend the Total Assets Threshold. Currently this threshold excludes from the definition of small
The Total Assets Threshold enables the Commission to differentiate more meaningfully between small advisers and non-small advisers that may not have significant RAUM but do have significant assets related to a non-advisory line or component of their business.
Although we are broadly seeking comment on whether and, if so, how to update the Total Assets Threshold, we are proposing to include an Inflation Adjustment Mechanism to inflation-adjust the Total Assets Threshold every ten years, rounded to the nearest multiple of $500,000, or 10% of the current Total Assets Threshold. We expect that in any final rule this mechanism would be calculated against and scale with the Total Assets Threshold ultimately used by the Commission. If an updated Total Assets Threshold were ultimately adopted, we would adjust the dollar amount to be rounded to the nearest multiple of 10% of such updated Total Assets Threshold (
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed Total Assets Threshold, including the following items:
20. Should the Total Assets Threshold remain $5 million? If the threshold should be increased, to what should it be increased, and why? If the threshold should be decreased, to what should it be decreased, and why? Should we look to a median or other value for investment advisers based on information provided to the Commission as a result of public comment?
21. Should the Total Assets Threshold continue to be aligned with the total asset threshold in Exchange Act rule 0-10(a)? If so, should we expressly tie the Total Assets Threshold to the total assets threshold in Exchange Act rule 0-10(a) by cross-referencing that rule in rule 0-7 under the Advisers Act? Are there other total asset thresholds under Commission regulations to which the Total Assets Threshold should be aligned? If so, what are they, and why?
22. Should the Total Assets Threshold be adjusted based on inflation or some other market growth metric? If so, which metric or index and from when should the threshold be adjusted, and why? For example, the Inflation Adjustment Mechanism as proposed to apply to the Total Assets Threshold utilizes the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index and compares it to 1998 prices. Applying that standard to the Total Assets Threshold itself would result in a new threshold value of approximately $10 million.
23. Should the Total Assets Threshold be adjusted to represent an increase proportionate to the proposed amendments to the RAUM Threshold by increasing the Total Assets Threshold by the same factor (x40, as proposed) that we are increasing the RAUM Threshold (
24. Should the Total Assets Threshold be eliminated from rule 0-7? Given that there are some investment advisers that register with the Commission but report to have zero or virtually zero RAUM, as well as that there are large advisers that may have insignificant RAUM but have significant assets from a non-advisory component of their business, would removing the total assets test diminish the Commission's capacity to differentiate these types of advisers and small advisers for RFA purposes? If the total assets test were removed, what other size standards (
25. In what ways should the Inflation Adjustment Mechanism be adjusted should the Commission adopt a different Total Assets Threshold from the current one?
Currently, the Control Relationship Threshold uses an assets under management standard to establish the disqualifying size of affiliated advisers that is the same standard ($25 million) used in the RAUM Threshold. The
The proposed amendments are designed to conform this threshold to the proposed revisions to the RAUM Threshold and the inclusion of an Inflation Adjustment Mechanism in the Total Assets Threshold.
Based on Form ADV reporting, the Commission estimates that updating the Control Relationship Threshold to reflect the increase of the RAUM Threshold from $25 million to $1 billion would result in approximately 1,225 investment advisers (or approximately 5.7% of all advisers) being excluded from treatment as a “small entity.” As such, the Commission estimates that, as a result of the proposed amendments to the assets under management thresholds in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3), approximately 14,620 of the total 21,650 investment advisers, or approximately 70% of all advisers, would meet the revised RAUM and Control Relationship Thresholds. This would be an appropriate result despite the increase in excluded advisers. As noted above, one aspect of the statutory definition of small business or small organization under the RFA is that the entity is “independently owned and operated.”
We are not at this time proposing revisions to the Total Assets Threshold. Accordingly, we are not proposing to amend the total assets threshold in the Control Relationship Threshold, but are requesting comment on whether to revise the threshold.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to the Control Relationship Threshold, including the following items:
26. Should the assets under management threshold in the Control Relationship Threshold be increased to $1 billion as proposed? Should the threshold be tied to the RAUM Threshold as proposed? Should the total assets threshold in the Control Relationship Threshold be changed? If so, what should it be changed to, and why? Should the threshold be tied to the Total Assets Threshold? Or should we use a different assets under management threshold and total assets threshold for this purpose? Should the Control Relationship Threshold include alternative criteria other than assets under management and total assets, for example, if alternative criteria are used at adoption to replace or modify the current RAUM Threshold and/or Total Assets Threshold?
27. As discussed above, the Commission is considering whether to amend the Total Assets Threshold but is not proposing specific revisions to it at this time. Should the Commission incorporate any future amendments to the Total Assets Threshold into the Control Relationship Threshold? If the Commission modifies or eliminates the Total Assets Threshold in paragraph (a)(2) with respect to investment advisers, should it also do so or instead maintain the total assets threshold with respect to persons that are control affiliates in paragraph (a)(3)? Why or why not?
28. Does paragraph (a)(3)'s treatment of advisers affiliated with other advisers and persons that are not themselves “small entities” properly focus on control affiliations? Are there other relationships that more appropriately capture the types of affiliations the Control Relationship Threshold was designed to capture? If so, what are they, and why? Are there specific factors that would appropriately include as small entities those advisers that are substantially managed and resourced independently of any control affiliate?
29. Should the Control Relationship Threshold be amended to consider an adviser's control affiliates on an aggregate rather than individual basis, similar to the historical and proposed approach for investment companies, notwithstanding the operational and organizational differences between investment advisers and investment companies? If so, why, and how should this aggregation of control affiliates function? For example, should an adviser be considered a “small entity” if it, collectively with other investment advisers that are its control affiliates, has less than a certain amount of RAUM (
The proposal would amend Form ADV to revise Instruction 17 of the General Instructions,
The amendments to Item 12 would revise the RAUM threshold under which an investment adviser must complete Item 12 from $25 million to $1 billion, corresponding with the proposed amendments to the definitions of “small business” and “small organization” under rule 0-7.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed revisions to Form ADV, including the following items:
30. Should Form ADV be revised to conform to the proposed revisions to rule 0-7, as proposed? Do commenters foresee any difficulties arising from increasing the RAUM threshold in Instruction 17 under which investment advisers may seek a continuing hardship exemption from electronic filing requirements? Are investment advisers with greater than $25 million in RAUM likely to take advantage of this continuing hardship exemption?
31. Should the Commission amend Form ADV to require investment advisers to report additional information regarding their total assets? For example, in addition to what is already required, should Item 1.O be amended to require an investment adviser to report its total assets on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, to report whether it has $5 million (or any revised threshold adopted by the Commission) or more in assets on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, or to report any other range?
32. Should the Commission amend Form ADV to require investment advisers to report additional information regarding other persons (other than natural persons) that the investment adviser controls? For example, should an investment adviser have to report the approximate total assets of persons (other than private funds reported in Section 7.B.(1)) that the investment adviser controls in Section 7.A. of Schedule D of Form ADV, as of the last day of the person's most recent fiscal year?
33. Should the Commission amend Form ADV to require investment advisers to report additional information regarding other persons (other than natural persons) that control or are under common control with the investment adviser? What information could be requested here that would assist the Commission in establishing that a controlled investment adviser is a “small entity” for the purposes of the analyses conducted under the RFA?
34. Should the Commission require investment advisers to report additional information regarding the nature of their control relationships? For example, if the Commission required an investment adviser to report whether it received financial or administrative assistance from a person (other than a natural person) it is in a control relationship with, should the absence of such assistance impact whether an investment adviser is considered a “small entity” for purposes of the RFA?
35. Does the text proposed to be added to Item 12 clarify that an investment adviser that is required to answer Item 12 and is properly able to respond “no” to each question in Item 12.A, B, and C is considered a “small entity” for the purposes of the analyses conducted under the RFA? Should the Commission require investment advisers to self-report their “small entity” status following completion of Item 12, or would it be helpful to add an automated message in the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”) indicating an investment adviser's reported “small entity” status once it properly completes Item 12? Would indicating an investment adviser's reported “small entity” status be useful for investors reviewing Form ADV filings or for investment advisers completing Form ADV?
36. Should the Commission require exempt reporting advisers to complete Item 12 or report their RAUM on Form ADV? If so, how should exempt reporting advisers report their RAUM?
37. Should the Commission remove the parenthetical “(because you have assets under management of less than $25 million)” from Instruction 17? Would it provide investment advisers with useful information if the Commission instead left the parenthetical in Instruction 17 and periodically updated the threshold amount for inflation in accordance with the proposed rule 0-7(c)? Why or why not?
38. Does the additional language proposed to be added to Item 12 regarding the inflation adjustment make clear that the thresholds in that item would be adjusted for inflation in conformity with the inflation adjustments to the thresholds in rule 0-7? Would referencing the inflation adjustments create confusion for investment advisers filling out Item 12? Why or why not?
In addition to proposing to adjust the asset-based thresholds, we are also proposing amendments to rules 0-7 and 0-10 that would provide a mechanism for periodic future adjustments of the asset-based thresholds used in these rules' small entity definitions.
In proposing to adjust certain asset-based thresholds for “small entity” definitions as discussed above, the Commission considered an analysis of the distribution of fund and adviser assets and the growth in these assets over time. The thresholds provided for by the amendments would improve the utility of the RFA analysis at adoption in a manner, for the reasons discussed above, that is more appropriate than the alternatives we considered (
Unlike our analysis that informed the proposed increases to the asset-based thresholds, inflation is a known factor for which a precise value can reliably be derived from a defined index. The proposed amendments to rule 0-10 and rule 0-7 would require that the adjustment of the asset-based thresholds be calculated by reference to the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (the “PCE Index”),
We are proposing a schedule of adjusting the investment company and investment adviser small entity asset thresholds for inflation every 10 years. Given the distributions of different-sized entities for investment companies and investment advisers, inflationary changes over shorter periods would generally not result in a meaningfully different set of investment companies and investment advisers being considered small entities under their respective definitions. Additionally, implementing more frequent adjustments would pose challenges for the Commission's RFA analysis because more frequent inflation adjustments make it more likely that a fund's or adviser's small entity status would change between proposal and adoption.
The proposed amendments providing for future inflation adjustment to the investment company small entity net asset threshold would require rounding to the nearest multiple of $1,000,000,000. The proposed amendments to the investment adviser small entity RAUM Threshold and assets under management aspect of the Control Relationship Threshold would require rounding to the nearest multiple of $100,000,000 whereas the amendments to the Total Assets Threshold and total assets aspect of the Control Relationship Threshold would require rounding to the nearest multiple of $500,000. Due to the magnitude of each of these thresholds ($10 billion, $1 billion and $5 million respectively), rounding with greater specificity would not be a useful differentiator of funds' or advisers' ability to bear regulatory cost due to size.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to rules 0-10 and 0-7 that would provide for periodic future inflation adjustments to the asset-based thresholds used in these rules' small entity definitions, including the following items:
39. Should the Commission adopt the proposed mechanism for periodic adjustments of the small entity asset-based thresholds in rule 0-10 and rule 0-7 by order, and if not, why not? Is adjusting for inflation the best mechanism for determining this periodic adjustment? If so, is the PCE Index the price index best suited for this purpose? Are there other price indexes, such as the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, the Producer Price Index, or the GDP Price Deflator, that would be better suited for this purpose, and why?
40. Instead of or in addition to periodically adjusting for inflation, should the Commission periodically and mechanically adjust the small entity thresholds to reflect any other metric? If so, why? For example, should the Commission periodically and mechanically adjust the thresholds to reflect overall growth in the markets (as a proxy for asset growth in the investment company and investment adviser industries) by reference to a securities market index or a blend of security market indexes? If so, what index, or blend of indexes, would be appropriate, given that funds and advisers invest in all types of securities, including in private markets? Should the Commission make periodic adjustments to the asset thresholds in order to maintain a fixed percentage of investment companies and investment advisers as small entities? Should this percentage be of fund families, total number of entities, total industry assets or some other metric? If the Commission were to maintain a fixed percentage of small entities, what should that percentage be for investment companies and for investment advisers? For example, should it be the percentages that result following the proposed increase in asset thresholds in rules 0-10 and 0-7, as discussed above?
41. Is 10 years an appropriate timeframe for future adjustments for the investment company and investment adviser small entity asset thresholds and if not, why not? Would a shorter or longer timeframe such as 1, 3, 5 or 15 years be more appropriate? Would different timeframes be appropriate for investment companies and investment advisers? Should there be circumstances where the rules specify that the periodic adjustment should not occur or should be postponed (
42. Should the Commission select an adjustment cycle that starts on a specified year, rather than based on the date of final adoption? For instance, if the Commission were to adopt these rules in 2026, should the first adjustment occur in 2035 and then every 10 years thereafter (
43. When calculating the inflation-adjusted asset thresholds, should we round the dollar amount or use an exact number for the threshold? If we are rounding, is rounding to the proposed amounts the appropriate level of specificity for these calculations? Are there any considerations that are unique to any of the asset-based thresholds? Please supply explanations and reasoning.
The Commission is mindful of the economic effects, including the costs and benefits, of its rules. The Commission has a long-held focus on small entities when engaged in rulemaking. A purpose of the RFA is to promote the effectiveness and efficiency of regulations, including through consideration of alternative regulatory approaches, with the goal of minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes.
In addition to these indirect effects, the proposed rule would have direct economic effects where the proposed small entity definitions would affect the
First, the proposal would amend Form ADV to revise Instruction 17 of the General Instructions, which currently permits registered or registering investment advisers to receive a continuing hardship exemption from Form ADV electronic filing requirements, pursuant to rule 203-3(b), if such investment adviser is a small business and can demonstrate that filing Form ADV electronically would impose an undue hardship. Instruction 17, as revised, defines an investment adviser as a “small business” or “small organization” if it is required to answer Item 12 (which itself relies on the definition in rule 0-7) and it is able to respond “no” to each question in Item 12. Since the proposed amendments to Item 12, in conformity with rule 0-7, would reflect that the RAUM Threshold was increased from $25 million to $1 billion, Instruction 17 would similarly reflect this increase in the threshold for the availability of the continuing hardship exemption.
We expect that the increased availability of the continuing hardship exemption to registered investment advisers meeting the proposed definition would have minimal economic impact. Due to the ubiquity of inexpensive access to computers and the internet—both to advisers themselves and to the service providers they may employ—any newly eligible advisers are unlikely to be able to demonstrate that filing Form ADV electronically would impose an undue hardship.
Second, the proposal would amend Item 12 of Part 1A of Form ADV to align the RAUM threshold for completing the questions in that item with the proposed amendments to the definitions of “small business” and “small organization” under rule 0-7; the amendments to that item would also revise the questions in Items 12.B.(1) and C.(1) to collect information on the elements of the amended small entity definition.
We use a discount rate to adjust for differences in the timing of estimated benefits and costs.
We do not anticipate that the proposed amendments would have any direct effects on efficiency, competition, or capital formation because, as discussed above, they would have minimal direct economic impact. But to the extent that the amended definitions of “small entities” contribute to the Commission better tailoring its rulemaking to account for the regulatory challenges faced by small entities, they could have indirect effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation resulting from future rulemakings. For example, if the Commission, informed by the more tailored RFA analyses, determined to tailor future rulemakings to reduce compliance costs for small entities, there could be benefits to competition.
Lastly, the Commission considered alternatives to the proposed amendments to Form ADV to align the form with the amended definition.
We request comment on all aspects of the economic analysis of the proposed amendments. To the extent possible, we request that commenters provide supporting data and analysis on the benefits, costs, and effects on competition, efficiency, and capital formation of the proposed amendments or any reasonable alternatives.
The proposal would revise an existing “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “PRA”).
We discuss below the collection of information burdens associated with the proposed amendments to Form ADV. Responses to the disclosure requirements of the proposed amendment to Form ADV are not kept confidential.
The proposal would amend Form ADV to revise Item 12 of Part 1A of Form ADV to increase the RAUM Threshold under which an investment adviser must complete Item 12 from $25 million to $1 billion, corresponding with the proposed amendments to the definitions of “small business” and “small organization” under rule 0-7 under the Advisers Act.
We estimate this burden to amount to an average of fifteen minutes (or 0.25 hours) annually per adviser. We estimate the number of respondents to this information collection to be 10,850 advisers, including 799 advisers that have less than $25 million in RAUM and may already complete Item 12.
Each of proposed rule 0-7 and rule 0-10 does not contain a “collection of information” requirement within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “PRA”), nor does it create any new filing, reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure reporting requirements.
We estimate that investment advisers that would be newly required to respond to Item 12 of Part 1A of Form ADV would incur a total annual hour burden resulting from the collections of information discussed above of approximately 2,512.75 hours, at a monetized cost of $949,819.50.
A chart summarizing the proposed components of the total annual burden for investment advisers is below.
We estimate the total burden associated with the proposed amendments to Form ADV to amount to an average of one-quarter (0.25) hours annually per adviser. The amendments do not require investment advisers to collect any new types of information. The only differences in burden hours and internal monetized costs between current and proposed Item 12 of Part 1A of Form ADV will be determined by the number of advisers newly required to respond to Item 12.
We request comment on whether our estimates for burden hours and any external costs as described above are reasonable. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including whether the estimates are too high or too low; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) determine whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In addition to these general requests for comment, we also request comment specifically on the following issues:
44. Our analysis relies upon certain assumptions, such as that it will take advisers approximately one-quarter (0.25) hours per year to respond to the proposed amendments to Item 12. Do commenters agree with these assumptions? If not, why not, and what data would commenters recommend that we use?
Persons wishing to submit comments on the collection of information requirements of the proposed amendments should direct them to the OMB Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
The RFA
For the purposes of the Advisers Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment adviser generally is a small entity if it: (i) has assets under management having a total value of less than $25 million; (ii) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of the most recent fiscal year; and (iii) does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser that has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any person (other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year.
The Commission's proposed amendments to the Small Entity Rules would ultimately affect its analyses under the RFA in future rulemakings but would not themselves impose an economic impact on funds or advisers. The proposed amendments to rule 203-3(b) are clarifying in nature and would not impose a significant economic impact on advisers. While additional investment advisers would have to complete Item 12 of Form ADV, the information required by this Item is readily available to advisers and the additional cost of this change would be minimal.
The Commission understands that no regulatory flexibility analysis is required for the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments to the definitions of the terms “small business” and “small organization” for investment companies and investment advisers do not impose any substantive requirements on small businesses.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the SEC hereby certifies that the proposed amendments to Investment Company Act rule 0-10, Advisers Act rule 0-7 and Form ADV would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of SBREFA,
We request comment on the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the economy on an annual basis. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
This action is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Commission is proposing the rule and form amendments contained in this document under the authority set forth in chapter 6 of title 5 of the United States Code (particularly section 601 thereof [5 U.S.C. 601]), the Investment Company Act, particularly, section 38 thereof [15 U.S.C. 80a-37], the Advisers Act, particularly section 211 thereof [15 U.S.C. 80b-11].
Investment companies, Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the SEC proposes to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Dividing the year-end value of the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index thereto), as published by the United States Department of Commerce, for the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the order is being issued, by the year-end value of such index (or successor) for the calendar year [YEAR OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; and
(2) Multiplying $10 billion times the quotient obtained in paragraph (c)(1) of this section and rounding the product to the nearest multiple of $1 billion.
15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, 80b-11, 1681w(a)(1), 6801-6809, and 6825, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) For purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Six of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 601
(1) Has assets under management, as defined under Section 203A(a)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a)(2)) and reported on its annual updating amendment to Form ADV (17 CFR 279.1), of less than $1 billion, or, following [DATE TEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the dollar amount specified in the most recent order issued by the Commission in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and as published in the
(2) Did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of the most recent fiscal year, or, following [DATE TEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], did not have total assets equal to or greater than on the last day of the most recent fiscal year the dollar amount specified in the most recent order issued by the Commission in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and as published in the
(3) Does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser that has assets under management of $1 billion or more, or any person (other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of the most recent fiscal year, or following [DATE TEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser that has assets under management equal to or greater than the dollar amount specified in the most recent order issued by the Commission in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and as published in the
(c) The dollar amounts specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall be adjusted by order of the Commission, issued on or about [DATE TEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and approximately every ten years thereafter. The adjusted dollar amounts established in such orders shall be computed by:
(1) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) and determining assets under management for purposes of paragraph (a)(3),
(i) Dividing the year-end value of the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index thereto), as published by the United States Department of Commerce, for the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the order is being issued, by the year-end value of such index (or successor) for the calendar year [YEAR OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; and
(ii) Multiplying $1 billion times the quotient obtained in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and rounding the product to the nearest multiple of $100 million; and
(2) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) and determining total assets for purposes of paragraph (a)(3),
(i) Dividing the year-end value of the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index thereto), as published by the United States Department of Commerce, for the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the order is being issued, by the year-end value of such index (or successor) for the calendar year [YEAR OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; and
(ii) Multiplying $5 million times the quotient obtained in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and rounding the product to the nearest multiple of $500,000.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(1)
The period of the exemption may be no longer than one year after the date on which you apply for the exemption.
(5)
The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-1,
Form ADV is attached as Appendix A to this document. The text of Form ADV does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
By the Commission.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
If you are required to file electronically but cannot do so, you may be eligible for one of two types of hardship exemptions from the electronic filing requirements.
• A
If you have been granted a continuing hardship exemption, you must complete and submit the paper version of Form ADV to FINRA. FINRA will enter your responses into the IARD. As discussed in General Instruction 16, FINRA will charge you a fee to reimburse it for the expense of data entry.
The SEC is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act to consider the effect of its regulations on small entities. In order to do this, we need to determine whether you meet the definition of “small business” or “small organization” under rule 0-7. You are a “small business” or “small organization” under rule 0-7 if you have regulatory assets under management of less than $1 billion and you answer “no” to each question in A., B., and C. below. Each of these thresholds is updated every [TEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] for inflation in accordance with rule 0-7(c). The thresholds described in this item will be updated accordingly when the thresholds in rule 0-7 are inflation adjusted.
Answer this Item 12 only if you are registered or registering with the SEC
For purposes of this Item 12 only:
• Total Assets refers to the total assets of a firm, rather than the assets managed on behalf of
•
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 11, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Without the aforementioned data, the U.S.' ability to detect trends in equine management and health status, and the ability to use that information in preparedness and response to equine diseases would be reduced or nonexistent.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The board is authorized under the Charter for the Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the Recreation Area, environmental education, an annual work plan for recreation and environmental education areas in the Recreation Area. This includes the heritage program (with the non-appropriated amounts in the Land Between the Lakes Management Fund), an annual forest management and harvest plan for the Recreation Area and the Land Between the Lakes Management Fund.
An in person and virtual meeting will be held on February 11, 2026, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Central Time.
All Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held at the Supervisor's Office, located at 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211 and virtually via videoconference. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by joining virtually via videoconference at: Microsoft Teams/Meeting ID: 227 737 970 506 35, Passcode: Fb9KH2AR or Dial in by phone +1 (202) 650-0123, passcode# 245548548# United States, Washington; Phone conference ID: 245 548 548#. Committee information and meeting details can be found at the following website
Jim McCoy, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone (870) 214-0934 or email
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Approve meeting minutes;
2. Discuss old business/updates;
3. Discuss recreation fee schedule;
4. Discuss natural resource management; and
5. Schedule the next meeting
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the NEW YORK Advisory Committee to the Commission will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the committee's project proposal.
Thursday, January 22, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
David Barreras, Designated Federal Officer at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of people who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodation, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, grantee of FTZ 7, requesting subzone status for the facility of Inmobiliaria G.G., LLC, located in Juncos, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 7, 2026.
The proposed subzone (5.36 acres) is located at PR-9934, Km. 0.2, Bo. Ceiba Sur, Juncos, Puerto Rico. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 7.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published notice in the
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813.
On January 2, 2026, Commerce published in the
In the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the first sunset review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Because no domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, consistent with section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tarriff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce is revoking the AD order on polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Korea.
Applicable January 12, 2026.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On September 10, 2020, Commerce published the
We did not receive a timely notice to participate in this sunset review from any domestic interested party, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, consistent with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(1), because Commerce “did not receive a Notice of Intent to Participate from a domestic party in the sunset review of the {
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
The merchandise covered by this
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, “{i}f no interested party responds to the notice of initiation . . . {Commerce} shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of a review, revoking the order.” Because no domestic interested parties responded to the notice of initiation in these segments of the proceeding, Commerce is revoking the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3) and 351.222(i)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable December 26, 2025.
Faris Montgomery, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1537.
On November 7, 2023, Commerce published its
The Mosaic Company (the petitioner) and OCP appealed Commerce's
In its final remand redetermination, issued in July 2025, Commerce determined, under respectful protest, that the reduction in tax fines and penalties program was not specific, and therefore not countervailable.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Because OCP has a superseding cash deposit rate,
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were produced and/or exported by OCP, Jorf I, Jorf II, Jorf III, Jorf IV, or Jorf V, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 30, 2020, through December 31, 2021. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by OCP, Jorf I, Jorf II, Jorf III, Jorf IV, or Jorf V, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee) will meet on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Thursday, February 12, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The VCAT will meet on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Thursday, February 12, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be a virtual meeting via a virtual meeting platform. Please note admittance instructions under the
Stephanie Shaw, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 240-446-6000. Ms. Shaw's email address is
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's business are invited to request a place on the agenda by no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, February 3, 2026, by contacting Stephanie Shaw at
All participants, including NIST staff, will be attending via a virtual meeting platform and must contact Ms. Shaw at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; permit application period opening.
NMFS announces the opening of the 2026 permit application period for initial issuance of limited entry deep-set buoy gear permits under qualification Tier 9. Authorized through implementation of Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species and its implementing regulations, Tier 9 was established as the final tier in a ranking system for issuance of limited entry deep-set buoy gear permits. Tier 9 permits for deep-set buoy gear will be available through the National Permits System.
The 2026 application period for initial issuance of deep-set buoy gear permits issued under Tier 9 is February 1 to March 31, 2026.
This notice is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
Karen Palmigiano, West Coast Region Permits and Monitoring Branch
The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subpart K, regulate commercial and recreational fishing for HMS in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California and in adjacent high seas waters. NMFS published Amendment 6 and its implementing regulations on May 8, 2023 (88 FR 29545). Amendment 6 authorizes deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) as an additional gear type for catching swordfish and other HMS in Federal waters off of California and Oregon. The Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended that NOAA Fisheries authorize DSBG as an additional commercial gear type to improve the economic viability of the West Coast-based swordfish fishery while minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable. The regulations also established a limited entry (LE) regime for “phased-in” permitting of DSBG fishing within Federal waters of the Southern California Bight (see 50 CFR 660.707(g)). Tier 9 is the final phase of that LE permit regime.
As required by the regulations at § 660.707(g)(12), once the list of initial approved qualifiers for Tiers 1 through 8 was exhausted in 2024, NMFS began accepting applications under Tier 9 in Spring 2025. NMFS will continue to accept new applications for Tier 9 permits on an annual basis and issue up to 25 permits per year until a total of 300 LE DSBG permits are issued, unless NMFS determines that the maximum number of permits should be fewer than 300 and publishes a subsequent rulemaking. Additionally, as required by regulations, NMFS must annually announce the opening of Tier 9 in the
Therefore, beginning on February 1, 2026, and ending on March 31, 2026, NMFS will accept new applications for initial issuance of LE DSBG permits under Tier 9. Applicants for Tier 9 permits who submitted applications in previous years and have yet to receive a permit do not need to resubmit their applications. To qualify for a LE DSBG permit under Tier 9 an applicant must be a “person” as defined at § 660.702 and must not already own a LE DSBG permit either individually or as a shareholder in a business which owns a LE DSBG permit. The process for initial issuance of LE DSBG permits to applicants that qualify under Tier 9, which can be found in § 660.707(g)(12), is summarized below.
To apply for a LE DSBG permit under Tier 9, a person must submit a complete application to NMFS through the National Permits System website no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific daylight time on March 31, 2026. A complete initial issuance application package consists of the following: a completed initial issuance application form, which may include ownership interest for businesses, and as required under § 660.707(g)(3)(ii); a current copy of the United States Coast Guard Documentation Form or state registration form for the vessel that will be registered to the permit; and payment of required fees. NMFS may require additional documentation as it deems necessary to make a determination on the application. The initial issuance application package will be considered incomplete until the required information is submitted. NMFS will
NMFS will issue LE DSBG permits to approved applicants under Tier 9 on a first come, first served basis, according to the date and time that their application was submitted through the National Permits System. NMFS will issue up to 25 permits each year. If NMFS approves more than 25 applications in a single year, the approved applicants above 25 will receive priority for permit issuance the following year according to the date and time that their complete applications were received.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of hybrid conference; meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory committees.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet February 2, 2026, through February 11, 2026.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 2026, and continue through Wednesday, February 4, 2026. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 2026, and continue through Saturday, February 7, 2026. The Council will begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2026, and continue through Wednesday, February 11, 2026. All listed times are Alaska Time.
The meetings will be a hybrid conference. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Egan Center, 555 W 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501, or join the meeting online through the links at
Diana Evans, Council staff; email:
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Council's primary peer review panel for scientific information, as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (July 19, 2013, 78 FR 43066). The peer-review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Advisory Panel agenda will include the following issues:
The Council agenda will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically through the links at
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Notice of withdrawal.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) and Department of Justice (DOJ) are withdrawing a joint statement issued in October 2023 regarding the implications of a creditor's consideration of an individual's immigration status under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).
The statement published on October 18, 2023, at 88 FR 71845, is withdrawn as of January 12, 2026.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) and Department of Justice (DOJ), (collectively, the agencies) are charged with enforcing the antidiscrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).
The joint statement did not purport to interpret ECOA or Regulation B, which generally permit creditors to consider immigration or citizenship status. The joint statement further acknowledged that Regulation B expressly permits consideration of immigration or citizenship status for certain purposes. However, by focusing primarily on risks that could arise if such consideration were used to discriminate on a protected basis, the joint statement may have created the impression that either ECOA or the statement itself imposes limitations on the consideration of immigration or citizenship status when evaluating an application for credit. No such limitation exists, and this withdrawal is intended to correct any such misimpression.
Separately, as announced in the Bureau's guidance withdrawal notification published in the
Nothing in ECOA or Regulation B prohibits the consideration of an applicant's immigration or citizen status. To the contrary, Regulation B permits the consideration of “any information obtained, so long as the information is not used to discriminate against an applicant on a prohibited basis.” 12 CFR 1002.6(a). More specifically, it states that “[a] creditor may take the applicant's immigration status into account,” 12 CFR part 1002, supp I. ¶ 2(z)-2, and “may consider the applicant's immigration status or status as a permanent resident of the United States, and any additional information that may be necessary to ascertain the creditor's rights and remedies regarding repayment.” 12 CFR 1002.6(b)(7). The joint statement's exclusive emphasis on the risks of such consideration, however, may have created the misimpression that ECOA or Regulation B prohibit or otherwise limit the consideration of immigration or citizenship status by a creditor evaluating an application for credit.
Not only would such a limitation be inconsistent with Regulation B, but the illustrative scenarios described in the joint statement may also create confusion as to how creditors may consider immigration status while managing credit and compliance risks. For example, the joint statement posited a practice in which considering how long a credit applicant had a Social Security Number could be used as a proxy for the applicant's national origin or race, which would then be prohibited discrimination. This example may have been perceived as discouraging the collection and assessment of such identifying information when in fact it can be important to a creditor's compliance with anti-money laundering or Know Your Customer requirements.
Similarly, the joint statement suggests that applying a blanket underwriting policy for certain groups of non-citizens may constitute discrimination in violation of ECOA if not strictly necessary for assessing the creditor's ability to obtain repayment or meet legal obligations. This example could be read as positing a bright-line, one-size-fits-all approach to underwriting noncitizens as necessary for ECOA compliance. There is no such requirement in ECOA or Regulation B, and focusing exclusively on compliance risks ignores that creditors may legitimately use additional information in particular circumstances to fully assess underwriting risks related to providing credit to those without lawful status or who are otherwise unauthorized to work in the United States. A credit applicant's immigration or citizenship status may present underwriting risks that typical assessments of financial capacity alone will not fully resolve. As Regulation B acknowledges, this is something creditors may legitimately consider. To the extent the joint statement suggested, or could be read to suggest, that the practices it describes are presumptively discriminatory in violation of ECOA, such a presumption would not be supported by ECOA or Regulation B.
The joint statement further assessed the interaction between 42 U.S.C. 1981 (section 1981) and ECOA. While the joint statement described how courts have approached the interaction between Regulation B and credit discrimination claims under section 1981 based on citizenship or alienage, the agencies did not purport to interpret the scope of liability under section 1981, nor do they purport to do so now. The agencies' withdrawal of the joint statement serves to address any misimpression that the joint statement has interpreted section 1981 to confer any liability under the statute that has not already been recognized by courts.
While the Bureau has authority to issue guidance regarding the statutes and regulations it administers, the Bureau has determined that the joint statement is not consistent with its revised policy on the issuance of guidance. As described in its May 2025 guidance withdrawal notification, the Bureau's revised policy is to issue guidance only where necessary and where doing so would reduce compliance burdens. Given that it is the responsibility of Congress and the President in the legislative process to define or expand the contours of civil rights protections, the agencies have determined that the joint statement is not necessary. Additionally, the joint statement does not mitigate any unnecessary compliance burdens. Therefore, having completed its review, the agencies have determined that the joint statement does not meet the Bureau's current standards for the issuance of guidance.
Finally, consistent with its May 2025 guidance withdrawal notification, the agencies do not believe that reliance interests compel the retention of the joint statement. Parties understand that such statements are non-binding. Creditors who have structured their operations consistent with the joint statement's comments on compliance risks can continue to operate in that manner without penalty and, given that the joint statement was non-binding on the public or courts, consumers' rights under ECOA are unchanged.
For these reasons, the agencies are exercising their discretion to withdraw the October 12, 2023, notice titled:
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as amended.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Bureau will submit a report containing this notice of withdrawal and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. OMB has designated this notice of withdrawal as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy (BoV AFA), Department of the Air Force.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting; correction.
The Department of Defense (DoD) published a notice in the
In the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Israel has requested to buy additional Eitan 8V199TE21-D powerpack engines and engine components that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $85.5 million ($0 in MDE), included Eitan 8V199TE21-D powerpack engines and engine components; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; contractor non-recurring engineering; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This notification is for a combined notification of non-MDE Eitan 8V199TE21-D powerpack engines and engine components; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; contractor non-recurring engineering; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $180 million.
The U.S. is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The proposed sale will enhance Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend Israel's borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers. This proposed sale will increase the interoperability with U.S. forces and conveys U.S. commitment to Israel's security and armed forces modernization. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Rolls-Royce Solutions America, Inc., located in Novi, MI. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Israel.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-20, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Morocco has requested to buy up to thirty (30) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and one (1) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM guidance section. Also included are AMRAAM telemetry kits, control section spares, and containers; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE); ADU-891 Computer Test Set Adapter Groups; munitions support and support equipment; classified software delivery and support; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; transportation support; classified publications and technical documentation; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $88.37 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO Ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in North Africa.
The proposed sale will improve the Kingdom of Morocco's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring it has modern, capable air-to-air munitions to meet its mission in securing its borders and territorial waters, countering terrorism and illicit trafficking, and using its newly acquired F-16 Block 72 fleet. The Kingdom of Morocco will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be RTX Corporation located in Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Morocco.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down and shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high-flying and low-flying and maneuvering targets.
2. Common Munitions Built-In-Test (BIT)/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) is supporting equipment used to interface with weapon systems to initiate and report BIT results and to upload and download flight software.
3. The ADU-891 Adapter Group Test Set provides the physical and electrical interface between the CMBRE and the missile.
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
6. A determination has been made that the Kingdom of Morocco can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Morocco.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-129 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy equipment and services required to upgrade and recertify PATRIOT PAC-2 Guidance Enhancement Missiles (GEM) and recertify PATRIOT Guidance Enhancement Missiles-Tactical (GEM-T). The following non-MDE items will be included: sustainment maintenance; special tools, support, and test equipment; repair parts; modification kits; common tools; shop equipment and fixtures; material handling equipment; test support; stockpile
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats by assisting in maintaining higher levels of operational readiness while meeting its modernization and professionalization plans. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Letterkenny, PA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of 5 to 8 additional U.S. Government or U.S. contractor representatives to travel to Kuwait periodically over a 15-to-20-year period to assist with maintenance and sustainment operations.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-16, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Qatar has requested to buy eight (8) MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA); two hundred (200) KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) tail kits for Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-38 or Laser JDAM GBU-54; three hundred (300) BLU-111 500-lb general purpose bombs; one hundred (100) MXU-650 air foil groups (AFG) for Paveway II GBU-12; one hundred (100) MAU-169 computer control groups (CCG) for Paveway II GBU-12; twenty-eight (28) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI) security devices with M-Code; twelve (12) EGI security devices with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules (SAASM); ten (10) Lynx AN/APY-8 Synthetic Aperture Radars (SAR); ten (10) L3 Rio Grande communications intelligence (COMINT) sensor suites; one hundred ten (110) AGM-114R2 Hellfire II missiles; and eight (8) M36E9 Hellfire Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM). The following non-MDE items will also be included: Honeywell TPE-331 turboprop engines; Certifiable Ground Control Stations (CGCS); FMU-139D/B fuze systems; DSU-38 laser illuminated target detectors for GBU-54; KY-100M narrowband/wideband terminals; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKLs); Keying Identification Verification (KIV)-77 Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) cryptographic appliques; Intrusion Prevention System (IPS)-250X High Assurance internet Protocol Encryptor (HAIPE) Type 1 cryptographic communications security (COMSEC) devices; Cryptographic Core Modernization (CCM)-700A Type 1 COMSEC chips; AN/DPX-7 IFF transponders; Link-16 KOR-24A Small Tactical Terminals (STTs); Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Electronic Surveillance Measure systems; AE-4500 Electronic Support Measure; Compact Multi-band Data Link (CMDL); Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) 6Si compatible systems; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) Plus Block II; Mayflower Multi-Platform Anti-Jam GPS Navigation Antennas (MAGNA)-I, AS-4841; imaging systems; Electro-Optical/Infrared (E.O./IR) Multi-Spectrum Targeting System (MTS); Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars (SeaSpray 7500 maritime radars); Due Regard Radar (DRR); Automatic Information System (AIS) transponders; Rohde & Schwartz Ultra High Frequency (UHF)/Very High Frequency (VHF) radios; satellite communications (SATCOM) ground station antennas, modems, and terminals with Unifi Security Gateway (USG) encryption; Ku-Band SATCOM GA-ASI Transportable Earth Stations (GATES); secure SATCOM systems; DSU-33D/B bomb components; M299 Longbow Hellfire launchers; weapons loading equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; weapons integration; support and test equipment; facilities and construction support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; transportation and airlift support; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.96 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Qatar's capability to meet current and future threats by providing timely intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, target acquisition, counter-land, and counter-surface sea capabilities for its security and defense. This capability is a deterrent to regional threats and will primarily be used to strengthen its homeland defense. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, located in Poway, CA; Lockheed Martin, located in Bethesda, MD; RTX Corporation, located in Waltham, MA; L3Harris, Inc., located in Melbourne, FL; Boeing Corporation, located in Arlington, VA; and Leonardo SpA, located in Rome, Italy. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Qatar.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) is a weapons-ready aircraft designed for Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), target acquisition, and strike missions. The MQ-9B RPA is not a USAF program of record but has close ties to, and builds upon, the proven success of the MQ-9A Reaper. The MQ-9B is a highly modular, easily configurable aircraft that contains the necessary hard points, power, and data connections to accommodate a variety of payloads and munitions to meet multiple missions—including counter-land, counter-sea, and anti-submarine strike operations. The system is designed to be controlled by two operators within a Certifiable Ground Control Station (CGCS). The MQ-9B is able to operate using a direct line-of-sight (LoS) datalink or beyond line-of-sight (BLoS) through satellite communications (SATCOM). The MQ-9B system can be deployed from a single site that supports launch and recovery, mission control, and maintenance. The system also supports remote-split operations where launch, recovery, and maintenance occur at a forward operating base (FOB) and mission control is conducted from another location or main operating base (MOB).
2. Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) consist of a bomb body paired with a warhead-specific tail kit containing a Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) guidance capability that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM can receive target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors during captive carry, or from a third-party source via manual or automated entry.
a. The Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-38 is a 500-lb JDAM, consisting of a KMU-572 tail kit and Bomb Live Unit (BLU)-111 or MK-82 bomb body.
b. The GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) is a 500-lb JDAM which incorporates all the capabilities of the JDAM guidance tail kit and adds a precision laser guidance set. The LJDAM gives the weapon system an optional semi-active laser guidance in addition to the GPS/INS guidance. This provides the optional capability to strike moving targets. The GBU-54 consists of a DSU-38 laser guidance set or a DSU-33D/B proximity sensor and bomb body with appropriate KMU-5XX tail kit.
3. The Paveway II (PWII) is a maneuverable, free-fall laser-guided bomb (LGB) that guides to laser energy reflected off the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose (GP) warhead, but the semi-active laser guidance corrects many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the LGB can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The PWII consists of a non-warhead-specific MAU-209 or MAU-169 computer control group (CCG) and a warhead-specific air foil group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of the GP bomb body.
a. The GBU-12 is a 500-lb GP bomb body fitted with the MAU-169 CCG and MXU-650 AFG to guide to its laser designated target.
4. The M-Code capable Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) (EGI), with an embedded GPS Precise Positioning Service (PPS) Receiver Application Module-Standard Electronic Module (GRAM-S/M), is a self-contained navigation system that provides acceleration, velocity, position, attitude, platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and coordinated universal time (UTC) synchronized time. SAASM or M-Code enables the GPS receiver access to the encrypted P(Y) or M-Code signal, providing protection against active spoofing attacks.
a. Mayflower Multi-Platform Anti-Jam GPS Navigation Antenna (MAGNA)-I, AS-4841 is a federated, GPS anti-jam solution. MAGNA-F can provide protected GPS signals to different receivers simultaneously. It protects critical mission systems on the platform and provides unwavering position, navigation, and timing (PNT). It can be used on multiple military and civilian GPS receivers. It is also compatible with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules (SAASM) and M-Code.
5. The EGI with SAASM—or M-Code receiver when available—and PPS is a self-contained navigation system that provides the following: acceleration, velocity, position, attitude, platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and coordinated universal time (UTC) synchronized time. SAASM or M-Code enables the GPS receiver access to the encrypted P(Y) or M-Code signal, providing protection against active spoofing attacks.
6. The AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) system provides all-weather surveillance, tracking, and targeting.
7. The L3 Rio Grande communications intelligence sensor suite's capabilities meet rigorous mission requirements for small, manned, and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Rio Grande intercepts, locates, monitors, and records communications signals using a common set of software applications. Rio Grande operates on an open architecture design and supports third-party special signals applications, real-time audio recording and playback, and a three-dimensional display of the area of interest.
8. The AGM-114R2 Hellfire II is a missile equipped with a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker that homes in on the reflected light of a laser designator. The AGM-114R can be launched from higher altitudes than previous variants because of its enhanced guidance and navigation capabilities, which include a height-of-burst (HOB)/proximity sensor. The missile has a multipurpose warhead and can destroy hard, soft, and enclosed targets.
a. Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs) are used to simulate the AGM-114R2 Hellfire missiles and are carried and delivered in the same manner as the Hellfire with identical weight, center of gravity, and overall appearance.
9. The Honeywell TPE-331 is a turboprop engine with power output ranging from 429 to 1,230 kW.
10. The Certifiable Ground Control Station (CGCS) is designed to emulate a reconnaissance aircraft cockpit, giving users extensive means to operate both the aircraft and sensors. It can be fixed or mobile, with either version allowing operators to control and monitor the aircraft, as well as record and exploit downlinked payload data.
11. The FMU-139D/B Joint Programmable Fuze (JPF) is a multi-delay, multi-arm proximity sensor compatible with general purpose blast, frag, and hardened-target penetrator weapons. The JPF settings are cockpit selectable in flight when used with numerous precision-guided weapons.
12. The KY-100M is a cryptographic-modernized lightweight terminal for secure voice and data communications. The KY-100M provides wideband/narrowband half-duplex communication. Operating in tactical ground, marine, and airborne applications, the KY-100M enables secure communication with a broad range of radio and satellite equipment.
13. The AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a handheld device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring data between compatible cryptographic and communications equipment.
14. The Keying Identification Verification (KIV)-77 is a cryptographic applique for Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). It can be loaded with Mode 5 classified elements.
15. The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) 750 Electronic Surveillance Measures (ESM) System is a United Kingdom produced digital electronic intelligence (ELINT) sensor which analyzes the electromagnetic spectrum to map the source of active emissions. Using highly accurate direction finding (DF) antennas, SAGE builds target locations and provides situational awareness, advance warning of threats, and the ability to cue other sensors.
16. The SNC 4500 Auto Electronic Surveillance Measures (ESM) System is a digital electronic intelligence (ELINT) sensor which analyzes the electromagnetic spectrum to map the source of active emissions. Using highly accurate Direction Finding (DF) antennas, the SNC 4500 builds target locations and provides situational awareness, advance warning of threats, and the ability to cue other sensors.
17. The L3 Harris Compact Multi-Band Data Link (CMDL) is a miniaturized, high-performance, wideband data link operating in Ku, C, L, or S-band, with both analog and digital waveforms. It is interoperable with military and commercial products including Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) terminals, the complete line of Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) systems, and coded orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (COFDM) receivers.
18. The L3 Harris ROVER 6Si transceiver provides real-time, full-motion video and other network data for situational awareness, targeting, battle damage assessment, surveillance, relay, convoy over-watch operations, and other situations where eyes-on-target are required. It provides expanded frequencies and additional processing resources from previous ROVER versions, allowing increased levels of collaboration and interoperability with numerous manned and unmanned airborne platforms.
19. Common Munitions Built-In-Test (BIT)/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) is supporting equipment used to interface with weapon systems to initiate and report BIT results and upload/download flight software. CMBRE supports multiple munitions platforms with a range of applications that perform preflight checks, periodic maintenance checks, loading of operational flight program (OFP) data, loading of munitions mission planning data, loading of GPS cryptographic keys, and declassification of munitions memory.
20. The MX-20HD is a gyro-stabilized, multi-spectral, multi-field-of-view Electro-Optical/Infrared (E.O./IR) targeting system. The system provides surveillance laser illumination and laser designation through use of an externally mounted turret sensor unit and internally mounted master control. Sensor video imagery is displayed in the aircraft real time and may be recorded for subsequent ground analysis.
21. The Selex Seaspray is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) surveillance radar suitable for a range of capabilities from long range search to small target detection.
22. Due Regard Radar (DRR) is a collision avoidance air-to-air radar. DRR is a key component of GA-ASI's overall airborne Detect and Avoid System (DAAS) architecture for MQ-9B. By tracking non-cooperative aircraft, DRR enables a collision avoidance capability onboard the RPA and allows the pilot to separate the aircraft from other air traffic in cooperation with air traffic control.
23. The Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder provides maritime patrol and search and rescue (SAR) aircraft with the ability to track and identify AIS-equipped vessels over a dedicated very high frequency (VHF) data link. AIS is a key component of any maritime ISR network and offers maritime authorities with the ability to better coordinate air and sea search, rescue, surveillance, and interdiction operations.
24. The Rohde & Schwartz Ultra High Frequency (UHF)/VHF radio is a multi-band, portable, two-way communication radio.
25. The AN/DPX-7 is an IFF transponder used to identify and track aircraft, ships, and some ground forces to reduce friendly fire incidents.
26. The C-Band LoS Ground Data Terminals and Ku-Band SATCOM GA-ASI Transportable Earth Stations (GATES) provide command, control, and data acquisition for the MQ-9.
27. The M299 launcher provides mechanical and electrical interface between the Hellfire missile and aircraft.
28. The KOR-24A Small Tactical Terminal (STT) Link-16 is a command, control communications, and intelligence (C31) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements.
29. The Intrusion Prevention System (IPS)-250X is a low-size, weight, and power (SWaP) National Security Agency (NSA)-certified high-speed Internet Protocol (IP) network encryptor.
30. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
31. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
32. A determination has been made that Qatar can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
33. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Government of Qatar.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 20-29, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale to refurbish and upgrade five hundred fifty-five (555) M1A1 Abrams tanks into M1A1SA configuration tanks. The following non-MDE items will also be included: five hundred fifty-five (555) AN/VAS-5B Driver Vision Enhancer (DVE-A) kits; five hundred fifty-five (555) Thermal Imaging System (TIS) gunner sights; M250 smoke grenade launchers; AGT-1500 tank engines; X-1100 tank transmissions; spare parts; support equipment; depot level support; Government furnished Equipment (GFE); repair parts; repair and return program; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total program cost is $4.69 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that continues to be an important strategic partner in the Middle East. Egypt is the only country in the world, other than the U.S., that produces the M1A1 Abrams. The Egyptian Refurbishment Program will significantly contribute to the flow of M1A1 components and parts from the United States, creating economies of scale and reducing overall unit price of scarce M1A1 parts for the Department of Defense and other U.S. security partners.
This proposed sale will contribute to the modernization of Egypt's main battle tank fleet, enhancing its ability to meet current and future threats. These tanks will contribute to Egypt's goal of updating its military capability while further enhancing interoperability with the United States and other allies. Egypt will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces, as this program does not provide additional tanks and updating Egypt's tanks to a common, modern configuration will reduce obsolescence and positively impact the logistics supply chain.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The M1A1SA tank contractor will be General Dynamics Land Systems, located in Sterling Heights, MI. Refurbishment and upgrade will take place at the Egyptian Tank Plant, located in Cairo, Egypt. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require semi-annual trips to Egypt involving up to twenty U.S. Government and twenty contractor representatives for a period of up to ten years to manage the refurbishment, fielding, and training for the program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/VAS-5B Driver Vision Enhancer—Abrams (DVE-A) is a passive thermal imaging system used to enhance a driver's viewing capabilities while operating during degraded visual conditions such as darkness, fog, smoke, or dust. The DVE-A is a model of the DVE designed specifically for the Abrams tank that allows safe, rapid egress for the driver. The DVE-A utilizes a 640 x 480 long wave detector.
2. The AGT 1500 Gas Turbine Propulsion System, used in the Abrams tank, is a unique application of armored vehicle power pack technology. The hardware is composed of the AGT-1500 engine and X-1100 transmission.
3. The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) gunner's sight constitutes a target acquisition system which, when operated with other tank systems, gives the tank crew a substantial advantage over potential threats. The TIS provides the gunner and commander with the ability to effectively aim and fire the tank main armament system under a broad range of adverse battlefield conditions.
4. A major survivability feature of the Abrams tank is the compartmentation of fuel and ammunition. Compartmentation is the positive separation of the crew and critical components from combustible materials such that if the fuel or ammunition is ignited or detonated by an incoming threat round, the crew is fully protected. Compartmentation significantly enhances crew survivability and substantially reduces the likelihood of the tank being immobilized by an ammunition explosion and fire.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Norway has requested to buy eight thousand one (8,001) M1156A1 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) multi-option fuzes that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $2.79 million, included PGK cutaway models; fuze wrenches; enhanced portable inductive artillery fuze setters; GPS antennae and cables; improved Platform Integration Kits; PGK-associated hardware for testing; labor support; training aids; technical data and reports; U.S. Government technical assistance; incidental travel; transportation; PGK spare parts; equipment training; and related elements of logistics and program support. This notification is for eight thousand one (8,001) M1156A1 PGK multi-option fuzes. The following non-MDE items will also be included: PGK cutaway models; fuze wrenches; enhanced portable inductive artillery fuze setters; GPS antennae and cables; improved Platform Integration Kits; PGK-associated hardware for testing; labor support; training aids; technical data and reports; U.S. Government technical assistance; incidental travel; transportation; PGK spare parts; equipment training; and related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total program cost is $130 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Norway's capability to meet current and future threats and enhance its interoperability with U.S. and other allied forces. This proposed sale will enhance Norway's artillery and mid-range fire capability. Norway will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, located in Dulles, VA. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Norway.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The M1156A1 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) is a cannon artillery fuze which uses the Global Positioning System to increase the delivery accuracy of standard 155 mm high explosive ammunition. The NA37 M1156A1 includes M-code capability and eliminates the need for an anti-tamper coating to protect critical KDP technology. It is also a height-of-burst fuze, which uses a proximity sensor to cause the round to burst in the air over the enemy, increasing lethality.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Norway can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Norway.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-108, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing and National Funds
(iii)
The Government of Greece has requested that the case be amended to include Aerosonde Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) with Lycoming heavy-fuel engines; Global Positioning System (GPS) with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M-Code; TASE400 Electro Optical (E.O.)/Medium Wave Infrared (MWIR)/Long-Range Spotter-High Definition (LRS-HD) payloads; avionics; video and telemetry datalink subsystems and secondary payload bays; Ground Control Stations; ground data terminals; launch and recovery trailers; ground support equipment; “fly as you drive” M1117 ASV interface kits and integration; initial spares package; initial spares replenishment; new equipment training; program management support; contractor logistics support and Field Service Representative support; technical data and publications; quality assurance services; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. This amendment will cause the case to exceed the notification
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Greece has requested to buy Aerosonde Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) with Lycoming heavy-fuel engines; Global Positioning System (GPS) with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M-Code; TASE400 Long-Range Spotters; avionics; video and telemetry datalink subsystems; Ground Control Stations; ground data terminals; launch and recovery trailers; ground support equipment; “fly as you drive” M1117 ASV interface kits and integration; initial spares package; initial spares replenishment; new equipment training; program management support; contractor logistics support and Field Service Representative support; technical data and publications; quality assurance services; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support, that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold.
The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $99.99 million ($0 in MDE), included M1117 wheeled Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) (through the Excess Defense Article program); MK19 Modification (MOD) 4 Up-Gunned Weapon Systems (UGWS); Concurrent Spare Parts (CSP) packages; spare barrels; U.S. Government and contractor vehicle spare parts; vehicle Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE); vehicle Basic Issue Items (BII); Simplified Nonstandard Acquisition Program (SNAP) spare parts; U.S. Government case management and technical assistance; facility-required equipment; New Equipment Training (NET); Field Service Representative support; Joint Visual Inspection with U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) technical assistance; Packaging, Crating, and Handling with follow-on transportation; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $130 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that continues to be a force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Greece's capability to deter current and future threats, support coalition operations, and increase interoperability with the U.S. Greece will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Textron Systems, located in Hunt Valley, MD. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately eighteen U.S. Government and/or eighteen contractor representatives to travel to Greece for an extended period for equipment de-processing and fielding, system checkout, training, and technical and logistics support.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The NovAtel OEM625S Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver is a small form factor combination of robust Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) GPS positioning. When keyed, the OEM625S provides a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) Precise Positioning System (PPS) solution.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Greece can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22-21, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
(iii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Egypt has requested to buy an additional five hundred forty-three (543) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS) that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $8 million ($5.2 million in MDE), included two hundred sixteen (216) APKWS. This notification is for a combined total of seven hundred fifty-nine (759) APKWS. The following non-MDE items will also be included: test support equipment; spare and repair parts; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; transportation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $30 million.
This proposed sale will support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will address the shared U.S.-Egyptian interest in countering terrorist activities in North Sinai, which threaten regional security and stability. The proposed sale will enhance Egypt's ability to defend itself against regional malign actors and improve interoperability with U.S. forces. It will also improve Egypt's capacity to sustain security operations and strengthen its internal and external defense capabilities. The sale of APKWS will increase the Egyptian Air Force (EAF)'s ability to carry out operations against terrorist forces while significantly reducing risk to civilians. The EAF has already purchased APKWS rockets for use on its Apache aircraft so it will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be BAE Systems, located in Nashua, NH. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this sale will involve multiple trips to Egypt involving U.S. government and contractor representatives for approximately three years for program management, program and technical reviews, training, maintenance support, and site surveys.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a combat-proven, laser-guided 70 mm rocket system. It can be launched from rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft and unmanned platforms to strike ground, air, and sea-based targets, and also supports close air support operations.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) has requested to buy three hundred nine (309) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS JTRS) Variant 5 (V5). The following non-MDE items will also be included: non-recurring engineering; testing, certification, and other activities necessary to integrate the MIDS JTRS V5 Block Upgrade Three on the recipient's Patriot, HE-2K, P-3, and F-16 Block 20 platforms; communications equipment and services needed to accelerate the modernization of the recipient's Advanced Tactical Datalink System; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $265 million.
This proposed sale is consistent with United States (U.S.) law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's ability to meet current and future threats by enhancing communications and network security for its command, control, communications, and computers (C4) capabilities. The support will enhance the recipient's ability to command and control its forces by accelerating the delivery of infrastructure for the secure flow of tactical information. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and these services.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor(s) will be selected through competitive procurements conducted by the U.S. Government in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of five U.S. Government personnel and five contractor representatives to visit the recipient for a duration of up to four weeks to provide engineering and technical support services, as well as program and technical reviews.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/USQ-190 Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) is a secure, jam-resistant communication and positioning system that employs a defined waveform in the 960-1215-megahertz (MHz) Ultra High Frequency (UHF) range for packet message communication and 16 Kilobit digital voice and packet message communication. MIDS significantly increases force command and control (C2) effectiveness. The Tactical Digital Information Link-J (TADIL-J) series message standard is employed by the system as defined in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 5516 and U.S. Military Standard (MIL-STD) 6016. The embedded hardware features provide communications security. MIDS JTRS builds on the earlier MIDS-Low Volume Terminal's (MIDS-LVT) capabilities with the addition of Concurrent Multi-Netting (CMN) and Concurrent Contention Receive (CCR) functions. CMN and CCR dramatically expand the number of platforms and network-enabled systems that can be reliably included in a Link 16 network. These enhancements allow a single MIDS JTRS terminal to simultaneously receive messages on up to four nets within a single Link 16 time slot, compared with on a single net in terminals without CMN and CCR, allowing a user to “hear” messages from up to three additional sources at once.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the recipient can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-96, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Morocco has requested to buy five hundred (500) GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs I (SDB-I); and two (2) GBU-39 (T-1)/B inert practice bombs with fuze. The following non-MDE items will also be included: GBU-39 tactical training rounds; containers, weapons system support, and support and test equipment; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; publications and technical data; personnel training and training equipment; warranties; transportation support; site surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $86 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in North Africa.
The proposed sale will improve Morocco's capability to meet current and future threats. This capability will also strengthen combined operations and increase interoperability between the U.S. Air Force and the Royal Moroccan Air Force. Morocco will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Boeing Corporation, located in St. Louis, MO. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Morocco.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb I (SDB-I) is a 250-pound GPS-aided inertial navigation system with Precise Positioning Services provided by Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module or M-Code, small autonomous, day or night, adverse weather, conventional, air-to-ground precision glide weapon able to strike fixed and stationary re-locatable non-hardened targets from standoff ranges. It is intended to provide aircraft with an ability to carry a high number of bombs. Aircrafts can carry four SDBs in place of one 2,000-pound bomb. This potential sale includes GBU-39 (T-1)/B inert with fuze practice bombs, and GBU-39B Tactical Training Rounds (inert fuze).
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Kingdom of Morocco can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Morocco.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22-38, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Egypt has requested to buy two thousand one hundred eighty-three (2,183) Hellfire Air-to-Ground Missiles, AGM-114R. The following non-MDE items will also be included: spare and repair parts; U.S. Government technical assistance; integrated logistics support; hardware equipment; technical publications; repair and return services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated cost is $630 million.
This proposed sale will support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a country that continues to
The proposed sale will improve Egypt's capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing Egypt's ability to defend itself against regional malign actors and improve interoperability with systems operated by U.S. forces and other regional security partners. Egypt's continued investment in its defensive capabilities is crucial to protecting its borders, transportation infrastructure, and its residents. Egypt will have no difficulty absorbing Hellfire missiles into its armed forces, as they currently use this munition and require stock replenishment.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, located in Orlando, FL. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Egypt.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Hellfire Air-to-Ground Missile, AGM-114R, is a precision strike, Semi-Active Laser (SAL)-guided missile and is the principal air-to-ground weapon for the Army. The AGM-114R missile provides the warfighter with an air-to-ground, point-target precision strike capability to defeat advanced armor and an array of traditional and nontraditional targets.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-11, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control
The Government of the Philippines has requested to buy sixteen (16) F-16 C Block 70/72 aircraft; four (4) F-16 D Block 70/72 aircraft; twenty-four (24) F110-GE-129D or F100-PW-229 Engines (20 installed, 4 spares); twenty-two (22) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (20 installed, 2 spares); twenty-two (22) AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Scalable Agile Beam Radars (SABR) (20 installed, 2 spares); twenty-two (22) Modular Mission Computers 7000AH (or available mission computer) (20 installed, 2 spares); twenty-two (22) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) (EGI) with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M-Code capability and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) (20 installed, 2 spares); eighty-eight (88) LAU-129 guided missile launchers; twenty-two (22) M61A1 anti-aircraft guns (20 installed, 2 spares); twelve (12) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP); twenty-four (24) Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS-JTRS); one hundred twelve (112) Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-120C-8 or equivalent missiles; four (4) AMRAAM guidance sections; thirty-six (36) Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-39/B Small Diameter Bombs Increment 1 (SDB-1); two (2) GBU-39(T-1)/B SDB-1 Guided Test Vehicles; forty (40) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missiles; thirty-two (32) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); four (4) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder guidance units; three (3) AIM-9X Block II Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) guidance units; sixty (60) MK-82 500-lb general purpose bombs; sixty (60) MK-84 2,000-lb general purpose bombs; thirty (30) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) KMU-572 tail kits for GBU-38 or Laser JDAM GBU-54; sixty (60) FMU-152 fuze systems; thirty (30) MAU-210 enhanced computer control groups (ECCG) for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II (EP II); and thirty-two (32) MXU-651 air foil groups (AFG) for GBU-50 EP II. The following non-MDE items will also be included: AN/ALQ-254 Viper Shield (VS) electronic warfare (EW) or equivalent systems; AMRAAM CATMs; AIM-9X Sidewinder training missiles and active optical target detectors (AOTD); Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems; Air Combat Maneuvering Instrument (ACMI) range systems; FMU-139 Joint Programmable Fuzes (JPFs); missile containers; AN/ARC-238 radios; AN/APX-127 or equivalent Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Combined Interrogator Transponders (CIT) with Mode 5; KY-58 and KIV-78 cryptographic devices; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKLs); KGV-250X cryptographic devices; Scorpion Hybrid Optical-based Inertial Trackers (HObIT) or Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems II (JHMCS II) helmet mounted displays; night vision devices (NVDs); spare image intensifier tubes; AN/ALE-47 Airborne Countermeasures Dispenser Systems (CMDS); AN/ALE-47 countermeasure processors; AN/ALE-47 sequencer switching units; AN/ALE-47 Control Display Units (CDUs); precision navigation; Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS); GPS Antenna System (GAS-1) antenna electronics; Sniper pod pylons; ADU-890 and ADU-891 adapter units, LAU-117 and LAU-88 Maverick launchers, impulse cartridges, chaff, flares, ammunition, and other bomb components; BRU-57 bomb racks; BRU-61 munitions carriage assemblies;
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in Southeast Asia.
The proposed sale will enhance the Philippine Air Force's ability to conduct maritime domain awareness and close air support missions and enhance its suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and aerial interdiction capabilities. This sale will also increase the ability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to protect vital interests and territory, as well as expand interoperability with the U.S. forces. The Philippines will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, located in Greenville, SC. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Philippines.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The F-16 Block 70 weapon system is a fourth generation single-engine supersonic all-weather multirole fighter aircraft and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F110-129D engine, AN/APG-83 radar, digital flight control system, embedded internal global navigation system, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS) II or Scorpion Hybrid Optical-based Inertial Tracker (HObIT) with night vision device compatibility, internal and external electronic warfare (EW) equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), Link-16 datalink, operational flight trainer, and software computer systems.
a. General Electric F110-GE-129D and Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-229 engines are afterburning turbofan jet engines that power the F-16. Engine spare modules are kits made up of spare engine components including the following modules: inlet fan, core engine, fan drive turbine, augmenter duct and nozzle, and gear box.
b. The Modular Mission Computer (MMC) 7000AHC is the central aircraft computer of the F-16. It serves as the hub for all aircraft subsystems and avionics data transfer.
c. The Improved Programmable Display Generator (iPDG) and color multifunction displays utilize ruggedized commercial liquid crystal display technology designed to withstand the harsh environment found in modern fighter cockpits. The display generator is the fifth-generation graphics processor for the F-16. Through the use of state-of-the-art microprocessors and graphics engines, it provides orders of magnitude increases in throughput, memory, and graphics capabilities.
d. The APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade for the F-16. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), which creates high-resolution ground maps from a greater distance than prior mechanically scanned array radars (
e. The Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGI) with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM)—or M-Code receiver when available—and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) is a self-contained navigation system that provides the following: acceleration, velocity, position, attitude, platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and coordinated universal time (UTC) synchronized time. SAASM or M-Code enables the GPS receiver access to the encrypted P (Y or M) signal, providing protection against active spoofing attacks.
f. The integrated EW suite provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum radio frequency jamming, and control and management of the entire EW system. This system is anticipated to be internal to the aircraft, although mounted pod variants are used in certain circumstances.
g. AIFF Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT) is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode 5. Mode 4 and Mode 5 anti-jam performance specifications and data, software source code, algorithms, and tempest plans or reports will not be offered, released discussed, or demonstrated.
h. Multifunction Information Distribution System (MIDS) Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) is a four-channel software programmable radio for Link-16 digital voice communications and datalink, Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN), and advanced waveforms. Link-16 is a command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements.
i. The Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) is a high resolution, passive, infrared sensor system that searches for, detects, and tracks threats with infrared signatures at long ranges within its field of regard. It functions without emitting any radiation of its own and enables aircrews to detect adversaries before those adversaries see or sense them.
2. The LAU-129 guided missile launcher is capable of launching the Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-9 family of missiles or AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The LAU-129 launcher provides the mechanical and electrical interface between the missile and aircraft.
3. The M61 Vulcan Cannon is a six-barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x120mm with a cyclic rate of fire from 2,500-6,000 shots per minute. This weapon is a hydraulically powered air-cooled Gatling gun used to damage and destroy aerial targets, suppress and incapacitate personnel targets, and damage and destroy moving and stationary light material targets.
4. The AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod is a single, lightweight targeting pod for military aircraft that provides positive target identification, autonomous tracking, GPS coordinate generation, and precise weapons guidance from extended standoff ranges. It incorporates a high-definition mid-wave forward-looking infrared (FLIR) dual-mode laser, visible-light high-definition television (HDTV), laser spot tracker, video data link (VDL), and digital data recorder.
5. AN/ARC-238 radio with HAVE QUICK II is a voice communications radio system which employs cryptographic technology. Other waveforms may be included as needed.
6. The AN/APX-126/127 AIFF CIT is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode 5. The AN/APX-127 is a form, fit, and function refresh of the AN/APX-126 and is the next generation to be produced.
7. The AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) provides an integrated, threat-adaptive, computer-controlled capability for dispensing chaff, flares, and active radio frequency expendables. The system is internally mounted and may be operated as a stand-alone system or may be integrated with other on-board EW and avionics systems. The AN/ALE-47 uses threat data received over the aircraft interfaces to assess the threat situation and determine a response. Expendable routines tailored to the immediate aircraft and threat environment may be dispensed using one of four operational modes.
8. The KY-58 is a secure voice module primarily used to encrypt radio communication to and from military aircraft and other tactical vehicles.
9. The KIV-78 is a cryptographic applique for Identification Friend or Foe. It can be loaded with Mode 5 classified elements.
10. The AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a handheld device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring data between compatible cryptographic and communications equipment.
11. The Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is a multi-platform, computer-based mission planning system. Its modular suite of systems is tailored to user needs, allowing operators of various aircraft to install modules required for flight planning, weapons delivery planning, post-flight debrief, and operational integration.
12. JHMCS II and Scorpion HObIT are devices used in aircraft to project information to the pilot's eyes and to aid in tasks such as cueing weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. These systems project visual targeting and aircraft performance information on the back of the helmet visor, enabling the pilot to monitor information without interrupting field of view through the cockpit canopy. This provides improved capability in close combat targeting and engagement.
13. The AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missile is a short-range air-to-air missile with a high off-boresight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe, and the ability to integrate a Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). This potential sale will include AIM-9X guidance sections, Active Optical Target Detectors (AOTD), training missiles, Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), and CATM guidance units.
14. The AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. This potential sale will include CATM, as well as AMRAAM guidance and control sections.
15. The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb Increment 1 (SDB-1) is a 250-lb GPS-aided, small autonomous, day or night, adverse weather, conventional, air-to-ground precision glide weapon with an inertial navigation system and able to strike fixed and stationary re-locatable non-hardened targets from standoff ranges. It is intended to provide aircraft with an ability to carry a high number of bombs. Aircraft are able to carry four SDBs in place of one 2,000-lb bomb.
16. Joint Direct-Attack Munitions (JDAM) consist of a bomb body paired with a warhead-specific tail kit containing a GPS/INS guidance capability that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather smart munitions. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM is capable of receiving target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
a. The GBU-38 is a 500-lb JDAM consisting of a KMU-572 tail kit and MK-82 or BLU-111 500-lb bomb body.
b. The GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) is a 500-lb JDAM which incorporates all the capabilities of the JDAM guidance tail kit and adds a precision laser guidance set. The LJDAM gives the weapon system an optional semi-active laser guidance in addition to the INS/GPS guidance. This provides the optional capability to strike moving targets. The GBU-54 consists of a DSU-38 laser guidance set, KMU-572 tail kit, and MK-82 or BLU-111 bomb body.
17. The MK-82 General Purpose (GP) bomb is a 500-lb, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weapon. The MK-82 is designed for soft, fragment-sensitive targets and is not intended for hard targets or penetrations.
18. The Enhanced Paveway II (EP II) Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) is a maneuverable, all-weather, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off the target. The “enhanced” component is the addition of GPS-aided Inertial Navigation Systems (GAINS) guidance to the laser seeker. Laser designation for the LGB can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The EP II consists of an MAU-210 enhanced computer control group (ECCG) that is not warhead-specific and a warhead-specific air foil group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of a GP bomb body.
a. (U) The GBU-50 is 2,000-lb GP bomb body fitted with the MAU 210 CCG and MXU-651 AFG to guide its laser designated target.
19. The MK-84 GP bomb is a 2,000-lb, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weapon. The MK-84 is designed for soft, fragment sensitive targets and is not intended for hard targets or penetrations.
20. The FMU-152 or FMU-139 Joint Programmable Fuze (JPF) is a multi-delay, multi-arm, and proximity sensor compatible with general purpose blast, frag, and hardened-target penetrator weapons. JPF settings are cockpit
21. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
22. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
23. A determination has been made that the Philippines can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
24. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Philippines.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-0G.
(i)
(ii)
Date: May 11, 2023
Implementing Agency: Army
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: forty-seven (47) OT-228/U Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM) and one hundred forty-four (144) “EAGLE-M” aviation navigation systems comprised of Enhanced Aviation Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) systems, Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) instruments, and Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) (EGIs) with M-code. The following non MDE items will also be included: Multi-Platform Anti-Jam GPS Navigation Antenna-Federated (MAGNA-F), Type Designator: AS-4840; communications systems; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost of the new items is $0.63 billion. The estimated MDE value will increase by $0.63 billion to a revised $3.98 billion but will not require an increase in the estimated total case value. Instead, $0.63 billion of the available, previously notified non-MDE value will be transferred to the MDE value, causing a decrease in non-MDE value to $4.52 billion. The estimated total case value will remain at $8.50 billion.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
CIRCM is the next-generation lightweight, laser-based, infrared countermeasure system for rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, and small fixed-wing aircraft. CIRCM provides near spherical coverage of the host platform to defeat infrared-seeking missiles. It receives an angular bearing hand-off from the CMWS or Limited Interim Missile Warning System (LIMWS), and employs a pointing and tracking system that acquires and tracks the incoming missile, and jams the missile using modulated laser energy to degrade the tracking capability of the missile, causing it to miss the aircraft.
The EAGLE-M, also known as EAGLE M+429, contains sensitive technology that provides GPS hardening when loaded with COMSEC keys.
The MAGNA-F antenna nulls unwanted signals using digital processing technology.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-10, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested to buy up to two hundred (200) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); and up to two hundred (200) AIM-120D-3 AMRAAMs. The following non-MDE items will be included: AMRAAM containers and support equipment; spare parts, consumables and accessories, repair and return support; weapons system support and software; classified software delivery and support; classified publications and technical documentation; transportation support; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.04 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. Australia is one of
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by protecting and increasing aircraft survivability. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Tucson, AZ. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120D-3 series Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature, and solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AIM-120D-3 features a quadrangle target detection device and an electronics unit within the guidance section that performs all radar signal processing, mid-course and terminal guidance, flight control, target detection, and warhead detonation. Precise positioning will be provided by either Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module or M-Code.
2. The AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air or surface-launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature, solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets.
3. The AMRAAMs will be integrated on the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) combat aircraft platforms, such as the F/A-18, EA-18G, and F-35, along with the ground-based National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS).
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
6. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-21 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ecuador has requested to buy M4A1 rifles. The following non-MDE items will also be included: Magpul PMAG M4 magazines; technical manuals; training and support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $64 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States (U.S.) by improving the security of Ecuador, an important force for political stability and economic progress in South America.
The proposed sale will improve Ecuador's capability to meet current and future threats by improving the ability of its armed forces to conduct and execute military operations to counter transnational organized crime.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be determined after case implementation. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ecuador.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-12, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Morocco has requested to buy up to six hundred (600) FIM-92K Stinger Block I missiles. The following non-MDE items will also be included: U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $825 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in North Africa.
The proposed sale will improve Morocco's capability to meet current and future threats. Morocco intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces and expand its existing army short range air defense options. This will contribute to the Moroccan Army's goals of updating capability and further enhancing interoperability with the U.S. and other allies. Morocco will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be RTX Corporation, located in Tucson, AZ; and Lockheed Martin, located in Syracuse, NY. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Morocco.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The FIM-92K Stinger Block I missile is a lightweight, self-contained air defense system that can be rapidly deployed by ground troops. Its seeker and guidance systems enable the weapon to acquire, track, and engage a target with one shot.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the Kingdom of Morocco can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Morocco.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-1D.
(i)
(ii)
Date: July 17, 2009
Military Department: Air Force
(iii)
On May 19, 2014, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 14-0C, under section 36(b)(5)(C) of the AECA, of the inclusion of additional Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) to support Australia's fleet of C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft, which increased from four (4) to six (6). The total case value was increased by $150 million, resulting in a total case value of $450 million. There was no MDE associated with this sale.
On December 1, 2017, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 17-0A, under section 36(b)(5)(C) of the AECA, of the further inclusion of additional funding to maintain Australia's participation in the USAF/Boeing Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership (GSP) through 2022. Additionally, Australia's fleet of C-17A Globemaster III cargo aircraft increased from six (6) to eight (8). Support included contractor technical and logistics support services; support equipment; spare and repair parts; and other related elements of logistics support. The total case value increased
This transmittal reports the addition of the following non-MDE items: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services; major modifications and maintenance support; personnel training and training equipment; United States (U.S.) Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items is $4.03 billion. The estimated total case value will increase by $4.03 billion to a revised $4.88 billion. There is no MDE associated with this sale.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-20 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Philippines has requested to buy the following defense articles and services: TH-73A training helicopters; aircraft simulator; spare engines; pack up kits; fuel tanks; aircraft hoists and lifts; commercial avionics; commercial flight management systems; commercial Global Positioning Systems; shipping containers; support and test equipment; consumables and accessories; integration and test support; repair and return support; spare and repair parts; unclassified software delivery and support; unclassified publications and technical documentation; personnel training and commercial training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, logistics, and transportation support services, including in-country representative support; studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $120 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in Southeast Asia.
The proposed sale will improve the Philippines' capability to meet current and future threats by providing an aircraft platform that will serve as the primary method of improving pilot training and skills, thus helping to ensure the development of a proficient rotary wing aviator corps. The Philippines will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (Leonardo), located in Philadelphia, PA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of up to four additional U.S. Government and up to four U.S. contractor representatives to the Philippines for a duration of up to three years to support helicopter introduction, familiarization, fielding, and training.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-01 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) has requested to buy sixteen (16) MK 75 76 mm gun mounts. The following non-MDE items will be included: shipping containers; technical assistance to overhaul guns to be ready for use; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $30 million.
This proposed sale is consistent with United States (U.S.) law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability to meet current and future threats by providing surface and air defenses onboard various ships in inventory. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The equipment will be purchased from U.S. stock and then overhauled to be ready for use condition by the U.S. Coast Guard. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the recipient.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice, request for comment.
In compliance with the
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2026.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically via
Raymond Williams at 202-924-0794, or email
The EAC issues the EAVS to meet its obligations under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information with respect to the administration of Federal elections; to fulfill both the EAC and the Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) data collection requirements under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and meet its National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) mandate to collect information from states concerning the impact of that statute on the administration of Federal elections. In addition, under the NVRA, the EAC is responsible for collecting information and reporting, biennially, to Congress on the impact of that statute. The information the states are required to submit to the EAC for purposes of the NVRA report are found under Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations. States that respond to questions in this survey concerning voter registration-related matters will meet their NVRA reporting requirements under 52 U.S.C. 20508 and EAC regulations. Finally, UOCAVA mandates that FVAP work with the EAC and chief state election officials to develop standards for reporting UOCAVA voting information (52 U.S.C. 20302) and that FVAP will store the reported data and present the findings within the congressionally-mandated report to the President and Congress. Additionally, UOCAVA requires that “not later than 90 days after the date of each regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each state and unit of local government which administered the election shall (through the state, in the case of a unit of local government) submit a report to the EAC on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots which were returned by such voters and cast in the election, and shall make such a report available to the general public.” States that complete and timely submit the UOCAVA section of the survey to the EAC will fulfill their UOCAVA reporting requirement under 52 U.S.C. 20302. In order to fulfill the above requirements, the EAC is seeking information relating to the period from the Federal general election day 2024 +1 through the November 2026 Federal general election. The EAC will provide the data regarding UOCAVA voting to FVAP after data collection is completed. This data sharing reduces burden on local election offices because FVAP does not have to conduct its own data collection to meet its reporting requirements.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc. (the “Complainant”) against HMM Company Limited (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. 40101
Complainant is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of New York with a mailing address in Union, New Jersey.
Complainant identifies Respondent HMM Company Limited as a company existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal place of business located in Seoul, Korea whose agent in the United States is HMM (America), Inc., a company existing under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business located in Irving, Texas.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c); 41104(a)(2), (10), and (14); and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainant alleges these violations arose from a practice of systematically failing to meet service commitments, the use of coercion to require payment of extracontractual surcharges prior to performance of service commitments, the assessment of demurrage and detention charges during periods of time in which Complainant's ability to pick up or return containers was constrained due to circumstances beyond its control, and other acts or omissions of Respondent.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Interchange Transaction Fees Survey (FR 3064; OMB No. 7100-0344).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Collection identifier
The data from the FR 3064a and FR 3064b are used to fulfill a statutory requirement that the Board disclose certain information regarding debit card transactions on a biennial basis. In addition, the Board uses data from the Payment Card Network Survey (FR 3064b) to publicly report on an annual basis the extent to which networks have established separate interchange fees for exempt and covered issuers.
Comments on the DCI survey broadly addressed the following: (A) collecting information on new categories of costs, as well as a detailed list of line items relating to both existing and new cost categories; (B) making certain structural changes to the DCI survey, including with respect to routing methods and fraud; and (C) certain other matters that pertain to the substance of Regulation II or otherwise pertain to the DCI survey only indirectly.
Three commenters asserted that the information collected through the DCI survey is too limited and thus provides an incomplete picture of costs incurred by debit card issuers. Commenters proposed that the Board collect data on certain new categories of costs not currently included in the DCI survey, such as: international fraud losses; card maintenance costs; program setup, infrastructure, and account maintenance costs; research, development, and technology costs; compliance and regulatory costs; periodic statement and account information costs; consumer impact metrics; and an open-ended category of “other” costs.
Two commenters suggested a list of about 40 specific line items that relate to both existing and new cost categories. With respect to existing cost categories, commenters suggested line items related to fraud losses and fraud-prevention costs; transaction processing and network costs; cardholder inquiry costs; cardholder rewards costs; capital and fixed costs; and third-party service provider costs.
Four commenters raised issues related to technology-specific costs. Three commenters recommended including a new cost category for costs related to tokenization and digital wallets, noting the increased popularity of digital wallets. One commenter suggested edits to the definition of “third-party processing fees” to expressly include fees related to third-party service providers that are digital wallet operators; the same commenter also suggested edits to the definition of “transaction monitoring costs” to expressly include, in addition to neural networks and fraud-scoring systems, a catchall reference to other technologies. The commenter also suggested including an additional list of examples to the definition of “total fraud-prevention and data-security costs,” including EMV and contactless card technology, tokenization technology, machine learning and artificial intelligence, technology to allow customers to enable or disable their debit cards, technologies for cardholder authentication, and others.
Two commenters expressed the view that the DCI survey is narrowly focused on costs incurred by issuers and suggested that the Board should also capture the costs incurred by other parties to debit card transactions. With respect to consumers, commenters noted that the DCI survey is not an accurate reflection of consumer costs and suggested that the Board collect data on changes in the availability and terms of free checking accounts and debit card rewards, and changes in consumer fees related to debit card use. With respect to merchants, commenters stated that payment processing fees have emerged as a leading cost to merchants, encompassing a significant portion of fees paid by merchants to accept debit card transactions, and suggested that the DCI survey capture the third-party processor costs incurred by merchants.
The Board has determined to retain the costs included in the DCI survey without change.
With respect to technology-specific comments, the Board also does not believe it is necessary to add a new line item for tokenization and digital wallet costs. However, the Board believes that it is appropriate to clarify that the DCI survey is intended to be technology neutral. So long as the costs incurred by a debit card issuer associated with a particular technology fall within the scope of a question on the DCI survey, those technology costs are already reportable, regardless of the technology involved. For example, although the definition of “transactions monitoring costs” refers specifically to the costs of neural networks and fraud-risk scoring systems as examples, those examples are not intended to be limiting so long as the cost otherwise falls within the definition of transactions monitoring costs. Similarly, costs associated with tokenization and digital wallets are already reportable so long as they fall within the scope of a question in the DCI survey. To avoid any confusion with respect to the definition of transactions monitoring costs, the Board has clarified in the instructions to the DCI survey that transactions monitoring costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of neural networks and fraud-risk scoring.
Three commenters addressed ways in which the Board could restructure aspects of the DCI survey. One commenter asked the Board to remove Sections III and IV of the DCI survey, which require issuers to distinguish between single-message (“SM”) and dual-message (“DM”) debit card transactions, respectively. The commenter asserted that Sections III and IV impose burden on debit card issuers but do not provide actionable insights aligned with the survey's goals. The commenter suggested that the Board instead distinguish between “legacy four-party systems” and “alternative networks” and collect only volume and transaction data specific to routing over alternative networks (regardless of message format).
One commenter suggested that the Board eliminate the separate collection of volume and value data for card-present (“CP”) and card-not-present (“CNP”) transactions. The commenter stated that the distinction between CP and CNP transactions no longer reliably reflects ACS costs nor serves as an accurate proxy for routing options. The commenter explained that CP transactions were traditionally associated with magnetic stripe and chip card use, whereas CNP transactions were typically key-entered and associated with catalog and phone purchases, but that transactions today defy CP and CNP categories. The commenter further explained that, today, card entry can include magnetic stripe, chip, manual key entry, card-on-file, and tokenization. It also notes that the expansion of PINless debit has made it possible to route CNP transactions through payment card networks that traditionally required a PIN. Given the change in the payments landscape and the fact that a single interchange fee cap applies to all transaction types, the commenter argued that it is unnecessary to split debit card data by CP and CNP.
One commenter addressed the DCI survey's reporting requirements for fraudulent debit card transactions. The commenter asserted that requiring issuers to separately report information for different fraud types does not provide practical utility in relation to routing.
One commenter requested that the Board eliminate a requirement to report in-house costs as a subset of a debit card issuer's ACS costs.
The Board has determined that it will retain Sections III and IV of the DCI survey (requiring issuers to separately report information for SM and DM transactions) and continue to require separate reporting of volume and value for CP and CNP transactions. With respect to the specific suggestion that the Board replace SM and DM with alternative and legacy networks, the Board believes it is appropriate to use neutral terms to distinguish between transaction types and that many networks are capable of processing both SM and DM transactions. With respect to the suggestion that certain transactions defy CP and CNP categories, the Board understands that networks continue to distinguish between CP and CNP transactions and believes that the definitions of “card-present transaction” and “card-not-present transaction” in the DCI survey remain clear for the vast majority of transactions.
More broadly, the Board believes that there continues to be value to the Board, Congress, and the broader public in collecting and reporting on data specific
In addition, data regarding SM and DM transactions and CP and CNP transactions provided the Board with insight into gaps in merchant routing choice for CNP transactions. This information prompted the Board to amend Regulation II in 2022 to specify that the requirement that each debit card transaction must be able to be processed on at least two unaffiliated payment card networks applies to CNP transactions, and clarify the requirement that debit card issuers ensure that at least two unaffiliated networks have been enabled to process a debit card transaction.
With respect to fraud, the current subcategories continue to assist the Board in monitoring and reporting on trends in debit card fraud. Although one commenter stated that certain fraud categories are of diminished value, data from the most recent bi-annual report show that each of counterfeit, CNP, and lost and stolen card fraud continues to be a significant source of fraud and that the distribution of fraud across those account types differs between SM and DM transactions.
The Board appreciates comments that the Board should update the DCI survey to align with the FraudClassifier model, but believes it is premature to revisit the subcategories included in the DCI survey. On June 20, 2025, the Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published a request for information (“RFI”) on potential actions to address payments fraud.
With respect to in-house costs, the Board has determined to retain the breakdown of ACS costs by in-house costs, third-party processing fees, and network processing fees. As with subcategories of fraud costs, the Board recognizes that some issuers may have difficulty obtaining the data necessary to accurately report data on in-house costs, but the typical issuer does not appear to experience these issues. Further, the Board uses this data to report information on in-house costs, third-party processing fees, and network fees across low-, mid-, and high-volume issuers (including as a percentage of total ACS costs and on a per-transaction basis). The Board notes that there are different ways in which debit card issuers process transactions and that not reporting these distinctions would deprive the public of information regarding a significant feature of the debit card market. In addition, eliminating a cost breakdown for in-house costs would not eliminate the need for debit card issuers to identify and report those costs as part of their overall ACS costs.
The Board received a number of comments on matters that either do not pertain to the DCI survey or that involve the DCI survey only insofar they involve the substance of Regulation II itself. Comments in this category include comments on the merits of Regulation II and the statute pursuant to which the Board adopted Regulation II; comments regarding the costs that the Board must or should consider when establishing interchange fee standards; comments regarding the publication date of the 2023 data previously collected by the Board;
One commenter asked the Board to update the instructions to the DCI survey to clarify what it means for a merchant to be located in the United States (for example, in the context of online transactions). The Board does not believe it would be appropriate to use the instructions to the DCI survey to address this issue because whether a merchant is located in the United States relates not only to the survey but also to whether Regulation II applies to a particular transaction.
Two commenters provided comments with respect to the PCN survey. One commenter expressed support for the collection of data from small issuers through payment card networks.
One commenter recommended reducing the frequency of the PCN survey, from every year to every two years. The commenter noted that annual reporting is no longer needed to achieve the Board's original purpose for requiring the PCN survey annually and that the commenter estimated that it takes at least 270 hours to complete the survey.
One commenter asked the Board to expand the reporting panel for the PCN survey to include “payment facilitators.”
With respect to the distinction between CP and CNP transactions and SM and DM networks, the Board believes that there continues to be value in collecting data specific to CP and CNP transactions and SM and DM networks, as discussed above.
With respect to the burden on respondents of responding to the PCN survey, the Board appreciates feedback on the number of hours it takes to complete the PCN survey each year. The Board's burden calculations reflect an estimate of the average burden on respondents, and the Board may consider updating its current estimate of average burden if additional respondents comment on its accuracy in the future.
In addition, with respect to the frequency of the PCN survey, the Board continues to believe that annual reporting is useful in connection with monitoring the effectiveness of Regulation II's small issuer exception at this time. Notably, in recent years, the average interchange fee received for exempt transactions has increased materially relative to the average interchange fee received for covered transactions, and the PCN survey is the Board's only source of this data.
Finally, the Board has determined not to expressly state in the survey instrument that payment facilitators are required to complete the PCN survey. Whether or not an entity is required to complete the PCN survey is determined by whether the entity is a “payment card network” as defined in Regulation II (which definition largely reflects the statutory definition and has been in place since 2011) and clarified in the Official Board Commentary on Regulation II.
The Board will adopt the extension, without revision of the FR 3064 as originally proposed.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Applications for Employment with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR 28; OMB No. 7100-0181).
The revisions are effective February 11, 2026.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to implement the Discrimination Complaint Forms (FR 1413; OMB No. 7100-NEW).
The implementation is effective February 11, 2026.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Intermittent Survey of Businesses (FR 1374; OMB No. 7100-0302).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Census of Finance Companies and Other Lenders and Survey of Finance Companies (FR 3033p and FR 3033s; OMB No. 7100-0277).
Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 3033p and FR 3033s, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
A.
• Removing 5 real estate loan items (3.A.1.a through 3.A.3).
• Removing items 8.A and 8.B.
• Removing items 11.A and 11.B.
• Removing 3 questions, 13.A through 13.C, as they were special topic questions added for the 2021 survey.
B.
• Revising general survey instructions and item descriptions for clarity.
• Revising the benchmark date to December 31, 2025.
• Revising any references to “capital leases” to “finance leases.” In lease accounting, under the ASC 842 standard, what was previously termed a capital lease is now referred to as a finance lease.
• Revising item 7.C to say “Notes, Bonds, Debentures, and Non-Recourse Debt.” This is a catch-all bucket for all other short- and long-term debt not elsewhere classified.
• Revising item 7.D to say “Debt Due to Affiliates.”
• Renumbering item 8.C to 8.
• Revising item 10.F to say “Marketing Cost (
• Revising Question 12 and renumbering it to 3.B.4.a so that it is placed next to the relevant item 3.B.4. It assesses the extent of offerings of consumer credit products by the finance company industry. This placement also makes it feasible to identify specialty finance companies and facilitate analysis of profitability at such companies.
3.B.4.a. If your company owns Other Consumer Loans, select all the types available:
C.
• Adding an item for “Real Estate Loans” in section 3.A as question 3.A.1. This positioning is the result of consolidating all the real estate loan items (3.A.1.a through 3.A.3), which are being removed.
• Adding a Question 11.A to assess the current geographical penetration of finance companies and help contribute to the understanding of the structure of finance companies.
11.A. Does your company extend loans and leases in only one state in the U.S.?
• Adding a Question 11.B to assess the current online presence of finance companies. It would help shed light on the trends in the online expansion of finance companies. It would also contribute to the understanding of the implications of financial technology in this sector.
11.B. Does your company extend 50% or more of the loans and leases online?
• Adding a Question 12 to quantify the extent of securitization by finance companies. Since the 2020 Quinquennial Survey of Finance Companies, information on the securitized off-book loans managed by finance companies is no longer being asked. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
12. Did your company securitize loans in 2025?
• Adding a Question 13 to assess respondents' interest in joining the FR 2248 panel of reporters. It would make panel participation easier and improve the panel recruitment effort and outcome.
13. A panel of finance companies report assets and liabilities to the Federal Reserve on a monthly or quarterly basis. The form they use is available for preview at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 11, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
January 27, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 503 014 771#; or via web
James Kaplan, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 864-7150.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is given that the General Services Administration (GSA) proposes to modify an existing system of records, entitled GSA/PPFM-11, Pegasys. This system of records is directed to the records within GSA's financial management system. Pegasys is GSA's financial management system of record for financial transactions and reporting utilized for its main business lines including the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), Public Buildings Service (PBS), and General Management and Administrative Offices.
Submit comments on or before February 11, 2026. This notice is effective upon publication; however, the new or modified routine uses of this action will be active on February 11, 2026.
Comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking
Call or email Richard Speidel, Chief Privacy Officer at 202-969-5830 and
GSA proposes to modify a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
As background, the General Services Administration re-acquired full ownership and responsibility of the Pegasys system from USDA in 2023. The records had previously been managed under USDA/OCFO-10 Financial Systems from 2016 to 2023 and have been managed under the previous version (October 2006, revised January 2014) of this SORN since then. The History section contains additional information related to the disposition of these records.
GSA is adding three routine uses (h, i, and j) to include those uses related to both forwarding information to a member of Congress and breach investigation. GSA is also adding a routine use in accordance with OMB M-25-32 (k). Moreover, GSA is making minor grammatical changes to routine uses a, b, and g to clarify the intent of those uses. GSA is also making technical changes to GSA/PPFM-11 consistent with the template laid out in OMB Circular No. A-108. Accordingly, GSA has made technical corrections and non-substantive language revisions to the following sections: “Policies and Practices for Storage of Records,” “Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records,” “Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records,” “Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards,” “Record Access Procedures,” “Contesting Record Procedures,” and “Notification Procedures.” GSA has also created the following new sections: “Security Classification” and “History.”
Pegasys, GSA/PPFM-11.
Unclassified.
The system's records are maintained on behalf of GSA by Amazon, whose headquarters is located in Seattle, Washington, US.
Deputy Director, Office of Financial Management (BG), U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405.
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-576) as amended.
Pegasys is the GSA core financial management system to make payments and record accounting transactions. This includes funds management (budget execution and purchasing), credit cards, accounts payable, disbursements, standard general ledger, and reporting. The system provides financial transaction processing and financial analysis for its main business lines of Federal supplies and technology, public buildings, and general management and administration offices.
Individuals who appear in this system of records include GSA vendors (members of the public), other federal agency employees, and GSA employees.
Pegasys contains records pertaining to financial information. These records include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following information types: Name, Business Contact information (business email address, business phone number, etc.), Social Security Number (SSN), home address, banking information, and limited information related to GSA-issued credit cards.
The sources for information in this system are the individuals about whom the records are maintained as well as information assigned by GSA (such as credit card issuance information).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside GSA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. In a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body before which the agency is authorized to appear, when (a) the agency, or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the agency has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where the agency determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of -its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the agency determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation.
b. To officials authorized by GSA to conduct investigations, who are investigating or settling a grievance, complaint, or appeal filed by an individual who is the subject of the record.
c. To a Federal agency in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee; the issuance of a security clearance; the reporting of an investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant, license, or other benefit to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to a decision.
d. To the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the information is required for program evaluation purposes.
e. To an expert, consultant, or contractor of GSA in the performance of a Federal duty to which the information is relevant, to a board, committee, commission, or small agency receiving administrative services from GSA to which the information relates; or an expert, consultant, or contractor of a board, committee, commission, or small agency receiving administrative services from GSA to which the information relates in the performance of a Federal duty to which the information is relevant.
f. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management purposes.
g. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) GSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) GSA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, GSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with GSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
h. To a Member of Congress or staff on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record.
i. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when GSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1)
j. To compare such records to other agencies' systems of records or to non-Federal records, in coordination with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) in conducting an audit, investigation, inspection, evaluation, or some other review as authorized by the Inspector General Act.
k. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
All records are stored electronically in a database. Information is encrypted in transit and at rest.
Information on individuals contained in Pegasys records are retrievable by name or other identifier.
Records are retained in the system to support transactional integrity and will be retained according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 1.1—Financial Management and Reporting Recording Records.
Access is limited to authorized individuals with passwords, and the database is maintained behind a certified firewall. Information on individuals is released only to authorized persons with a lawful government purpose and in accordance with the provisions of routine use. Additionally, vulnerability scanning, real-time intrusion detection, firewall monitoring and alerts, database monitoring, site protection monitoring, identity management monitoring, virus and compliance scans are performed on a scheduled basis to ensure adequate security measures are in place to prevent unauthorized access.
If an individual wishes to access any data or record pertaining to him or her in the system after it has been submitted, that individual should consult the GSA's Privacy Act implementation rules available at 41 CFR part 105-64.2.
If an individual wishes to contest the content of any record pertaining to him or her in the system after it has been submitted, that individual should consult the GSA's Privacy Act implementation rules available at 41 CFR part 105-64.4.
If an individual wishes to be notified at his or her request if the system contains a record pertaining to him or her after it has been submitted, that individual should consult the GSA's Privacy Act implementation rules available at 41 CFR part 105-64.4.
None.
The initial Notice in connection with this system of records was published on October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60710). Under GSA, a first updated Notice was published on April 25, 2008 (73 FR 22396) and a second updated Notice was published on December 31, 2013 (78 FR 79694). These records were then transferred to the US Department of Agriculture and administered under USDA/OCFO-10, which was previously published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Bayesian Methodology in Clinical Trials of Drug and Biological Products.” This document provides guidance on the appropriate use of Bayesian methods in clinical trials. The primary focus is on the use of Bayesian methods to support primary inference in pivotal clinical trials designed to support the effectiveness and safety of drug and biological products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 13, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Scott N. Goldie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 3557, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2055,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Bayesian Methodology in Clinical Trials of Drug and Biological Products.” This document provides guidance to sponsors and applicants submitting investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), biologics licensing applications (BLAs) or supplemental applications on the appropriate use of Bayesian methods in clinical trials. The primary focus of this guidance is on the use of Bayesian methods to support primary inference in pivotal clinical trials designed to support the effectiveness and safety of drug and biological products. This draft guidance is being issued to satisfy a commitment under the sixth reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act to publish draft guidance on the use of Bayesian methodology in clinical trials of drugs and biological products.
Bayesian statistics is an approach to estimation and inference based on the use of Bayes' theorem. In a Bayesian analysis, data collected in a study are combined with a prior distribution that expresses a pre-study position about a parameter of interest to form a posterior distribution that expresses the updated, post-study position about the parameter of interest. The prior distribution often represents a summary of data or information available before the study begins. The posterior distribution is used for inference and to draw conclusions about the study results.
The draft guidance addresses relevant considerations on how to appropriately design clinical trials using Bayesian approaches. The document describes settings where Bayesian methods have been used and provides recommendations related to the choice of success criteria, evaluation of trial operating characteristics, and determination of the prior distribution. It includes detailed considerations for use of an informative prior to borrow external information in the primary analysis of a prospective trial. The document also discusses estimands and missing data, software and computation, and documentation and reporting considerations for trials that use Bayesian methods.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Bayesian Methodology in Clinical Trials of Drug and Biological Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR 312 pertaining to the submissions of investigational new drug applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR 314 and 21 CFR 601 pertaining to the submission of new drug applications and biologic licensing applications have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend as well as those who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, must notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH Clinical Center.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the Clinical Center, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide an opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by March 13, 2026.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact Melissa Park, PRA Liaison, Office of Management Policy and Compliance, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 2E196, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-5717 or email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 9,337 hours.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Registration is not required to attend this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice before the meeting or within 15 days after the meeting. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, 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 6, 2024.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 6, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.
Dr. Laura Granell-Ortiz, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1881 West State Rd. 84, Suite 105, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315, 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. Intertek USA, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, 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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of fee adjustments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is adjusting the fixed fees set forth in the Department of the Interior's onshore mineral resources regulations for the processing of certain minerals program-related documents and actions.
The adjusted fees take effect on January 12, 2026.
John G. Ajak, Deputy Division Chief of Fluid Minerals, 505-549-9654,
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1953, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1734, authorize the BLM to charge fees for processing applications and other documents related to public lands. In 2005, the BLM published a final cost recovery rule (70 FR 58854) that established new fees or revised existing fees for processing documents related to its minerals program. This rule also established the method that the BLM uses to adjust those fees and services charges for inflation on an annual basis.
BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3000.120 provide that the BLM Director will post the fees on the BLM's web page (
The fee adjustments are based on mathematical formulas that were established in the 2005 final cost recovery rule and, in the case of the Application for Permit to Drill fee, section 3021(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. For more details on how the BLM calculates the fee increases, please refer to the BLM website.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Effective December 31, 2025.
Peter Stebbins ((202) 205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal ((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 ((202) 205-2000). General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective June 2, 2025, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from China and India, following preliminary determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that such imports were being subsidized by the governments of China and India and being sold at less than fair value. Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
Commerce has issued a final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with respect to overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from China (90 FR 39369 and 90 FR 39374, August 15, 2025). The Commission subsequently issued its final determinations that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from China, provided for in subheading 7320.20.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value, and imports of the subject merchandise from China that have been found to be subsidized by the government of China (90 FR 47820, October 2, 2025).
Commerce issued a final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from India (90 FR 61366 and 90 FR 61369, December 31, 2025). Accordingly, the Commission currently is issuing a supplemental schedule for its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from India.
This supplemental schedule is as follows: the deadline for filing supplemental party comments on final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from India is 5:15 p.m. on January 15, 2026. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with respect to imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from India. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. The supplemental staff report in the final phase of the current investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 28, 2026, and a public version will be issued thereafter.
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 C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
On September 29, 2025, American Chrome & Chemicals, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of chromium trioxide from India and LTFV imports of chromium trioxide from India and Turkey. Accordingly, effective September 29, 2025, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-779 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1765-1766 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 2, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5968 (January 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 12, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of UnaliWear, Inc. of Austin, Texas. Supplements to the complaint were filed on December 31, 2025 and January 5, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable devices with fall detection and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,051,410 (“the '410 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,687,193 (“the '193 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 of the '410 patent and claims 1-43 of the '193 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “electronic watches with the capability to detect when a user has suffered a fall, and components thereof”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following
(a) The complainant is: UnaliWear, Inc., 3901 S Lamar Blvd., Suite 150, Austin, TX 78704.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of cancellation of open hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing on February 6, 2026.
February 6, 2026.
Carolyn A. Dubay, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,
The announcement for this hearing was previously published in the
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
Sections 3302(c)(2)(A) and 3302(d)(3) of FUTA provide that employers in a state that has outstanding advances under Title XII of the Social Security Act on January first of two or more consecutive years are subject to a reduction in credits otherwise available against the FUTA tax for the calendar year in which the most recent such January first occurs, if advances remain on November 10 of that year. Further, Section 3302(c)(2)(C) of FUTA provides for an additional credit reduction for a year if a state has outstanding advances on five or more consecutive January firsts and has a balance on November 10 for such years. Section 3302(c)(2)(C) provides for waiver of this additional credit reduction and substitution of the credit reduction provided in Section 3302(c)(2)(B) if a state meets certain conditions.
As of January 1, 2025, California, Connecticut, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands had outstanding advances for two or more consecutive years and employers in these states were potentially subject to a FUTA credit reduction for 2025. Connecticut and New York each repaid their outstanding advances before November 10, 2025. As a result, employers in Connecticut and New York are not subject to a FUTA credit reduction for 2025. Neither California nor the U.S. Virgin Islands repaid all outstanding advances before November 10, 2025.
California has had outstanding advances on January first for five consecutive years, and the U.S. Virgin Islands has had outstanding advances on January first for sixteen consecutive years. As such, employers in California and the U.S. Virgin Islands are subject to the basic credit reduction under Section 3302(c)(2)(A), FUTA, and were potentially liable for an additional reduction under Section 3302(c)(2)(C), FUTA. Both California and the U.S. Virgin Islands applied for a waiver of this additional credit reduction and ETA determined that each state legally satisfied the conditions for this waiver per Section 3302(f)(2)(B), FUTA. Therefore, there will be no additional add-on credit reduction in California or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Employers in California are subject to a FUTA credit reduction of 1.2 percent for 2025. Employers in the U.S. Virgin Islands are subject to a FUTA credit reduction of 4.5 percent for 2025.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-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 February 11, 2026.
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
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provides that under certain circumstances participants and beneficiaries of group health plans that satisfy the definition of “qualified beneficiaries” under COBRA may elect to continue group health coverage temporarily following events known as “qualifying events” that would otherwise result in loss of coverage.
Under the regulatory guidelines, plan administrators are required to distribute notices: a general notice to be distributed to all participants in group health plans subject to COBRA; an employer notice that must be completed by the employer upon the occurrence of a qualifying event; a notice and election form to be sent to a participant upon the occurrence of a qualifying event that might cause the participant to lose group health coverage; an employee notice that may be completed by a qualified beneficiary upon the occurrence of certain qualifying events such as divorce or disability; and, two other notices, one of early termination and the other a notice of unavailability. Also included in the ICR are two model notices that the Department believes will help reduce costs for service providers in preparing and delivering notices to comply with the regulations. 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 cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-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 February 11, 2026.
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
The term “multiple employer welfare arrangement” (MEWA) is defined in Section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as an employee welfare benefit plan or any other arrangement which is established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing [welfare plan benefits] to the employees of two or more employers, (including one or more self-employed individuals), or their beneficiaries, except that such term does not include any such plan or other arrangement which is established or maintained under or pursuant to one or more agreements which the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) finds to be collective bargaining agreements. Under Section 514(b)(6) of ERISA, an employee welfare benefit plan that is a MEWA is generally subject to state insurance law. The Department's regulation at 29 CFR 2510.3-40 sets forth criteria for determining when an employee welfare benefit plan is established or maintained under or pursuant to collective bargaining agreements for purposes of section 3(40) of ERISA. The
To initiate adjudicatory proceedings, an entity is required to file a petition for a determination under Section 3(40) of ERISA with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The petition must identify the parties, describe the basis on which the petition is being filed and the entity in question, provide evidence that the entity satisfies the criteria to be an employee welfare benefit plan, and include affidavits as to both the competency of the affiant to testify and the facts that allegedly establish the entity as a plan established under or pursuant to agreements that the Secretary finds to be a collective bargaining agreement. . . For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-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 February 11, 2026.
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
The Statutory Exemption for Cross-Trading of Securities regulation (29 CFR 2550.408b-19) implements the content requirements for the written cross-trading policies and procedures required under section 408(b)(19)(H) of ERISA, as added by section 611(g) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (the PPA). Section 611(g)(1) of the PPA created a statutory exemption, added to section 408(b) of ERISA as subsection 408(b)(19), that exempts from the prohibitions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(b)(2) of ERISA those cross-trading transactions involving the purchase and sale of a security between an account holding assets of a pension plan and any other account managed by the same investment manager, provided that certain conditions are satisfied.
On October 7, 2008, the Department issued final regulations regarding cross-trading policies and procedures (73 FR 58450). The regulation provides that the policies and procedures for cross-trading under the statutory exemption must meet certain content requirements.
The statutory exemption requires, as a condition to exemptive relief, that an investment manager's policies and procedures regarding cross-trading be provided in advance to the fiduciary of any plan that is considering agreeing to allow its assets to be managed under the investment manager's cross-trading program. The investment manager is also required, under the statutory exemption, to designate a compliance officer responsible for periodically reviewing the investment manager's cross-trading program to ensure compliance with the investment manager's cross-trading written policies and procedures. The statutory exemption requires the compliance officer to issue an annual report to each plan fiduciary describing the steps performed during the course of the review, the level of compliance, and any specific instances of noncompliance. The exemption does not require any reporting or filing with the Federal government. 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 cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
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.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0425 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.500(d) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in or inby the last open crosscut is critical to the safety of the miners at the Bailey Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Bailey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0428 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.500(d) provides in relevant part:
All other electric face equipment which is taken into or used inby the last crosscut of any coal mine, except a coal mine referred to in § 75.501, which has not been classified under any provision of law as a gassy mine prior to March 30, 1970, shall be permissible.
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(1) Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer
(2) Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer
(3) Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer
(4) Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in or inby the last open crosscut is critical to the safety of the miners at the Enlow Fork Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Enlow Fork Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0429 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut is critical to the safety of the miners at the Enlow Fork Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in return air outby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Enlow Fork Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Kennecott Utah Copper LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0356 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The Kennecott Keystone Underground mine is an underground portal copper mine with 14 refuge chambers located throughout the underground portion of the mine.
(b) In the refuge areas, drinkable water is supplied via commercially purchased water in sealed bottles.
(c) The refuge chambers are Mine ARC refuge chambers and are made of steel. The refuge chambers are equipped for a maximum capacity of between 4 and 20 miners each. This capacity exceeds the normal work crew of approximately 65 miners underground on any shift.
(d) Each refuge chamber is provided with a waterline. The water flowing through these lines is not potable due to the configuration of the waterlines and the water source. Installing waterlines to provide potable drinking water to each refuge chamber is not feasible due to the lack of essential infrastructure.
(e) The waterlines are susceptible to damage during an emergency and under normal working conditions. The water supply could be compromised, polluted, or cut off completely.
(f) In an emergency, there can be no guarantee of potable drinking water via the waterline for miners using the refuge area, as required by 30 CFR 57.11052(d). Application of the standard could adversely impact the safety of the affected miners if they were to rely on waterlines running from the portal to the refuge chambers, as these lines are subject to interruption and are inherently less safe than sanitary sealed water bottles located inside the refuge chambers. Sealed water stored inside each refuge chamber ensures that affected miners will have sanitary drinking water available to them in an emergency.
(g) The requirement of 30 CFR 57.11052 can also pose operational constraints as the 14 refuge chambers are mobile and periodically relocated to accommodate mining progress. Permanent connections would hinder operational flexibility and pose logistical challenges. Allowing the use of refuge chambers which do not have to be connected to waterlines provides greater flexibility in the location of the refuge chambers. Refuge chambers can be located in direct relation to where miners are working and relocated quickly to working areas as needed for the protection of miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) Maintain a minimum of 4.5 liters of potable water per person via commercially available water in sealed individual portion sized bottles in each refuge chamber to support the maximum occupancy for at least 36 hours.
(b) Water shall be stored in a manner that makes the expiration dates readily visible for inspection.
(c) Kennecott Utah Copper LLC will replace the existing water supply with fresh water before the expiration date of the water.
(d) All refuge chambers have 36-hour battery back-up power to run all systems.
(e) The refuge chambers with are equipped with atmospheric monitoring and air purification systems (manual and digital).
(f) The refuge chambers are equipped with MARCISORB chemical absorber cartridges to remove the buildup of harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) from the air inside the refuge chamber.
(g) Conduct monthly inspections, all personnel performing maintenance on refuges chambers are trained and certified by the manufacturer to conduct inspection and repairs on the chambers. OEM required service of the chambers are performed every 4 months.
(h) Provide training to all underground personnel on refuge chamber use and emergency protocols including instructions for conservation of water in the refuge chambers.
There are no representatives of miners at Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC, Kennecott Keystone Underground. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of September 4, 2025.
In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the MineSafe MS-CD1-04-ELVP-36 refuge area, specification sheets for the Mine Safe MS-SD2-12-SIV-36 refuge area, the GuardIAN Intelligence Network brochure, and the mine map for Kennecott Keystone Underground.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Greenbrier Smokeless Coal Mining, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0389 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The mandatory safety standard for which this modification is requested is 30 CFR 75.312(c), which requires the automatic fan signal device for each main mine fan to be tested at least every 31 days by stopping the fan. Only personnel essential to evaluating the fan stoppage or restart are permitted underground during this test.
(b) The mine uses one main mine fan for ventilation.
(c) The current practice of stopping and restarting the fans for testing poses hazards, causes operational delays, and can damage equipment.
(d) Airflow disruption can lead to increased risk of fire or explosion.
(e) If a fan fails to restart quickly, a lengthy process involving examination and production halt is necessary.
(f) Repeated stopping and starting can also damage fan systems.
(g) The mine operates continuously with miners present 24 hours on weekdays and 15 hours +/− on weekends, and stopping fans disrupts operations and requires removing many miners.
(h) The mine does not liberate significant methane but has extensive sealed areas and old works, making reliable ventilation crucial.
(i) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
There are no representatives of miners at Mountaineer Pocahontas No. 1 Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of September 24, 2025.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0424 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.1002(a) provides in relevant part:
Electric equipment must be permissible and maintained in a permissible condition when such equipment is located within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is critical to the safety of the miners at the Harvey Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Harvey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0427 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes,
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.1002(a) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is critical to the safety of the miners at the Bailey Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the longwall faces or more than 150 feet from pillar workings.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Bailey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0426 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut is
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in return air outby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Bailey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0422 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.500(d) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.500(d) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in or inby the last open crosscut is critical to the safety of the miners at the Harvey Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Harvey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0430 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.1002(a) provides in relevant part:
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.1002(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is critical to the safety of the miners at the Enlow Fork Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the longwall faces or more than 150 feet from pillar workings.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Enlow Fork Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 11, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2025-0423 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a), as it pertains to use of battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment, laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic measuring devices, electronic component testers and electronic tachometers, etc.
(b) That standard 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) provides in relevant part:
All electric equipment, other than power-connection points, used in return air outby the last open crosscut in any coal mine shall be permissible except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(c) On occasion mining equipment breaks down in areas of a mine where permissible equipment is required and the equipment cannot be moved into intake air to perform diagnosis or repairs. It may not be possible to move it or is unsafe to move it. Permissible diagnostic and testing equipment is not available for all types of testing and diagnostics.
(d) In addition, preventative maintenance requires the use of sophisticated monitoring devices to ensure against catastrophic failure of equipment. Some equipment that is critical,
(e) While the petitioner seeks a modification consistent with the modifications previously granted to other operators it also specifically seeks modification as to certain vibration analysis devices. The vibration analysis devices that would specifically be subject to this petition are as follows:
(f) Such instruments are used by the petitioner and contractors to analyze for excessive vibration in order to provide information to avoid catastrophic failure of parts of the longwall face and other face equipment as well as on continuous miners.
(g) Such equipment as the longwall shearer, face conveyer drive motors cannot be moved out of the face areas where permissible equipment is normally required.
(h) In addition, the petitioner seeks a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA similar and identical to what other mine operators have been granted without specification of specifics models of laptops, oscilloscopes and other testing equipment. It does not intend at this time to separately specify the makes and models of such equipment. Should the petitioner intend to use such equipment, it would notify the District Manager for such approvals.
(i) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 75.507-1(a) as it applies to use of low voltage battery-powered non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment.
(j) The mine utilizes the continuous miner and longwall method of mining.
(k) Accurate testing and diagnostics for trouble shooting equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut is critical to the safety of the miners at the Harvey Mine and to the repair and maintenance of its mining equipment.
(l) The petitioner seeks an alternative method to the mandatory safety standard, asserting it will provide the same or greater level of safety for miners.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All non-permissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in return air outby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(b) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut.
(c) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and the non-permissible equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(d) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(e) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(f) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this petition, a “hazardous” location is one where the methane is at 1% or higher.
(g) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
(h) Rock dust shall be liberally applied to the area where testing is to be conducted.
(i) Non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment shall be used only when equivalent permissible equipment is not available.
(j) The operator shall post this Petition in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, at all the mines for which this Petition applies, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days and a copy will be made available to all miners' representatives.
(k) The petitioner shall include the listed terms and conditions in the initial and annual refresher training as required in its approved Part 48 training plans to ensure that miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition.
There are no representatives of miners at Harvey Mine. A copy of this Petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of October 3, 2025. In support of the proposed alternative method, the petitioner has also submitted specification sheets for the Emerson AMS 2140 Machinery Health Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada vb7 Portable Data Collection Analyzer and Balancer; Bentley Nevada Scout 100 EX Vibration Data Collector Analyzer Balancer; and the Bentley Nevada Commtest Scout 140, VBX and Scout Unit.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval of information collections.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically. Commenters who submit comments on paper by mail should allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
All submissions received must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and refer to the multiemployer information collection and corresponding OMB control number. All comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website,
Copies of the collections of information may also be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division (
Monica O'Donnell (
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of the collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
The existing collections of information are approved through May 31, 2026, under each collection's respective OMB control number. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval of the collections of information for 3 years. 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.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments should identify the specific part number(s) of the regulation(s) to which they relate.
Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA allow PBGC to permit a multiemployer plan to adopt special rules for determining whether a withdrawal from the plan has occurred, subject to PBGC approval.
The regulation specifies the information that a plan that adopts special rules must submit to PBGC about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the plan operates. PBGC uses the information to determine whether the rules are appropriate for the industry in which the plan functions
PBGC estimates that over the next 3 years, at most one plan sponsor will submit a request each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 4 hours and $15,000.
If an employer's covered operations or contribution obligation under a plan ceases, the employer must generally pay withdrawal liability to the plan. Section 4204 of ERISA provides an exception, under certain conditions, where the cessation results from a sale of assets. Among other things, the buyer must furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale contract must provide for secondary liability of the seller.
The regulation establishes general variances (rules for avoiding the bond/escrow and sale-contract requirements) and authorizes plans to determine whether the variances apply in particular cases. It also allows buyers and sellers to request individual variances from PBGC. Plans and PBGC use the information to determine whether employers qualify for variances.
PBGC estimates that over the next 3 years, 100 employers will submit, and 100 plans will respond to, variance requests under the regulation, and one employer submits a variance request to PBGC each year. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1,050 hours and $702,000.
Section 4207 of ERISA allows PBGC to provide for abatement of an employer's complete withdrawal liability, and for plan adoption of alternative abatement rules, where appropriate.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits a plan to adopt its own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year over the next 3 years, at most one employer will submit, and one plan will respond to an application for abatement of complete withdrawal liability, and no plan sponsors will request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.5 hours and $1,000.
Section 4208 of ERISA provides for abatement, in certain circumstances, of an employer's partial withdrawal liability and authorizes PBGC to issue additional partial withdrawal liability abatement rules.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits a plan to adopt its own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year over the next 3 years, at most one employer will submit, and one plan will respond to an application for abatement of partial withdrawal liability, and no plan sponsors will request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.50 hours and $1,000.
Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA requires PBGC to prescribe how plans can, with PBGC approval, change the way they allocate unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability.
The regulation prescribes the information that must be submitted to PBGC by a plan seeking such approval. PBGC uses the information to determine how the amendment changes the way the plan allocates unfunded vested benefits and how the amendment will affect the risk of loss to plan participants and PBGC.
PBGC estimates that each year over the next 3 years, 10 plan sponsors will submit approval requests under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 200 hours and $200,000.
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA requires that PBGC prescribe regulations for the allocation of a plan's total unfunded vested benefits in the event of a “mass withdrawal.” Section 4209(c) of ERISA deals with an employer's liability for de minimis amounts if the employer withdraws in a “substantial withdrawal.”
The reporting requirements in the regulation give employers notice of a mass withdrawal or substantial withdrawal and advise them of their rights and liabilities. They also provide notice to PBGC so that it can monitor the plan, and they help PBGC assess the possible impact of a withdrawal event on participants and the multiemployer plan insurance program.
PBGC estimates that over the next 3 years, there will be two mass withdrawals and one substantial withdrawal per year. The plan sponsor of a plan subject to a withdrawal covered by the regulation provides notices of the withdrawal to PBGC and to employers covered by the plan, liability assessments to the employers, and a certification to PBGC that assessments have been made. For a mass withdrawal, there are two assessments and two certifications that deal with two different types of liability. For a substantial withdrawal, there is one assessment and one certification (combined with the withdrawal notice to PBGC). The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 15 hours and $49,500.
Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan may, within certain limits, adopt special plan rules regarding when a withdrawal from the plan occurs and how the withdrawing employer's withdrawal liability is determined. Any such special rule is effective only if, within 90 days after receiving notice and a copy of the rule, PBGC either approves or fails to disapprove the rule.
The regulation provides rules for requesting PBGC's approval of an amendment. PBGC needs the required information to identify the plan; evaluate the risk of loss, if any, posed by the plan amendment; and determine whether to approve or disapprove the amendment.
PBGC estimates that each year over the next 3 years, at most one plan sponsor will submit an approval request under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 2 hours and $8,000.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for extension of OMB approval of information collection.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information for the termination premium under its regulation on Payment of Premiums. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website,
Jose Singer-Freeman (
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PBGC's premium regulations (29 CFR parts 4006 and 4007) (OMB control number 1212-0064, expires March 31, 2026). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
PBGC administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of ERISA. Section 4006(a)(7) of ERISA provides for a “termination premium” (in addition to the flat-rate and variable-rate premiums under sections 4006(a)(3) and (8)) that is payable for 3 years following certain distress and involuntary plan terminations. PBGC's regulations on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) and Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007) implement the termination premium. Sections 4007.3 and 4007.13(b) of the premium payment regulation require the filing of termination premium information and payments with PBGC.
In general, the termination premium applies where a single-employer plan terminates in a distress termination under section 4041(c) of ERISA (unless contributing sponsors and controlled group members meet the bankruptcy liquidation requirements of section 4041(c)(2)(B)(i)) or in an involuntary termination under section 4042 of ERISA, and the termination date under section 4048 of ERISA is after 2005.
The termination premium is payable for 3 years and the same amount is payable each year. The termination premium is due on the 30th day of each of 3 consecutive 12-month periods. The first 12-month period generally begins shortly after the termination date or after the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings in certain cases. The termination premium and related information must be filed by a person liable for the termination premium. The persons liable for the termination premium are contributing sponsors and members of their controlled groups, determined on the day before the plan termination date. Section 4007.10 of PBGC's Payment of Premiums regulation requires the retention of records supporting or validating the computation of premiums paid and requires that the records be made available to PBGC.
PBGC uses Form T and its corresponding instructions for paying the termination premium. The existing Form T and its corresponding instructions is approved through March 31, 2026, under OMB control number 1212-0064. On August 4, 2025, PBGC published in the
PBGC estimates that, during the next 3 years, it will receive an average of 1 Form T filing per year. PBGC estimates that the total annual burden for the collection of information will be 5 minutes and $67.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
On December 29, 2025, the Postal Service filed the FY 2025 Performance Report and FY 2026 Performance Plan with its FY 2025 Annual Compliance Report. 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.
Each year the Postal Service must submit to the Commission its most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report.
The FY 2026 Plan reviews the Postal Service's plans for FY 2026. The FY 2025 Report discusses the Postal Service's progress during FY 2025 toward its four performance goals:
Each year, the Commission must evaluate whether the Postal Service met the performance goals established in the annual performance plan and annual performance report. 39 U.S.C. 3653(d). The Commission may also “provide recommendations to the Postal Service related to the protection or promotion of public policy objectives set out in” Title 39.
Since Docket No. ACR2013, the Commission has evaluated whether the Postal Service met its performance goals in reports separate from the
• Did the Postal Service meet its performance goals in FY 2025?
• Do the FY 2025 Report and the FY 2026 Plan meet applicable statutory requirements, including 39 U.S.C. 2803 and 2804?
• What recommendations should the Commission provide to the Postal Service that relate to protecting or promoting public policy objectives in Title 39?
• What recommendations or observations should the Commission make concerning the Postal Service's strategic initiatives?
• What other matters are relevant to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2025 Report and the FY 2026 Plan under 39 U.S.C. 3653(d)?
Comments by interested persons are due no later than March 13, 2026. Reply comments are due no later than March 27, 2026. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2025 Report and the FY 2026 Plan.
1. The Commission invites public comments on the Postal Service's FY 2025 Report and FY 2026 Plan.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2025 Report and the FY 2026 Plan.
3. Comments are due no later than March 13, 2026.
4. Reply comments are due no later than March 27, 2026.
5. This Order shall be published in the
By the Commission.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On June 25, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On August 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 14a-6(n) (17 CFR 240.14a-6(n)) requires any person that engages in a proxy solicitation subject to Exchange Act Rule 14a-2(b)(4) (17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(4)) to file a Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (“Notice”) (17 CFR 240.14a-104) with the Commission. The Notice provides
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain Exchange rules to list and trade options on the Grayscale CoinDesk Crypto 5 ETF. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend certain Exchange rules to list and trade options on shares or other securities (“Exchange-Traded Fund Shares”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS Stock” under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS and that represent interests in the Grayscale CoinDesk Crypto 5 ETF (“GDLC”).
Current Rule 915 provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in the Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (or ETFs), as defined in Commentary .06, that represent certain types of
GDLC is one of the world's largest diversified crypto investment funds by assets under management as of the date of this filing. GDLC has approximately $479.7 million in assets under management,
Like ETFs and ETPs currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the investment objective of GDLC is for its shares to reflect the value of the fund's components (less the fund's expenses and other liabilities), offering investors an opportunity to gain investment exposure to the digital assets held by the fund. Each share of GDLC represents units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the fund, the assets of which consist of five of the most widely-held digital assets and is designed to track such digital assets or the performance of the price of such digital assets and offer access to the digital asset market.
The Exchange believes GDLC satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards set forth in Commentary .01 to Rule 915.
As an initial matter, GDLC satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 915(a). Pursuant to Rule 915(a), a security on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be duly registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act) and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of November 21, 2025, GDLC had the following number of shares outstanding (and corresponding market capitalization):
As shown above, GDLC has significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding, which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Commentary .01(1) to Rule 915. The Exchange believes this demonstrates that GDLC is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares.
Further, the table below contains information regarding the number of beneficial holders of GDLC, as of September 24, 2024:
As the table above shows, GDLC has significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 8 times more), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to pursuant to Commentary .01(2) to Rule 915. Therefore, the Exchange believes the shares of GDLC are widely held.
In addition, the Exchange believes the shares of GDLC are actively traded. As of November 21, 2025, the total trading volume (by shares and notional) for GDLC since it began trading
As demonstrated above, even though GDLC has been trading for less than one year, its trading volume is substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (approximately four times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a corporate stock in order to list options on that security as set forth in Commentary .01 to Rule 915. The Exchange believes this data demonstrates that GDLC is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded.
In addition to satisfying the Exchange's initial listing standards, options on GDLC will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards as set forth in Commentary .07 to Rule 916.
Options on GDLC will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 903, Commentary .05(a), which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on GDLC will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
Further, the Exchange notes that Rule 462, which governs margin requirements applicable to the trading of all options on the Exchange, including options on ETFs and ETPs, will also apply to the trading of GDLC options.
Rule 903G(a)(1) permits the Exchange to authorize for trading a FLEX option class on any equity security if it may authorize for trading a non-FLEX option class on that equity security pursuant to Rule 915.
Position and exercise limits for options, including options on GDLC, are determined pursuant to Rules 904 and 905, respectively. Position and exercise limits for options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying security over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded funds have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization funds have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market.
Position limits are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the Exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. The purpose of position limits, which are set forth in Rule 904, is to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. As such, position limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that investors may use for legitimate economic purposes. To achieve this balance, the Exchange proposes to set the position and exercise limits for options on GDLC at 25,000 contracts, a limit which has already been approved for options on IBIT, an ETP that holds a single digital asset, bitcoin.
The Exchange determined this proposed position and exercise limits considering, among other things, the approximate six-month average daily volume (“ADV”) and outstanding shares of GDLC (which as discussed above demonstrates that GDLC is widely held and actively traded and thus justify these conservatively proposed position limits), as set forth below, along with market capitalization (as of November 21, 2025):
The Exchange then compared the number of outstanding shares of GDLC to those of other ETFs. The following table provides the approximate average position (and exercise) limit of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of November 21, 2025), compared to the proposed position and exercise limit for GDLC options:
The Exchange considered current position and exercise limits of options on ETFs
With respect to outstanding shares, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent the following approximate percentage of current outstanding shares:
As this table demonstrates, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in GDLC options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the underling fund.
Exchange Rule 904, Commentary .07, provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume and number of shares outstanding in the underlying security. An underlying stock or ETF that qualifies for method two based on trading volume and number of shares outstanding would be required to have the minimum number of outstanding shares as shown in middle column of the table below. The table, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares
The equivalent shares represented by the proposed position and exercise limits for GDLC as a percentage of outstanding shares of the underlying fund is significantly lower than the percentage for the lowest possible position limit for equity options of 25,000 (under 6% compared to 40%) and is lower than that percentage for each current position limit bucket.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the proposal to list options on GDLC with positions and exercise limits of 25,000 on the same side, the lowest position limit available in the options industry, is conservative and appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares for the underlying fund.
The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying fund as well as the digital assets that comprise the underlying fund.
As described herein, the Exchange rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of options on the Exchange, including, for example, rules that govern listing criteria, expiration and exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of options on GDLC on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to all other options on ETFs and ETPs that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including options on other commodity ETPs deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to Commentary .10 to Rule 915. Further, as described above, Exchange rules regarding position and exercise limits will likewise apply to options on GDLC except that, as proposed, the position and exercise limits will be set at 25,000 on the same side.
The Exchange notes that options on GDLC would not be available for trading until The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) represents to the Exchange that it is fully able to clear and settle such options. The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it and The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of options on GDLC. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the trading of options on GDLC would be manageable. The Exchange represents that Exchange members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to options on GDLC, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new option series. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs and ETPs, such as (existing) commodity-backed ETP options as well as the proposed options on GDLC. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of options on GDLC in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules.
Specifically, the Exchange's market surveillance staff also conducts surveillances with respect to the underlying fund and, as appropriate, would review activity in the underlying fund when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the options on GDLC. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the ISG Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Pursuant to a
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the underlying fund, the Exchange believes that existing surveillance procedures are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading the proposed options on GDLC.
Finally, quotation and last sale information for ETFs is available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such securities is also available from the exchange on which such securities are listed. Quotation and last sale information for options on GDLC will be available via OPRA and major market data vendors.
The Exchange believes that offering options on GDLC will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of the digital assets that comprise the underlying fund and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with such products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on GDLC in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on GDLC will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on GDLC will provide investors with an opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on a fund that includes bitcoin and other digital assets, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies.
The Exchange believes that offering GDLC options will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of multiple digital assets, including bitcoin, and with digital asset-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of GDLC options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists options on other commodity-based ETPs,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange rules previously filed with the Commission. As detailed above, options on GDLC satisfy the initial listing standards currently in the Exchange rules applicable to options on all ETFs and ETPs, including ETPs that hold other commodities already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. Additionally, as demonstrated above, GDLC is characterized by a substantial number of shares that are widely held and actively traded. GDLC options will trade in the same manner as any other ETF or ETP options—the same Exchange rules that currently govern the listing and trading of other options, including initial and continued listing requirements, permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on GDLC.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to exclude GDLC from being eligible for trading as FLEX options is consistent with the Act, because it will permit the Exchange to continue to participate in ongoing discussions with the Commission regarding appropriate position limits for options on GDLC.
The proposed position and exercise limit for options on GDLC is 25,000 contracts. These position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given GDLC's market capitalization, average daily volume, number of beneficial holders, and high number of outstanding shares. The proposed position and exercise limits are consistent with the Act as they address concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors because the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given GDLC is actively traded.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to Rule 903G(a), to make clear that options on GDLC is
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new GDLC options. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options, including GDLC options. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs and ETPs, such as (existing) precious metal-commodity backed ETP options as well as the proposed options on GDLC. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of options on GDLC in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules.
Specifically, the Exchange's market surveillance staff also conducts surveillances with respect to the underlying fund and, as appropriate, would review activity in the underlying fund when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in options on GDLC. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the ISG under the ISG Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. In addition, the Exchange is a party to an RSA with FINRA and, as noted herein, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances. Further, the Exchange will implement any new surveillance procedures it deems necessary to effectively monitor the trading of options on GDLC.
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the underlying fund, the Exchange believes that existing surveillance procedures are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading the proposed options on GDLC. Further, the Exchange will implement any new surveillance procedures it deems necessary to effectively monitor the trading of options on GDLC.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering GDLC options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with exposure to the price of multiple digital assets, including bitcoin, and with digital asset-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
91 FR 185, January 2, 2026
Thursday, January 8, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedule 14D-1F (17 CFR 240.14d-102) is a form that may be used by any person (the “bidder”) making a cash tender or exchange offer for securities of any issuer (the “target”) incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or any Canadian province or territory that is a foreign private issuer, where less than 40% of the outstanding class of the target's securities that is the subject of the offer is held by U.S. holders. Schedule 14D-1F is designed to facilitate cross-border transactions in the securities of Canadian issuers. The information required to be filed with the Commission provides security holders with material information regarding the bidder as well as the transaction so that they may make informed investment decisions. We estimate that Schedule 14D-1F takes approximately 3.5 hours per response to prepare and is filed once per year by approximately 2 bidders. We estimate that 100% of the burden is carried out internally by the bidder. Based on our estimates, we calculate a total annual reporting burden of 7 hours ((3.5 hours per response × 100%) × 2 responses per year). Because we estimate that 100% of the burden will be carried internally by the bidder, we estimate that there is no cost burden associated with Schedule 14D-1F.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
On November 6, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, Section 827, directed FAA to develop a formal Transition Plan to unleaded Avgas. The FAA is seeking public comments on the draft FAA Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline to facilitate a structured, safe, timely, coordinated, and orderly transition to unleaded aviation gasoline alternatives while maintaining the operational efficiency of the general aviation fleet. The comprehensive framework outlined in this transition plan encompasses fuel authorizations and comparison testing, market experience, and the national transition to unleaded fuel(s).
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before March 13, 2026.
Draft FAA Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline document can be viewed and receive comment submissions through the FAA's Aviation Safety Draft Documents website,
Paul Wrzesinski, Ph.D., FAA Office of Senior Technical Experts, Aircraft Certification Service, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (405) 945-6626, Email
The Draft FAA Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline outlines strategies to safely eliminate lead aviation fuels, approve unleaded alternatives for all piston-engine aircraft, ensure continued availability of aviation gasoline, and promote widespread access to unleaded aviation gasoline at airports. Building on years of collaborative efforts through the government-industry initiative, Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE), this plan aims to transition to lead-free aviation fuels for piston-engine aircraft in a safe and efficient manner. The 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act Section 827 reinforces the critical need for this transition, mandating that FAA continue collaborations with industry and federal stakeholders to eliminate lead emissions from aviation gasoline by 2030 (2032 in Alaska).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; renewal of exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemption for truck and bus drivers who are licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia and need a Skill Performance Evaluation (SPE) Certificate to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption renewal application and the public comment and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved in the absence of the exemption.
The exemption is effective January 8, 2026, and expires July 8, 2027.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish the decision in the
CMV drivers who are otherwise qualified to drive a CMV, but are not physically qualified to drive under 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) or (2) because of a loss or impairment of a limb, may drive a CMV if FMCSA has granted an SPE certificate to that person under 49 CFR 391.49.
The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles's (VA DMV) application for exemption renewal was described in detail in a
The Agency received one comment. Joseph Dillon is in favor of all States or FMCSA's field offices having the ability to renew SPE certificates. He explained that individuals who have a fixed limb loss should have a permanent waiver as the current requirement to renew an SPE certificate is every two years.
FMCSA has evaluated the application from the VA DMV and the comment filed and grants the exemption renewal. Virginia's SPE program is essentially identical to the current FMCSA SPE program and is subject to oversight by FMCSA to ensure that Virginia's processes are equivalent to FMCSA's SPE processes. Virginia continues to adhere to the application process modeled on the FMCSA process. Virginia's personnel who conduct the SPEs complete the same training as FMCSA personnel conducting SPEs and follow the same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA. FMCSA has conducted monitoring and SPE program reviews and Virginia continues to maintain records of applications, testing, and certificates issued for periodic review by FMCSA. Based on FMCSA's analyses of the applications and the program, FMCSA has determined that continuing the exemption for the class of exempted drivers and continuing to allow the VA DMV to issue SPE certificates for Virginia residents will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to what would be achieved in the absence of this exemption. While FMCSA's provisional notice stated it was considering renewing this exemption through July 8, 2030, FMCSA has decided this renewal will expire on July 8, 2027, to be consistent with the Agency's most recent renewal of this exemption which was also for a two-year period (88 FR 43065, July 6, 2023).
Under this exemption, the VA DMV is permitted to issue an SPE certificate for interstate drivers who have experienced an impairment or loss of a limb and are licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. VA DMV's SPE program must be substantially similar to the current requirements in 49 CFR 391.49.
2. VA DMV must maintain an application process modeled on the FMCSA process and submit information concerning the application process to FMCSA's Medical Programs Division for review, upon request.
3. State personnel who conduct SPEs must complete SPE training identical to that of FMCSA personnel currently administering the Federal SPE program.
4. The VA DMV SPE and SPE scoring must be done using the same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA.
5. VA DMV must maintain records of applications, testing, and certificates issued for periodic review by FMCSA.
6. VA DMV must submit a monthly report to FMCSA listing the names and license numbers of each driver tested by the State and the result of the SPE (pass or fail).
7. Upon request, the VA DMV must provide records required to be retained under this exemption and provide any other information necessary for FMCSA to evaluate the VA DMV's compliance with the terms and conditions of this exemption.
8. Each driver who receives a State-issued SPE certificate must carry a copy of the certificate when driving for presentation to authorized Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption. An exemption granted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) preempts State laws and regulations that conflict with or are inconsistent with the exemption. The decision to grant the exemption amounts to automatic Federal ratification of the State-issued SPE Certificate and therefore prohibits other jurisdictions from requiring a separate FMCSA-issued SPE. The State-issued certificate must be treated as if it had been issued by FMCSA. Virginia-licensed drivers who receive the State-issued SPE certificate are allowed to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, the exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the VA DMV or the drivers operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Union Railroad (URR) petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by February 11, 2026. 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 letters dated September 2 and October 24, 2025, URR petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2025-0753.
Specifically, URR requests to discontinue controlled point (CP) Mon Valley, including
• signals 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, and 74;
• power switches 63, 65, 69, and 73; and
• track circuits 63T, 63AT, 69T, and 69AT.
URR states that the subject area is used for switching leads and yard tracks and is located in Braddock, Pennsylvania. The changes are requested “due to planned changes in the layout and operations of U. S. Steel's Edgar Thomson Works . . . in conjunction with the U. S. Steel/Nippon Steel merger” to enable steel coils to be shipped from the mill. In its petition, URR explains that the area south of signal 62 will be converted to non-circuited yard territory.
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 February 11, 2026 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 Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning movement of freight cars in cross-border interchange.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by February 11, 2026. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Steven Zuiderveen, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-6337, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter received October 17, 2025, UPRR petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2007-28340.
UPRR requests continued relief from part 215 and § 232.205(a)(1),
In support of its petition, UPRR stated that the Olmito yard operations are “aligned with current Customs/Border Patrol agents and other security[-]related agencies facilitating necessary inspection and testing of equipment” received in interchange. Further, UPRR stated that the relief avoids “unnecessary congestion at the point of interchange while allowing a safer environment for railroad personnel to conduct the required inspections of rail equipment.” In addition, UPRR wrote that the relief will reduce opportunities for contraband or individuals to unlawfully enter the United States on rail equipment.
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 February 11, 2026 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 Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning air pressure in train brake systems.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by February 11, 2026. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Check Kam, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-366-2139, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated October 4, 2025 UPRR petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 229 (Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards) and 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2005-21179.
UPRR requests extended relief from 49 CFR 229.49(a)(1),
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 February 11, 2026 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 of establishment of public docket.
This Notice announces the establishment of FRA's emergency relief docket (ERD) for calendar year 2026. The designated ERD for calendar year 2026 is docket number FRA-2026-0001.
See Supplementary Information section for further information regarding submitting petitions and/or comments to docket number FRA-2026-0001.
On May 19, 2009, FRA published a direct final rule establishing ERDs and the procedures for handling petitions for emergency waivers of safety rules, regulations, or standards during an emergency situation or event. 74 FR 23329. That direct final rule became effective on July 20, 2009, and made minor modifications to 49 CFR 211.45 in FRA's Rules of Practice in 49 CFR part 211. Section 211.45(b) provides that each calendar year FRA will establish an ERD in the publicly accessible DOT docket system (available at
As detailed in § 211.45, if the FRA Administrator determines an emergency event as defined in 49 CFR 211.45(a) has occurred, or that an imminent threat of such an emergency occurring exists, and public safety would benefit from providing the railroad industry with operational relief, the emergency waiver procedures of 49 CFR 211.45 will go into effect. In such an event, the FRA Administrator will issue a statement in the ERD indicating the emergency waiver procedures are in effect and FRA will make every effort to post the statement on its website at
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of DOT'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 Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning remote control locomotives.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by February 11, 2026. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Derrick Griffith, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-6322, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated August 27, 2025, BNSF 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-2025-0687.
Specifically, BNSF seeks relief from § 229.15(b)(4),
In support of its request, BNSF states that the relief will not eliminate the conditioning run required by the regulation, but rather change the timing, so that the remote control operator can ascertain “that the Pullback System is functioning as intended by operating the locomotive to the transponder point.” BNSF notes that the purpose of the conditioning run, to verify the pullback system is functioning prior to the operator continuing their work, is preserved. Further, BNSF suggests that the relief will promote greater use of remote control pullback protection within rail yards, which in turn could promote greater safety outcomes.
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 February 11, 2026 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.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of DOT requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to file traffic and capacity data pursuant to 14 CFR 241.19 and Part 217, respectively. These reports are used to measure air transportation activity to, from, and within the United States.
Written comments should be submitted by March 13, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
You may access comments received for this notice at
Jennifer Rodes, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-420, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-8513, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or Email
The Federal Aviation Administration uses enplanement data for U.S. airports to distribute the annual Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement funds to eligible primary airports,
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts that are used in developing its budget and staffing plans, facility and equipment funding levels, and environmental impact and policy studies. The FAA monitors changes in the number of air carrier operations as a way to allocate inspection resources and in making decisions as to increased safety surveillance. Similarly, airport activity statistics are used by the FAA to develop airport profiles and establish priorities for airport inspections.
While the Justice Department has the primary responsibility over air carrier acquisitions and mergers, the Department reviews the transfer of
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts. These forecasts are used by the FAA, airport managers, the airlines and others in the air travel industry as planning and budgeting tools.
The mix of aircraft types are used in determining the practical annual capacity (PANCAP) at airports as prescribed in the FAA Advisory Circular
The Department apprizes Congress, the Administration and others of the effect major changes or innovations are having on the air transportation industry. For this purpose, summary traffic and capacity data as well as the detailed segment and market data are essential. These data must be timely and inclusive to be relevant for analyzing emerging issues and must be based upon uniform and reliable data submissions that are consistent with the Department's regulatory requirements.
The Department is responsible for establishing international and intra-Alaska mail rates. International mail rates are set based on scheduled operations in four geographic areas: Trans-border, Latin America, operations over the Atlantic Ocean and operations over the Pacific Ocean. Separate rates are set for mainline and bush Alaskan operations. The rates are updated every six months to reflect changes in unit costs in each rate-making entity. Traffic and capacity data are used in conjunction with cost data to develop the required unit cost data.
The Department reassesses service levels at small domestic communities to assure that capacity levels are adequate to accommodate current demand.
The FAA is charged with administering a series of grants that are designed to accomplish the necessary airport planning for future development and growth. These grants are made to state metropolitan and regional aviation authorities to fund needed airport systems planning work. Individual airport activity statistics, nonstop market data, and service segment data are used to prepare airport activity level forecasts.
The Department reviews all of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) agreements that relate to fares, rates, and rules for international air transportation to ensure that the agreements meet the public interest criteria. Current and historic summary traffic and capacity data, such as revenue ton-miles and available ton-miles, by aircraft type, type of service, and length of haul are needed to conduct these analyses: to (1) develop the volume elements for passenger/cargo cost allocations, (2) evaluate fluctuations in volume of scheduled and charter services, (3) assess the competitive impact of different operations such as charter versus scheduled, (4) calculate load factors by aircraft type, and (5) monitor traffic in specific markets.
Foreign air carriers are required to submit applications for authority to operate to the United States. In reviewing these applications, the Department must find that the requested authority is encompassed in a bilateral agreement, other intergovernmental understanding, or that granting the application is in the public interest. In the latter cases, T-100 data are used in assessing the level of benefits that carriers of the applicant's homeland presently are receiving from their U.S. operations. These benefits are compared and balanced against the benefits U.S. carriers receive from their operations to the applicant's homeland.
The Department determines whether U.S. air carriers are and continue to be fit, willing and able to conduct air service operations without undue risk to passengers and shippers.
The Department monitors a carrier's load factor, operational, and enplanement data to compare with other carriers with similar operating characteristics. Carriers that expand operations at a high rate are monitored more closely for safety reasons.
Pursuant to an international agreement, the United States is obligated to report certain air carrier data to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The traffic data supplied to ICAO are extracted from the U.S. air carriers' Schedule T-100 submissions.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before March 13, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcias, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at (202) 317-6009.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before March 13, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 317-6009, or by email to
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notification of sub-regulatory guidance.
This notice informs the public of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implementation of section 120 of the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act, which allows VA to increase the expenditure cap for non-institutional care alternatives for eligible veterans.
This guidance is effective on September 11, 2025.
Daniel Schoeps, Director, Purchased Long Term Services and Supports, Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care, Veterans Health Administration, (202) 461-6750.
On January 2, 2025, the President signed into law the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act (the Act). Public Law 118-210. Section 120(a) of the Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1720C(d), which generally governs the provision of non-institutional care alternatives for eligible veterans. Under this amendment, VA may pay up to 100% of the cost that would otherwise have been incurred by VA during that fiscal year if the veteran had been furnished, instead, nursing home care under 38 U.S.C. 1710 during that fiscal year. The cost of nursing home care is established for each Veterans Integrated Service Network based on the cost of care in a community living center and published each year by the Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care. Section 120(a) further amended section 1720C(d) to permit VA to exceed this payment cap for certain veterans if VA determines, based on a consideration of clinical need, geographic market factors, and such other matters as VA may prescribe through regulation, that such higher total cost is in the best interest of the veteran. Veterans eligible for non-institutional care costs in excess of the nursing home care rate are those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a spinal cord injury, or a condition VA determines to be similar to such conditions.
Before the amendments made by section 120 of the Act, VA was limited to paying no more than 65% of the nursing home rate. Historically, VA has found that a small number of veterans each year encountered this 65% cap. When veterans reached this cap, they were required either to assume liability for the cost of their care for the remainder of the fiscal year or to be admitted for nursing home care. This sometimes resulted in care disruption, greater stress on veterans and their families, or both. In VA's experience, the clinical need for non-institutional care is the sole factor that has resulted in veterans reaching the prior 65% cap, and the vast majority of those who would reach this 65% cap would have all of their non-institutional care needs met for costs less than 100% of the nursing home rate.
VA is informing the public of its approach to implementing four aspects of these new authorities.
• Beginning September 11, 2025, VA will pay up to 100% of the nursing home rate in a fiscal year for all eligible veterans who need non-institutional care to improve continuity of care and patient outcomes. VA may pay for non-institutional care constituting Homemaker/Home Health Aide, Home Respite, Community Adult Day Health Care, Veteran Directed Care, Skilled Home Health Care, and Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.
• For veterans whose non-institutional care needs exceed 100% of the nursing home rate, VA will approve such additional expenditures on a case-by-case basis informed by a clinical review of the veteran's needs. VA anticipates that the only veterans who may require non-institutional care that would cost more than 100% of the nursing home rate would be veterans with ALS or spinal cord injuries or disorders; however, VA will still consider, and may pay costs for non-institutional care in excess of 100% of the nursing home rate for veterans who do not have ALS or a spinal cord injury or disorder because the statute permits VA to do so if the veteran has “a condition the Secretary determines to be similar to such conditions.” See 38 U.S.C. 1720C(d)(2)(B). Veterans whose care needs would exceed 100% of the nursing home rate have a high need for skilled home nursing care and are often dependent on ventilators to breathe, which is why their costs for care may be higher. These veterans can still live safely in their homes, but they do require additional care and services that can result in higher costs. Remaining in their homes, though, can improve their quality of life and overall health outcomes as well, so there is value in keeping these veterans in non-institutional settings. Such options for care also promote veterans' choice in where to live and how to receive their care. VA anticipates fewer than 30 veterans in a fiscal year will require non-institutional care that would result in costs in excess of 100% of the nursing home rate, and VA will review these on a case-by-case basis to determine the clinical need for and appropriateness of additional non-institutional care.
At this time, VA is not exercising its authority to establish through regulation other matters that VA may consider in exceeding 100% of the nursing home rate. Should VA do so in the future, it will do so through rulemaking consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
• VA is also not specifically incorporating any additional geographic market factors in its analysis because the nursing home care rate already is determined on a regional level and includes consideration of geographic market factors. Consideration of geographic market factors through another basis than the calculation of the nursing home rate or using another metric would be redundant.
This notice provides information on how VA is implementing section 120 of the Act and is not a solicitation for public comment or request for information regarding VA's implementation of section 120 of the Act, as outlined above. Therefore, responses to this notice may not be used to inform VA's implementation of section 120 of the Act, and VA will not address such responses.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 18, 2025 and authorized to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
The eligibility requirements to qualify for the program apply to an individual who is a Veteran under age 62 who has served at least 3 years (36 months) on Active Duty; or a Service member who is within 180 days of discharge who has or will serve 3 years (36 months) by their discharge date; and who has received a discharge under conditions other than dishonorable.
The DOLE Act requires VA to develop a mechanism for Veteran application for VET TEC 2.0, to include selection of a specific training provider and program. It also requires VA to develop enrollment processing mechanisms and the ability to track the number of enrollees in real time due to annual participation limits. Lastly, VA must submit a report to Congress no later than January 2, 2026, and each year thereafter on the operation of the program.
The VA Form 22-10297 allows students to apply for the new High-Technology Veterans Education, Training and Skills (VET TEC 2.0) Program. This new information collection is being used to implement section 212 of Public Law 118-210 to provide Veterans the opportunity to enroll in high technology programs. The VA requires approval of this information collection to allow eligible individuals to apply to enroll with a qualified training provider and to allow VA to track the number of annual participants.