Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Board is revising its Rules Regarding Delegation of Authority to add delegations previously approved by the Board and to make certain technical corrections.
Effective March 5, 2026.
Amory Goldberg, Senior Counsel, (202) 469-1015, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of TTY-TRS, please call 711 from any telephone, anywhere in the United States.
Section 11(k) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to delegate, by published order or rule and subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, any of its functions, other than those related to rulemaking or pertaining principally to monetary and credit policies, to one or more administrative law judges, members or staff of the Board, or the Reserve Banks.
The Board published a final rule in 2022 that comprehensively revised the delegation rules.
These amendments relate solely to the agency's organization, procedure, or practice. Accordingly, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public participation are not applicable.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required to be issued, or has been issued, in connection with this rule, it is not a “rule” for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that act, therefore, does not apply.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
As a rule of internal agency organization, the final rule is not a “substantive rule” for the purposes of the APA; as such, the act does not require the Board to delay the effective date of the rule.
Authority delegations (Government agencies); Banks, banking.
For the reasons stated in the preamble the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System corrects 12 CFR part 265 by making the following correcting amendments:
12 U.S.C. 248(i) and (k).
(l)
(c)
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH (Schempp-Hirth) Model STANDARD CIRRUS gliders. This AD was prompted by reports of a broken outer race of the lower ball bearing installed in the all-moving horizontal tailplane drive fitting. This AD requires inspecting the elevator drive fitting to determine the type of lower ball bearing installed, and depending upon the results, replacing the lower ball bearing with a serviceable part. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 9, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 9, 2026.
• For SCHEMPP-HIRTH Flugzeugbau GmbH material identified in this AD, contact Schempp-Hirth, Krebenstraße 25, 73230 Kirchheim unter Teck, Germany; phone: +49 7021 7298-0; 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. It is also available at
Peter Schmitt, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (206) 231-3377; 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 Schempp-Hirth Model CIRRUS gliders. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the elevator drive fitting to determine the type of lower ball bearing installed, and depending upon the results, replacing the lower ball bearing with a serviceable part. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Schempp-Hirth Model STANDARD CIRRUS gliders. The SNPRM was published in the
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the costs.
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. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed SCHEMPP-HIRTH Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 278-25, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2024, which specifies procedures for inspecting the elevator drive fitting to determine which type of lower ball bearing is installed, and depending on the results, replacing the lower ball bearing with a serviceable part. 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 17 gliders of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of gliders that might need these replacements:
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 April 9, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model STANDARD CIRRUS gliders, serial numbers 21, 23, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 through 52, and 54 through 120, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5520, Elevator Structure.
This AD was prompted by reports of a broken outer race component of the lower ball bearing installed in the all-moving horizontal tailplane drive fitting. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this unsafe condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the tailplane drive jamming and loss of control of the glider.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD apply.
(1) An “affected part” is as identified in SCHEMPP-HIRTH Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 278-25, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2024 (SCHEMPP-HIRTH TN No. 278-25, Revision 1): EL6 lower ball bearing (identified as type 1a) or self-aligning lower ball bearing (identified as type 1b) of the elevator drive fitting.
(2) A “serviceable part” is as identified in SCHEMPP-HIRTH TN No. 278-25, Revision 1: Lower bearing ring with inner bronze bushing having part number HS4-30.013/1 (identified as type 1d).
(1) Within 4 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the elevator drive fitting to determine if an affected part is installed, in accordance with the instructions of Actions 1. in SCHEMPP-HIRTH TN No. 278-25, Revision 1. A review of glider maintenance records instead of this inspection is acceptable provided it can be conclusively determined from that review if an affected part is installed.
(2) If, during the inspection or maintenance records review required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, it is determined that an affected part is installed, within 4 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the affected part with a serviceable part in accordance with the instructions of Actions 2. of SCHEMPP-HIRTH TN No. 278-25, Revision 1.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected part as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD on any glider.
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 (k) of this AD and email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Peter Schmitt, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (206) 231-3377; 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) SCHEMPP-HIRTH Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 278-25, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For SCHEMPP-HIRTH Flugzeugbau GmbH material identified in this AD, contact Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstraße 25, 73230 Kirchheim unter Teck, Germany; phone: +49 7021 7298-0; 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
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce (Department).
Correcting amendment.
By this action, the Department makes a correcting amendment to its Privacy Act regulations. The Department previously amended those regulations via final rule by, among other things, updating eighteen references to an outdated Department position title. The amendatory instructions set forth in that rule, however, omitted mention of two of the paragraphs amended in such way. This action merely corrects that omission and does not make any further changes to the regulations.
The rule is effective March 5, 2026.
Daniel Sweeney, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 482-1395.
On February 17, 2026, the Department issued a final rule amending 15 CFR part 4 by, among other things, updating eighteen references to an outdated Department position title (91 FR 7115). Twelve of those references were in § 4.29, spread across paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), and (i). Although the February 17, 2026 final rule intended to amend all of the references in § 4.29, the relevant amendatory instruction—instruction 5—omitted mention of paragraphs (h) and (i). This action corrects that omission to properly reflect the amendments to § 4.29 for the reasons stated in the February 17, 2026 final rule. This action does not make any other changes to part 4.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this action. The Department considers this action to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this action only corrects an omission in the language of an amendatory instruction; this correction will ensure that the amendatory instructions properly reflect the amendments made by the rule. For the same reason, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of this corrective action would be contrary to the public interest; this action will correct an omission and remove a potential source of confusion without introducing any new cost for the public. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
This rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Freedom of information, Penalties, Privacy.
For the reasons set forth above, part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950.
(h) In making the final determination, the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation and Information, or in the case of an initial denial by the Office of the Inspector General, the Counsel to the Inspector General, shall employ the criteria set forth in § 4.28(c) and shall deny an appeal only on grounds set forth in § 4.28(e).
(i) If an appeal is partially granted and partially denied, the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation and Information, or in the case of an initial denial by the Office of the Inspector General, the Counsel to the Inspector General, shall follow the appropriate procedures of this section as to the records within the grant and the records within the denial.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to standardize the format of the National Drug Code (NDC). Under this final rule, all FDA-assigned NDCs will be required to be 12 digits in length with 3 distinct segments and 1 uniform format. The first segment is a 6-digit labeler code, the second segment is a 4-digit product code, and the third segment is a 2-digit package code. Additionally, we are revising the drug product barcode label requirements to permit the use of other data carriers that meet the standards of this final rule.
This rule is effective March 7, 2033.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
FDA is modifying our regulations to establish a uniform, 12-digit format for the NDC (21 CFR 207.33). FDA's transition to a uniform format for FDA-assigned NDCs is intended to facilitate the adoption of a single NDC format across the entire healthcare industry, eliminating the need to convert NDCs from one of FDA's prescribed formats to a different standardized format used by other sectors of the healthcare industry (
Under this final rule, FDA is amending its regulations to adopt a uniform, 12-digit format for the NDC. Under the revised format, NDCs will continue to consist of three segments: the labeler code, the product code, and the package code. However, the labeler code will be 6 digits, the product code will be 4 digits, and the package code will be 2 digits. To provide maximum flexibility on the type of barcode used on the label of a drug product, this final rule allows the use of either linear or nonlinear barcodes, so long as the barcode format conforms to certain standards and is recognized by FDA.
On the effective date of this final rule, FDA will begin assigning new NDCs in the uniform, 12-digit format, and existing 10-digit NDCs assigned by FDA prior to the effective date will be required to convert to the uniform 12-digit NDC format.
Additionally, this final rule allows for a 3-year transition period following the effective date of the final rule. During this 3-year transition period, firms that use 10-digit NDCs assigned prior to the effective date on drug product labeling should begin updating their labeling to replace the 10-digit NDC format with the new 12-digit NDC format by adding leading zeros to the labeler code, product code, and/or package code segments as needed, as soon as possible. However, to aid with the transition, FDA does not intend to object to continued use of such 10-digit NDCs on the labeling of products remaining in interstate commerce after the effective date during the 3-year transition period. The purpose of the transition period is to mitigate the potential costs associated with reprinting labels for these products. Therefore, during this transition period, interested parties should ensure that their systems are capable of handling both the 10-digit and 12-digit NDC formats.
FDA is amending our regulations on foreign and domestic establishment registration and listing for drugs, including biological products and animal drugs. FDA's authority for this rule derives from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321,
This final rule requires that all NDCs, including any 10-digit NDCs issued by FDA prior to the effective date, be 12 digits in length with a uniform format: a 6-digit labeler code, a 4-digit product code, and a 2-digit package code. As a result, drug product labeling that includes a 10-digit NDC will need to be updated to convert to the standard 12-digit format.
FDA's transition to a uniform format for native NDCs is intended to facilitate the adoption of a single NDC format across the entire healthcare industry. Such an adoption will eliminate the need to convert NDCs from one of the FDA-assigned formats to a different standardized format used by other sectors of the healthcare industry (
The costs to industry of converting current NDCs to the standardized format will include one-time costs of updating software systems, other transition costs, coordinating labeling updates, and reading and understanding the rule. We estimate annualized costs will be about $14.64 million ranging from $7.64 million to $22.79 million using a 7-percent discount rate over a ten-year horizon. Similarly, we estimate annualized costs will be about $14.90 million ranging from $7.79 million to $23.18 million using a 3-percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon.
The NDC is an FDA standard for uniquely identifying drugs marketed in the United States. Section 510(j) of the FD&C Act requires each person who registers an establishment under section 510(b), (c), (d), or (i) to provide FDA with a current list of all drugs manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by the establishment for commercial distribution. Drug products are identified and listed using the NDC (21 CFR 207.49).
Currently, the NDC assigned by FDA (a “native” NDC) for each listed drug marketed in the United States is a unique 10-digit,
Currently, only 5-digit labeler codes are being assigned by FDA. A 5-digit labeler code format provides FDA with 90,000 labeler codes that could be
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Pub. L. 104-191) contains administrative simplification provisions that require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to adopt “national standards for electronic health care transactions and code sets, unique health identifiers, and security.”
If, in the absence of this final rule, FDA were to begin issuing 6-digit labeler codes under § 207.33(b), the resulting 11-digit native NDC configurations would have the same number of digits as required by the HIPAA standards, but they will not be in the same format. Specifically, an 11-digit native NDC would have an extra labeler code digit but will be short a digit in either the product code or package code. Additionally, some of the systems that utilize HIPAA standard 11-digit NDCs
In 2016, FDA published the final rule “Requirements for Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing for Human Drugs, Including Drugs That Are Regulated Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs” (the Registration and Listing Final Rule). Recognizing that FDA would run out of 5-digit labeler codes in the near future, the Registration and Listing Final Rule established two additional NDC configurations: 6-3-2 and 6-4-1, for a total of five possible NDC configurations (including the three 10-digit NDC configurations) (§ 207.33(b)(2)). At the same time, FDA acknowledged in the preamble to the Registration and Listing Final Rule that some interested parties recommended that FDA adopt a single, standard format for NDCs and announced that it planned to initiate a public discussion of future formatting options (81 FR 60170 at 60187).
On November 5, 2018, FDA began these public discussions by holding a public hearing.
An appropriate number of years would be necessary to adapt existing databases and structures to be able to handle the new, uniform, 12-digit NDC format and for industry to adopt this as the single NDC format. Therefore, under Option D, FDA would implement this change on a prespecified date that would occur before the current pool of 5-digit labeler codes is exhausted, to provide certainty and predictability to industry parties, government payors, and other interested parties.
FDA received oral comments during the hearing, and written comments were submitted afterwards. Most of the comments were in favor of FDA's adoption of a single standardized format that could be used by all interested parties. The majority of the commenters were also in favor of FDA establishing a certain date when interested parties would be required to have systems capable of handling the new format, with many advocating for a 10-year delay. For the most part, the commenters were not in favor of Options A, B, or C. Instead, in general, the commenters either favored Option D or advocated for FDA to no longer be responsible for assigning NDCs and, instead, allow for a third party to take over that role. FDA considered these comments in developing this rulemaking.
We proposed to adopt a single, uniform, 12-digit NDC format to avoid confusion and reduce medication errors that could result if, as described above, FDA were to begin issuing 11-digit NDCs when the HIPAA standards and other code sets that require 10-digit native NDCs to be converted to 11-digit NDCs are not updated. We noted that standardizing the FDA-assigned NDC to one format should eliminate the need for interested parties to constantly convert a drug's FDA-assigned NDC to a different standardized format if the HIPAA and other code sets are modified to adopt FDA's new, uniform, 12-digit format. This should reduce errors caused by converting from FDA's current nonstandardized NDC format to a standardized NDC format. Additionally, standardization should eliminate the need for interested parties to use multiple versions of an NDC (
We received approximately 50 comments on the proposed rule. The comments were submitted by a variety of interested parties, including healthcare professionals, consumers, drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, trade associations, health information technology (IT) developers and vendors, and other organizations. The comments addressed a variety of topics, including (i) general support for or opposition to a uniform 12-digit NDC format; (ii) the proposal's intersection with Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) requirements; (iii) implementation timeframe; (iv) FDA coordination with external parties; and (v) implementation costs.
FDA is amending our regulations on foreign and domestic establishment registration and listing for drugs, including biological products and animal drugs. FDA's authority for this rule derives from the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321,
We describe and respond to the comments on the proposed changes in sections V.B. through V.E. of this document. Comments on the economic analysis are addressed in section VII.C. of this document and in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA). We have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different comments. We have grouped similar comments together under the same number, and in some cases, we have separated different issues discussed in the same comment and designated them as distinct comments for purposes of our responses. The number assigned to each comment or comment topic is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in which comments were received.
Some comments made general remarks regarding the proposed rule without focusing on a particular proposed provision. In the following paragraphs, we discuss and respond to such general comments.
(Comment 1) Many commenters agree that the NDC format must change and want assurance that this final rule would fully satisfy future needs without requiring another expansion or modification to the NDC format. One commenter requests that we disclose the number of NDCs that have been assigned and how many are currently in use.
(Response 1) We recognize that any revision to the NDC format is a complex and costly effort and that this final rule should be as future-proof as possible. FDA typically assigns an average of 1,000 new labeler codes each year. By expanding the labeler code from 5 to 6 digits, this final rule will add approximately 900,000 labeler codes. At our current labeler code assignment rate, this final rule should provide a 900-year supply of labeler codes and constitutes a sufficiently future-proof solution. The number of NDCs assigned and currently in use can be determined by reviewing the FDA NDC Directory.
(Comment 2) Some commenters are concerned that the conversion of a 10-
(Response 2) FDA considers the conversion of a 10-digit NDC to a 12-digit NDC format to be a ministerial, administrative change and not the assignment of a “new” NDC for purposes of drug registration and listing or FD&C Act user fees. Furthermore, FDA considers such an NDC in its original 10-digit format and in its converted 12-digit format to be the same NDC with different formats. We do not believe it is necessary to modify the codified regulation text to clarify this point. Our regulations address both the initial assignment of a new NDC (§ 207.33(c) and (d)) and the circumstances under which a new NDC must be obtained for a drug that has already been assigned an NDC (§ 207.35). None of those provisions requires that NDC formatting changes such as those required by this final rule would result in a “new” NDC.
(Comment 3) One commenter notes that the proposed rule refers to NDCs being “assigned by FDA.” The commenter asserts that because the product and package codes are selected by the manufacturer, this final rule should clarify that an NDC “assigned by FDA” refers to the Agency's assignment of the labeler code in accordance with our existing regulation at § 207.33(b)(1)(i).
(Response 3) Under § 207.33(d)(1), a manufacturer, repacker, or relabeler merely “propose[s] an NDC for assignment by FDA” when it submits the product's listing information for the first time. Specifically, the registrant proposes the product and package codes together with the applicable labeler code already assigned by FDA. FDA will assign the proposed NDC to the drug identified by the registrant only if the proposed NDC is in the correct format, is not reserved for a different drug, and has not previously been assigned to a different listed drug (§ 207.33(d)(2)). Thus, FDA ultimately assigns each NDC, including each component of an NDC. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the commenter's recommendation.
(Comment 4) One commenter advocates that FDA relinquish responsibility for assigning NDCs and permit a third party to assume that role.
(Response 4) In the proposed rule, we considered and rejected similar comments that were submitted to the 2018 public hearing docket (see 87 FR 44038 at 44042-44043). Specifically, the proposed rule noted that FDA is deeply involved in the assignment of NDCs and that changing the existing system would have the potential to cause significant disruption, particularly in transitioning the assignment of NDCs from FDA to a third party. We also recognized that although there would be disruption in transitioning to a 12-digit NDC, FDA would be in the best position to minimize and mitigate the disruption because it would continue to be involved in the process for assigning the reformatted 12-digit NDCs. In the proposed rule, we stated that if the responsibility for assigning the reformatted 12-digit NDCs were handed over to a third party, FDA would have less ability to minimize and mitigate the disruption. Accordingly, we did not propose to revise § 207.33 and other regulations to remove references to the assignment of NDCs by FDA. The commenter does not offer any reason why FDA should change course on this policy in this final rule, and we decline to make such a significant and potentially disruptive revision to our regulations in this final rule.
(Comment 5) Numerous commenters advocate that FDA should implement an extensive communication and outreach strategy to engage, coordinate, and inform all interested parties, including Federal and State agencies; manufacturers, repackagers, and distributors; drug compendial services; insurers and pharmacy benefit managers; healthcare providers; software vendors; retailers; and other entities. The commenters believe that a comprehensive communication plan will increase awareness of the new NDC format and promote timely implementation among all interested parties, thereby minimizing or preventing disruption in drug purchasing, reimbursement, and delivery of patient care.
(Response 5) To help ensure industry readiness for the transition to a 12-digit NDC, FDA intends to broadly engage with relevant government and private parties during the 7-year period preceding the effective date of this rule.
(Comment 6) One commenter urges FDA and other Federal agencies to pursue a national synchronization effort to link 12-digit NDCs to 10-digit NDCs in every historical table and document.
(Response 6) This rule operates on a prospective basis only and does not mandate changes to historical government records. However, we intend to publish a database that will map each 10-digit NDC appearing in the NDC Directory to the corresponding 12-digit NDC at least until the end of the transition period.
(Comment 7) We received numerous miscellaneous comments. Most of these commenters seek clarification or changes to DSCSA requirements or labeling or registration and listing provisions that the proposed rule did not propose to modify. Two commenters advocate for the availability of investment credits or other types of government funding for the costs of implementing the transition to a 12-digit NDC.
(Response 7) These comments are outside the scope of the rule. In addition, the comments advocating for government funding of efforts to transition to a 12-digit NDC are outside the scope of FDA authority.
Currently, under § 207.33(b)(1), an NDC consists of either 10 or 11 digits, divided into the following three segments: (1) a labeler code of 4, 5, or 6 digits; (2) a product code of 3 or 4 digits; and (3) a package code consisting of 1 or 2 digits. Section 207.33(b)(2) specifies five different permitted NDC formats that differ based on the number of digits in each of the three segments: 4-4-2; 5-3-2; 5-4-1; 6-3-2; and 6-4-1. Section 207.33(b)(3) requires a registrant or private label distributor with a given labeler code to use a single product and package code configuration in all NDCs that include the given labeler code and are reserved or listed in accordance with applicable regulations. Finally, existing § 207.33(b)(4) permits FDA to approve an alternatively formatted NDC for certain human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).
We proposed to amend § 207.33(b) to establish a uniform, 12-digit format for the NDC for all drug products that are required to be listed under section 510 of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 207. Specifically, we proposed to modify § 207.33(b)(1) to state that the NDC must consist of 12 digits, divided into three segments as follows: (i) a 6-digit labeler code; (ii) a 4-digit product code; and (iii) a 2-digit package code. We proposed to remove existing § 207.33(b)(2) and (3) as inapplicable to a uniform, 12-digit NDC format. We proposed to retain at new § 207.33(b)(2) the existing language of § 207.33(b)(4) regarding the permissibility of an alternatively
In the following paragraphs, we discuss comments on our proposed revisions of § 207.33(b). We are finalizing the proposal without change.
(Comment 8) A number of commenters support our proposal to require a single, uniform NDC format for FDA-assigned NDCs. In general, these commenters support a uniform FDA-assigned NDC format for reasons related to patient safety, efficiency, and/or reduced burden. One commenter asserts that it is very burdensome to transmit and accept NDCs in multiple formats. Some commenters note that the coexistence of multiple NDC lengths and formats, with and without hyphens, can lead to incorrect drug inventory data, data loss, and transaction errors. Some commenters claim that a single, uniform NDC format could be used for all purposes and would eliminate the need to convert NDCs to a different format depending on the nature of the transaction, thereby reducing the potential for patient harm caused by errors in transmitting drug information. One commenter indicates that a uniform NDC format would eliminate the need for multiple layers of quality control. Another commenter notes that a single, uniform format is needed because the NDC is used for so many purposes other than drug identification, such as payment, controlled substance monitoring and reporting, and more. A trade association representing wholesale distributors of drugs strongly supports a uniform format for the NDC, arguing that, once the relevant parties are educated and acclimated to the new format, it will provide enormous efficiencies. This commenter notes that a uniform NDC format will eventually eliminate the need to cross-reference indexes and conversion tables, remove existing uncertainties regarding the lengths of the three NDC segments, and reduce errors.
(Response 8) We appreciate the support of the commenters. We agree that the various NDC formats (whether FDA-assigned or converted to another format) have created data quality and integrity issues. For example, as illustrated in Table 2, if hyphens are removed from an FDA-assigned NDC in an electronic system, there is no reliable way to know where the hyphens were in the original NDC. We believe that moving to a single, uniform format for the FDA-assigned NDC is an important and necessary improvement that will improve efficiency and reduce errors. Although we recognize that FDA's adoption of a single, uniform, 12-digit NDC format may require the NDC format currently used under HIPAA or other code sets to change, this final rule does not change the NDC format currently used under HIPAA and other code sets because that is outside the scope of FDA's authority. However, the Agency's adoption of a uniform NDC format may facilitate adoption of a uniform format industry-wide.
(Comment 9) A number of commenters support our proposal to require a 12-digit NDC in 6-4-2 format. These commenters prefer a 12-digit NDC over an 11-digit NDC because it would not lead to overlapping NDCs (as illustrated in Table 1 of the proposed rule). In addition, these commenters believe that a uniform NDC length and format would minimize risk of error in a variety of processes (
(Response 9) We agree with the commenters that support FDA's adoption of a uniform, 12-digit NDC in the 6-4-2 format. Although we agree that there is potential for error in converting NDCs from the 10-digit format to the 12-digit format, a uniform format for FDA-assigned NDCs will result in greater efficiency over time and be less susceptible to error. Moreover, to minimize any potential for error, FDA intends to publish a database that will map each 10-digit NDC appearing in the NDC Directory to the corresponding 12-digit NDC at least until the end of the transition period.
(Comment 10) Several commenters advocate for an expanded labeler code of 7 or 8 digits, because they are concerned that a 6-digit labeler code would not be sufficient to satisfy future demand. One commenter suggests that we increase the product code from 4 digits to 5 digits because it would increase the lifespan of labeler codes. This commenter reasons that an expanded product code could increase the lifespan of labeler codes since manufacturers cannot reuse codes. According to the commenter, NDCs get consumed faster than expected due to the requirement to assign NDCs to bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient, bulk intermediate, and finished products that are imported into the U.S. market. One commenter suggests that we eliminate the package code in an effort to reduce the number of NDCs assigned to each manufacturer.
(Response 10) We decline the suggestions to expand the labeler codes to more than 6 digits because, as explained in Response 1, a 6-digit labeler code will satisfy demand for hundreds of years. We also decline the suggestion to expand the product code to 5 digits. A 4-digit product code accommodates up to 10,000 different product codes (0000 to 9999). Because only a very small number of manufacturers and private label distributors need more than 10,000 product codes, it would be more efficient and less burdensome to assign those manufacturers an additional labeler code when they use up all of the product codes under an existing labeler code rather than expand the product code. We disagree with the suggestion to eliminate the package code. The package code is a useful segment of the NDC because it identifies a drug's package size and type and distinguishes different quantitative and qualitative attributes of the product packaging (21 CFR 207.33(b)(1)(iii)). For example, the package code is used to distinguish bottles of 30, 100, and 500 tablets of the same drug and whether the tablets are packaged in a bottle or blisterpack. Thus, the package code allows FDA, manufacturers, and other interested parties to more precisely identify and trace a drug throughout the supply chain. Eliminating the package code would hinder FDA efforts to ensure a secure drug supply chain and cause disruption in reimbursement, order fulfillment, inventory and supply chain management, and other matters. We are finalizing without change our proposal
(Comment 11) A large number of commenters advocate that we continue to allow 10-digit NDCs in the currently permitted formats (4-4-2, 5-3-2, 5-4-1) and that we address the need for additional labeler codes by issuing 5-character alphanumeric labeler codes only for new labelers after exhausting the supply of 5-digit numerical labeler codes. To eliminate the potential for medication errors that could occur when certain letters are misread as numerals, these commenters suggest that the alphanumeric labeler code should be limited to only 21 letters (all letters except B, D, I, O, and Q) or 20 letters (all letters except B, D, I, O, Q, and S).
According to the commenters, this approach has numerous advantages. First, the commenters assert that a limited 5-character alphanumeric labeler code would provide an abundant supply of labeler codes, thereby resolving the problem that prompted this rulemaking. A few commenters assert that such a limited 5-character alphanumeric labeler code would expand the supply of labeler codes to over 26 million codes.
Second, the commenters advocate for an alphanumeric labeler code on the grounds that it would be far less costly and disruptive and much easier and faster to implement because it would preserve much of the status quo. Under this approach, there would be no change for existing labelers. Only new labelers would be issued an alphanumeric labeler code after the supply of numeric labeler codes has been exhausted. The commenters note that the transition to an alphanumeric labeler code would be less costly because many entities, including pharmacy system vendors, already store NDCs in alphanumeric fields that would not require any software adjustments. In addition, commenters note that this approach would preserve the HIPAA-mandated 11-character format (5-4-2) already in use for many transactions, eliminating the need to modify the NDC format used under HIPAA. These commenters also believe that an alphanumeric labeler code would allow historical records to be preserved without change, thereby reducing change management costs.
Third, numerous commenters favor an alphanumeric labeler code because it would cause less confusion and minimize risks to patient safety. Many of these commenters disagree with our statement in the proposed rule that a uniform, 12-digit NDC format would reduce medication errors by eliminating the need to convert the various nonstandardized 10-digit NDCs to the HIPAA 11-digit NDC format. These commenters note that there is already little risk of error in such conversions because conversions are executed by drug data vendors (compendia) that publish the standardized National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) 11-digit product identifier NDC, and most affected parties use the compendium-published NDC. These commenters believe that the risk of medication errors and patient harm would be greater if every existing 10-digit NDC is converted to a 12-digit NDC and both NDCs appear on the product during the transition period. A number of commenters assert that an alphanumeric labeler code would be less disruptive to industry and patient care because it avoids impact to other identifiers, such as the Universal Product Code (UPC), that are currently reformatted into an NCPDP 11-digit product identifier NDC for use in the pharmacy industry. In addition, one commenter notes that a numeric labeler code that begins with a zero may be misread by those systems that treat the Product Service ID as a numeric field (that is, leading zeros would be dropped, resulting in errors). Some commenters argue that there is precedent for use of an alphabetic code to reduce confusion; they cite FDA's implementation of a four-character alphabetic code for biological products to reduce confusion in identifying biosimilar products.
Finally, a small number of commenters assert that an alphanumeric labeler code would make it easier for State Medicaid programs and their vendors to invoice and dispute claims. Specifically, these commenters argue that it would be very burdensome to pursue historical claims from as far back as 1991 for drugs bearing a 10-digit NDC.
In contrast, our decision not to propose an alphanumeric labeler code is supported by a trade association representing wholesale distributors and a healthcare services company with operations throughout the drug delivery and supply chain. In addition, comments from an organization responsible for implementation of global standards in the U.S. healthcare industry (GS1 US) identify some important disadvantages of an alphanumeric labeler code after engaging a workgroup comprised of nearly 40 organizations from throughout the supply chain, including manufacturers, wholesale distributors, providers, technology solutions companies, and industry associations. These commenters recognize that the transition to an alphanumeric labeler code would never achieve the goal of a uniform NDC sought by many in the industry. They assert that a single, standardized, and uniform NDC format will reduce errors and inefficiencies, particularly if it does not include letters. Two of the commenters note that it may be even more difficult to transition to an alphanumeric NDC compared to a 12-digit NDC and could require additional time to make the transition.
According to the three commenters, many IT systems currently in use cannot accommodate alphabetic characters (“alpha characters”), and an alphanumeric NDC would not relieve many interested parties from the requirement to update their systems. One of these commenters states that the addition of an alpha character to the NDC would increase the difficulty and expense of developing, mapping, and testing the new NDC format, possibly requiring additional transition time. Another of these commenters, the global standards organization, expresses its concern that an alphanumeric NDC would not be compatible with the global supply system because alphanumeric codes are not used in all countries and organizations. Moreover, the organization states that an NDC of uniform length and structure would help eliminate some of the variability that undermines the integrity of the standardized numerical identifier, which uses the NDC combined with a serial number to uniquely identify each package or homogenous case in the supply chain, as required by the DSCSA. All three of these commenters also share concern that, unlike numeric barcodes, barcodes that include letters cannot be compressed to conserve space on drug packages and labels, which is particularly critical for small drug packages. In addition, the commenters note that the transition to an alphanumeric NDC would require all barcode formats and scanners to be updated, which could potentially require additional transition time and create potential patient safety risks.
(Response 11) We appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive comments advocating for a 5-digit alphanumeric labeler code, and we seriously considered adopting an alphanumeric labeler code. Ultimately, we believe that the safer, more efficient approach is to finalize without change our proposal to institute a uniform, 12-digit NDC.
According to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), information that contains both numerals and letters is particularly prone to errors, and even typed, computer-
We believe that a numeric-only NDC has less potential to generate medication errors compared to an alphanumeric NDC. Simply put, there is less opportunity for confusion when a human user must input only numerals instead of numerals and letters. In retail and hospital pharmacy practice, the printed patient prescription label placed on the dispensed bottle identifies the NDC of the source bottle from which the drug was dispensed. When visually comparing the NDC on the printed patient prescription label to the NDC on the source bottle, a person may mistake a letter for a numeral and vice versa. It is less taxing and less error prone for the human brain to consider only 10 possible digits as potential options for each character in a 6-digit labeler code. In contrast, under the approach desired by the commenters, there would be a total of 50 possible characters (10 numerals, 20 uppercase letters, and 20 lowercase letters) for each character in an alphanumeric 6-digit labeler code. Moreover, this plethora of possibilities would not be limited only to newly issued alphanumeric labeler codes. The knowledge that some NDCs are alphanumeric may cause a human to misread a numeral as a letter even when trying to process an entirely numeric labeler code. This is likely to generate medication errors when the NDC must be manually typed into an electronic health record (EHR) or pharmacy information system. We note that phonetic factors can also contribute to medication errors with the use of alphanumeric NDCs. For example, if an NDC is confirmed by reading it aloud, the letter “A” may be mistaken for the numeral “8.” Alphanumeric NDCs may also contribute to confusion with other required label information, such as alphanumeric lot numbers, suffixes used for biosimilar and biological nonproprietary names, salt abbreviations (
Limiting the alpha characters as suggested by some commenters would not eliminate the potential for medication and inventory errors. Although we suspect that some of the additional letters identified in Table 3 above may be more susceptible to confusion only when handwritten (
We disagree with the suggestion made by some commenters that an alphanumeric labeler code is similar to the alphabetic suffixes used by FDA in assigning a nonproprietary name for certain biological products licensed under section 351(a) or 351(k) of the PHS Act. Under FDA's current naming convention for such biological products, the Agency designates a nonproprietary name that is a combination of the core name and a distinguishing suffix that is composed of four lowercase letters. In contrast to the use of an alphabetical suffix as part of a product name, the commenters propose to add alphabetic characters to the numeric NDC, which for the reasons discussed above risks confusion.
Finally, we disagree that the concerns raised about claiming and disputing historical Medicaid drug rebates should outweigh the advantages of promulgating a uniform, 12-digit NDC format that contains a numeric labeler code. As noted above, FDA does not view conversion of a 10-digit NDC to a 12-digit NDC as resulting in a “new” NDC. Moreover, nothing in this final rule requires a change to the NDC format used for purposes of claiming or disputing historical claims for Medicaid drug rebates.
In summary, although a limited 5-digit alphanumeric labeler code would result in additional labeler codes that would extend the use of 10-digit NDCs, FDA must consider not just sheer numbers, but also safety and useability.
(Comment 12) Some commenters advocate for a uniform, 11-character NDC in the HIPAA-mandated 5-4-2 format, except that it would eventually incorporate an alphanumeric labeler code for new labelers. These commenters note that this approach would provide an adequate supply of labeler codes, achieve the goal of an NDC of uniform length and configuration, and be less costly and safer to implement for the reasons summarized in Comment 11. Under this approach, there would be very little change for the existing labelers because their native 10-digit NDCs would simply be converted to an 11-digit NDC format in the same manner that such NDCs are currently converted to the 11-digit HIPAA NDC format.
(Response 12) We decline to adopt an 11-character NDC with an alphanumeric labeler code for the reasons discussed in Response 11. We note that for firms that currently have FDA-assigned 10-digit NDCs, the adoption of an 11-character NDC would not reduce the costs of updating labeling to include the new 11-digit NDC.
(Comment 13) A number of commenters request that FDA permit the elimination of dashes in the NDC format when the NDC is communicated and stored electronically. The commenters reason that dashes increase the amount of data that must be exchanged and stored and can be misread, which interferes with interoperable data exchange and may result in errors. They note that electronic messaging and electronic data interchange standards do not include dashes and that dashes will not be necessary with a uniform NDC format. In contrast, one commenter asserts that dashes should not be eliminated because it is difficult to know where to place leading zeros when NDCs are transmitted without dashes. This commenter states that FDA should ensure interoperable data communication by providing clear guidance regarding the use of dash separators.
(Response 13) We appreciate the concerns of the commenters, but the electronic storage and exchange of NDCs is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Nothing in this final rule governs the use of dashes in the NDC when the NDC is communicated and stored electronically. We note that the new uniform format (6-4-2) should eliminate any existing uncertainty regarding placement of dashes for human-readable formats of the NDC.
(Comment 14) A comment from a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) asserts that the proposed rule does not address the format for the product and package codes in a 12-digit NDC. The PBM advocates that leading zeros be added to existing 3-digit product codes and existing 1-digit package codes, noting that it would be consistent with the current NCPDP product identifier standard.
(Response 14) We addressed the format for product and package codes in the proposed rule. Specifically, we proposed that all existing 10-digit NDCs would be converted to the uniform, 12-digit format by the addition of leading zeros to the labeler code, the product code, and/or the package code segments as needed to produce the 6-4-2 format (87 FR 44038 at 44042-, 44043). We are finalizing this proposal without change.
(Comment 15) One commenter notes concern that leading zeros are often truncated and requests clarification that truncation of leading zeros would not be permitted. Another commenter notes that the addition of leading zeros to existing NDCs could lead to medication errors if software systems are not programmed to read NDCs correctly.
(Response 15) Leading zeros are part of the NDC, whether they exist under the current regulations or will be added in accordance with this final rule. FDA believes that leading zeros should not be truncated, and both existing and future electronic systems will need to be designed accordingly.
(Comment 16) One commenter requests confirmation that FDA would not assign a labeler code consisting entirely of a single repeating numeral (
(Response 16) We decline to accept the commenter's request. The commenter does not provide any context for how industry may use such values and the likelihood that industry's use of these values would be confused with an NDC. We note that there are no 4- or 5-digit labeler codes that consist entirely of zeros, but FDA has assigned labeler codes consisting entirely of other repeating numerals. We are not persuaded to change the current practice.
(Comment 17) One commenter seeks confirmation that 6-digit labeler codes for new labelers would be assigned starting at 100000.
(Response 17) The commenter is correct. Because leading zeros will be added to existing labeler codes of less than 6 digits, new 6-digit labeler codes that begin with a zero will not be issued.
(Comment 18) Several commenters ask how historical patient records containing NDCs should be handled. These commenters query whether it will be necessary to convert to the new format any NDCs that appear in patient records regarding medication history and drug allergy information. The commenters note that there could be drug-drug interactions or a drug allergy that must be considered in the patient's ongoing treatment. They also believe that it will be very burdensome to convert NDCs in patient records, especially if the conversions cannot be safely automated and would require clinician review.
(Response 18) These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This final rule does not set forth any requirements with respect to historical paper or electronic patient records that include an NDC.
(Comment 19) Comments from a health IT vendor and an association representing EHR software developers appreciate our statement in the proposed rule indicating that FDA will continue to maintain and publish 10-digit NDCs for listed drugs simultaneously with their converted 12-digit NDC equivalents during the transition period (87 FR 44038 at 44044). Both commenters request that FDA make this information available in perpetuity to avoid potential confusion after the effective date of the final rule.
(Response 19) We intend to publish a database that will map each 10-digit NDC appearing in the NDC Directory to the corresponding 12-digit NDC at least until the end of the transition period. We may consider the matter further as the end of the transition period approaches. We note that if FDA
(Comment 20) Two commenters representing health IT vendors advocate that the final rule should require health IT vendors to include only the converted 12-digit NDC in interoperable outbound messages that occur on or after the effective date of the final rule. The commenters suggest that such a policy would support interoperability in the exchange of patient data.
(Response 20) Although FDA agrees that the interoperable exchange of patient health data is important and necessary, the commenters' suggestion is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This final rule does not set forth any requirements with respect to the electronic exchange of patient data containing NDCs. As we indicated in the proposed rule (87 FR 44038 at 44044), one of the purposes of the delayed effective date is to allow sufficient time for the HIPAA standards to be updated to accommodate the uniform, 12-digit format for NDCs and for all interested parties to update their systems and make other changes necessary for handling the uniform, 12-digit NDC upon the effective date of this final rule. To the extent that any messages transmitted after the end of the transition period are required by the FD&C Act to include the NDC, the NDC set forth in such message must be in the uniform 12-digit format.
(Comment 21) A comment from an association representing pharmacists requests additional guidance regarding how FDA intends to handle the practice of converting 10-digit NDCs to 11-digit NDCs during the transition to 12-digit NDCs. The commenter states that once the 12-digit NDC is introduced, the use of all three formats at the same time may introduce confusion and increase the likelihood of errors.
(Response 21) The commenter is mistaken; NDCs of 10, 11, and 12 digits will not all be used at the same time. As explained in section I.B. of this document, FDA will continue to assign new 10-digit NDCs until the effective date of this final rule. Upon the effective date of this final rule, all existing FDA-assigned 10-digit NDCs will be converted to 12-digit NDCs, and FDA will begin assigning new NDCs in the uniform, 12-digit format. As explained in section V.E. of this document, this final rule has a 7-year delayed effective date. Because the current HIPAA standards cannot accommodate a 12-digit NDC, we expect that the current HIPAA 11-digit standard will be discontinued, and a new HIPAA standard that can accommodate a 12-digit NDC will be implemented on or before the effective date of this rule. To minimize any potential for confusion during the 3-year transition period that begins on the effective date, FDA will publish both the 10-digit and 12-digit NDCs for all listed drugs that had been assigned a 10-digit NDC.
The FDA regulation at 21 CFR 201.25 specifies when, where, and in what format a barcode must appear on the label of a human prescription drug product, a biological product, and an over-the-counter drug product. Currently, § 201.25(c) provides that each drug product subject to the barcode label requirements must have a barcode that contains, at a minimum, the appropriate NDC in a linear barcode that meets European Article Number/Uniform Code Council (EAN/UCC) or Health Industry Business Communications Council (HIBCC) standards or another standard or format that has been approved by the relevant FDA Center Director. Section 201.25(c)(1) further states that the barcode must be surrounded by sufficient blank space so that it can be scanned correctly, and it must remain intact under normal conditions of use.
We proposed to revise § 201.25(c) to allow use of barcodes in a linear or nonlinear format that is approved by the relevant FDA Center Director. We also proposed that approved standards would include those that meet EAN/UCC or HIBCC standards. In the proposed rule, we recognized that the current barcode standards that utilize GS1's Global Trade Item Number (GTIN)-14 cannot accommodate the embedding of a 12-digit NDC (87 FR 44038 at 44042, 44044). Therefore, we stated that the delayed effective date of the rule would allow time for the development of new data standards, data carriers, and systems and processes to accommodate a 12-digit NDC.
In the following paragraphs, we discuss comments on proposed § 201.25(c)(1). We are finalizing the proposal with modification. Specifically, we are amending § 201.25(c)(1) to allow the use of a barcode in a linear or nonlinear format if it “conforms to the standards developed by a widely recognized international standards development organization and that format and standard is recognized by the relevant Food and Drug Administration Center Director.” We have removed references to specific standard-setting organizations, two of which became outdated (according to comments submitted by GS1 US, EAN and UCC merged in 2005 and are now known as GS1 and GS1 US, respectively). The more general term “widely recognized international standards development organization” is understood throughout industry, unlikely to become obsolete, and does not constitute a change in the status quo because GS1, GS1 US (a member of GS1), and HIBCC are “widely recognized international standards development organizations.” In addition, this change has the benefit of characterizing the nature of the organizations whose barcode formats and standards FDA may recognize in the future.
Although the proposed rule and the existing regulation text refer to barcode formats and standards “approved” by FDA, this final rule requires that barcode standards and formats be “recognized” by FDA. The purpose of this change is to clarify FDA's role with regard to industry's adoption of barcode formats and standards that can comply with all requirements of § 201.25(c). Specifically, FDA is not a standards development organization; it does not develop, prescribe, or officially “approve” highly technical barcode standards and formats. Rather, FDA relies on the expertise and activities of widely recognized international standards development organizations to develop barcode formats and standards for drug labels that will satisfy the requirements of § 201.25(c) while accommodating industry needs and leveraging technological innovations. The Agency will ensure that industry is notified if an FDA Center Director recognizes a new barcode format and standard or revokes the recognition of a barcode format and standard. In the meantime, FDA recognizes those barcode formats and standards developed by GS1, GS1 US, and HIBCC that comply with the requirements of § 201.25(c).
(Comment 22) A number of commenters support our proposal to permit the use of nonlinear barcodes. Some drug products must include on their labels both the linear barcode currently required under existing § 201.25(c) as well as a two-dimensional (2D) data matrix barcode that is required for certain prescription drug packages under the DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54).
(Response 22) We appreciate the commenters' support and believe that allowing the use of nonlinear barcodes will accommodate advancements in technology and industry needs by providing more options for labeling compliance. After the effective date of this final rule, if a product is required under § 201.25 to include on its label a barcode that encodes the drug's NDC, the manufacturer or repackager will be able to encode the NDC into either a linear or nonlinear barcode that complies with the requirements of § 201.25. If the same drug label is also required under the DSCSA to include a product identifier, the 2D data matrix barcode could satisfy both sets of barcode requirements (§ 201.25 and DSCSA) because the 2D data matrix barcode includes encoding of the NDC. Accordingly, this final rule should reduce scanning failures due to close placement of multiple barcodes and avoid potential errors from manual entry of drug information, thereby improving patient care and increasing efficiency across the supply chain. This final rule does not prohibit the use of both linear and nonlinear barcodes on the same label, as long as applicable requirements under § 201.25 and the DSCSA are met.
(Comment 23) Many commenters are concerned that the proposed changes to the NDC format would require modifications to how the NDC is encoded within a barcode. Commenters seek additional guidance regarding the impact of a 12-digit NDC on barcode standards, such as a UPC barcode or a 2D data matrix barcode used for the product identifier required under the DSCSA.
(Response 23) We understand from comments submitted by GS1 US that a 12-digit NDC would be incompatible with the current barcode standards that utilize GS1's GTIN-12 or GTIN-14 (
(Comment 24) One commenter requests that FDA provide examples of barcodes that would comply with this final rule. Several commenters note the need for consistency between the FDA barcode rule and DSCSA requirements.
(Response 24) The barcode labeling requirements of this final rule would be satisfied by any barcode that encodes the appropriate NDC and conforms to a standard developed by GS1, GS1 US, HIBCC, or another organization whose linear or nonlinear barcode format is recognized by FDA. We cannot provide examples of barcodes that will satisfy the requirements of this final rule because GS1, GS1 US, and HIBCC may change barcode formats and standards over time. We note, as summarized in Comment 23, that GS1 has made it possible for linear and nonlinear barcodes to encode the new 12-digit NDC on the effective date of this final rule. Although the UPC-A linear barcode may not be used to encode a 12-digit NDC, it would not have been able to encode the 11-digit NDC that would have been issued under existing § 207.33(b)(1) had this rule not been finalized.
We presume that the commenters advocate for consistency between the barcode labeling requirements of this final rule and the DSCSA product identifier requirements to ensure that, when appropriate, a single barcode could be used to satisfy both sets of requirements. We agree that regulatory consistency on requirements related to barcodes is desirable whenever possible, and based on comments received from GS1, the addition of AI (715) will allow the 12-digit NDC to be incorporated into one or more types of barcodes that could satisfy the requirements of this final rule as well as DSCSA requirements. We anticipate that standards organizations will continue to support industry's efforts to integrate NDCs into barcodes for supply chain security purposes in a manner that ensures consistency with the barcode labeling requirements in this final rule.
(Comment 25) Some commenters seek guidance regarding how the new NDC format would affect the use of GTINs, particularly for purposes of DSCSA compliance. One commenter asks FDA to confirm that manufacturers may continue to use the GTIN in barcodes where feasible (for example, when package size is sufficient to accommodate the relevant barcode). Another commenter asks FDA to recognize the GTIN-14 as an optional data element of the unique product identifier required under section 582(b)(2) of the FD&C Act so that GTIN-14 can continue to be used for global supply chain harmonization efforts; it could then be voluntarily included within a 2D data matrix barcode and provided in human-readable format on the package.
(Response 25) The direct relationship between GS1's GTIN-12 or -14 and NDC will no longer exist once the new 12-digit NDC format is fully adopted because the use of 10- and 11-digit NDCs will be phased out and the GTIN-12 and GTIN-14 cannot accommodate the embedding of a 12-digit NDC. Regarding prescription drugs subject to DSCSA requirements, manufacturers
(Comment 26) One commenter asks whether the current GS1 GTIN without leading zeros would be accepted.
(Response 26) This final rule sets forth how 10- and 11-digit NDCs will be converted to 12-digit NDCs. While this conversion will include the addition of leading zeros in some segments of the NDC, FDA cannot speak to how this would affect GS1 GTINs and general GS1 requirements beyond the information that the Agency has received from GS1 through this notice and comment process. FDA has addressed GTIN-related comments in Responses 23 and 25.
(Comment 27) One commenter states that this final rule should define a common barcode symbol and specify how it should be encoded. The commenter suggests a specific encoding format and believes that allowing GS1 to establish the barcode and encoding standards would involve too much delay and would not result in uniform standards across industry.
(Response 27) We decline to accept the commenter's suggestion. We are concerned that promulgating a single barcode symbol and encoding format could impede innovation in barcode technology for drug products subject to the barcode label requirements. We note that given the delayed effective date and GS1's development of AI (715) as an option for encoding the 12-digit NDC in certain linear and nonlinear barcodes, the commenter's concerns regarding delay have been addressed.
(Comment 28) In response to our solicitation of comment in section V.C.3 of the proposed rule, an association of biopharmaceutical research and manufacturing companies urges FDA not to further revise § 201.25(c) to accommodate potential advances in technologies by allowing the use of unspecified automatic identification and data capture formats other than linear or nonlinear barcodes. The association notes that such a generic standard should not be implemented without providing an opportunity for public notice and comment. In addition, the association notes that any additional changes to the regulation should be specific in nature to ensure alignment and interoperability among all supply chain partners.
(Response 28) We understand the commenter's concern and will not permit the use of unspecified automatic identification and data capture formats at this time. We may consider the matter in future rulemaking.
In the following paragraphs, we discuss comments on our proposal to delay the effective date of the final rule for 5 years after its publication and to provide a 3-year transition period during which FDA would exercise enforcement discretion with respect to drugs labeled with a 10-digit NDC. In light of the public comments and the current rate at which labeler codes are assigned, we are delaying the effective date of this final rule for a period of 7 years after the date of its publication. We are finalizing without change our proposal for a 3-year transition period.
(Comment 29) Some commenters support the proposal to set a specific effective date for the use of 12-digit NDCs, rather than implement the new NDC format only after the supply of 5-digit labeler codes is exhausted. These commenters note that a specific effective date would mitigate disruption, patient risk, and the cost of the transition. In particular, the commenters support a definitive effective date because it allows for adequate planning and budgeting and is less likely to result in a chaotic and inconsistent implementation.
(Response 29) We agree with the commenters and appreciate their support.
(Comment 30) Several commenters believe that the proposed 5-year delayed effective date and 3-year transition period are sufficient to accomplish an orderly transition to the uniform, 12-digit NDC format while minimizing the potential for drug shortages and patient harm. Many other commenters, however, urge FDA to further delay the effective date of the final rule or to adopt a longer transition period, or both. Although most commenters do not suggest a specific alternative implementation timeframe, several commenters suggest that full implementation of the final rule (delayed effective date and transition period) should occur over at least a 10-year period. One commenter advocates for a 7-year delayed effective date, and another commenter urges FDA to adopt a 10-year delayed effective date. A third commenter asserts that the transition period should end at least 10 years from the close of the comment period on the proposed rule (
Commenters supporting a longer implementation timeframe assert that the complexity and burden of migrating to a new NDC format warrants a longer period of time for full implementation. Those supporting a longer delayed effective date argue that pharmacies, payors, and other parties throughout the healthcare supply chain and delivery system would need more time to develop, test, and upgrade software systems to handle both 10- and 12-digit NDCs; invest in new hardware for barcode scanning; implement new internal processes; and train personnel. These commenters assert that without more time, there would be significant data exchange errors that would affect product delivery and impede patient access.
Commenters representing the drug manufacturing sector assert that the proposed 3-year transition period is too short to accommodate the required labeling, barcode, and packaging changes, especially for generic drug manufacturers with large numbers of labeler codes, drug products, and packaging that must be updated. These commenters note their belief that FDA's proposed 3-year transition period is based on a flawed premise that most drug products have a 2-year expiration date and most drug product labeling is updated at least once every 3 years. The commenters note that many older generic drugs with stable safety profiles expire after 3 or more years, and a few expire after 10 years. One large generic drug manufacturer notes that it markets over 500 products with expiration dates longer than 2 years. In addition, commenters argue that generic drug companies may have dozens or hundreds of products for which labeling changes are not needed as frequently as every 3 years, and carton and container labeling is changed far less frequently. Moreover, commenters assert that, because 12-digit NDCs will not be assigned before the effective date of the final rule, manufacturers cannot use the 7-year period before the effective date to begin transitioning all labeling and packaging to the new NDC format. According to the commenters, it will not be possible for some manufacturers with large product portfolios to update all drug product labeling and packaging within 3 years, and there will be a substantial amount of product labeled with 10-digit NDCs on the market at the end of the transition period. The commenters further note that, as a practical matter, even drugs with a 2-year expiration date would need to have their labeling updated by the end of the
Two commenters, including a trade association of EHR developers, advocate for a transition period shorter than 3 years, arguing that the coexistence of 10- and 12-digit NDCs during the transition period would pose a risk to public health that would not be outweighed by the challenges manufacturers will face in updating their labeling to conform to the final rule. The commenters suggest that the potential for public health and safety risks would be reduced if the final rule minimizes the amount of time during which health information systems must accommodate multiple NDC formats. Another commenter is concerned about the potential for confusion and medication errors during the transition period.
(Response 30) In response to the comments we received asking for a longer time period between the publication of the final rule and the effective date, we are revising the proposed 5-year delayed effective date to a 7-year delayed effective date. We reevaluated the supply of 5-digit labeler codes. Based on that reevaluation, we determined that we could delay the effective date for 2 additional years without significantly increasing the risk of running out of 5-digit labeler codes prior to the effective date. Accordingly, we are delaying the effective date of this final rule for 7 years. We have chosen a 7-year delayed effective date because it responds to the needs of the commenters, will help ensure an orderly and safe transition to the new NDC format, and is not likely to occur before the supply of 5-digit labeler codes is exhausted. Further delaying the effective date could jeopardize the supply of 5-digit labeler codes.
We decline to extend the transition period beyond 3 years. We continue to believe that the coexistence of drug labeling with either the 10- or 12-digit NDC poses risks to public health. Simultaneously accommodating 10- and 12-digit NDCs raises the risk of confusion, which in turn could increase medication errors and the potential for illegitimate product to be introduced into the market. We disagree with the commenters' assertion that manufacturers cannot use the 7-year period before the effective date of this final rule to begin the work of transitioning all labeling and packaging to the new NDC format. Although the new labeling cannot be used before the effective date, manufacturers will know how each existing 10-digit NDC will be converted to the new format. Thus, they can begin preparing new labels and packaging before the start of the transition period. Accordingly, we do not believe the need for a transition period longer than 3 years outweighs the risks of extending the time period during which both 10-digit and 12-digit NDCs will be used. Nevertheless, given the challenges cited by these commenters, we are concerned that a transition period shorter than 3 years would not be feasible. We are finalizing a 3-year transition period to support a smooth transition that minimizes the potential for confusion and medication errors.
(Comment 31) In lieu of a longer transition period, some commenters advocate for a more flexible approach that would alleviate some of the challenges they perceive with a 3-year transition period. These commenters suggest that FDA implement a waiver process pursuant to which manufacturers could apply for an extension of the transition period upon a demonstration of need. Under this approach, manufacturers would still use the new NDC format, but would have more time to transition products with 10-digit NDC labeling from the market. Alternatively, commenters suggest a staggered or phased implementation approach that would permit companies with large numbers of NDCs to have a longer transition period. Finally, commenters suggest that FDA treat products that bear a 10-digit NDC as exempt from the requirements of this final rule as long as the products entered interstate commerce (
(Response 31) No enforcement action would be taken against any unexpired product for being labeled with a 10-digit NDC (rather than a 12-digit NDC) if it remains in interstate commerce after the transition period ends, so long as it was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce prior to the effective date of this final rule. We decline, however, to extend the transition period in the manner suggested by the commenters for the reasons noted in Response 30. Accordingly, any products that are introduced into interstate commerce with a 10-digit NDC after the effective date and before the end of the transition period are subject to enforcement action if they remain in interstate commerce after the end of the transition period. We believe this approach will encourage prompt transitioning of labeling while decreasing compliance costs and the potential for drug shortages.
(Comment 32) One commenter representing allergen manufacturers requests that its members be exempt from the requirement to identify their drug products with a 12-digit NDC. The commenter reasons that converting allergen extract products to a 12-digit NDC format after they have been identified by 10-digit NDCs for over 50 years may cause confusion and is too burdensome.
(Response 32) We see no reason to treat allergen manufacturers any differently than manufacturers of other drugs. For the reasons explained in Responses 8 and 9, we believe that using the uniform, 12-digit format NDC for all drugs is ultimately safer, less confusing, and less expensive. Moreover, FDA considers an NDC in its original 10-digit format and in its converted 12-digit format to be the same NDC with different formats.
(Comment 33) Some commenters advocate for FDA to exercise flexibility regarding the implementation of the final rule if unanticipated events arise that interfere with industry's ability to implement the necessary system changes by the effective date.
(Response 33) We are extending the effective date of this final rule to 7 years after publication, which provides additional flexibility. Although FDA has provided some flexibility with respect to other effective dates, affected parties should not expect or anticipate any extensions in the effective date of this final rule given the limited supply of labeler codes. Affected parties should be prepared to accommodate the 12-digit NDC no later than 7 years after the publication of this final rule. Once the Agency begins issuing 12-digit NDCs, affected parties must be ready to handle that NDC; the inability to do so could jeopardize patient care and access to medication.
(Comment 34) A commenter representing wholesale distributors seeks clarity on the legal status of drug products that bear only a 10-digit NDC and enter the supply chain before the
(Response 34) Products that are introduced into interstate commerce or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce before the effective date can remain on the market and accessible to patients after the 3-year transition period, as long as they have not expired. We note that most products introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce before the effective date of this final rule will expire before the end of the transition period. Products that are packaged before the effective date but are introduced into interstate commerce or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce with a 10-digit NDC (rather than a 12-digit NDC) after the effective date are subject to enforcement action if they remain in interstate commerce after the end of the transition period.
(Comment 35) One commenter suggests that FDA conduct a study to determine if the proposed delayed effective date and transition period allow sufficient time for all interested parties to implement the final rule.
(Response 35) We decline to conduct a study as suggested by the commenter. Such a study is unnecessary because the public comments have provided sufficient feedback on our proposed implementation timeframe. Moreover, a study would further delay the final rule and jeopardize FDA's ability to transition to 6-digit labeler codes before exhausting the supply of 5-digit labeler codes.
(Comment 36) Several commenters urge FDA to provide periodic updates identifying the remaining number of 5-digit labeler codes or estimating how much longer FDA can continue to issue 5-digit labeler codes. The commenters note that this information would be useful in determining when to begin or accelerate efforts to comply with the final rule.
(Response 36) We decline to provide the requested updates because the volume of remaining 5-digit labeler codes will not impact the effective date of the final rule, and FDA does not intend to extend the effective date even if the number of 5-digit labeler codes may allow for such an extension. Therefore, interested parties should work with all diligence to ensure that, as of the effective date of this final rule, they have systems in place to handle the new 12-digit NDC format. FDA has carefully established the effective date of this final rule to occur before the supply of 5-digit labeler codes is exhausted.
(Comment 37) One commenter requests clarification on when FDA will begin issuing 6-digit labeler codes and converting 10-digit NDCs to 12-digit NDCs. The commenter also seeks clarification on when repackagers must begin labeling products using the 12-digit NDC format.
(Response 37) Starting on the effective date of this final rule, FDA will issue only 6-digit labeler codes and all new NDCs will be assigned in the uniform, 12-digit format (except in the case of certain HCT/Ps for which an alternatively formatted NDC is approved by FDA pursuant to § 207.33(b)(2) of this final rule). In addition, on the effective date, FDA will convert all existing 10-digit NDCs in all product listing structured product labeling (SPL) and NDC labeler code request SPLs (hereinafter “drug listing files”) to the 12-digit format by adding leading zeros to the labeler code, product code, and/or package code segment of the NDC, as needed to produce the uniform 6-4-2 format. All drug listing files submitted after the effective date must identify the NDC using the 12-digit NDC format. Manufacturers and repackagers should start labeling drugs that were assigned a 10-digit NDC with the 12-digit NDC as soon as possible after the effective date of this final rule.
(Comment 38) A comment from an association representing a variety of parties in the pharmaceutical distribution system urges FDA to retain the proposed policy under which FDA would automatically convert NDCs to the 12-digit format on the effective date of the final rule. This comment notes that requiring registrants to resubmit existing drug listing files to reflect a reformatted NDC would be unmanageable and impose an enormous burden. Several commenters representing the manufacturing sector oppose the proposed automatic conversion policy on the grounds that it will result in confusion and could render product immediately unsellable. One commenter notes that distributors could put a 10-digit NDC product into a non-sellable status and eventually return the product to the manufacturer for destruction, which would be wasteful. This commenter also notes that current purchasing systems would require significant changes to allow for the same drug product to be sold with different NDCs. Commenters opposed to the automatic conversion policy advocate that FDA should not activate new 12-digit NDCs until the manufacturer has introduced product with that NDC into the market after submitting an SPL file with updated labeling reflecting the 12-digit NDC. According to the commenters, their proposed approach would ensure that the NDC that appears on a drug label will match the NDC that appears for that product in the NDC Directory and the DailyMed searchable database. The commenters also note that their approach would reduce confusion and the potential for medication errors and would avoid the need to discard labeling stock and usable product.
(Response 38) We agree that it would be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to resubmit all existing drug listing files merely to reflect a reformatted NDC that is not a “new” NDC. The commenters opposed to the automatic conversion policy appear to have misunderstood the nature of the proposed NDC conversion. As explained in Response 2, FDA considers the conversion of a 10-digit NDC assigned by FDA to the new, uniform 12-digit NDC format to be a ministerial, administrative change and not the assignment of a “new” NDC. Furthermore, FDA considers such an NDC in its original 10-digit format and in its converted 12-digit format to be the same NDC with different formats. Because the converted NDC is not a “new” NDC, the commenters' concerns that the labeling update renders product immediately unsaleable are unfounded. Moreover, by publishing both the 10-digit and 12-digit NDCs for all listed drugs that had been assigned a 10-digit NDC, FDA would minimize the potential for confusion that may occur during the transition period before a drug's labeling is updated. We recognize that electronic systems will require significant changes to process transactions involving NDCs under both formats after the effective date and for this reason have delayed the effective date for 7 years. We note that the alternative approach suggested by the opposing comments would not ensure that the NDC that appears on a drug label will match the NDC that appears for that product in the NDC Directory and DailyMed, except in the unlikely event that all stock of the product labeled with a 10-digit NDC has been removed from the market at the time the manufacturer has submitted a new SPL file and introduced into interstate
Accordingly, upon the effective date, FDA will update existing SPL files to reflect the 12-digit NDC by linking or otherwise associating both NDC formats. For those products that are required to include an NDC on their labeling, a manufacturer must report that it has updated a product label to reflect the 12-digit NDC by using the annual reporting process under 21 CFR 314.81(b)(2)(iii) for drugs subject to a new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or 21 CFR 601.12(f)(3) for biological products subject to a biologics license application (BLA). Manufacturers that voluntarily include the NDC on the label of an animal drug must make a similar report in accordance with 21 CFR 514.80(b)(4)(ii). In addition, in accordance with § 207.49(a)(15), the manufacturer must update the relevant SPL file with the new labels and packaging that includes the 12-digit NDC format.
(Comment 39) A comment from a generic drug manufacturer asserts that, in the case of a labeling update required under section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(o)(4)), FDA should not require the revised labeling to update the NDC to the new 12-digit format. The commenter notes that, under section 505(o)(4)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, a manufacturer has only 30 days to propose labeling changes to reflect new safety, effectiveness, or other information regarding a reference listed drug (RLD). The commenter conveys concern that RLD sponsors could “force” generic drug manufacturers to update labeling with respect to the NDC before the manufacturer has prepared new packaging and other materials featuring the reformatted NDC, thereby disrupting complex internal systems and processes.
(Response 39) As stated in the proposed rule, if a firm includes an NDC in its labeling, it should start labeling drugs that were assigned a 10-digit NDC with the 12-digit NDC as soon as possible after the effective date, but no later than when it runs out of its existing labeling for the drug and orders or begins printing new labeling (87 FR 44038 at 44044). We recognize that the speed with which labeling changes must be made pursuant to section 505(o)(4)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act may be challenging, particularly if they are unexpected. However, firms can take advantage of the 7-year delayed effective date to plan and prepare for timely implementation of labeling updates after the effective date of this final rule. Such preparation will minimize the challenges posed by labeling changes that must be made to reflect new safety, effectiveness, or other information under section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act. We note that FDA cannot approve new labeling that is not in compliance with applicable requirements. Therefore, in the case of a drug whose labeling must include the NDC, the 12-digit NDC format must be used in any new labeling that includes the NDC that is submitted for FDA approval after the effective date of this rule.
(Comment 40) Several commenters seek more detailed information regarding the revision and submission of drug listing files. Specifically, the commenters seek clarification on when manufacturers should begin incorporating the 12-digit NDC format into drug listing files, whether such updates would be accomplished by amending existing drug listing files or if manufacturers would need to submit new drug listing files, and whether FDA would accept an updated drug listing if the data elements in the drug listing file reflect the 12-digit NDC, but the drug's labeling has not yet been updated to reflect the 12-digit NDC format.
(Response 40) Upon the effective date of this final rule, FDA will update all drug listing files to reflect the 12-digit NDC format. Accordingly, manufacturers will not need to submit new or updated drug listing files solely to effectuate the NDC format change. If a drug listing file must be updated for other reasons after the effective date, the manufacturer should follow the usual procedures for such updates. During the transition period, FDA will accept an updated drug listing file that includes the NDC in a 12-digit format, even if the drug's labeling still reflects a 10-digit NDC.
(Comment 41) A commenter seeks clarity on whether it could begin to initiate conversion of 10-digit NDCs to the 12-digit NDC format on product labeling after the effective date of the final rule. Another commenter notes concern that some manufacturers would wait until after the transition period to begin labeling updates to reflect the 12-digit NDC.
(Response 41) Firms should not delay their labeling compliance efforts until the end of the transition period. Rather, they should use the 7-year period before the effective date to plan and prepare for updating their labeling during the transition period. For products whose labels must include the NDC, firms should start labeling products with the 12-digit NDC format as soon as possible after the effective date and no later than when existing labeling stock is depleted.
(Comment 42) A few commenters inquire whether the NDC Directory and DailyMed would be updated and searchable on both the 10-digit and 12-digit NDCs.
(Response 42) For products previously assigned a 10-digit NDC, the NDC Directory will be updated on the effective date to reflect NDCs in the 12-digit format, and we anticipate that it will be searchable using either the 10-digit or 12-digit format. Although the DailyMed database is maintained by the National Institutes for Health (NIH), not FDA, the Agency will coordinate with NIH to help ensure that DailyMed is similarly updated and searchable on both NDC formats as of the effective date.
(Comment 43) One commenter seeks confirmation that the NDC format appearing on certain prescription drug packages is expected to match the NDC included in the transaction information required to be exchanged to satisfy DSCSA requirements. The commenter notes that the product identifier for DSCSA purposes should match what appears on the physical label and packaging.
(Response 43) This comment is outside the scope of this final rule and will be addressed through DSCSA implementation efforts. Detailed information on DSCSA implementation can be found at
(Comment 44) A commenter seeks clarification regarding compliance obligations at the end of the transition period. Specifically, the commenter questions whether all drug products in the supply chain at the end of the transition period must be labeled with a 12-digit NDC or if only those drug products manufactured after expiration of the transition period must bear a 12-digit NDC.
(Response 44) Most drug products in the supply chain at the end of the transition period must be labeled with a 12-digit NDC. Drug products labeled with a 10-digit NDC that are introduced into interstate commerce or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce after the effective date and that remain on the market after the end of the transition period are subject to enforcement action. In contrast, drug products labeled with a 10-digit NDC that are introduced into interstate commerce or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce before the
As stated above, drug products manufactured after the effective date should be labeled with the new NDC format no later than when new labels need to be printed. We recognize that drug products labeled with a 10-digit NDC will likely be introduced into the market during the first year after the effective date, as firms attempt to deplete their labeling inventory. By the second year after the effective date, we expect most firms to be using new labeling that conforms to the 12-digit NDC format. Firms still using old labeling during the third year after the effective date will be at risk for enforcement action if drug products with such labeling remain on the market after the transition period ends.
After the proposed rule was published, FDA modified the authority citation for 21 CFR part 201 to include the following additional statutory provisions: 21 U.S.C. 343, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, and 360ee. The authority citation set forth in this final rule repeats the current authority citation without change.
This rule will become effective 7 years after the date of its publication in the
We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801, Pub. L. 104-121), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are economically significant under Executive Order 12866 if they have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with certain significant 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 final rule is not considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Because this rule is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to meet other criteria specified in the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, OIRA has determined that this rule does not fall within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the one-time costs could be as much as 0.59 percent of average annual revenue for some very small entities in the pharmaceutical industry, 0.33 percent of average annual revenue for some very small entities in the insurance industry, and 0.40 percent of average annual revenue for some very small entities in the healthcare industry, we certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $187 million, using the most current (2024) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule will not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
The final rule amends regulations governing the format of the NDC by standardizing it to 12 digits in length. Currently, the NDC assigned by FDA is 10-digits and can be in multiple formats. The NDC for each listed drug in the United States is a unique 3-segment number, where the three segments are the labeler code, product code, and package code. Under this final rule, the standardized NDC will consist of three segments: a 6-digit labeler code, a 4-digit product code, and a 2-digit package code. When the rule becomes effective, FDA-assigned 10-digit NDCs will be converted to the uniform 12-digit format by adding leading zeros to the labeler code, product code, or package code segment of the NDC, as needed to produce the uniform 6-4-2 format.
FDA's transition to a uniform format for FDA-assigned NDCs is intended to facilitate the adoption of a single NDC format across the entire healthcare industry. Such an adoption will eliminate the need to convert NDCs from one of the FDA-assigned formats to a different standardized format used by other sectors of the healthcare industry (
The costs to industry of converting current NDCs to the standardized format will include one-time costs of updating software systems, other transition costs, coordinating labeling updates, and reading and understanding the rule. Table 4 shows a summary of the
The total present value, in 2024 millions of dollars, across all three industries ranges from $53.65 million to $160.08 million with a primary estimate of $102.85 million using a 7-percent discount rate. By contrast, using a 3-percent discount rate, the total present value of estimated costs ranges from $66.42 million to $197.76 million with a primary estimate of $127.08 million. These costs are likely to be spread out over the 7-year period between publication of the rule and its effective date. Thus, we assume that one-seventh of these costs occur each year of this period and that the first year of the rule is 2026. We assume the reading and understanding costs, however, will occur the first year after the rule is published.
In line with Executive Order 14192, in Table 5 we estimate present and annualized values of costs, cost savings, and net costs over a perpetual time horizon. We estimate that this rule will generate $7.90 million in annualized costs at a 7-percent discount rate, discounted relative to year 2024, over a perpetual time horizon.
On July 25, 2022, we published the proposed rule “Revising the National Drug Code Format and Drug Label Barcode Requirements” (87 FR 44038). We received several comments on the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) of the proposed rule (Ref. 5). Below, we group the comments by topic and offer a brief description of each and our responses. The order of comments and responses is not a reflection of importance.
(Comment 45) Some commenters express that the cost estimates of transitioning 10-digit NDCs to a 12-digit format are underestimated and that they should be three to ten times the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) conversion reference cited in the PRIA.
(Response 45) We disagree. We clarify that the ICD-9 to ICD-10 conversion is only a reference to assess the burden of updating information systems. We agree that the NDC and the ICD conversion do not involve the same amount of effort. The mapping of ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes involved the mapping of 57 ICD-10 codes per each ICD-9 code on average (according to the RAND Corporation (RAND) 2004 report we use, Ref. 6). In the PRIA, we use an effort relative to the ICD conversion of 10 percent because the mapping of NDCs is 1-to-1 instead. This is a conservative approach because estimates are likely higher than what the costs will be. However, in section II.F.2 of the FRIA, we are updating estimates in the cost category entitled “Other Transition Costs,” previously named “Learning and Training.” In addition, in the sensitivity analysis in section II.I.1 of the FRIA, we include a range of 1 percent to 50 percent relative to the ICD-conversion estimates.
(Comment 46) Some commenters express that the cost estimates do not represent the cost burden some large companies will experience.
(Response 46) Feedback from industry helps us with estimates. We note that larger companies may refer to the upper bound costs rather than the average estimates for reference. This feedback, however, may only represent a few companies.
(Comment 47) Commenters express that estimating costs based on the ICD-9 to ICD-10 transition is not appropriate because ICD codes are not used by as many interested parties as NDCs.
(Response 47) We disagree. We do not use the ICD estimates to calculate that the NDC transition will cost the same amount. We emphasize that the estimates that use the ICD conversion only apply to some elements in the calculation of software updates and to other transition costs. Other categories of costs, such as coordination of label updates, are estimated using other additional inputs. We also clarify that we use the ICD estimates to assess certain cost inputs rather than to claim that an entire industry group will have a fixed amount of costs; that is, we use the breakdown of cost items and not the aggregate ICD cost per interested party.
(Comment 48) Some commenters express that the cost estimates do not account for the need to update the physical packaging in addition to the labeling.
(Response 48) The labeling cost model that we use from RTI International accounts for the coordinated and uncoordinated relabeling costs, which include packaging updates (Ref. 7). In the PRIA, however, we opted not to include the cost element of disposing old inventory or updating it with new labels over the old ones because we stated that during the 3-year transition period, we do not intend to object to products being introduced into interstate commerce with the 10-digit NDC that they were previously assigned. That is, in general, we will allow old labels to be exhausted and thus minimize the need to discard old inventory.
In addition, we note that we are increasing the delay in effective date of the rule to 7 years instead of 5 years to allow interested parties sufficient time to update their systems and make other changes necessary to ensure a safe and orderly transition to the new NDC format occurs on the effective date. This way, labelers can better assess the inventory of labels with 10-digit NDCs that will be needed. Furthermore, the 3-year transition period provides time to perform updates to the affected packaging.
(Comment 49) Commenters express that the costs are underestimated because the rule will have a greater impact on products subject to DSCSA requirements. For example, under DSCSA, firms must include the NDC in transaction information.
(Response 49) We acknowledge that the NDC is to be included in the transaction information under the DSCSA. We do not, however, ignore this cost or other transaction costs that may arise with the new NDC format. This FRIA provides higher estimates in the cost category entitled “Other Transition Costs,” previously named “Learning and Training,” and makes it more explicit that the costs of transitioning to the uniform, 12-digit NDC format, including the transaction information required under the DSCSA, are included in this category, as well as meetings for pre-planning, execution, additional quality controls, adjustments to the reformatted NDCs, and correction of any discrepancies that arise.
(Comment 50) Commenters convey that the costs are underestimated for pharmacies as there are more changes needed beyond software updates, such as updates to purchase orders and controlled substances reporting requirements.
(Response 50) We agree that these costs are not included in the cost category entitled “Software and Updates of NDC Records” in the PRIA. We cover these potential costs, and some others, in section II.F.2 of the FRIA, entitled “Other Transition Costs,” previously named “Learning and Training.” We update the costs in this category to nearly double the previous estimates to account for potential underestimates in the PRIA.
(Comment 51) Commenters express that the PRIA fails to recognize that many systems cannot handle two codes for the same product and there will be costs to update those systems.
(Response 51) We include estimated costs for such system updates, and some other costs, in a general category we call “Software and Updates of NDC Records” in the FRIA (see section II.F.1 of the FRIA).
(Comment 52) Some commenters express that the estimated costs were based on an accurate but incomplete list of interested parties. The commenters identify additional interested parties, including state prescription drug monitoring programs; State Medicaid agencies; drug compendia; drug distributors; pharmacy benefit managers; pharmacy claims processors; other payors beyond insurers, such as employers' health plans and claim sponsors; rebate processors; software vendors; auditors; intermediate and clearing houses; data aggregators; other government agencies; health information exchanges; and regulatory agencies.
(Response 52) We disagree with this interpretation of the PRIA. We classify interested parties into aggregate categories. Listing all the different disaggregated interested parties is not feasible as exemplified in the comment submitted. For example, the commenters express that the interested parties affected “include, but are not limited to,” the entities listed. By acknowledging that the interested parties are “not limited to” the list
(Comment 53) Some commenters offered different cost estimates than what we presented in the PRIA. For example, some commenters express an amount of $100 million per wholesale distributor due to the many databases to update and systems to modify. Others express costs of $5 million for manufacturers and costs of up to $50 million for the largest generic companies.
(Response 53) We appreciate this kind of feedback. The more information we have, the better our estimates become. We have adjusted some of our estimates. However, we also note that these comments offer cost figures as an opinion and do not offer details about how these costs are estimated. We used the RAND 2004 report (Ref. 6) for these types of costs and the report dissects the different parts, which make our estimates trackable as compared to the ones offered by the commenters. We also note that the NDC updates, unlike the ICD updates, can be programmed as the update only needs a leading digit added to the respective sequence of digits. We agree that the communication for multiple systems may add a layer of quality control. We do account for this layer, and we have updated our “Other Transition Costs,” previously named “Learning and Training,” estimates to represent a higher burden.
(Comment 54) Some commenters express support for the Agency's proposal to convert 10-digit NDCs to the uniform, 12-digit format by adding a leading zero to the appropriate NDC segment. According to the commenters, this is the most efficient conversion option because it minimizes mapping and programming costs, and the standardization eliminates the use of multiple NDC formats.
(Response 54) We agree. This comment highlights that the effort to update systems can be automated to greatly reduce the burden.
(Comment 55) Some commenters highlight that current processing of NDCs between providers of drug products and payors is substantial and costly due to the lack of a standard format. These commenters highlight the potential for cost savings in the long term despite some transition costs in the short term.
(Response 55) We agree with these comments.
(Comment 56) Some commenters highlight that the standardization will mitigate the potential for disruption, patient risk, and high costs by ensuring there will be a single NDC format and predetermined date for implementation. The comments also highlight that having multiple NDC formats can lead to incorrect drug inventory and errors in sending and receiving drugs.
(Response 56) We agree with these comments. Although we are not able to quantify the cost savings, we agree that in the medium-to-long term, cost savings will be realized as the multiple formats for FDA-assigned NDCs are eliminated and multiple related quality control steps become unnecessary. In the short term, industry will experience a transition process and eliminate inefficiencies caused by multiple formats for the FDA-assigned NDC.
(Comment 57) Some commenters express that maintaining the 10-digit NDC and adopting a limited alphanumeric labeler code for new labelers would be less costly than adopting a 12-digit NDC format. Commenters argue that fewer entities would have major conversions to perform and that any needed conversions would be less expensive than under this rule because they would be performed faster. These commenters also express that preserving the 10-digit NDC format and using an alphanumeric format would avoid any changes to the HIPAA 11-digit NDC format.
(Response 57) We disagree. As explained in Response 11, the alphanumeric option may lead to some confusion. In addition, the alphanumeric option may be costlier than commenters expect because systems that currently can process only numeric NDCs would need to be updated to handle both alphanumeric NDCs as well as the existing numeric NDCs that would be retained under the alphanumeric option. Thus, the alphanumeric option would also add to the use of multiple formats and the perpetual additional quality control costs associated with this.
As for permitting continued use of existing 10-digit NDCs, we agree that in the short term, this would be less costly to labelers who use them than to reformat them because it would not require them to update their drug labels to reflect a reformatted NDC. However, this option would not result in a uniform NDC format for all FDA-assigned NDCs. Even without this final rule, the 6-digit labeler code would roll out after the supply of 5-digit labeler codes is exhausted, thereby creating 11-digit NDCs that affected parties would have to process along with all the other different formats in perpetuity. Any quality assurance costs involved in handling multiple formats would likely negate any cost savings from continued use of existing 10-digit NDCs.
(Comment 58) Several commenters express that the rule will be overly burdensome and that it would cost billions of dollars to update IT systems across multiple interested parties beyond labelers such as pharmacies as well as government and private payors.
(Response 58) We disagree that the rule will cost billions of dollars. We note that under current § 207.33, industry will eventually need to accommodate 11-digit NDCs, which will entail some implementation costs. The cost estimates for this final rule need only consider the incremental costs that this final rule will generate over and above the costs associated with transitioning to 11-digit NDCs. We also disagree that the cost estimates do not incorporate other interested parties beyond labelers. The economic analysis considers the overall healthcare sector (hospitals, physician establishments, nursing care facilities, pharmacies, dentists, residential health, home healthcare, outpatient care centers, medical and diagnostic centers, medical equipment suppliers, other health practitioners, etc.) and the insurance sector (administrators of claims for commercial and public-sponsored insurance plans, and other involved intermediaries).
(Comment 59) Some commenters express that it would be very burdensome to convert historical
(Response 59) These comments are outside the scope of the final rule. This final rule does not mandate that historical patient records be updated to reflect a 12-digit NDC.
(Comment 60) A commenter expresses that any changes to the NDC will require changing the automatic process by which GTINs are generated. The commenter believes that coordinating NDC and GTIN formatting and implementing the requisite system changes would increase costs and create opportunities for error.
(Response 60) We understand that a 12-digit NDC would be incompatible with the current barcode standards that utilize GS1's UPC-A and 2D data matrix barcodes because the GTIN cannot embed an NDC longer than 10 digits. We acknowledge that there are transition costs associated with reformatting 10-digit NDCs to 12-digit NDCs, and our final economic analysis includes such costs. We note that even without the rule, under existing § 207.33(b)(1), industry would incur costs to transition away from the GTIN, which cannot accommodate the 11-digit NDCs that would have been assigned absent this rule.
We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 8) and at
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final rule contains information collection provisions that 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 title, description, and respondent description of the information collection provisions are shown in the following paragraphs with an estimate of the annual recordkeeping burden. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing each collection of information.
For drugs subject to an NDA or ANDA, the respondents must report these labeling changes through an annual report in accordance with § 314.81(b)(2)(iii). For biological products subject to a BLA, the respondents must report these labeling changes through an annual report in accordance with § 601.12(f)(3). Including the NDC on the label of an animal drug is voluntary. Manufacturers that voluntarily include the NDC on the label of an animal drug must report the labeling change in accordance with § 514.80(b)(4)(ii).
Section 314.81(b)(2)(iii) requires the submission of an annual report containing a representative sample of the package labels, currently used professional labeling, patient brochures, package inserts, and a summary of labeling changes (or if no changes have been made, a statement to that effect) since the previous report. The change in the NDC format required by this rule will result in a labeling change.
One-time costs and annual operating and maintenance costs associated with this rule are discussed in section VII.B. of this document and in the FRIA. However, many of these costs are not associated with the information collections subject to OMB review under the PRA but, instead, are associated with changes in their usual and customary business operations as a result of the new NDC format. Additionally, many of the costs discussed in the FRIA are incurred by firms other than the respondents described below.
To minimize recordkeeping burden resulting from changes to the NDC format, this final rule has a 7-year delay in the effective date followed by a 3-year transition period. The purpose of the transition period is to mitigate potential labeling costs by allowing respondents to deplete labeling inventory and update labels with the new NDC format at the time of a periodic labeling update that may be made during the 3-year transition period. Based on the frequency at which drug labeling is typically updated, we anticipate that nearly all firms will be able to incorporate the labeling change required by the final rule as part of a periodic labeling change that they intend to make unrelated to this rule. Therefore, we believe that the incremental information collection burden associated with this rule is likely to be de minimis. As a result of the extension in the delayed effective date, which allows for more precise timing of labeling changes, and for consistency with the FRIA, we have modified our estimate of the one-time burden associated with the final rule, assuming that all finished prescription drug products and all finished over-the-counter drug products include the NDC on the label and that 95 percentof the label updates with the new NDC format will be made in coordination with a periodic labeling change that they intend to make unrelated to this rule.
In the proposed rule, we sought comments on our burden analysis. We did not receive any comments that were specific to our numeric hour burden estimates. However, on our own initiative, we modified our estimates to include burden hours related to animal drug label changes, which were inadvertently not included in the analysis of the proposed rule. We received numerous comments on the provisions of the proposed rule having to do with the proposed NDC format, the barcode format requirement, and the effective date. This final rule contains comment summaries and responses for these comments in sections V.C. through E. Additionally, we received comments about our cost estimates in the PRIA. This final rule contains comment summaries and responses for these comments in section VII.C.
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
We have characterized the information collection as a recordkeeping burden consistent with 44 U.S.C. 3502(13)(C), which defines the term “recordkeeping requirement” to include records disclosed to third parties, the Federal government, or the public. Our estimates are based on the following assumptions:
• We assumed that all listed drug packages include the NDC format on their label and that 95 percent of the label updates with the new NDC format will be made in coordination with a periodic labeling change that respondents intend to make unrelated to this rule during the transition period.
• We assumed that each label change would take a respondent 1 hour because only a slight change and not a substantial redesign would be needed to modify the existing NDC format and barcode already included on the label.
• Based on the drug listing database maintained by FDA, we understand that there are approximately 271,655 listed drug packages. We estimate that 5 percent of the 271,655 label updates (13,583 labels) will not be made in coordination with a periodic labeling change, resulting in an estimated one-time burden of 13,583 hours.
Section 314.81(b)(2)(iii)(
Similarly, § 601.12(f)(3)(i)(A) requires manufacturers of biologics to include in their annual reports editorial or similar minor labeling changes. For drug products whose label changes would be reported in an annual report pursuant to § 601.12(f)(3) for biological products, there are approximately 104 respondents that would submit reports and there are approximately 588 active approved applications. This means that, on average, each application holder will need to submit 5.65 annual reports (rounded to 6). There are approximately 5,940 separate, identifiable product packages that that are subject to an approved BLA. This means that, on average, each separate and distinct approved application includes approximately 10 separate and distinct product packages (5,940 unique distinct product packages ÷ 588 unique approved applications). Thus, we estimate the total burden under § 601.12(f)(3)(i)(A) to be 104 hours (104 respondents × 6 annual reports per respondent × (0.167 hours) = 104 hours).
For animal drugs whose label changes would be reported in an annual report pursuant to § 514.80(b)(4)(ii), we estimate there are 79 respondents that would submit reports and there are approximately 1,582 active approved applications. On average, each respondent will submit 20 annual reports (1,582 active approved applications × 1 annual report per active approved application ÷ 79 unique application holders). We expect that the updating of the NDC format on a label would necessitate a simple statement in the annual report declaring that the NDC format has been updated. We estimate 1 minute for such statements per label. As each annual report will include 20 such declarations (1 for each unique product package), we estimate the burden to report these changes to be approximately 20 minutes per annual report (0.333 hours). Thus, we estimate the total burden to be 526 hours (79 respondents × 20 annual reports per respondent × 0.333 hours = 526 hours).
The information collection provisions in this final rule have been submitted to OMB for review as required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Before the effective date of this final rule, FDA will publish a notice in the
We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies 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. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 201 and 207 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 343, 351, 352, 353, 355, 358, 360, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 360ddd, 360ddd-1, 360ee, 360gg-360ss, 371, 374, 379e; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264.
(c) * * *
(1) Each drug product described in paragraph (b) of this section must have a barcode that contains, at a minimum, the appropriate National Drug Code (NDC) number in a linear or nonlinear format that conforms to the standards developed by a widely recognized international standards development organization and that format and standard is recognized by the relevant Food and Drug Administration Center Director. Additionally, the barcode must:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 355, 360, 360b, 371, 374, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 262, 264, 271.
(b)
(i) The first segment of the NDC is the labeler code and consists of 6 digits. The labeler code is assigned by FDA.
(ii) The second segment of the NDC is the product code and consists of 4 digits.
(iii) The third segment of the NDC is the package code and consists of 2 digits. The package code identifies the package size and type of the drug and differentiates between different quantitative and qualitative attributes of the product packaging.
(2) An alternatively formatted NDC that is approved for use by the relevant Center Director may be used for the following HCT/Ps if they are minimally manipulated: Hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells derived from peripheral
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) is incorporated in FHWA regulations and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The purpose of this final rule is to make technical corrections to revise Standard, Guidance, Option provisions, and supporting information, relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The changes provide minor technical corrections and address editorial changes that have been identified since the 11th Edition of the MUTCD was published. The changes promote uniformity and ultimately improve and promote the safe and efficient utilization of roads that are open to public travel. The MUTCD, with these changes incorporated, is being designated as Revision 1 of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD.
This final rule is effective March 5, 2026. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of March 5, 2026.
Mr. Kevin Sylvester, Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-4000,
This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
The President signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58) into law on November 15, 2021. Section 11129 of the IIJA amended 23 U.S.C. 109(d) to require FHWA to update the MUTCD not later than 18 months after the enactment of IIJA, and every 4 years thereafter; and to articulate more explicitly the role of traffic control devices, which is to “promote the safety, inclusion, and mobility of all users and efficient utilization of the highways.” FHWA published its final rule establishing the 11th Edition of the MUTCD on December 19, 2023 at 88 FR 87672.
This final rule makes technical corrections to revise Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support provisions relating to the traffic control devices throughout the MUTCD. Revision 1 of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD is the first update since the 11th Edition was published in accordance with Section 11129 of the IIJA. The changes address technical corrections and editorial changes identified since publishing the 11th Edition of the MUTCD; correct inconsistencies in the text, tables, and figures; and clarify certain technical provisions. These changes promote uniformity and understanding, ultimately improving and promoting the safe and efficient utilization of roads that are open to public travel. Many of these known errors have been posted on the MUTCD website.
All the changes can be reviewed on the docket for this rulemaking and on the MUTCD website. The documents will be available in various formats, as discussed herein.
FHWA is incorporating by reference the more current versions of the manual listed herein. FHWA's 11th Edition of the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,” dated December 2023 is replaced with a new revision designated as “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 11th Edition, Revision 1” (FHWA, December 2025). FHWA developed this document to define the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
The document FHWA is incorporating by reference is reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs, local agencies, and Tribal governments carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. The text, figures, and tables of Revision 1 of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD incorporating the changes from the current edition are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text, figures, and tables of Revision 1 of the 11th Edition of the MUTCD incorporating changes from the current edition are available on the MUTCD website at
A summary table of the technical corrections and editorial changes is included as a supplemental document available in the docket for this final rule.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for “good cause,” that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. FHWA finds “good cause” under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without notice and an opportunity for public comment because such process would be unnecessary due to, the technical nature of these changes. FHWA finds that the amendments outlined in this document will have no substantive impact and are technical in nature. Therefore, this final
For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, FHWA finds “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. Accordingly, this final rule is effective immediately.
This rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215 and E.O. 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.
It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will not meet the threshold in section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. This final rule will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, or jobs. In addition, the changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another Agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. The changes will provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional applications for traffic control devices and are largely technical in nature. The revisions increase the clarity of existing content, rather than adding content, and the provisions being revised have been previously considered nonsubstantive or otherwise addressed in the cost and benefit analysis in the Final Rule for the 11th Edition of the MUTCD. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined this action is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes will provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional applications for traffic control devices and are largely technical in nature. Therefore, FHWA certifies the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that this action will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
FHWA analyzed this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this final rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).
FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13175 and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments; and will not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at:
Design standards, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, as set forth below:
23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 CFR 1.85.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), 11th Edition, December 2023, with Revision 1 incorporated, FHWA, December 2025.
Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Withdrawal of proposed rule and withdrawal of proposed rescission of general statement of policy or guidance.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA or Authority) is withdrawing its Notice of Proposed Rule and Proposed Rescission of General Statement of Policy or Guidance (the proposal notice) published in the
The proposal notice published at 87 FR 78014 on December 21, 2022, is withdrawn as of March 5, 2026.
Thomas Tso, Solicitor, at
Section 2429.19 of the Authority's Regulations states that an employee may initiate the revocation of a dues assignment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7115(a) at any time after the expiration of an initial one-year period following the assignment.
In Case Number 0-MC-33, the Authority granted a petition from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), filed under § 2429.28 of the Authority's Regulations, to amend § 2429.19.
Apart from the comments received from federal unions, the vast majority of comments received from individuals, organizations, and agencies supported maintaining § 2429.19 without change and opposed the imposition of additional restrictions on the ability of employees to cancel their dues assignments.
In addition, the Authority finds that both the plain text of Section 7115(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), and the relevant legislative history, support the Authority's conclusion when adopting § 2429.19: “[S]ection 7115(a) of the Statute prohibits revocation only for the first year after an assignment is authorized.”
Further, a majority of the Authority remains unpersuaded by the dissent's arguments in favor of rescinding § 2429.19 and
First, contrary to the dissent's assertion, there were not “many” comments in support of revising or rescinding the regulation and policy statement. The vast majority of comments received from individuals and agencies—33 of 39—supported maintaining § 2429.19 without change, and did not support rescinding
Second, the dissent contends that rescinding § 2429.19 would not significantly upset reliance interests. But § 2429.19 has been in effect for almost six years. During that time, many collective-bargaining agreements that were negotiated under the prior assignment-revocation rule have expired, and as a result, subsequent dues assignments in those units have been subject to § 2429.19's rule. The dissent does not explain how it would treat the assignments executed over the last six years under § 2429.19's rule if revocation restrictions were reimposed. Further, the Office of Personnel Management has revised Standard Forms 1187 and 1188, with which federal employees may initiate or cancel payroll deductions for union dues, to include the rule set forth in § 2429.19.
Third, the dissent offers a curious reading of the word “period” within the portion of Section 7115(a) that states that “a written assignment which authorizes the agency to deduct from the pay of the employee amounts for the payment of regular and periodic dues of the exclusive representative of the unit . . . may not be revoked for a period of 1 year.” 5 U.S.C. 7115(a). Rather than reading the phrase “period of 1 year” to mean a length of time equal to one year, the dissent sees more.
Citing Black's Law Dictionary, the dissent notes that “period” may denote “[a] length of time characterized by regular recurrence or some cyclical process.”
Fourth, because the text of Section 7115(a) is unambiguous, the Authority need not resort to legislative history to determine its meaning. As the Authority explained when adopting § 2429.19, “relying on legislative history to alter the meaning of unambiguous statutory text is improper.”
Under E.O. 11,491, which governed federal labor relations before the Statute, an agency was not required to honor a bargaining-unit employee's request to withhold union dues from the employee's pay (or to remit those withheld dues to the employee's union), unless the union and agency first agreed in writing to authorize assignment allotments for that purpose. Further, E.O. 11,491 permitted agencies to recover the costs of making those deductions and remittances.
The House Committee Report for H.R. 11280 (the Report), which contained wording that eventually became Section 7115(a) of the Statute, explained that Section 7115 “reflects a compromise between two sharply contrasting positions which the committee considered: no guarantee of withholding for any unit employee and mandatory payment by all unit employees (`agency shop'). The committee believes [S]ection 7115 to be a fair resolution for agencies, labor organizations, and employees.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-1403, at 48 (1978).
In the dissent's view, the
Moreover, the Report reinforces what the plain wording of the Statute says. Without using the word “period” or “interval,” the Report says unequivocally, “Assignments normally are to be irrevocable for
Fifth, the dissent relies on Section 7135 of the Statute, which pertinently states that “[p]olicies, regulations, and procedures established under and decisions issued under [E.O.] 11,491 . . . shall remain in full force and effect . . . unless superseded by specific provisions of [the Statute] . . . or decisions issued pursuant to [the Statute].” 5 U.S.C. 7135(b). But the dissent's rationale for invoking Section 7135 is unconvincing. The Statute thoroughly changed the system of dues-assignment allotments that existed under E.O. 11,491. As already mentioned, the Statute eliminated the requirement for written agreements to authorize assignment allotments, relieved unions of the burden of paying for deductions and remittances, and made assignments irrevocable for an entire year (rather than just six months). According to the dissent, Congress's complete reworking of this system shows that Congress wanted “the prior regime to continue” in a single, oddly specific way.
The dissent asserts that Congress wanted the interval-based revocation system from E.O. 11,491 to survive. But the Executive Order explicitly required an “employee to revoke [an] authorization at stated . . . intervals,” Exec. Order No. 11,491, Sec. 21(a),
For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth earlier in
By the Authority
The following will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The majority's action today leaves in place both 5 CFR 2429.19 and the Authority's general statement of policy or guidance (policy statement) in
Section 7115 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), titled “Allotments to representatives,” addresses how federal employees in appropriate bargaining units may, through written assignments, authorize federal agencies to deduct union dues from their pay—and how the employees may later withdraw those assignments. 5 U.S.C. 7115. Section 7115(a) pertinently provides that, with certain exceptions, those assignments “may not be revoked for a period of 1 year.”
In 1981—early in the Authority's history—the Authority addressed the meaning of the above-quoted wording “in the context of relevant legislative history and [f]ederal labor[-]relations policy.”
In
Looking to the Statute's legislative history, the Authority in
The Authority noted that, by contrast, the Senate version of the bill: (1) provided that assignments of dues allotments “shall be revocable at stated intervals of not more than [six] months,”
The Authority then stated: “In the Authority's view, the language of [S]ection 7115(a) of the Statute and the legislative history cited above support the conclusion that [S]ection 7115(a) is intended to provide a more effective form of union security than previously existed, without going so far as to authorize an `agency shop.' This conclusion is evidenced by the legislated change from a dues[-]withholding provision under [E.O. 11,491] which was contingent upon a negotiated written agreement to a statutorily mandated procedure for dues allotments, as well as by the fact that under the Statute, unlike under [E.O. 11,491], dues allotments are required to be made at no cost to the union. In the Authority's view, consistent with this conclusion, Congress intended in [S]ection 7115(a) of the Statute to maintain the procedure for revocation of assignments set forth in [E.O. 11,491] (
The Authority noted that this conclusion also was consistent with guidance that the CSC—the predecessor to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—provided to agencies near the time of the Statute's enactment. That guidance advised agencies to inform employees that, “after the next available six-month revocation date established by the applicable collective[-]bargaining agreement, any future revocation can only be at
The Authority applied the
Then, in 2019, OPM asked the Authority to issue a policy statement regarding “the applicability of the First Amendment principles that the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in
Subsequently, on March 19, 2020, a majority of the Authority—with Member DuBester dissenting—did just that, publishing in the
The rule had an effective date of August 10, 2020, but stated that it would apply only to “the revocation of assignments that were authorized” on or after August 10, 2020, and would “not apply to the revocation of assignments that were authorized prior to” that date. 85 FR at 41169. The rule also stated that, “[l]ike all governmentwide regulations, the rule will be subject to the constraints of [S]ection 7116(a)(7) of the Statute,” so “currently effective agreements [would] not be destabilized if they contain negotiated provisions that conflict with the rule.”
In 2022, in Case No. 0-MC-0033, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed a petition, under § 2429.28 of the Authority's Regulations, 5 CFR 2429.28, to amend § 2429.19. On December 21, 2022, a majority of the Authority—with then-Member (and current Chairman) Kiko dissenting—issued a
The Notice solicited comments on these proposals. In response, the Authority received fifty-five timely comments. Although many of the comments support keeping § 2429.19 intact, many others support either revising or rescinding that regulation, rescinding the policy statement in
According to some comments, Section 7115(a)'s legislative history—as discussed in
In addition, some comments support amending or rescinding § 2429.19 because doing so would allow parties to bargain over dues-revocation arrangements, rather than prohibiting any such arrangements that conflict with § 2429.19. Moreover, some comments assert that amending or rescinding § 2429.19 would not upset reliance interests, because the rule established by § 2429.19 has taken effect in only a limited number of bargaining units, given the Authority's statement that it applies only to bargaining units where collective-bargaining agreements with conflicting provisions have expired, and only to dues assignments authorized on or after the rule's effective date of August 10, 2020.
Further, some comments argue that either rescinding or amending § 2429.19 is necessary to restore unions' financial security and predictability, enhance unions' bargaining postures, and honor employee choice. Relatedly, some comments contend that strengthening unions' finances benefits employees by allowing unions to better serve the employees they represent. Additionally, one comment states that complaints about the dues-revocation process being too cumbersome or complicated are a “red herring,” and that arrangements in parties' collective-bargaining agreements are workable if the parties understand the process and communicate it to employees.
Many of the comments arguing for amendment or rescission of § 2429.19 also make similar arguments in favor of rescinding
Having considered all of the comments received, and after great deliberation, I believe that
In my view, the use of “period” in Section 7115(a) means “[a] length of time characterized by regular recurrence or some cyclical process,” not a singular “length or portion of time.”
I find
Further, the Authority decided
And, while no court has expressly held that Section 7115(a) requires annual intervals, no court has held to the contrary either—and courts have applied the
I also believe that this interpretation of Section 7115(a) is consistent with Section 7101(a) of the Statute, which states that “labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 7101(a), as well as with legislative history indicating that the Statute was “intended to serve a variety of purposes,” including “strengthen[ing] the position of employee unions in the federal service.”
Moreover, if Congress' intent was to provide a greater measure of union security than what existed under E.O. 11,491, then it would be counterintuitive for Congress to move from a system where employees could revoke their allotments only at intervals—even six-month intervals—to a system where the employees could revoke them
In addition, despite some comments to the contrary, the
The court reversed the Authority. The court interpreted Section 7115(a) “as imposing an absolute duty on the [agency] to turn over to the union all funds deducted.”
Put simply,
Moreover—again, despite some comments to the contrary—the
Additionally—despite some comments to the contrary—the
For these reasons, I believe that
Separate from the proper interpretation of Section 7115(a), two additional considerations support returning to the
First, doing so would not significantly upset any reliance interests. Because the
Second, some of the policy arguments raised in the comments support returning to the
Therefore, I would return to the
In sum, I would rescind 5 CFR 2429.19 and the policy statement in
Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes to establish a process for reviewing bar complaints and allegations against its attorneys. Under the proposed rule, before a current or former Department lawyer may participate in any investigative steps initiated by the bar disciplinary authority of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia in response to allegations that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney's federal duties, the Department will have the right to review the allegations in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department's review.
Comments are due on or before April 6, 2026. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before the last day of the comment period. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept electronic comments until midnight Eastern time at the end of that day.
If you wish to provide comments regarding this rulemaking, you must submit comments, identified by the agency name, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, telephone (202) 514-4601.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule through the method identified above and by the deadline stated above.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at
The Department may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it determines is offensive, that may adversely impact the privacy of a third party, or that should be withheld for other legitimate reasons. For additional information, please read the privacy notice that is available through the link in the footer of
The proposed rule would amend 28 CFR part 77 to establish a process for the Department to review complaints and allegations filed against its attorneys with the bar disciplinary
The Department has long been committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics among its attorneys. On October 21, 1998, the President signed the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681. Division A, section 801 of that statute, also known as the McDade Amendment, is enacted at 28 U.S.C. 530B and became effective on April 19, 1999.
(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.
(c) As used in this section, the term “attorney for the Government” includes any attorney described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40.
Section 530B applies to Department attorneys and attorneys acting pursuant to Department authorization. It does not apply to investigative agents, even if they are attorneys, although covered attorneys must ensure that an investigator whom they supervise conforms his conduct to any applicable rules if so required by the ethics rules that apply to the attorneys.
On April 20, 1999, the Department published an interim final rule to meet the requirement of section 530B(b) that the Attorney General “make and amend rules . . . to assure compliance” with the statute.
The Department further concluded when it promulgated the 1999 Rule that “section 530B does not change the enforcement authority of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, state authorities, or the federal courts” because the statute “is silent on enforcement mechanisms.”
The Department's process for discipling attorneys currently involves three chief Department components: the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”), the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (the “PMRU”), and the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”).
OPR has jurisdiction to review allegations of misconduct made against Department attorneys that relate to the attorneys' exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.
The PMRU reviews OPR's facts, analysis, and conclusions. If it finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports OPR's conclusions regarding professional misconduct, the PMRU will decide whether discipline is appropriate. Attorney discipline may include a reprimand, suspension, termination, counseling, or additional training. In addition, when the PMRU concludes that a State rule of professional conduct is implicated by the Department attorney's conduct, it will authorize OPR to refer the matter to the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities. Under current practice, for most attorney professional misconduct matters, the PMRU is the final decisionmaker for the Department with respect to findings of misconduct by career Department attorneys, whether and what discipline to impose on the Department attorney, and whether to refer the Department attorney to the bar.
OIG has jurisdiction to review allegations against Department attorneys when the allegations concern waste,
OPR is responsible for acting as a liaison with the bar disciplinary authorities of the States, the Territories, and the District of Columbia on behalf of the Department.
When OPR refers a matter to a State bar, it is often the first information the State bar has received about the allegations. In some instances, however, a complainant has separately made an allegation to the State bar. In even rarer instances, the matter may have garnered sufficient media attention that the State bar is aware of the allegations absent a formal complaint. Generally, even in those matters in which a State bar has received a complaint about a Department attorney's conduct before or during OPR's investigation, most State bars refrain from taking further action until OPR is able to complete the investigation so that the bar has a full account, through OPR's report of investigation, of the evidence and OPR's analysis, as well as the PMRU's conclusions, when determining whether to open their own investigation.
Based on OPR's experience interacting with State bar disciplinary authorities over several decades, most State bars do not take additional action after referrals are made concerning current or former Department attorneys. State bars have limited resources to oversee all the attorneys licensed in their respective jurisdictions, and they may determine that the Department attorney's conduct does not warrant the use of their resources. They may also decline to take further action because they view the Department's disciplinary actions as sufficient to accomplish the purposes of attorney discipline, including deterring future misconduct.
After more than a quarter century operating under the 1999 Rule and the attorney discipline process described above, recent events have prompted the Department to consider whether it is necessary to restructure the enforcement of ethical rules by OPR and the bar disciplinary authorities.
This unprecedented weaponization of the State bar complaint process risks chilling the zealous advocacy by Department attorneys on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and its officers. That chilling effect, in turn, would interfere with the broad statutory authority of the Attorney General to manage and supervise Department attorneys. The Attorney General is “the head of the Department of Justice,” 28 U.S.C. 503, and, subject to several circumscribed exceptions, is “vested” with “[a]ll functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice,” 28 U.S.C. 509. These functions include “conduct[ing] any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct.” 28 U.S.C. 515(a). Conducting litigation on behalf of the United States or its officers “is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.” 28 U.S.C. 516. The Attorney General has the authority to send these officers “to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 517. Furthermore, the Attorney General is responsible for “supervis[ing] all litigation to which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party.” 28 U.S.C. 519. To fulfill these responsibilities, the Attorney General is authorized to “make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.” 28 U.S.C. 510.
When it promulgated the 1999 Rule, the Department concluded that the enactment of section 530B did “not alter, amend, or supersede” these statutes, nor did it “in any way interfere with the Attorney General's authority to determine who may represent the United States in any proceeding.” 64 FR at 19274. At the time, however, bar disciplinary complaints against Department lawyers were comparatively rare, and complaints with political valences vanishingly so. In the decades following the 1999 Rule, the Department, through OPR, worked
The Department has not previously offered a legal interpretation on the scope of the Attorney General's rulemaking authority under subsection (b) of section 530B. When the Department promulgated the 1999 Rule shortly after the enactment of section 530B, it noted that the statute “is silent on enforcement mechanisms.”
The Department has concluded that section 530B permits the Attorney General to establish an enforcement mechanism for assuring that Department attorneys comply with State ethics rules. The general presumption is that absent a clear statement from Congress, federal law “control[s] the constitution and laws of the respective [S]tates, and cannot be controlled by them.”
The McDade Amendment provides limited authority for State bars to regulate Department lawyers by requiring those attorneys to conform to the same substantive standards of conduct as non-Federal attorneys in the States in which they are practicing, where compliance with the State rules does not interfere or conflict with Federal law.
The Department has concluded that this language requires that Department attorneys be subject to the same substantive State ethics rules as every other attorney in that State, but that because Congress did not expressly confer to the States enforcement authority, the statute otherwise preserves the authority of the Attorney General to enforce those substantive standards.
By its plain meaning, the power conferred on the Attorney General “to assure compliance” with the statute is broad.
The broader statutory framework regulating the Department provides further support that Congress preserved the Attorney General's authority to enforce the substantive standards imposed by the McDade Amendment on Department attorneys. Department attorneys are authorized by Federal statute to practice law on behalf of the United States, subject to the Attorney General's supervision.
Congress has thus created a framework for Department attorneys under which the State whose substantive ethics rules apply may differ from the State of licensure and enforcement, and Congress has left to
Subsection (a) of section 530B, which only directs Department attorneys to comply with State and local Federal court ethics rules, does not change the enforcement authority of OPR or the State bar disciplinary authorities. But subsection (b) of section 530B grants the Attorney General rulemaking authority to assure compliance with the statute. And the regulations that the Attorney General is authorized to promulgate include those that establish “enforcement mechanisms.” 64 FR at 19274.
Pursuant to the Attorney General's rulemaking authority in subsection (b) of section 530B, the proposed rule would amend 28 CFR part 77 to formalize a process—abided by in practice if not mandated by law until recently—for the Department to review allegations against its attorneys before the bar disciplinary authorities may undertake any investigative steps that seek information or otherwise require participation from a Department attorney. The primary proposed amendment would be the addition of a new § 77.5, which would establish the process for the Attorney General or her designee to review bar complaints and allegations. The proposed rule would also make corresponding amendments to § 77.1, which addresses the purpose and authority of 28 CFR part 77.
The proposed rule would redesignate § 77.5 as § 77.6 and add a new § 77.5. The new § 77.5 would be titled “Review of state bar complaints and allegations against current and former attorneys for the government.” Although not named in the proposed rule, OPR would be the Attorney General's designee for reviewing bar complaints and allegations against Department attorneys. The rule, as proposed, would not alter or abolish the responsibilities of the PMRU and OIG in carrying out the Department's attorney discipline process.
If adopted as proposed, under the rule, the Attorney General, through OPR, will have the right to review in the first instance any allegations that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney's duties for the Department. This right of first review will apply whether the allegations are made in a complaint filed by a third party or the bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into the allegations without a complaint having been filed. To ensure that OPR is aware of all bar complaints filed against Department attorneys and all investigations opened into Department attorneys by bar disciplinary authorities, the Department will amend title 1 of the Justice Manual to require Department employees to report to OPR through their supervisors all State bar complaints filed against them and all investigations opened into them by bar disciplinary authorities of which they are informed (whether by service or other means).
Upon learning that a State bar complaint has been filed against a current or former Department attorney, or that a State bar investigation has been opened into a current or former Department attorney without a complaint, OPR will promptly notify the appropriate State bar disciplinary authorities about whether the Department intends to exercise its right to review the complaint and allegations in the first instance. If the Department decides to review the State bar complaint and allegations, OPR will request the State bar disciplinary authorities to suspend their investigations or disciplinary proceedings, and direct Department personnel not to provide any non-public information to any parallel investigations or disciplinary proceedings until the completion of OPR's review.
Once OPR has concluded its investigation and the PMRU has rendered a decision, OPR will notify the appropriate State bar disciplinary authorities of the completion and, as appropriate, the results of the investigation. If the PMRU finds that the Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney's duties, the State bar disciplinary authorities will then have the option of beginning or resuming their investigations or disciplinary proceedings. The proposed rule does not require State bar disciplinary authorities to defer to OPR's findings that a Department attorney violated an ethics rule. Furthermore, the proposed rule permits the State bar disciplinary authorities to impose additional sanctions beyond those already imposed by the Department, including suspension or permanent disbarment.
The proposed rule would better reflect the existing practices that have developed between OPR and the State bar disciplinary authorities, which will deter political activists from abusing the State bar disciplinary process. Most bars already wait for OPR to complete its investigation so that the bar has a full account, through OPR's report, of the evidence and OPR's analysis when determining whether to open their own investigations. In addition, most State bars decide not to take additional action after a referral is made concerning a current or former Department attorney.
In drafting this proposed rule, the Department considered that State bars have interests that are different from those protected by the Department. For instance, the Department is limited to reprimanding, suspending, or terminating the employment of a Department attorney who has engaged in misconduct, whereas the bar disciplinary authorities may suspend or
Relatedly, the Department also considered the fact that OPR cannot compel former Department attorneys to submit to an interview or to respond in writing to requests for information, whereas the bar disciplinary authorities where an attorney is licensed have that authority. Under the proposed rule, former Department attorneys have the option to cooperate with OPR's investigation if they want the allegations against them to be reviewed by OPR in the first instance. However, if the former Department attorney declines to cooperate fully with OPR's review, OPR may terminate its review without reaching a conclusion as to the allegation. In that circumstance, the review of the allegation will revert to the appropriate State bar disciplinary authorities, which have the power to compel the attorney's cooperation.
The proposed rule will benefit Department attorneys by ensuring the consistent application of the State ethics rules. OPR has 50 years of experience in evaluating allegations of professional misconduct against Department attorneys. It is intimately familiar with all State rules of professional conduct and how they apply to the work of Department attorneys. In addition, whereas the State bar disciplinary authorities receive and review allegations against attorneys in a wide variety of practice areas concerning many disparate issues, OPR's jurisdiction encompasses only allegations of Department attorney misconduct,
The Department has concluded that the proposed rule is consistent with the requirement in section 530B that State ethics rules must be applied to Department attorneys “to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” 28 U.S.C. 530B(a). Under the proposed rule, every Department attorney will still be subject to the same substantive State ethics rules as non-Department attorneys in that State—
The proposed rule does not create meaningful conflict with Model Rule 8.5 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that a lawyer admitted to practice in a jurisdiction or providing legal services in a jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of that jurisdiction.
The proposed rule also does not create any conflict with Model Rule 8.3, which requires lawyers to report professional misconduct committed by other lawyers to the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities.
Nothing in the proposed rule addresses the authority of the Federal courts to address alleged violations of local Federal court rules by Department attorneys.
Section 77.1 addresses the purpose and authority of the regulations included in part 77. Currently, the sole purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to Department attorneys.
Paragraph (a) currently provides that the purpose of part 77 is “to implement 28 U.S.C. 530B and to provide guidance to attorneys concerning the requirements imposed on Department attorneys” by that statute. 28 CFR 77.1(a). The proposed rule adds that an additional purpose of part 77 is “to fulfill the Attorney General's obligation to assure Department attorneys comply with these requirements.”
Paragraphs (b) and (c) interpret 28 U.S.C. 530B and the requirements that the statute imposes on Department attorneys. The proposed rule adds a new paragraph (d), shifting the current paragraph (d) to become a new paragraph (e), that further interprets the statute and the obligation that it imposes on the Attorney General to “make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.” 28 U.S.C. 530B(b). The new paragraph (d) explains that section 530B requires the Attorney General to assure that Department attorneys comply with applicable ethics rules.
The renumbered paragraph (e) states that the regulations set forth in part 77 “provide guidance to Department attorneys in determining the rules with which such attorneys should comply.” 28 CFR 77.1(d). The proposed rule adds a new paragraph (f) that explains that an additional goal of the regulations in part 77 is to establish a process for the Attorney General or his designee to review bar complaints and allegations against Department attorneys.
In addition to seeking public comment on the proposed rule, the Department encourages comments on the provisions of the 1999 Rule that are not being amended by this proposed rule. The Department issued the 1999 Rule as an interim final rule with request for comments, but it never adopted a final rule responding to comments on the interim final rule.
This proposed rule relates to a matter of agency management or personnel and is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. As such, this proposed rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date.
An analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required for this proposed rule because the Department is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, 51735-36 (Sept. 30, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 18, 2011).
This proposed rule is “limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters” and thus is not a “rule” for purposes of review by the Office of Management and Budget under section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729, 4730-32 (Feb. 5, 1996).
This proposed 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. It does not dictate the substance of the ethical standards a State may adopt. The proposed rule would merely better reflect the existing balance of responsibilities between State bar authorities and the Department, whereby the State bar authority should wait for OPR to conduct its review of the allegations and reach a conclusion before deciding whether to pursue its own disciplinary investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), the Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation), 90 FR 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025), requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the incremental costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.
Therefore, this proposed rule is exempt from the offset requirements of Executive Order 14192.
Executive Order 14294 (Overcriminalization of Federal Regulations), 90 FR 20363 (May 9, 2025), requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a “rule” as that term is used in the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B), (C), and the reporting requirements of 5 U.S.C. 801 do not apply.
This proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
Government employees, Investigations, Law Enforcement, Lawyers.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Attorney General proposes to amend 28 CFR part 77 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 530B.
(a) The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that its attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards. The purposes of this part are to implement 28 U.S.C. 530B, to provide guidance to attorneys concerning the requirements imposed on Department attorneys by 28 U.S.C. 530B, and to fulfill the Attorney General's obligation to assure
(b) Section 530B requires Department attorneys to comply with state and local federal court rules of professional responsibility but should not be construed in any way to alter federal substantive, procedural, or evidentiary law or to interfere with the Attorney General's authority to send Department attorneys into any court in the United States.
(c) Section 530B imposes on Department attorneys the same rules of professional responsibility that apply to non-Department attorneys, but should not be construed to impose greater burdens on Department attorneys than those on non-Department attorneys or to alter rules of professional responsibility that expressly exempt government attorneys from their application.
(d) Section 530B requires the Attorney General to assure Department attorneys comply with applicable rules of professional responsibility.
(e) The regulations set forth in this part provide guidance to Department attorneys in determining the rules with which such attorneys should comply.
(f) The regulations set forth in this part establish a process for the Attorney General or her designee to review bar complaints and allegations against Department attorneys.
(a) Before the bar disciplinary authorities of the States, the Territories, or the District of Columbia undertake any investigative steps that seek information or otherwise require participation from an attorney for the government in response to allegations that a current or former attorney for the government violated a rule of ethical conduct while engaging in that attorney's duties for the Department, the Attorney General shall have the right to review the allegations in the first instance. The Attorney General shall have this right whether the allegations are made in a complaint filed by a third party or the bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into the allegations without a complaint. The Attorney General or her designee shall notify the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities whether she intends to exercise her right to review the allegations and, if she does, she or her designee shall request that the bar disciplinary authorities suspend any parallel investigations or disciplinary proceedings until the completion of the review. If the Attorney General decides not to complete her review, she or her designee shall notify the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities so they may resume their investigations or disciplinary proceedings. The Attorney General or her designee shall inform the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities of the completion of her review. As appropriate, the Attorney General or her designee shall also inform the appropriate bar disciplinary authorities of the results of her review, including if the review finds that the attorney for the government did not violate any rule of ethical conduct while engaging in that attorney's duties.
(b) Should the relevant bar disciplinary authorities refuse the Attorney General's request, the Department shall take appropriate action to enforce this regulation or to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General's review of the allegations.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay the compliance date for Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements as well as to make language modifications to align with the Administration's climate change and environmental justice policies in Executive Order 14148 of January 20, 2025. These requirements are for onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment from a CWA hazardous substance worst case discharge to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. This delay action is necessary to allow the Agency to consider implementation and compliance assistance tools that regulated parties may be able to take advantage of when complying with the new requirements. EPA notes that it cannot quantify the number, nature, and magnitude of covered discharges that may occur during the proposed rule delay period.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0585, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Rebecca Broussard, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-6706; email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0585 at
On March 28, 2024, EPA published a final rule requiring onshore non-transportation-related facilities to develop Facility Response Plans (FRPs) for responding to a worst case discharge of CWA hazardous substances, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, and submit them to EPA. A worst case discharge is defined as the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions, including a discharge resulting from fire or explosion. The FRP requirements apply to onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment, based on their location. The date for plan preparation and submission is currently June 1, 2027.
This action proposes a three-year delay of the compliance date by which a regulated facility is required to prepare and submit their CWA hazardous substance FRP, to June 1, 2030. The proposal also includes language modifications to reflect the Administration's policies, pursuant to the January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14148—
A list of NAICS codes at the three-digit level that could be affected by requirements established under CWA section 311(j)(5) is provided in table 1.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding affected entities potentially regulated by this action. This table includes the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not included in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
EPA is proposing to delay the compliance date for regulated facilities to meet the FRP requirements for worst case discharges of CWA hazardous substances. The requirements target onshore non-transportation-related facilities that, because of their location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging into or on navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone.
Additionally, the Agency is proposing certain language modifications to reflect the Administration's climate change and environmental justice policies.
This proposed rule is authorized by section 311(j)(5) and 501(a) of the CWA, (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), 1361(a)).
EPA has determined that the proposed delay of the compliance date and the proposed language modifications to align with the Administration's climate change and environmental justice policies would have a deregulatory impact for affected facilities, State and local entities, or the Federal government with cost savings resulting from the delayed compliance date relative to the baseline. The total annualized baseline costs of EPA's 2024 final rule are $131.46 million at 7% and $163.09 million at 3% discount rates, respectively, expressed in 2022 dollars.
The CWA section 311(j)(5)(A)(i) states, “[t]he President shall issue regulations which require an owner or operator of a tank vessel or facility . . . to prepare and submit to the President a plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance.” The EPA Administrator was delegated authority under E.O. 12777 of October 18, 1991,
On March 28, 2022, EPA proposed the CWA Hazardous Substance Worst Case Discharge Planning Regulations (87 FR 17890); on March 28, 2024, EPA issued final FRP requirements for worst case discharges of CWA hazardous substances (89 FR 21924). The requirements are for onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging a CWA hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone. The date for plan submission is currently June 1, 2027.
For all the provisions detailed in this section and in this action, the EPA intends these provisions to be severable. In the event that any individual provision or part of the rule is
This proposed rule would delay by three years the compliance date for the CWA hazardous substance FRP requirements, to June 1, 2030. This proposed delay action would allow the Agency to consider implementation and compliance assistance tools that regulated parties may be able to take advantage of when complying with the new requirements. Specifically, the Agency proposes to delay the compliance dates in 40 CFR 118.4 (a) for onshore non-transportation related facilities (hereafter, covered facilities or facility) as follows:
• Covered facilities meeting the applicable criteria in 40 CFR 118.3 (a) and (b) but not (c) that are in operation on March 30, 2030, must submit the Substantial Harm Certification Form by June 1, 2030, while covered facilities meeting the applicable criteria in 40 CFR 118.3 (a) and (b) after March 30, 2030, have 60 days to submit their form.
• Initially regulated covered facilities (covered facilities in operation on November 30, 2029, and that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 118.3 or are notified by a Regional Administrator (RA) as in § 118.5) shall prepare and submit an FRP by June 1, 2030.
• Newly regulated covered facilities (covered facilities that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 118.3 or are notified by an RA as in § 118.5 after November 30, 2029) shall prepare and submit an FRP within six months of meeting the criteria.
• Newly constructed covered facilities (covered facilities starting operations after June 1, 2030) shall prepare and submit an FRP and Substantial Harm Certification Form prior to the start of operations and including a 60-day start up period adjustment phase.
• Covered facilities regulated as a result of a planned event or change shall prepare and submit an FRP and Substantial Harm Certification Form prior to the start of operations and including a 60-day start up period adjustment phase, but no sooner than June 1, 2030.
• Covered facilities regulated as a result of an unplanned event or change shall prepare and submit an FRP and Substantial Harm Certification Form within six months of the unplanned event or change, but no sooner than June 1, 2030.
EPA recognized in the 2024 final rule the complexity of implementing this new program. For example, there are many variables to consider in determining appropriate endpoints for all CWA hazardous substances present in a facility above the threshold. CWA hazardous substances and mixtures can be present onsite in myriad types of containers and configurations. Modeling worst case discharge scenarios and making substantial harm calculations will be needed to determine not only applicability but also to inform the development of the FRPs. In the final 2024 rule, EPA also signaled its intent to provide tools and compliance assistance to help the regulated community comply with these new requirements. While EPA considered this need when establishing the compliance date in the final rule, the proposed delay in this action is necessary to fully assess and consider the range of compliance assistance tools that may be needed to best support implementation of the new requirements. The Agency proposal to extend the compliance date by three years is based on timeframe expectations for the Agency to consider implementation and compliance assistance tools and approaches that would best support the regulated community. Facility owners and operators are also expected to benefit from added time to consider any new implementation and compliance assistance tools the Agency may offer. Ultimately, the Agency expects the proposed delay in the compliance date to both promote compliance and ensure well-developed FRPs.
The Agency is soliciting comments on the proposed compliance date delay, and specifically, on whether compliance with the current rule may take longer than the two years now allowed by the current date of June 1, 2027. If so, comments should include supporting rationale for why compliance would take longer than two years, referencing for example expected activities needed for regulated facilities to comply with the new requirements. Additionally, EPA seeks comment on what activities industry has already undertaken to implement the 2024 rule. The Agency is also seeking comments on whether the proposed delay timeframe is reasonable and whether a longer or shorter timeframe may be more appropriate and/or feasible. Comments should include a supporting rationale and supporting data, if any, for the Agency to consider.
Revisions to 40 CFR part 118 are necessary to reflect the Administration's policies, pursuant to the January 20, 2025 Executive Order (E.O.) 14148—
An independent reason for this proposed action is that, upon reconsideration, EPA is concerned that undue focus on particular communities rather than on the risks posed to the community by any CWA hazardous substance release could lead to improper planning. Indeed, comprehensive substantial harm criteria should protect all communities. Similarly, disproportionate focus on climate-related hazards may result in uneven applicability determinations, which could skew planning away from a risk-based approach. This unintended consequence could lead to planning based upon highly unlikely events, rather than more common scenarios.
In addition, in 40 CFR 118.5, Regional Administrators (RA) may determine that a facility could cause substantial harm to the environment based on a variety of potential impacts or effects, negating the need for specific language for specific types of populations. The criteria in 40 CFR 118.3 are designed to capture the bulk of those facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment. However, because of the size and diversity of the types of facilities within the regulated community, EPA believes that there are facilities that will not meet the criteria in § 118.3, but may, due to facility-specific or location-specific circumstances, pose sufficient risk to the environment to be designated as being able to cause substantial harm to the environment. Accordingly, EPA has included the ability of the RA to make a case-by-case determination. The Agency recognizes that RAs possess unique knowledge of Region-specific considerations, and it is consistent with EPA's responsibilities under E.O. 12777 to designate facilities on a case-by-case basis that could reasonably be expected
Specifically, the Agency proposes modifications as follows:
• Remove the term “climate change” and the associated examples from the definition of “adverse weather” under 40 CFR 118.2.
• Remove reference to “climate change” from the passive mitigation provision under 40 CFR 118.5(b)(7).
• Remove “Potential to adversely impact communities with environmental justice concerns” provision under 40 CFR 118.5(b)(8), and amended to read “potentially exposed or susceptible populations.”
• Remove reference to “climate change” in adverse weather provision under 40 CFR 118.5(b)(9).
• Remove “impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns” from the hazard evaluation provision under 118.11(b)(3)(i).
• Remove “impacts of climate change” and associated examples from the hazard evaluation provision under 118.11(b)(3)(i) and replace with “in adverse weather conditions.”
E.O. 14148 section 2,
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is available in the docket.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This proposed rule would only delay the compliance date of the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plan Regulation finalized on March 28, 2024 (see 89 FR 21924) and remove some administrative items; it does not propose any new information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule has no net regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. The proposed delay of the compliance date for the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plan Regulation finalized on March 24, 2024 would not impose a regulatory burden for small entities (see 89 FR 21924). This proposed rule would not impose a regulatory burden for small entities because it only proposes to delay the compliance date of the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plan Regulation finalized on March 24, 2024 (see 89 FR 21924). We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule would only delay the compliance date of the CWA Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plan regulation finalized on March 24, 2024 (see 89 FR 21924) and does not propose any new regulatory requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The proposed rule will not cause reductions in the supply or production of oil, fuel, coal, or electricity; nor will it result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 118 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(7) Lack of passive mitigation measures or systems;
(8) Reportable discharge history; or
(9) Other site-specific characteristics and environmental factors that the Regional Administrator determines to be relevant to recovery, shoreline protection, and cleanup; or
(10) Density of facilities with CWA hazardous substances onsite in the immediate area.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Chemical-specific information, including the response considerations, health hazards, fire hazards, chemical reactivity, hazard classifications, and physical and chemical properties; and potential effects of a CWA hazardous substance worst case discharge as per 118.10 in adverse weather conditions. Illustrative diagrams of the hazard evaluation should be included.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Solicitation for nominations; reopen.
Through this notice, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting nominations for three (3) vacancies on the USDA Tribal Advisory Committee (“the Committee”). The Committee consists of eleven (11) members serving staggered terms. Three members will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture for a three-year term. This notice reopens the notice to solicit nominations for membership published in the
The nomination period announced on August 8, 2025 (90 FR 38431) is reopened. Complete nomination packages for membership on the Committee must be received at
Please submit nominations and resumes for recognition and appointment by the Secretary of Agriculture through Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, at
Inquiries may be sent to, Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, USDA, Office of Tribal Relations, at
1. Nomination letters. Nomination letters must include a brief summary, no more than two pages, explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the Tribal Advisory Committee and addressing the membership composition and criteria described above. The signatory of these letters must be authorized to represent an eligible nominating entity.
2. Resume. A resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.
3. Background Information Form. A completed Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information form (AD-755) signed by the nominee available online at
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, and 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.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD) or the State or local Agency that administers the program.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and potentially vote on the Committee's project proposal.
Wednesday, March 25, 2026, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons 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 incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, 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 scheduled 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,
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired, Current Population Survey (CPS) 2026 Field Test, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 4, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to Kyra Linse, Survey Director, Current Population Surveys via the internet at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Kyra Linse, Survey Director, Current Population Surveys via the internet at
The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information related to a field test of the Current Population Survey (CPS) in calendar year 2026.
The CPS has been the source of official government statistics on employment and unemployment since 1942. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau jointly sponsor the basic monthly survey. The Census Bureau also prepares and conducts all the field work. The CPS collects labor force information for the civilian noninstitutional population including employment status, number of hours worked, job search activities, earnings, duration of unemployment, and the industry and occupation classification of the job held the previous week. Data for the CPS are currently collected by Census field
The 2026 Field Test's goal is to test the use of an internet self-response method to measure its success as a possible method of contact and interviewing with the goal of review accuracy, reporting, and representativeness. In addition, should it prove as a viable response method, the goal is to experiment with timing and contacts in order to refine procedures that best fit the needs of CPS. This is the second of two major field tests with the first completed in 2025, and an ultimate goal to phase in changes to the survey in 2027 through 2028.
This 60-day Notice is to reinstate the OMB Control No. 0607-1032 for the 2026 CPS Field Test, that was previously used for the 2025 CPS Field Test, after proper submission of a discontinue request to OMB given the expiration date of April 2026.
The 2026 field test is planned for July 2026 until October 2026. The goal is to replicate the expected mode interaction of adding a self-response mode as close as possible to a production environment. The first interview will be conducted via computer-assisted person interview (CAPI) mode, and most cases will be followed up for three months with a mix of internet Self Response and CAPI follow-up based on the previous month's interview results and data reported. All cases will be in sample for up to four months. In addition, some cases were interviewed in the 2025 cases and will be contacted again to replicate the longitudinal nature of the current CPS. In addition, we will conduct experiments such as question wording, contact methods, and mode interaction measure the best method to encourage response by internet mode and the best quality data for both modes.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and POSCO of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR), is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part, with respect to 46 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 5, 2026.
Christopher Doyle or Seth Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5882 or (202) 482-0029, respectively.
On October 17, 2024, based on timely requests for review, Commerce initiated this administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cold-rolled steel from Korea.
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Commerce received timely-filed withdrawal requests with respect to 46 companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Because the withdrawal requests were timely filed, and no other parties requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this review of the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
On January 16, 2025, Nucor Corporation, a domestic interested party, requested that Commerce conduct verification of Hyundai Steel's responses. Accordingly, in July 2025, as provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified Hyundai Steel's information relied upon for the preliminary results of this review.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For the companies remaining under review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the rates calculated in the final results are zero or
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
United States Patent and Trademark Office; Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,499 ('499 patent).
Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-7728 or
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period (RRP) is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On December 10, 2025, V-Wave Ltd., the owner of record of the '499 patent, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a first interim extension of the term of the '499 patent. The '499 patent claims the medical device known by the tradename V-WAVE® Ventura® Interatrial Shunt System. The application indicates that a RRP as described in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B)(ii) for the V-WAVE® Ventura® Interatrial Shunt System medical device is ongoing before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market and use the device commercially.
Review of the application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the device commercially, the '499
A first interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,499 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the patent.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete products from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: April 4, 2026.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) and service(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On January 29, 2026 (91 FR 3866), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of qualification information for advisory committee and subcommittee candidates by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by subject matter “OMB Control No. 3038-0119 (Qualification Information for Candidates to Advisory Committees and Subcommittees),” and by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation.
Comments will be posted as received to
Michelle Ghim, Office of the General Counsel Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5667; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The CFTC identifies candidates for advisory committee and subcommittee membership through a variety of methods, including public requests for nominations; recommendations from existing advisory committee members; consultations with knowledgeable persons outside the CFTC (industry, consumer groups, other state or federal government agencies, academia, etc.); requests to be represented received from individuals and organizations; and Commissioners' and CFTC staff's professional knowledge of those experienced in the derivatives and underlying commodities markets.
Following the identification process, the CFTC develops a list of proposed members with the relevant points of view needed to ensure membership balance. The Commission then votes to appoint individuals, or specified organizations, to serve.
The collection of information is necessary to support the CFTC Advisory Committee Program which includes committees, most of which are governed by the FACA, and subcommittees that report directly to the advisory committees, as noted above. Pursuant to the FACA, an agency must ensure that a committee is balanced with respect to the viewpoints represented and the functions to be performed by that committee. Consistent with this, in order to select individuals for potential membership on an advisory committee, the CFTC must determine that potential members are qualified to serve on an advisory committee and that the viewpoints are properly balanced on the committee. The CFTC is also required to
CFTC staff would use the information collected to determine the experience and expertise of potential advisory committee and subcommittee members, ensure that the membership on a committee or subcommittee is balanced, and ensure that committee and subcommittee members are properly designated as representatives or special government employees.
The CFTC seeks to collect the following information: Information that supports an individual's experience and expertise to serve on an advisory committee or subcommittee, including letters of interest, recommendation letters, nomination letters (including self-nominations), resumes, curriculum vitae or other similar biographical information documents. Additionally, information that ensures membership balance (
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requests the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) reinstatement of an information collection titled “Privacy of Consumer Financial Information (Regulation P)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0010.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before April 6, 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
Requests for additional information should be directed to Anthony May, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, at (202) 435-7278, or email:
Request for Comments: The CFPB published a 60-day
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 1, 2026.
On March 2, 2026, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL26-43-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether NorthWestern Corporation's market-based rate authority is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL26-43-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL26-43-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2025), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on February 19, 2026, Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Northwest's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-433-000, for authorization to construct, install, and/or modify certain facilities at: the Sumas Compressor Station (CS) and Meter Station, the Mt. Vernon CS, the Snohomish CS, and the Sumner CS; including the uprate of compressor Unit 9 at the Sumas CS and Meter Station from 13,000 horsepower (HP) to 15,900 HP, and the uprate of compressor Unit 2 at Snohomish CS from 13,000 HP to 15,900 HP. All of the above facilities are located in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, Washington (Huntingdon Connector Project). The project will allow Northwest to provide 77,999 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation capacity from the Sumas CS to three existing delivery points along the I-5 corridor in Washington. The estimated cost for the project is $26,454,114, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Jasmine Turner, Sr. Regulatory Analyst, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, by phone at (281) 455-7922, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-94-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-94-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Jasmine Turner, Sr. Regulatory Analyst, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396], or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Public Notification.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the final guidance titled “Guidance on Financial Assurance Requirements in the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024.” The Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024 (the Act) establishes a pilot program authorizing the Administrator of the EPA, among other things, to grant up to 15 Good Samaritan permits for low-risk projects designed to remediate abandoned hardrock mine sites. The Administrator may grant a permit only if, among other considerations, the applicant for that permit has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the applicant has, or has access to, the financial resources to complete the project or has established a third-party financial assurance mechanism. In the event a Good Samaritan does not complete permit requirements, financial assurance funds secured under a third-party mechanism are intended to provide funding to complete the permitted work and for the purpose of carrying out the Act without the use of taxpayer funds. The guidance announced in this notice provides direction to applicants on fulfilling the financial assurance component of Good Samaritan permits.
The guidance is effective on March 5, 2026.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0586, is available online at
Jamey Watt, Office of Mountains, Deserts and Plains, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 5106P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0196; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general; although this action may be of particular interest to those persons seeking a permit to remediate abandoned hardrock mine sites under the Act. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate person listed under
EPA is issuing this guidance pursuant to its authority under The Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024, 138 Stat. 1692—Public Law 118-155, Sections 4(b)(1)(E)(i) and 4(m)(1)(A)(vi)(III).
EPA is announcing the availability of the final guidance. On August 13, 2025, EPA published a
As guidance, these documents are not binding on the Agency or any outside parties, and the Agency may depart from these documents where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in the guidance, the obligations of EPA and the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding documents. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in the guidance documents and any statute, regulation, or other legally binding document, the guidance documents will not be controlling.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated February 3, 2026, denying a petition dated June 2, 2025, from the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the Conservation Law Center, the Environmental Integrity Project, BP & Whiting Watch, Gary Advocates for Responsible Development, Indiana Conservation Voters, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Mighty Earth, and Northern Lake County Environmental Partnership. The petition requested that the EPA object to two Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permits issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to Cleveland-Cliffs Steel LLC, Indiana Harbor for its integrated steel mill located in East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Paymon Danesh, Air and Radiation Division (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone: (312) 886-6219, email:
The EPA received a petition from the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the Conservation Law Center, the Environmental Integrity Project, BP & Whiting Watch, Gary Advocates for Responsible Development, Indiana Conservation Voters, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Mighty Earth, and Northern Lake County Environmental Partnership dated June 2, 2025, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit nos. 089-46463-00316 and 089-46464-00318, issued by IDEM to Cleveland-Cliffs Steel LLC, Indiana Harbor in East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana. On February 3, 2026, the EPA Administrator issued an order denying the petition. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than May 4, 2026.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the request to renew the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0079, and -0122). The notices of proposed renewal for these information collections were previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2026.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Robert Meiers, Regulatory Attorney,
1.
2.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the 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; and (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. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is requesting a 3-year extension of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Consumer Education Website and Reports of Serious Injuries and Death (Office of Management and Budget #: 0970-0473, expiration date: May 31, 2026). There are no changes requested to the reporting requirements. Burden estimates have been adjusted.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ACF is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Reporting of Serious Injuries and Death is a requirement for child care
The burden estimates for the consumer education website requirement at § 98.33 have been reduced based on analysis of the FFY 2025-2027 CCDF State and Territory Plans. Eighteen out of 56 lead agencies are non-compliant on requirements related to their consumer education websites and would incur burden under this renewal, while the remaining grantees have demonstrated compliance and would experience minimal burden for ongoing maintenance to their consumer education websites. Accordingly, the burden hours for those 38 lead agencies only needing ongoing maintenance has been reduced from 300 to 50 average hours, resulting in an overall reduction of approximately 57 percent in total annual burden hours compared to the previously approved version. The burden estimates for reporting serious injuries and deaths at § 98.42 remain unchanged, as the burden is limited to provider reporting when a reportable event occurs. States and territories have flexibility in how they structure the provider reporting.
Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services has submitted revisions to an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice via
When requesting information about the information collection and proposed revisions, please reference the document identifier/OMB control number 0945-0002 and title of collection, “Civil Rights and Conscience Complaint and Health Information Privacy, Security, & Breach Notification Complaint.” You may email your inquiries to Harold Henderson at
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The estimated burden on individuals for gathering information and completing the Civil Rights and Conscience Complaint or Health Information Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Complaint is 45 minutes per complaint. Likely respondents are individuals or households, organizations, and not-for profit institutions. OCR estimates the annual total of respondents for both complaints to be 47,453 based on past data, as reflected in the table below:
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, March 16, 2026, 08:00 a.m. to March 17, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute—Shady Grove, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
The meeting is amended to change the start and end times of the March 17, 2026, meeting. The open session will be changed from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m., and the closed session will be changed from 4:45 p.m.-6:00 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.-5:00 p.m. The March 16, 2026, meeting time remains the same. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Special Topics: R-Awards March 11, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to March 12, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the end date to March 11, 2026. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) National Institutes of Health 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 May 4, 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: Dr. Hope Cummings, Project Clearance Liaison, Center for Scientific Review, NIH, Room 907-M, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-4706 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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The CSR Early Career Reviewer program was developed to identify and train qualified scientists who are early in their scientific careers and who have not had prior CSR review experience. The goals of the program are to expose these early career scientists to the peer review experience so that they become more competitive as applicants as well as to enrich the existing pool of NIH reviewers. Currently, the online application software, the Early Career Reviewer Application and Vetting System, is accessed online by applicants to the Early Career Reviewer Program who provide information such as their name, contact information, a description of their areas of expertise, their study section preferences, and their professional Curriculum Vitae. This Information Collection Request (ICR) is to revise the Early Career Reviewer Application and Vetting System by removing an employment characteristic question. This question is no longer needed to help assess interest in the program. The ICR also includes an increase in the number of burden hours to respondents due to a rise in the number of program applications since the last approval period.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 620.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Melbourne Orlando International Airport (Taxiway A Rehabilitation Project) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed scrub-jay incidental to a taxiway rehabilitation in Brevard County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that the proposed permitting action may be eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Department of Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a draft screening form and NEPA statement for HCPs, which is available for public review. We invite comment
We must receive your written comments on or before April 6, 2026.
•
•
Erin Gawera, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Melbourne Orlando International Airport (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take scrub-jays via the conversion of approximately 1.75 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering scrub-jay habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a taxiway rehabilitation on 40.27-acs, Parcel Number 27-37-29-00-250 in Section 37, Township 29 South, Range 27, Brevard County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the scrub-jays through the contribution of $100,380 to the Florida Scrub-jay Conservation Fund administered by The Nature Conservancy. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project—including the construction for the taxiway rehabilitation and associated infrastructure—would individually and cumulatively have a minor effect on the scrub-jays and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a low-effect ITP that may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)), pursuant to NEPA, the DOI's NEPA regulations and the DOI Departmental Manual. A low-effect incidental take permit is one that would result in (1) minor or nonsignificant effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) reasonably foreseeable effects that would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER17769784 to Melbourne Orlando International Airport (Taxiway A Rehabilitation Project).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Rizzzo Self Storage of Sebring, LLC (Sebring Parkway Parcel) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink incidental to the construction of a self-storage facility and associated infrastructure. We request public
We must receive your written comments on or before April 6, 2026.
•
•
Lindsay Needs, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Rizzzo Self Storage of Sebring, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP), also known as a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 0.88 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a commercial development on 5.92-ac on Parcel #C-33-34-29-080-0000-0510 in Section 33, Township 34S, and Range 29E, in the City of Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 1.76 ac of skink-occupied habitat within a Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that reasonably foreseeable effects of the applicant's proposed project, construction of a commercial development and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER23207493 to Rizzzo Self Storage of Sebring, LLC.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Clayton Properties Group, Inc. dba Highland Homes (Radio Road) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed threatened sand skink (skinks) incidental to the construction of a mixed residential development and the associated clearing and infrastructure in Lake County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that the proposed permitting action may be eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a draft screening form and NEPA statement for HCPs, which is available for public review. We invite comment from the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.
We must receive your written comments on or before April 6, 2026.
•
•
Erin Gawera, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, by phone at 904-404-2464 or via email at
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Clayton Properties Group, Inc. dba Highland Homes (Radio Road) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP), also known as a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 10-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 2.08 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a mixed residential development on 47.92 acs, on Parcel Alternate Key #s 1734801, 3889883, 1274184 and a portion of 1274168 in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 4.16 ac of skink-occupied habitat within the Lake Wales Ridge Conservation Bank or another Service approved skink conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that reasonably foreseeable effects of the applicant's proposed project, including the construction of a mixed residential development and the associated clearing and infrastructure, would have a minor effect on skinks and the human environment, and no extraordinary circumstances in 43 CFR 46.215 apply. Reasonably foreseeable effects encompass effects of implementation of the action including effects of the action in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future effects. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a low-effect ITP that may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion (516 DM 8.5(C)(2)), pursuant to NEPA, the DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A low-effect ITP is one that would result in (1) negligible or minor individual or cumulative effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) no significant effect on the human environment; and (3) reasonably foreseeable effects that would not result in significant effects to the human environment.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER16366737 to Clayton Properties Group, Inc. dba Highland Homes (Radio Road).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes amended Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Liquor Code.
This Liquor Code shall become effective March 5, 2026.
Sophia J. Torres, Management and Program Analyst, Southwest Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104-2303, Phone: (505) 536- 3304; Fax: (505) 563-3101.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado duly adopted the amended Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Liquor Code by Resolution No. 2024 -186 dated September 24, 2024.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, Liquor Code, as amended, shall read as follows:
(1) “Alcoholic beverages” means fermented malt beverages or malt, wine, or spirits.
(2) “Code” means the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Liquor Code.
(3) “Days” means calendar days. In computing any period of time prescribed by the Code, the date of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. Saturdays, Sundays, and federal and tribal holidays shall be counted as a calendar day.
(4) “Fairgrounds” means any premises owned by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe or other governmental entity with indoor and outdoor event space where events such as fairs, powwows, flea markets, rodeo, amusements, and carnivals are held.
(5) “Ferment” or “fermentation” means the chemical process by which sugar is converted into alcohol.
(6) “Fermented malt beverage” means beer, malt liquor, and any other beverage obtained by the fermentation of any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops, or any similar product or any combination thereof in water, containing not less than one-half percent by volume.
(7) “Gaming Tavern” means a facility that permits or conducts gaming on the premises pursuant to a valid gaming license issued by the Southern Ute Gaming Commission.
(8) “Hotel” means any establishment with sleeping rooms and restaurant facilities for guests.
(9) “License” means a permit issued to a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages as provided by this Code.
(10) “Licensed premises” means the premises specified in an application for a license under this Code, which are owned or controlled by the licensee and within which the licensee is authorized to sell, dispense, or serve alcoholic beverages.
(11) “Location” means a particular parcel of land that may be identified by an address or by other descriptive means.
(12) “Meal” means a quantity of food that is consumed at regular intervals for the purpose of sustenance.
(13) “Optional premises” means the premises specified in an application for a hotel and restaurant license with related outdoor sports or recreational facilities for its guests or the general public, located on or adjacent to the hotel or restaurant premises, within which such licensee is authorized to sell or serve alcoholic beverages in accordance with the provisions of this Code and at the discretion of the Tribal Licensing Authority; or the premises specified in an application for an optional premises license located on an applicant's outdoor sports or recreational facility.
(14) “Part”—Part numbers and titles are for code organization purposes only and do not need to be included in citations of the Code.
(15) “Person” means a natural person, partnership, association, company, corporation, or organization or a manager, agent, officer, or employee of any of them.
(16) “Premises” means a distinct and defined location, which may include a building, a part of a building, or a room, or any other definite contiguous area.
(17) “Racetrack” means premises where race meets or simulcast races with pari-mutuel wagering are held in accordance with the applicable law.
(18) “Restaurant” means:
(a) an establishment that has a sanitary kitchen, dining room, and persons to prepare, cook, and serve meals; and
(b) where, in exchange for payment, meals, drinks, tobaccos, and candies are furnished to guests and in which nothing is sold except for food, drinks, tobaccos, candies, and items of souvenir merchandise depicting the theme of the restaurant or the geographical or historic subjects of the nearby area.
(c) The term “restaurant” shall not include any establishment where business is conducted, except for:
(i) a hotel business;
(ii) tribal gaming; or
(iii) the sale of food, drinks, tobaccos, candies, or such items of souvenir merchandise.
(d) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit live music or entertainment, juke boxes, amusement devices, such as video games, that do not and cannot pay anything of value, or other forms of entertainment commonly provided in restaurants.
(19) “Retail liquor store” means an establishment engaged only in the sale of alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and mixers, all in sealed containers for consumption off the premises; tobaccos, tobacco products, smokers' supplies, and nonfood items related to the consumption of such beverages; and liquor-filled candy and food items approved by the Tribal Licensing Authority, which are prepackaged, labeled, and directly related to the consumption of such beverages and are sold solely for the purpose of cocktail garnish in containers up to sixteen ounces. A retail liquor store shall not sell food items that constitute a snack, a meal, or portion of a meal.
(20) “Sandwiches and Light Snacks” means single serving items such as hamburgers, hot dogs, frozen pizzas, burritos, chicken wings, popcorn, pretzels, nuts, chips, or items of a similar nature.
(21) “Sealed container” means any container or receptacle used for holding an alcoholic beverage, which is corked or sealed with a stub, stopper, or cap.
(22) “Sell” or “sale” means any of the following:
(a) to exchange, barter, or traffic in;
(b) to solicit or receive an order for liquor except through a licensee licensed under this Code;
(c) to keep or expose for sale;
(d) to serve liquor with meals;
(e) to deliver for value or in any way other than gratuitously;
(f) to offer or to possess with intent to sell;
(g) to traffic in for any consideration promised or obtained, directly or indirectly.
(23) “Spirits” means any alcoholic beverage obtained by distillation, mixed with water and other substances in solution, including but not limited to brandy, rum, whiskey, gin, and every liquid or solid, patented or not, containing at least one-half of one percent alcohol by volume and which is fit for use for beverage purposes. Any liquid or solid containing beer or wine in combination with any other liquor, except as provided in subsection (29) of this section, shall not be construed to be fermented malt or malt or wine but shall be construed to be spirits.
(24) “Tavern” means an establishment in which the principal business is the sale of alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on the premises and where sandwiches and light snacks are available for consumption on the premises.
(25) “Tribal Licensing Authority” (or “TLA”) means the regulatory entity designated by the Tribal Council to be responsible for administering and enforcing the Liquor Code.
(26) “Tribe” means the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
(27) “Wholesale” means the sale of alcoholic beverages to licensees for resale.
(28) “Wholesaler” means those entities authorized to sell alcoholic beverages at wholesale to licensees.
(29) “Wine” means an alcoholic beverage that contains not less than one-half of one percent and not more than 21% alcohol by volume and shall be construed to mean an alcoholic beverage obtained by the fermentation of the natural sugar contents of fruits or other agricultural products containing sugar. “Wine” includes fortified wine.
(1) The term “Tribal Licensing Authority”, as used throughout this Code, shall refer to the Tribal Council or to the entity that the Tribal Council designates for the administration and enforcement of this Code. The Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council may delegate some or all of its authority by resolution to another entity to act as the Tribal Licensing Authority for all purposes, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Approve or deny licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages, as provided by this Code, and suspend or revoke such licenses upon a violation of this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant to this Code.
(b) Adopt, amend, repeal, and publish regulations, special rulings, and findings for the regulation and control of the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages and the enforcement of this Code.
(c) Conduct public hearings, administer oaths, and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and production of papers, books, and records relevant to the hearing subject matter.
(d) Maintain complete records of all acts and transactions of the Tribal Licensing Authority regarding alcoholic beverage licensees, which records, except confidential reports obtained from the licensee showing the sales volume or quantity of liquor sold or customers served, shall be open for public inspection.
(e) Suspend or revoke any license upon any violation by the licensee, including by any agent or employee of such licensee, of any provision of this Code, of any regulation of the Tribal Licensing Authority, or of any term, condition, or provision of the license, upon its own motion or upon complaint, after investigation and public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard.
(2) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section may cover, but shall not be limited to, the following subjects:
(a) compliance with and enforcement of any provision of this Code, or any regulation issued pursuant to the Code;
(b) specification of duties of Tribal Licensing Authority officers and employees;
(c) instructions for local law enforcement officers;
(d) all forms necessary or convenient in the administration of this Code;
(e) inspections, investigations, searches, seizures, and other activities required for administration and enforcement of the Code;
(f) establishing penalties, which shall include aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered;
(g) limitation of number of licensees as to any area or vicinity;
(h) misrepresentation, unfair practices, and unfair competition;
(i) control of signs and other displays on licensed premises;
(j) use of screens;
(k) identification of licensees and their employees;
(l) storage and transportation;
(m) health and sanitary requirements;
(n) standards of purity and labeling;
(o) licensee recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
(p) practices designed to increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(q) testing of the alcohol content of alcoholic beverages sold by licensees;
(r) sales rooms; or
(s) other matters necessary for the fair and comprehensive administration of this Code.
(3) Nothing in this Code shall be construed as delegating to the Tribal Licensing Authority the power to fix prices. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall make no regulation that would abridge the right of any licensee to advertise the place of business or the commodities sold by such licensee fairly, honestly, and lawfully.
(1) maintain complete financial accounting records, invoices, copies of orders, shipping instructions, bills of lading, weigh bills, correspondence, and all other records necessary to show fully the alcoholic beverage transactions of such licensee, all of which shall be made available to the Tribal Licensing Authority during business hours for inspection and examination; and
(2) furnish any information the Tribal Licensing Authority considers necessary for the proper administration of this Code.
(3) The Tribal Licensing Authority may require a Licensee, at their own expense, to obtain an audit of the required records. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall select the auditor, who shall have access to all relevant books and records of such licensee.
(1) A retail liquor store license shall be issued to persons selling alcoholic beverages only in sealed containers not to be consumed at the place where sold. Alcoholic beverages in sealed containers shall not be sold at retail other than in retail liquor stores.
(2) A retail liquor store shall not sell food items that could constitute a snack, a meal, or portion of a meal.
(3) A retail liquor store shall purchase alcoholic beverages only from a licensed wholesaler.
(4) A retail liquor store may:
(a) sell any non-alcohol products, but only if the annual gross revenues from the sale of non-alcohol products do not exceed 20% of the retail liquor store's total annual gross sales revenues. For purposes of calculating the annual gross revenues from the sale of non-alcohol products, sales revenues from the following products are excluded: lottery products; cigarettes, tobacco products, and nicotine products; ice, soft drinks, and mixers; non-food items related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
(b) sell nonfood items related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages; liquor filled candy; and food items related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and sold solely for the purpose of cocktail garnish.
(c) display promotional material furnished by a manufacturer or wholesaler, which material permits a customer to purchase other items from a third person if the retail liquor store licensee does not receive payment from the third person and if the ordering of the additional merchandise is done by the customer directly from the third person.
(1)
(a) Persons licensed pursuant to § 26-3-104 shall purchase alcoholic beverages only from a properly licensed wholesaler, except as provided in subparagraph (b).
(b) Persons licensed pursuant to § 26-3-104 may purchase not more than two thousand dollars' worth of alcoholic beverages during a calendar year from a retail liquor store. Licensees shall maintain records, including receipts, of each purchase of alcoholic beverages at a retail liquor store. Receipts shall contain the name of the retail liquor store, the date of purchase, a description of the alcoholic beverages purchased, and the price paid for such purchase. Such receipt shall be retained and shall be available to the Tribal Licensing Authority at all times during business hours.
(c) Each license shall be granted for specific premises, including optional premises approved by the Tribal Licensing Authority for Hotel and Restaurant licenses, and issued in the name of the owner or lessee of the business, or, in the case of a tribal entity, the business name.
(2)
(a) Each licensee holding a tavern license, racetrack and fairgrounds license, hotel and restaurant, or lodging and entertainment license shall manage the licensed premises or employ a separate and distinct manager on the premises and shall report the name of the manager to the Tribal Licensing Authority.
(b) The registered manager for each licensee shall purchase alcoholic beverages for one licensed premises only, and such purchases shall be separate and distinct from purchases for any other license in a particular class.
(c) When a person ceases to be a registered manager of a licensee, the licensee shall notify the licensing authority within 5 days and shall designate a new registered manager within 30 days. It is unlawful for the licensee to fail to report the name of or any change in managers, and failure to report shall be grounds for suspension of the license.
(d) The Tribal Licensing Authority may refuse to accept any person as a registered manager unless the person is satisfactory as to character, record, and reputation. In determining a registered manager's character, record, and reputation, the Tribal Licensing Authority may request, and the proposed manager shall provide or consent to, access to credit history, employment history, and criminal history information furnished by a criminal justice agency subject to any restrictions imposed by such agency.
(3)
(a) Except as otherwise provided, the Tribal Licensing Authority may issue a hotel and restaurant license to persons selling alcoholic beverages in the place where such liquors are to be consumed, subject to the following restrictions:
(i) Restaurants shall sell alcoholic beverages only to customers of the restaurant, and only if meals are actually and regularly served and provide not less than 25% of the gross income from sales of food and drink of the business of the licensed premises over a time period of at least a year;
(ii) Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary, a restaurant may permit the licensee to reseal and the customer to remove from the licensed premises one opened container of partially consumed wine purchased on the premises, so long as the originally sealed container did not contain more than 750 milliliters of wine;
(iii) Hotels shall sell alcoholic beverages as provided in this section only to customers of the hotel and, except in hotel rooms, only on the licensed premises where meals are actually and regularly served and provide not less than 25% of the gross income from sales of food and drink of the business of the licensed premises; and
(iv) Hotel and restaurant licensees who are open for business and selling alcoholic beverages by the drink shall serve meals between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and meals or light snacks and sandwiches after 8 p.m.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary, a hotel licensed pursuant to this Code, may:
(i) Furnish and deliver complimentary alcoholic beverages in sealed containers for the convenience of its guests; and
(ii) Sell alcoholic beverages provided by the hotel in sealed containers, at any time, by means of a mini-bar located in hotel guest rooms, to registered guests 21 years of age or older of the hotel for consumption in such guest rooms if the price of the alcoholic beverages is clearly posted. For purposes of this section, “mini-bar” means a closed container, either non-refrigerated or refrigerated in whole or in part, access to the interior of which is restricted by means of a locking device that requires the use of a key, magnetic card, or similar device or which is controlled at all times by the hotel. Individual containers of alcoholic beverages in a mini-bar shall not have a volume of more than 500 milliliters.
(c) Hotel and restaurant licensees shall maintain a bona fide restaurant business and not a mere pretext of such for obtaining a hotel and restaurant license.
(4)
(5)
(a) The Tribal Licensing Authority may issue a gaming tavern license to persons who sell alcoholic beverages by the drink only for consumption on the premises, and who sell sandwiches and light snacks or who contract with an establishment that provides such food services within the same building as the licensed premises.
(b) Nothing in this Article shall permit more than one gaming tavern license per building where the licensed premises are located.
(6)
(a) The Tribal Licensing Authority may issue a lodging and entertainment license to a lodging or entertainment facility selling alcoholic beverages by the drink to customers only for consumption on the premises. A lodging and entertainment facility licensee shall have sandwiches and light snacks available for consumption on the premises during business hours but need not offer full meals.
(b) “Lodging and entertainment facility” means an establishment that is either:
(i) a lodging facility, the primary business of which is to provide the public with sleeping rooms and meeting facilities; or
(ii) an entertainment facility, the primary business of which is to provide the public with sports or entertainment activities within its licensed premises; and incidental to its primary business, sells and serves alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on the
(7)
(a) A racetrack and fairgrounds licensee may sell alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises only to customers and shall have sandwiches and light snacks available for consumption on the premises during business hours.
(b) A racetrack license is only required for premises where live horse racing occurs.
(8)
(9)
(1)
(a) Entities eligible for special events licenses are the following:
(i) an organization that has been incorporated under the laws of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe or the State of Colorado for purposes of a social, fraternal, patriotic, political, or athletic nature, and not for pecuniary gain;
(ii) municipalities, counties, or special districts;
(iii) a non-profit organization that is a regularly chartered branch, lodge, or chapter of a national organization or society organized for social, fraternal, patriotic, political, educational, or athletic purposes;
(iv) an organization that is an established religious or philanthropic institution;
(v) a political candidate who has filed the necessary reports and statements with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe or the Secretary of State of Colorado;
(vi) a division, entity, or department of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe; or
(vii) a facility owned by the Tribe at which productions or performances of an artistic nature are presented or to recreation facilities owned by the Tribe; and
(viii) an organization or person that the Tribal Licensing Authority determines meets the general guidelines described above.
(b) A special event license may be issued under this section notwithstanding the fact that the special event is to be held on premises already licensed under this Code.
(c) The holder of a special event license shall be responsible for any violation of this Code that occurs at the special event.
(d) Notwithstanding other provisions in this Code, applicants for a Special Event license shall submit applications for Special Events no later than 60 days prior to the scheduled event.
(2)
(a) Special event licensees shall sell licensed beverages by the drink only for consumption on the licensed premises.
(b) Each special event license shall be issued for a specific location and is not valid for any other location.
(c) A special event license authorizes the licensee to sell or offer only the alcoholic beverages specified in the license.
(d) A special events licensee shall serve alcoholic beverages only between the hours of 7 a.m. of the day specified in the special event license and 2 a.m. of the day immediately following.
(e) All persons selling or serving alcohol at a special event must have a valid, current Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) certification or an equivalent alcohol server and seller certification.
(f) A special event license may not be issued to any organization for more than 15 days in one calendar year.
(g) No issuance of a special event license shall have the effect of requiring the Tribal Licensing Authority to issue another license upon any subsequent application by an organization.
(h) Sandwiches or light snacks shall be available during all hours of service of alcoholic beverages, but full meals need not be available.
(i) The Tribal Licensing Authority may require any applicant to post a performance bond to assure compliance with the provisions of this Code.
(g) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages on any closed street, highway, or public byway for which a special event license has been issued.
(3)
(a) Public notice of the proposed special event license and the procedure for protesting issuance of the license shall be conspicuously posted, with the date of the posting, at the proposed location for at least 10 days before approval of the license by the Tribal Licensing Authority and at public or governmental buildings in the area, such as the post office, library, and tribal and town administration buildings.
(b) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall schedule a hearing if, after investigation and upon review of the contents of any protest filed by affected persons, sufficient grounds appear to exist for denial of a special event license. Any protest shall be filed by affected persons within 10 days after the initial posting of the public notice. Any hearing required by this subsection or any hearing held at the discretion of the Tribal Licensing Authority shall be held no sooner than the expiration of the initial posting of the public notice, and notice shall be provided to the applicant and any person who has filed a protest.
(4)
(a) a determination that the organization or person requesting the license does not meet the eligibility qualifications;
(b) cultural grounds;
(c) grounds that such issuance would be injurious to the public welfare;
(d) its location within the Reservation; or
(e) the failure of the applicant in a past special event to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
(1) Applications for licenses shall be submitted to the Tribal Licensing Authority on forms prepared and provided by the Tribal Licensing Authority and shall contain sufficient information to enable the Tribal Licensing Authority to determine whether a license should be granted. The form shall include:
(a) the name and address of the applicant:
(i) if a government, the name of the highest government official or names of the people who serve on the governing body;
(ii) if a partnership, the names and addresses of all the partners; or
(iii) if a corporation, association, or other organization, the names and addresses of the president, vice president, secretary, and managing officer,
(b) along with all other information deemed necessary by the Tribal Licensing Authority.
(2) Each application shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the applicant or appropriate representative of the applicant as authorized by the Tribal Licensing Authority.
(3) At the time of application, the applicant shall file plans and specifications for the interior of the building if the building to be occupied already exists. If the building is not in existence, the applicant shall file a plot plan and a detailed sketch of the interior and, where available, shall submit an architect's drawing of the building to be constructed. The Tribal Licensing Authority may impose additional requirements necessary for the approval of the application.
(4) An applicant for a license shall submit fingerprints. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall conduct, or use a State or Federal agency to conduct, a fingerprints-based criminal history record check. Because tribal employees undergo a criminal history record check prior to becoming employed, this requirement does not apply if the applicant is the Tribe, a tribal department or entity, or a business wholly owned by the Tribe.
(5) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall require a complete disclosure of all persons having a direct or indirect financial interest,
(1) Upon receipt of an application, except an application for renewal or for transfer of ownership, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall schedule a public hearing not less than 30 days from the date of the application and shall post and publish the public notice not less than 10 days prior to the hearing.
(2) Public notice shall consist of:
(a) posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises described in the application;
(b) publication in a newspaper of general circulation on the Reservation; and
(c) at public or governmental buildings in the area, such as the post office, library, and tribal and town administration buildings.
(3) Notice given by posting shall include a sign of suitable material, not less than 22 inches wide and 26 inches high, composed of letters not less than one inch in height and stating the type of license applied for, the date of the application, the date of the hearing, and the name and address of the applicant, and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. If the applicant is a partnership, the sign shall contain the names and addresses of all partners, and if the applicant is a corporation, association, or other organization, the sign shall contain the names and addresses of the president, vice president, secretary, and manager or other managing officers. If the applicant is the Tribe, a tribal department or entity, or a business wholly owned by the Tribe, the sign need only contain the names and business addresses of the relevant officials or managing officers.
(4) Notice given by publication shall contain the same information as that required for signs.
(5) If the building in which alcoholic beverages are to be sold is in existence at the time of the application, any sign posted as required by this section shall be placed where it is conspicuous and plainly visible to the general public. If the building is not constructed at the time of the application, the applicant shall post the notice on the premises where the building is to be constructed in such a manner that the notice shall be conspicuous and plainly visible to the general public.
(1) Not less than 5 days prior to the hearing date, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall provide its written findings based on its investigation to the applicant and other interested parties.
(2) Before entering any decision approving or denying the application, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall consider, except where this Code specifically provides otherwise:
(a) the facts and evidence collected as a result of the Tribal Licensing Authority's investigation, as well as any other facts;
(b) any license conditions to accommodate the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood where the premises are or will be located;
(c) the desires of the community members as evidenced by petitions, protest, or otherwise;
(d) the number, type, and availability of alcoholic beverage outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration;
(e) any other relevant matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant to conduct the type of business proposed; and
(f) any cultural or traditional considerations that may affect the granting of any license.
(3) Before granting any license, the Tribal Licensing Authority may:
(a) visit and inspect the property where the applicant proposes to conduct business; and
(b) investigate the fitness to conduct such business of any person or the officers and directors of any corporation applying for a license.
(4) In investigating the applicant's or a licensee's qualifications, the Tribal Licensing Authority may have access to criminal history record information furnished by a criminal justice agency, subject to any restrictions imposed by such agency.
(a) If the Tribal Licensing Authority takes into consideration information concerning the applicant's criminal history record, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall also consider any information provided by the applicant regarding their criminal history, including but not limited to, evidence of rehabilitation, character references, and educational achievements, particularly those items pertaining to the period of time between the applicant's last criminal conviction and submission of the application for a license.
(b) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall consider any relevant circumstances related a criminal conviction or other moral turpitude offense to determine whether the applicant is a person of good moral character at the time of the license application.
(5) The Tribal Licensing Authority may deny the issuance of any new tavern or retail liquor store license whenever such authority determines that the issuance of the license would result in, or add to an undue concentration of, the same class of license or require the use of additional law enforcement resources.
(6) With respect to a second or additional license, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall consider the effect on competition in granting or disapproving additional licenses to the licensee. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall not approve an application for a second or additional hotel and restaurant license that would have the effect of restraining competition.
(7) No license provided by this Code shall be issued to or held by:
(a) any person until the annual fee has been paid;
(b) any person who is not of good moral character;
(c) any corporation, any of whose officers, directors, or stockholders holding 10% or more of the outstanding and issued capital stock thereof, or any partnership, association, or company, any of whose officers, or any of whose members holding 10% or more interest therein, are not of good moral character;
(d) any person employed by, assisted by, or financed in whole or in part by any other person who is not of good character and reputation satisfactory to the Tribal Licensing Authority;
(e) any peace officer, tribal attorney, Tribal Council member, or Tribal Licensing Authority employee;
(f) any person unless such person's character, record, and reputation are satisfactory to the Tribal Licensing Authority; or
(g) any natural person under 21 years of age.
(8) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall not process or issue a new license to any person whose business location is within one thousand feet of an academic institution.
(9) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall refuse an alcoholic beverage license if;
(a) the premises on which the applicant proposes to conduct business do not meet the requirements of this Code;
(b) if the character of the applicant or its officers or directors is such that violations of this Code would be likely to result if a license were granted; or
(c) if, in the Tribal Licensing Authority's opinion, licenses already granted for the particular location are adequate for the reasonable needs of the community.
(1) At the public hearing held pursuant to this section, any party of interest shall be allowed to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
(2) “Party in interest” means any of the following:
(a) The applicant;
(b) A Southern Ute Tribal member;
(c) A resident of the neighborhood where the licensed premises are or will be located;
(d) Neighborhood business owners or managers where the licensed premises are or will be located; or
(e) The principal or representative of any academic institution located within one thousand feet of the premises for which the license is under consideration.
(3) The Tribal Licensing Authority, in its discretion, may limit the presentation of evidence and cross-examination to prevent repetitive and irrelevant evidence or examination.
(4) In any hearing held by the Tribal Licensing Authority, if requested by the Tribal Licensing Authority, no person may refuse to testify or provide other information on the ground of self-incrimination.
(5) No testimony or other information produced in a licensing hearing or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony may be used against a person in any criminal prosecution based on a violation of this Code, except a prosecution for perjury committed when testifying in a licensing hearing. Continued refusal to testify or provide other information shall constitute
(6) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall record the hearing proceedings.
(1) The Tribal Licensing Authority has the authority to deny a license application for good cause. Denials are subject to judicial review by the Administrative Appeals and Hearings Office.
(2) “Good cause”, for the purpose of refusing or denying a license renewal or initial license issuance, means:
(a) The licensee or applicant has violated, does not meet, or has failed to comply with any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Code or any regulations promulgated pursuant to this Code;
(b) The licensee or applicant has failed to comply with any special terms or conditions that were placed on its license in prior disciplinary proceedings or that arose in the context of potential disciplinary proceedings;
(c) Issuance of the license is inconsistent with the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood or the desires of the neighborhood;
(d) Evidence that the licensed premises have been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health, welfare, or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the establishment is located, which evidence must include a continuing pattern of fights, violent activity, or disorderly conduct; or
(e) Cultural grounds.
(3) Within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall issue a written decision approving or denying an application and stating the reasons for the decision. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall deliver a copy of its decision to the applicant by hand or by certified first class mail to the address shown in the application.
(4) No license shall be denied arbitrarily or without good cause.
(1) All licenses granted and issued pursuant to this Code shall specify the date of issuance, the type of license, the date of its expiration, the name of the licensee, and the physical location where the license is to be used.
(2) All licenses granted pursuant to this Code shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance unless revoked or suspended pursuant this Code.
(3) A separate license shall be issued for each specific business or business entity and each physical location, and the particular alcoholic beverages the applicant is authorized to sell shall be described in the license.
(4) Each license issued is separate and distinct, and it is unlawful for any person to exercise any of the privileges granted under any license other than that which he holds or for any licensee to allow another person to exercise such privileges granted under this license.
(5) No license shall be issued by the Tribal Licensing Authority after approval of an application until the building where the business is located is ready for occupancy with furniture, fixtures, and equipment in place in compliance with this Code and the license conditions, and then only after the Tribal Licensing Authority inspects the premises to determine that they are constructed or organized consistent with the floor plan submitted with the application.
(6) For purposes of this section, a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises, and an optional premise license located in an outdoor sports or recreational facility, shall be considered a single business and location.
(7) At all times a licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued through ownership, lease, rental, or other arrangement for possession. Failure to maintain possession will result in suspension or revocation.
(8) Licensees shall ensure that a license granted and issued pursuant to this Code is always conspicuously displayed in the premises for which the license is issued.
(1) 90 days prior to the expiration date of an existing license, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall notify the licensee of the expiration date by certified first class mail at the address on file with the Tribal Licensing Authority. Licensees shall apply for renewal of an existing license no less than 45 days prior to the date of expiration.
(2) The Tribal Licensing Authority may hold a hearing on the renewal application if the circumstances found § 26-4-103(7) indicate a need for reconsideration of licensure. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall not hold a renewal hearing until a notice of hearing has been provided to the applicant and conspicuously posted on the licensed premises for a period of at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
(3) The Tribal Licensing Authority may refuse to renew any license for good cause, subject to judicial review by the Administrative Appeals and Hearings Office.
(4) The Tribal Licensing Authority may, for good cause, waive the time requirements set forth in this section.
(1) In addition to other penalties prescribed by this Code, the Tribal Licensing Authority has the power, on its own motion or on complaint, after investigation and public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard, to suspend or revoke any license for any violation of this Code, its implementing regulations, or the license terms, conditions, or provisions by the licensee or by any of its agents, servants, or employees. A violation of this Code, any implementing regulations, or of license requirements or conditions shall be grounds for a suspension or revocation.
(2) In addition, the Tribal Licensing Authority, in its discretion, may revoke or elect not to renew a license if it determines that the licensed location has been inactive, without good cause, for at least one year.
(3) The Tribal Licensing Authority shall provide notice of suspension or revocation, as well as any required notice of a hearing, in writing by hand delivery or certified first class mail to the licensee at the address on file. Any license may be temporarily suspended by the Tribal Licensing Authority without notice pending any prosecution, investigation, or public hearing.
(4) Nothing in this Code shall prevent temporary or immediate suspension of a license for a period not exceeding 15 days. No suspension under this section shall be for a period longer than 6 months.
(5) Whenever any license is suspended or revoked, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall not return or refund any part of a licensing fee to the licensee and the licensee is prohibited from serving or selling alcohol until the license is reinstated or the Tribal Licensing Authority grants a new license.
(1) The AAHO shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the final decision was arbitrary and without good cause, and if so finding, the AAHO shall order the Tribal Licensing Authority to issue the license.
(2) The decision of the AAHO may be appealed to the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Court in accordance with Title 1, Article 5 of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Law and Order Code. The person requesting review shall be required to pay the cost of preparing a transcript of proceedings before the Tribal Licensing Authority when such a transcript is demanded by the person taking the appeal or when such a transcript is furnished by the Tribal Licensing Authority pursuant to AAHO or Tribal Court order.
(1) No license granted under the provisions of this Code shall be transferable except as provided in this subsection, but this shall not prevent a change of location as otherwise authorized pursuant to this Code.
(2) When a license has been issued to a husband and wife, or to general or limited partners, the death of a spouse or partner shall not require the surviving spouse or partner to obtain a new license. All rights and privileges granted under the original license shall continue in full force and effect as to the survivor(s) for the remainder of the license period.
(3) For any other transfer of ownership, the person receiving ownership shall submit an application to the Tribal Licensing Authority on forms furnished by the Tribal Licensing Authority. In determining whether to permit a transfer of ownership, the Tribal Licensing Authority shall consider the requirements of § 26-4-103 and may hold a hearing pursuant to § 26-4-104 on the application for transfer of ownership. The Tribal Licensing Authority shall not hold a transfer of ownership hearing until a notice of hearing has been provided to the applicant and conspicuously posted on the licensed premises for a period of at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The new owner shall not serve or sell alcohol until the license application is granted.
(4) It is unlawful for the licensee to fail to report a transfer and failure to report a transfer shall be grounds for license suspension or revocation.
(1) To sell alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person.
(2) To sell alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 21 years.
(a) If a person who is not 21 years of age exhibits a fraudulent or misappropriated identification or proof of age, any action by a licensee reasonably relying on such identification or proof of age shall not constitute grounds for the revocation or suspension of any license issued under this Code.
(b) If a licensee or a licensee's employee has reasonable cause to believe that a person is under 21 years of age and is exhibiting a misappropriated identification or fraudulent proof of age in an attempt to obtain an alcoholic beverage:
(i) the licensee or employee is authorized to confiscate the identification or proof of age and shall, within 72 hours after the confiscation, turn it over to the tribal law enforcement agency. The failure to confiscate the identification or proof of age or to turn it over to the tribal law enforcement agency within 72 hours after the confiscation shall not constitute a criminal offense, notwithstanding § 26-6-101. Any licensee or his employee acting in good faith in accordance with the provisions of this subsection shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal.
(ii) the licensee or licensee's employee or any peace officer, acting in good faith and upon probable cause, may detain and question such person in a reasonable manner to ascertain whether the person is guilty of any unlawful act under this article. Such questioning of a person by a licensee, licensee's employee, or a peace officer does not render the licensee, the licensee's employee, or a peace officer civilly or criminally liable for slander, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or unlawful detention.
(c) Each licensee shall display a printed card that contains a notice of the provisions of subsection § 26-5-101(12).
(3) To sell to a consumer for consumption on or off the licensed premises unless the licensee verifies that the consumer is at least 21 years of age by requiring the consumer to present a valid identification. The licensee or employee shall make a determination from the information presented whether the purchaser is at least 21 years of age. However, if a consumer is or reasonably appears to be over fifty years of age and fails to present an acceptable form of identification, such sale is not unlawful.
(4) To permit a person under eighteen years of age to sell, dispense, serve, or participate in the sale, dispensing, or serving of any alcoholic beverage.
(5) To employ a person to sell, dispense, or serve alcoholic beverages if that person does not meet the following minimum age requirements:
(a) at a retail liquor store, a person younger than 21 years old shall not handle, sell, or engage in any activity involving alcoholic beverages.
(b) at a tavern or lodging and entertainment facility that does not regularly serve meals, a person younger than 21 years old shall not handle, sell, or engage in any activity involving alcoholic beverages.
(c) at any other premises licensed for on-premises consumption, a person under 21 years of age may not sell, dispense, or serve alcoholic beverages unless he or she is supervised by another person who is on premises and who is at least 21 years old.
(6) To serve, sell, or distribute during prohibited hours of service. Prohibited hours of service are the following:
(a) For consumption on the premises, 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(b) In sealed containers, 12:00 midnight to 8 a.m.
(c) These days and hours may be limited by resolution of the Tribal Council in recognition of a tribal holiday and may be expanded by resolution of the Tribal Council if the State of Colorado's statutes or rules change to expand the hours of lawful alcohol sales or service.
(7) To sell or serve alcohol without a certification of training obtained in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) the training shall be obtained from a vendor on the Colorado Approved Vendor List for Responsible Alcohol Beverage Vendors within the first 30 days of employment as a seller or server of alcohol;
(b) the seller or server shall obtain a certification of attendance and a passing score on any required exam and shall submit the certification to the Tribal Licensing Authority;
(c) the seller or server shall obtain recertification every 3 years or within 30 days of certification expiration.
(8) To offer for sale or solicit any order for alcoholic beverages at retail except within a licensed premises.
(9) To have any alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license in the licensed premises.
(10) To buy any alcoholic beverages from any person not licensed to sell at wholesale except as otherwise provided in this Code.
(11) To sell at retail alcoholic beverages except in the permanent location specifically designated in the license for such sale, as authorized in this Code.
(12) To fail to display at all times in a prominent place on premises licensed for retail sale a printed card with a minimum height of 14 inches and a width of 11 inches with each letter to be a minimum of one-half inch in height, which shall read as follows:
(13) To sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises unless licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises.
(14) To display or cause to be displayed, on the licensed premises, any exterior sign advertising any particular brand of malt liquors that is not sold or dispensed on the licensed premises.
(15) To employ or permit, if such person is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption or is the agent or manager of the licensee, any employee, server, entertainer, host, hostess, or agent of the licensee to solicit from patrons in any manner, for himself or herself or for any other employee, the purchase of any alcoholic beverage.
(16) To have on the licensed premises, if licensed as a retail liquor store, any container that shows evidence of having been opened or that contains a volume of alcoholic beverage less than that specified on the label of the container. This provision does not apply to duly authorized tastings nor to damaged or defective products that have been marked as such and stored outside the sales area.
(17) Unless otherwise provided in this Code, it is unlawful for a person who is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises to knowingly permit the removal of an alcoholic beverage from the licensed premises.
(a) A licensee shall not be charged with permitting the removal of an alcoholic beverage from the licensed premises when the licensee has posted a sign at least ten inches wide and six inches high by each exit used by the public that contains the following notice in type that is at least one-half inch in height:
Such signs posted by a Gaming Tavern must be at least twelve inches wide and eighteen inches high.
(1) It is unlawful for any licensee pursuant to this Code to receive and obtain, directly or indirectly, from any manufacturer, limited winery, wholesaler, or importer of alcoholic beverages, or any entity with a financial interest in any of these businesses:
(a) any financial assistance;
(b) any equipment, fixtures, chattels, or furnishings used in the storing, handling, serving, or dispensing of food or alcoholic beverages within the premises; or
(c) any assistance in making any structural alterations or improvements in or on the building where the licensed premises are located.
(d) This subsection does not apply to signs or displays within licensed premises or to advertising materials that are intended primarily to advertise the product of the wholesaler or manufacturer and that have only negligible value in themselves or to the inspection and servicing of alcohol dispensing equipment to the extent necessary for the maintenance of reasonable standards of purity, cleanliness, and health.
(2) It is unlawful for any owner, part owner, shareholder, stockholder, or any person with an interest in any retail business or establishment of a licensee to enter into any agreement with any person or party or to receive, possess, or accept any money, fixtures, supplies, or thing of value from any person or party, whereby a licensee may be influenced or caused, directly or indirectly, to buy, sell dispense, or handle the product of any manufacturer of alcoholic beverages. This subsection shall not apply to displays within such premises.
(3) Any transaction, agreement, or arrangement prohibited by the provisions of this section is unlawful, illegal, and void, and any obligation or liability arising out of such transaction, agreement or arrangement is unenforceable by or against any such persons and parties entering into a prohibited transaction, agreement, or arrangement.
(1) To sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, deliver, or procure for, or to permit the sale, serving, giving, disposing of, exchanging, delivering to, or procuring of any alcoholic beverage for a visibly intoxicated person.
(2) To sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, deliver, or procure for, or to permit the sale, serving, giving, disposing of, exchanging, delivering to, or procuring of any alcoholic beverage for any person under the age of 21 years.
(a) If a person is found to have violated this Code by selling, serving, giving away, disposing of, exchanging, delivering, procuring for or permitting the selling, serving, giving away, disposing of, exchanging, delivering to, or procuring of any alcoholic beverage for a person under the age of 21 years, the Tribal Court shall consider the following:
(i) As a result of consuming the alcohol, the underage person needed medical assistance; and
(ii) Within six hours after the underage person consumed the alcohol, the defendant contacted the police or emergency medical personnel to report that the underage person needed medical assistance as a result of consuming alcohol.
(3) To obtain or attempt to obtain any alcoholic beverage by misrepresentation of age or by any other method in any place where alcoholic beverages are sold if such person is under 21 years of age.
(4) To, while in any public place, possess or have in one's control an open container that holds any amount of an alcoholic beverage.
(5) To possess or consume alcoholic beverages if such person is under 21 years of age.
(6) To knowingly, or under conditions which a parent or guardian should have knowledge of, permit any person under 21 years of age, of whom he may be a parent or guardian, to violate the provisions of subparagraphs (4) or (5) of this section.
(7) To buy or receive any alcoholic beverage from any person not licensed to sell at retail as provided by this Code except as otherwise provided in this Code.
(8) To sell at retail any alcoholic beverages in sealed containers without holding a retail liquor store license.
(9) To manufacture, sell, or possess for sale any alcoholic beverage unless such person is licensed to do so with a valid license; except that when permitted by federal law, a person 21 years of age or older may manufacture, without a license, the amount permitted by federal law for personal or family use.
(10) It is unlawful for any person to drink or consume alcoholic beverages or for any person who is the owner, operator, or proprietor to sell, serve, furnish, or permit the drinking of alcoholic beverages in any public place or in any facility, except in or on premises holding a liquor license issued pursuant to this Code and only during the hours allowed by the Code.
(11) To allow use of premises or provide mixers for alcoholic beverages without a license or outside of allowed hours.
(12) To knowingly allow and fail to prevent the use of any identification, including a driver's license, by a person who is under 21 years of age for the unlawful purchase of any alcoholic beverage.
(13) To remove an alcoholic beverage from a licensed premises where the liquor license for such facility allows only on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages.
(1) Civil Enforcement.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person violating any provision of this Code or any regulation authorized and adopted pursuant to this Code as amended, currently or in the future, has committed a Liquor Code violation.
(b) Upon entry of a judgment:
(i) the violator shall be liable for civil penalties of not more than $5,000 for each offense;
(ii) the Court may revoke any license granted and issued pursuant to the provisions of this Code to the violator; and
(iii) the court may decree that no license for the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be issued to the violator in the future.
(c) The penalties provided in this Title shall not be affected by the penalties provided in any other section of this Code but shall be construed to be in addition to or an alternative to any other penalties.
(2) Criminal Violations of the Liquor Code may result in criminal prosecution where the Tribal Court has criminal jurisdiction over the person committing the violation and the violation constitutes a crime under the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Code.
(1) The provisions of this Code shall not apply to the sale or distribution of sacramental wines sold and used for religious purposes.
(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this Code to the contrary, when permitted by federal law and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to federal law, a person 21 years of age or older may produce for personal use and not for sale an amount of fermented malt beverage or malt or wine liquor equal to the amount that is exempt from the federal excise tax on such alcoholic beverage when produced by a person 21 years of age or older for personal use and not for sale.
(a) The production of fermented malt beverages or malt or wine liquors under the circumstances set forth in this subsection (2) shall be in strict conformity with federal law.
(b) Fermented malt beverages or malt or wine liquors produced pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (2) shall be exempt from any tax imposed by this Code, and the producer shall not be required to obtain any license provided by this Code.
(c) Malt liquors produced pursuant to this subsection (2) may be transported and delivered by the producer to any licensed premise where consumption of malt liquors by persons 21 years of age or older is authorized for use at organized affairs, exhibitions, or competitions, such as home brew contests, tasting, or judging. Consumption shall be limited solely to the participants in and judges of such events. Malt liquors used for the purposes described in this paragraph (c) shall be served in portions not exceeding 6 ounces and shall not be sold, offered for sale, or made available for consumption by the general public.
(1) The Tribal Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this section shall be interpreted so that any common law cause of action against a vendor of alcoholic beverages is abolished and that, in certain cases, the consumption of alcoholic beverages, rather than the sale, service, or provision thereof, is the proximate cause of injuries or damages inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person except as otherwise provided in this section.
(2)
(a) No licensee is civilly liable to any injured individual or his or her estate for any injury to such individual or damage to any property due to the sale or service of any alcoholic beverage to any person, except when:
(i) it is proven that the licensee willfully and knowingly sold or served any alcoholic beverage to such person who was under the age of 21 years or who was visibly intoxicated; and
(ii) the civil action is commenced within one year after such sale or service.
(a) No civil action may be brought pursuant to this subsection by the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was sold or served or by his or her estate, legal guardian, or dependent.
(b) As used in this section, “licensee” means a person licensed under the provisions of this Code and the agents and employees of that person.
(3)
(a) No person who furnishes any alcoholic beverage at a private social event shall be civilly liable to any injured individual or his or her estate for any injury to such individual or damage to any property suffered, including any action for wrongful death, because of the intoxication of any person due to the consumption of such alcoholic beverages, except when:
(i) it is proven that the person who furnished an alcoholic beverage at a private social event willfully and knowingly sold or served any alcoholic beverage to such person who was under the age of 21 years or who was visibly intoxicated; and
(ii) the civil action is commenced within one year after such service.
(b) No civil action may be brought pursuant to this subsection by the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was served or by his or her estate, legal guardian, or dependent.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of contract actions.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice informs the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939.
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Morgan Raymond, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007;
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the regulations at 43 CFR 426.22, Reclamation publishes notice of proposed or amendatory contract actions for any contract for the delivery of project water for authorized uses.
The public participation procedures do not apply to proposed contracts for the sale of surplus or interim irrigation water for a term of 1 year or less. Either of the contracting parties may invite the public to observe contract proceedings. All public participation procedures will be coordinated with those involved in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Pursuant to the “Final Revised Public Participation Procedures” for water resource-related contract negotiations, published in 47 FR 7763, February 22, 1982, a tabulation is provided of all proposed contractual actions in each of the five Reclamation regions. When contract negotiations are completed, and prior to execution, each proposed contract form must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or pursuant to delegated or redelegated authority, the Commissioner of Reclamation or one of the regional directors. In some instances, congressional review and approval of a report, water rate, or other terms and conditions of the contract may be involved.
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received, and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not
18. White Rock Oil & Gas, Lower Yellowstone Project, Montana: Excess capacity contract for conveyance of a M&I water supply. Completed on July 16, 2025.
25. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, Norman Project, Oklahoma: Renewal of water service contract No. 219E640007. Completed on August 26, 2025.
28. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Renewal of contract No. 9-07-70-W0315. Completed on September 19, 2025.
11. Lugert-Altus ID, W.C. Austin Project, Oklahoma: Consideration for amendment to contract No. Ilr-1375.
4. South Cache Water Users Association, Hyrum Project, Utah: Reclamation entered a repayment contract with the South Cache Water Users Association under the Safety of Dams Act for the reimbursable portion of the costs to repair the spillway at Hyrum Dam. Completed on April 17, 2025.
5. Strawberry Valley Project, Utah: The water users on the Strawberry Valley Project have requested to enter a conversion contract with Reclamation under the Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act to convert the project irrigation water to miscellaneous purposes. Completed on September 18, 2025.
7. Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, Uncompahgre Project, Colorado River Storage Project, Colorado: The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association desires to enter a renewal contract with Reclamation under Section 14 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to exchange water between Taylor Park Reservoir and Blue Mesa Reservoir. Completed on August 26, 2025.
10. Carlsbad Irrigation District, Carlsbad Project, New Mexico: Reclamation is working with the Carlsbad Irrigation District to generate a new or a replacement contract which will be compliant with the Federal Acquisition Regulations for the payment of OM&R expenses.
23. Beattie Farms Southwest, BCP, Arizona: Proposed assignment of 1,100 AFY of Arizona fourth priority Colorado River water entitlement under contract No. 05-XX030-W0446, dated February 17, 2006, from Beattie Farms Southwest to the Hualapai Tribe.
24. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: CAP water lease for calendar year 2025.
15. Cibola Sportsman's Club, BCP, Arizona: Realignment of Cibola Sportsman's Club's contract service area under Colorado River water delivery contract No. 21-XX-30-W0717 to include La Paz County Assessor Parcel No. 301-08-009A and exclude this parcel of land from Cibola Valley IDD's contract service area under contract No. 2-07-30-W0028, as amended. Completed September 16, 2025.
18. Lake Havasu City, BCP, Arizona: Revision to Exhibit C under contract No. 3-07-30-W0039 to update well information as approved points of diversion under the contract. Completed September 17, 2025.
1. Milton and Jean Phillips, BCP, Arizona: Review the terms of the proposed Colorado River water delivery contract for 60 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year, as recommended by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
5. Desert Lawn Memorial Park Association, Inc., Yuma Auxiliary Project, Arizona: Proposed termination of contract No. 14-06-300-2587.
21. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, Hungry Horse Project, Montana: Agreement to provide storage water from Hungry Horse Reservoir pursuant to the Montana Water Rights Protection Act, Public Law 116-260, Div. DD, section 1, Dec. 27, 2020.
14. Storage Division, Yakima Project, Washington: Contracts with water user entities for the repayment of reimbursable shares of the costs of the SOD program modification for Kachess Dam.
4. Pioneer Ditch Company, Boise Project Idaho; Clark and Edwards Canal and Irrigation Company, Enterprise Canal Company, Ltd., Lenroot Canal Company, Liberty Park Canal Company, Poplar ID, all in the Minidoka Project, Idaho; and Juniper Flat District Improvement Company, Wapinitia Project, Oregon; Whitestone Reclamation District, Chief Joseph Project, Washington: Amendatory repayment and water service contracts; purpose is to conform to the RRA.
17. North Unit ID, Crooked River Project, Oregon: Annual contract for up to 10,000 acre-ft from Prineville Reservoir.
18. State of California, Department of Water Resources, CVP, California: Negotiation of a multi-year long-term wheeling agreements with the State of California, Department of Water Resources providing for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through the State of California's water project facilities to Byron-Bethany ID (Musco
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 21, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Inventist, Inc. of Camas, Washington, and Alien Technology Group, Inc. d/b/a Alien Rides of San Francisco, California. An amended complaint was filed on February 2, 2026. A second amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2026. The complaint, as amended, 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 gyro-stabilized electric unicycles and components thereof and products containing the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 (“the '250 patent”) and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D729,698 (“the '698 patent”). The complaint, as amended, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, as amended, 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, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-20 of the '250 patent, and the claim of the '698 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established 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 “self-balancing electric unicycles with leg contact surfaces and components thereof”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(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
(4) 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, as amended, 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, as amended, and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, as amended, 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, as amended, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint, as amended, 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, as amended, and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of InnoTV Labs, LLC on March 2, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain display devices, streaming players, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Hisense Co., Ltd. of China; Hisense International Co., Ltd. of China; Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Hisense USA Corporation of Suwanee, GA; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation of Suwanee, GA; Hisense Monterrey Home Appliance Manufacturing of Mexico; Roku, Inc. of San Jose, CA; Purple Tag Media Technology (Shanghai) Ltd. of China; Purple Tag Media Technology (Shanghai) Ltd.—Shenzhen Branch of China; and Purple Tag Mexico, S.A. de C.V. of Mexico. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3891”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Notice and request for public comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (PRA), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Department of Justice (DOJ), requested the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conduct an emergency review and approval of a revision to a currently approved collection of information. EOIR requested and OMB granted emergency approval on March 2, 2026, authorizing the revised collection through July 31, 2026. EOIR is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 4, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Justine Fuga, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041;
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Subjects of immigration proceedings before the Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) must report in writing any change of address or contact information.
EOIR proposes to revise the Form EOIR-33 to remove two address form fields collecting “ `in care of' other person (if any).” These fields permit the subject to designate, without verification, a third party to receive mail addressed from EOIR to the subject. Such designation presents potentially nefarious third parties with opportunities to: intercept the subject's mail and fail to complete delivery of immigration court records to the subject; and/or acquire the subject's personally identifiable information (PII) contained within the subject's immigration court records. Third parties may use the subject's records and PII for fraudulent and criminal purposes, such as harassment, identity theft, or document forgery. Additionally, the form fields allow certain aliens to obscure their true address from immigration officials (which is expressly contrary to the intent of the form) and to potentially obstruct the adjudicatory process by intentionally avoiding mailed filings, notices, and orders. Immigration proceedings are obstructed and compromised by such conduct, and the subject cannot or does not participate in the proceedings as needed for EOIR to expeditiously resolve the immigration case. Moreover, the information collected by the fields are unnecessary to fulfill the purposes of the Form EOIR-33. All necessary address information is already collected by the form and can be used to successfully fulfill service of process, properly address immigration court records, and enforce final orders of removal. The proposed changes will help address such public harms and reduce the quantity of information that the individual must provide and that the agency must process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 4, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Justine Fuga, Associate General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 900 Market Street, Suite 504, Philadelphia, PA 19107, telephone: (703) 305-0265,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-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 April 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure to Hexavalent Chromium, to provide medical surveillance, and to establish and maintain accurate records of employee exposure to Hexavalent Chromium and employee medical records. These records will be used by employers, employees, physicians and the Government to ensure that employees are not being harmed by exposure to Chromium. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL of the Department) is submitting this Office of Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor (OLMS)-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 April 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nora Hernandez by telephone at 202-693-8633, or by email at
Under 49 U.S.C. 5333(b), when Federal funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a transit system, the Department must ensure that the recipient of those funds establishes arrangements to protect the rights of affected transit employees. Federal law requires such arrangements to be “fair and equitable,” and the Department must certify the arrangements before the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) can award certain funds to grantees. These employee protective arrangements must include provisions that may be necessary for the preservation of rights, privileges, and benefits under existing collective bargaining agreements or otherwise; the continuation of collective bargaining rights; the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions related to employment; assurances of employment to employees of acquired transportation systems; assurances of priority of reemployment of employees whose employment is ended or who are laid off; and paid training or retraining programs. 49 U.S.C. 5333(b)(2). Pursuant to 29 CFR part 215, upon receipt of copies of applications for Federal assistance subject to 49 U.S.C. 5333(b) from the FTA, together with a request for the certification of employee protective arrangements from the Department of Labor, DOL will process those applications. The FTA will provide the Department with the information necessary to enable the Department to process employee protections for certification of the project. 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 Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before April 6, 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 Department is required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to designate eXtensible Markup Language (XML) as a data exchange standard. The data exchange standards help improve the interoperability of these systems that collect and exchange information for UI administrative purposes. Through this regulation, the Department makes use of data exchange standards for ICON and SIDES. To improve UI program operations by states, the Department has been the facilitating entity for development and implementation of automated systems that states may adopt for efficiently processing claims and improving program integrity. These automated systems, which have been developed through a collaborative effort with states and the National Association of Workforce Agencies (NASWA), have replaced manual paper processing with automated exchanges of information between states as well as those between states and employers. The Department provides funding to facilitate the development and implementation of these automated systems, and encourages the use of these systems by states. The Federal requirement to use this standard requires the Department to establish, through regulation, that all such exchanges of electronic information must use XML to comply with the Act. 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, (HDI), for Big Rock Point (BRP) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The exemption allows BRP ISFSI to deviate from the requirements in Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1026, Amendment No. 4, appendix A, technical specifications (TS) for the FuelSolutions
The exemption was issued on February 17, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-1025 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tilda Liu, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 404-997-4730, email:
The NRC issued an exemption (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML26030A152) to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, (HDI) for the BRP ISFSI. The exemption granted provides relief from the 60-day requirement so that the annual effluent release report for the BRP ISFSI may be submitted on or before May 1, rather than prior to March 1, of each year. The granted exemption only changes the due date and not the content of the information that the licensee would provide in the annual report.
HDI submitted this request to the NRC for an exemption from title 10 of the
Based on the staff's evaluation, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific Exemptions,” the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Accordingly, the NRC granted HDI an exemption that allows the annual effluent release report for the BRP ISFSI to be submitted on or before May 1 each year.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 6380A and 6380B regarding the operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Carteret, the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Chicago, and the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility (the “Trade Reporting Facilities” or “TRFs”) to provide a limited, temporary exception from reporting specified overnight transactions prior to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The TRFs are facilities of FINRA that are operated by NYSE Market (DE), Inc. (in the case of the FINRA/NYSE TRF) and Nasdaq, Inc. (in the case of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago). Along with the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”),
Currently, the operating hours of the TRFs are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. each business day. These operating hours are reflected in the transaction reporting rules for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs (FINRA Rule 6380A (Transaction Reporting)) and the FINRA/NYSE TRF (FINRA Rule 6380B (Transaction Reporting)). FINRA recently adopted amendments to Rules 6380A and 6380B to extend the opening time of the TRFs from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. each business day, thereby enabling real-time public dissemination through the SIPs of trade reports for OTC transactions in NMS stocks executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
The Commission received five comment letters from three commenters in response to the TRF Early Open Amendments.
Under current Rules 6380A and 6380B, transactions executed between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on a business day must be reported in real time—
Firms have raised operational concerns regarding the feasibility of reporting utilizing existing processes for transactions: (1) executed between 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., and (2) executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. For transactions executed between 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., without relief, firms would be required to report these trades by 4:15 a.m., and for transactions executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., without relief, firms would be required to report these trades in real time. Challenges to timely reporting exist with regard to two types of overnight transactions. First, firms have raised concerns regarding the feasibility of reporting overnight “batch” transactions that are based on the prior day's closing price.
Firms may engage in batch transactions for several reasons. For example, firms may liquidate orphaned fractional positions resulting from dividend reinvestment activity when customers move accounts between firms. Using a batch process, the transferring firm's system identifies all accounts with orphaned fractional positions, builds a list of trades to liquidate those positions, executes the residual fractional trades based on the prior day's closing price, and then reports those trades to the TRF (using the .W modifier).
In response to members' concerns, FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 6380A (for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs) and 6380B (for the FINRA/NYSE TRF) to provide a temporary, limited exception for “qualifying overnight transactions” from the requirement that members report by 4:15 a.m. transactions executed between 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., and from the requirement that members report in real time transactions executed between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. FINRA proposes to define a “qualifying overnight transaction” as a transaction (i) for which the last sale report is designated as occurring at a price based on an average weighting or another special pricing formula pursuant to paragraph (a)(5)(E) of Rule 6380A or 6380B, as applicable, (
Proposed new Supplementary Material .05 of Rules 6380A and 6380B would provide that, notwithstanding Rule 6380A(a)(2) and 6380B(a)(2), as applicable, last sale reports of qualifying overnight transactions executed between midnight and 8:00 a.m. may be reported by 8:15 a.m. on trade date and be designated with the unique trade report modifier to denote their execution outside normal market hours.
Proposed Supplementary Material .05 of Rules 6380A and 6380B also would provide that the proposed relief shall be in effect until the earlier of (i) the effective date of any amendments to further extend the TRFs' operating hours, or (ii) December 31, 2027.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed rule change will be March 30, 2026.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it would create a temporary, limited exception from new reporting timeframes for qualifying overnight transactions that would otherwise be operationally infeasible or overly burdensome to implement within the current implementation timeframe. FINRA believes the proposed rule change would address an area of industry concern and provide impacted members with sufficient time to address operational issues that would otherwise impact the timely reporting of qualifying overnight transactions. FINRA further believes that the proposed exception would have a limited impact on market transparency given the relatively low volume of trades that would be expected to qualify, the time-limited nature of the exception, and the condition requiring that excepted transactions must be appended with the modifier designating the trade as having occurred at a price based on an average weighting or another special pricing formula (and thus excepted trades may have limited value for real-time price discovery).
Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule change, including anticipated costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline.
As discussed above, FINRA is proposing to provide a temporary, limited exception to permit certain overnight transactions to continue to be reported by 8:15 a.m. for a limited period of time, thereby addressing operational concerns of firms executing qualifying overnight transactions while maintaining the regulatory objectives of enhanced market transparency.
The TRFs do not have a trade modifier that specifically identifies qualifying overnight transactions as defined in the proposed rule change. However, all qualifying overnight transactions would be designated with the .W modifier and be executed outside current TRF operating hours. From January 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025, FINRA estimates that transactions designated with the .W modifier that were executed outside TRF operating hours represented approximately one percent of all OTC trades in NMS stocks executed outside TRF operating hours.
FINRA estimates that approximately 863 million OTC trades in NMS stocks were executed outside TRF operating hours during the period from January 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025. Of these trades, approximately 9.2 million trades were designated with the .W modifier.
FINRA estimates that 188 firms executed at least one OTC trade in NMS stocks between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on business days or on non-business days from January 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025. Of these firms, 76 firms executed at least one OTC trade in NMS stocks outside TRF operating hours that were designated with the .W modifier.
FINRA notes that the .W modifier may also be used to identify transactions unrelated to overnight batch processing or ETF NAV Trades, and as such this
FINRA believes that the proposed change would reduce operational burdens and costs by allowing firms to continue to employ existing processes for reporting qualifying overnight transactions during the temporary period of the proposed exception. These transactions could continue to be reported by 8:15 a.m., in line with existing reporting timeframes. By utilizing current infrastructure, firms could minimize transition-related error risk and avoid the rework that would be required if systems were reconfigured before SIP expansion and additional extended reporting hours are implemented. Overall, the proposed change would mitigate risks of failed implementations and market disruptions while advancing FINRA's regulatory objectives of enhanced market transparency.
Because implementation is voluntary,
The proposed change would delay transparency of qualifying overnight transactions executed by firms that avail itself of the exception. However, FINRA expects the impact of this delayed transparency to be limited. The volume of such transactions is minimal, and these transactions are priced at the prior day's closing price or a published NAV price rather than current market conditions, limiting their value for real-time price discovery.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 8, 2026, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes amendments to NYSE Rule 76 (“Crossing” Orders) that would streamline and modernize the rule and eliminate Designated Market Maker (“DMM”) involvement in manual Floor broker cross transactions under both NYSE Rule 76 and NYSE Rule 72(d) on the Trading Floor.
The Exchange proposes to modernize the way Floor brokers execute cross transactions on the Trading Floor. Rather than perpetuating the current practice of a Floor broker verbally announcing the cross trade at the post/panel of the DMM unit for the subject security and having the relevant DMM acknowledge the Floor broker announcement, the Exchange proposes that Floor brokers would undertake these functions at a designated spot on the Trading Floor in the presence of a Trading Official, thereby eliminating any interaction between a Floor broker and a DMM during cross transactions.
The Exchange states that in today's marketplace, cross transactions are negotiated upstairs by customers seeking a primary market print or customers who do not wish to have their orders handled by broker-dealers that also trade as principal. As a practical matter, cross transactions are no longer arranged at the point of sale by Floor brokers interacting with other brokers and the DMM in a physical trading crowd. In the current environment, verbally announcing a proposed cross transaction at a post/panel means announcing it to the DMM and any other Floor brokers that happen to be nearby. As proposed, Floor brokers would announce the cross transaction electronically to all other Floor brokers on the Trading Floor.
The Exchange states that announcement of a proposed cross transaction to the Crowd would be consistent with NYSE Rule 70.30. Moreover, because crosses under NYSE Rule 72(d) utilize the crossing procedures set forth in NYSE Rule 76, the proposed change would also eliminate the need to announce NYSE Rule 72(d) crosses at the post/panel where the security to be crossed is traded and eliminate DMM involvement in those transactions as well. As proposed, Floor brokers would also electronically announce NYSE Rule 72(d) crosses to all Floor-based participants. The remaining aspects of NYSE Rule 72(d) would remain unchanged by the proposal.
The Exchange also proposes to simplify NYSE Rule 76 by removing all references to wireless hand-held devices or “HHDs” from subsection (a) of Supplementary Material .10. The Exchange proposes to replace references to “quote minder” with “Exchange systems.” Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the preamble to NYSE Rule 76 providing that “Supplementary Material .10 to this Rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.” Given the proposed changes, including elimination of verbal announcements at the point of sale for Exchange-listed securities, Floor brokers executing cross transactions under either NYSE Rule 72(d) or NYSE Rule 76 would follow the same procedures when crossing Exchange-listed and UTP securities, rendering the preamble unnecessary. The remaining aspects of the Cross Function described in NYSE Rule 76.10 would remain unchanged.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposed changes to NYSE Rule 76 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by streamlining and modernizing the process for executing cross transactions on the Trading Floor. The requirement that a Floor broker announce a cross transaction at the point of sale is intended to “clear” the trading Crowd before executing a cross transaction. Having the Floor broker announce proposed cross transactions electronically to all Floor-based market participants would make the process more efficient by not limiting the announcement to a single physical location on the Trading Floor. The proposed announcement would also allow additional Floor brokers to learn about pending cross transactions and potentially participate, to the benefit of the marketplace and investors. Therefore, the Commission also believes that the proposed changes to Rule 76 would promote just and equitable principles of trade consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Further, the proposal to require Exchange Trading Officials to supervise and acknowledge announcements of the proposed cross transactions promotes investor protection and the public interest. Finally, allowing the Floor broker electronically announce cross transactions under NYSE Rules 72 and 76 at a designated spot on the Trading Floor in the presence of a Trading Official rather than at the point of sale would permit Cross transactions to be extended to UTP securities, which would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with 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
Section 19(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-19(b)) authorizes the Commission to regulate registered investment company (“fund”) distributions of long-term capital gains made more frequently than once every twelve months. Accordingly, rule 19b-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.19b-1) regulates the frequency of fund distributions of capital gains. Rule 19b-1(c) states that the rule does not apply to a unit investment trust (“UIT”) if it is engaged exclusively in the business of investing in certain eligible securities (generally, fixed-income securities), provided that: (i) the capital gains distribution falls within one of five categories specified in the rule
Commission staff estimates that one fund will file an application under rule 19b-1(e) each year.
Commission staff estimates that there is no hour burden associated with complying with the collection of information component of rule 19b-1(c). This estimate assumes that UITs using rule 19b-1(c) do not have their own employees or staff and that the mechanics of the notice requirement would be handled by a UIT sponsor or trustee as an accommodation for the UIT. As such, the costs related to this aspect of the collection of information are captured in the external cost estimates below.
As noted above, Commission staff understands that funds that file an application under rule 19b-1(e) generally use outside counsel to prepare the application.
The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 1,779 UITs that may rely on rule 19b-1(c) to make capital gains distributions.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to make a number of technical, non-substantive changes to its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make a number of technical, non-substantive changes to the Exchange's Fees Schedule. The Exchange believes these changes will provide greater accuracy and clarity to the Fees Schedule.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Clearing Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) (“F” Capacity Code); non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) and Broker-Dealer (“B” Capacity Code); Non-TPH Market-Maker (“N” Capacity Code); Joint Back-Office (“J” Capacity Code); and Professional (“U” Capacity Code) sections within the `Rate Table—All Products Excluding Symbol List A' (“Rates Table”).
In 2024, the Exchange submitted a rule proposal to separate out transaction fees for Equity, ETF, and ETN options from All Other Index products, effectively displaying fees for Equity, ETF, and ETN options as a separate line item within the Rates Table.
The Exchange also proposes a related amendment to the Cboe Options Market-Maker/DPM/LMM (“M” Capacity Code) section of the Rates Table. By way of background, fee code `MD' is appended to Market-Maker AIM Responder orders.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Cboe Options Market-Maker/DPM/LMM (“M” Capacity Code) section of the Rates Table to align transaction fees for Sector Indexes with the fees for Equity, ETF, and ETN Options. The current Rates Table incorrectly suggests fee code `YB'
The Exchange proposes to amend the Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) section of the Rates Table to correct an inaccuracy related to Sector Index fees. Fee code `FI' applies to all Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) Sector Index orders. However, the current Rates Table incorrectly suggests fee codes YB, NB, and NC could apply to Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) orders. The Exchange propose to amend the Rates Table to properly denote that fee code `FI' applies to all Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) Sector Index orders.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) section of the Rates Table to provide further clarity regarding the assessment of transaction fees for applicable facilitation orders. By way of background, fee code `FF' is appended to Clearing TPH (“F” Capacity Code) and non-TPH Affiliate (“L” Capacity Code) (
Finally, the Exchange proposes changes to the Complex Surcharge listed within the Rates Table. By way of background, the Complex Surcharge is assessed per contract per side for non-Customer complex order executions that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book (“COB”) and auction responses in the Complex Order Auction (“COA”) and AIM in all classes except Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange proposes to update “Rate Table—Underlying Symbol List A” to list “Broker-Dealer” under the “Capacity” column tied to “B” (Broker-Dealer); “N” (Non-TPH Market-Maker); “J” (Joint Back-Office); and “U” (Professional) Capacity Codes. While the “B” capacity code is represented under the “Capacity Code” column, the Exchange inadvertently failed to list “Broker-Dealer” under the corresponding “Capacity” column.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap table. By way of background, and as noted in Footnote 22 of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange applies a transaction fee cap of $250,000 per month per Clearing TPH
The Exchange proposes to amend the description of the Co-Location, Cboe Datacenter Services fee set forth within the “Floor Facility Fees (per month)” table in the Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove language which provides that the fee is waived for the month of June 2022, as this language is outdated and no longer applicable.
The Exchange proposes to amend the description of the Cboe Options Top, Historical Depth fee set forth within the “Market Data Fees” table in the Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove language which provides that from July 28, 2025 through September 30, 2025, any single purchase of historical data totaling $20,000 or more will receive a 20% discount, as this language is outdated and no longer applicable.
The Exchange proposes to add fee code RR to the “Routing Fees” table. Fee code “RR” is appended to Non-Customer, Routed, Russell 2000 index (“RUT”) option orders and assesses a fee of $1.25 per contract. While the “Routing Fees” table contains all other routing fees assessed by the Exchange, the Exchange failed to list fee code RR in the Fees Schedule when it added the other routing fees in connection with migration.
Next, the Exchange proposes to Update Web CRD Fingerprint Processing fees to mirror FINRA fees. Currently, the Fingerprinting Processing Fee listed on the Exchange's Fees Schedule reflects the combined FINRA and FBI charges for fingerprint submissions.
The Exchange proposes to delete the COVID-19 Test Fee set forth within the “Miscellaneous” table within the Fees Schedule, as it is a fee that was effective when the Exchange operated in modified state in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Exchange now proposes to remove the fee from the Fees Schedule, as no it is outdated and no longer applicable.
The Exchange proposes to delete Footnote 24, as it relates to fee modifications that were effective when the Exchange operated in a modified state in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Exchange proposes to delete the Footnote 24 and mark it as “Reserved”, as such fee modifications described within the footnote are outdated and no longer applicable.
The Exchange also proposes to delete Footnote 32, which provides that transactions fees will be waived for Customer orders executed in VIX options during GTH through October 31, 2022, and that beginning with the November 1, 2022 trading date, the Exchange will no longer waive these transaction fees. The Exchange proposes to delete Footnote 32 and mark it as “Reserved”, as the transaction fee waiver described within the footnote is outdated and is no longer applicable.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 43. The Exchange assesses a standard transaction fee of $0.05 per contract for Market-Maker VIX transactions where the VIX premium is $0.00 to $0.10 (
Currently, Footnote 43 provides, in relevant part, that Market-Maker transaction fees in VIX transactions where VIX Premium is ≥ $1.00 will be reduced from $0.23 per contract to $0.05 per contract if the Market-Maker order is executed by the Market-Maker in open outcry against a complex order that has 3 or more legs and the total executed order quantity of the contra order is greater than or equal to 5,000 contracts. The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 43 to provide, in relevant part, that Market-Maker transaction fees in VIX transactions where VIX Premium is ≥ $0.11 (rather than $1.00) will be reduced from $0.23 per contract to $0.05 per contract if the Market-Maker order is executed by the Market-Maker in open outcry against a complex order that has 3 or more legs and the total executed order quantity of the contra order is greater than or equal to 5,000 contracts.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete Footnote 51, which provides that fees for Open-Close Data will be waived for recipients of the Options Institute Research Grant Program 2023. The Exchange proposes to delete Footnote 51 and mark it as “Reserved”, as the transaction fee waiver described within the footnote is outdated and no longer applicable.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, will protect investors and the public interest by improving accuracy and clarity within the Fees Schedule. Specifically, by correcting omissions from a prior fee reorganization to properly display fee codes for AIM Response orders and Market-Maker orders across product categories; reorganizing how facilitation orders and Sector Index fees are presented to eliminate potential confusion; updating fingerprint processing fees to mirror current FINRA/FBI charges and add clarifying language about when fees are assessed; removing outdated provisions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and expired or outdated fee waiver programs and fee discounts; and making minor corrections to fee tables, footnotes, and descriptions to accurately reflect current fees, the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors by making the Fees Schedule more accurate and adding clarity to the Fees Schedule, thereby mitigating any potential investor confusion. The proposed rule change will have no impact on trading on the Exchange or fees assessed by the Exchange, as all the proposed Fees Schedule changes are non-substantive in nature, and there are no changes to fees assessed as a result of the proposal.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with correcting certain errors and adding clarity. The proposed rule changes make no substantive changes to the Fees Schedule and thus will have no impact on trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form S-4 (17 CFR 239.25) is the form used for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the Mescalero Apache Tribe dated February 23, 2026.
Issued on February 23, 2026.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 214486 and for economic injury is 214490.
The states which received an SBA Administrative rural declaration are New Mexico.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice; request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) will submit the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, on or after the date of publication of this notice. SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the collection of information.
Submit comments on or before April 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain information including a copy of the forms and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer, Shauniece Carter, at (202) 205-6536, or
SBA is proposing a new information collection to set forth certain additional compliance and reporting guidelines applicable to Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) licensed under the SBIC Critical Technologies (SBICCTs) Initiative, which is a joint effort by SBA and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) under a Memorandum of Agreement dated June 4, 2025, as amended and restated from time to time. Under the SBICCT Initiative, an SBICCT will be required to enter into a contractual agreement with the agencies (SBICCT Compliance Agreement) under which an SBICCT will also be required to report additional information to ensure it will attract and scale private capital investment into small businesses involved in the development of technologies, components, and production processes critical to the U.S. national and economic security and refrain from deploying capital in a manner inconsistent with public benefit. Under the SBICCT Compliance Agreement, SBICCTs will be required to report: (1) Foreign Ownership, Control, and/or Influence (FOCI) Risk Assessments on SBA Form 1030, “SBIC Critical Technologies Risk Assessment Supplemental Information”; and (2) certain additional information regarding investment activities on SBA Form 1032, “SBIC Critical Technologies Supplemental Questionnaire”. Both forms will be required within 45 calendar days following the end of each fiscal quarter (quarterly) and within 90 calendar days following the end of each fiscal year (annually).
SBA invites the public to submit comments, including specific and detailed suggestions on ways to improve the collection and reduce the burden on respondents. Commenters should also address (i) whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether it has any practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden on those who are required to respond.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company license number 40002127 issued to New North Ventures Fund II SBIC, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company license number 02020659 issued to Graycliff Mezzanine II, LP said license is hereby declared null and void.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and
The Department will accept comments from the public up to May 4, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Angelika Graham, who may be reached on (202) 655-9946 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information collected is needed to ascertain whether respondents are valid interpreting and/or translating candidates, based on their work history and legal work status in the United States. If candidates successfully become contractors for the U.S. Department of State, Office of Language Services, the information collected is used to initiate security clearance background checks and for processing payment vouchers. Respondents are typically members of the general public with varying degrees of experience in the fields of interpreting and/or translating.
The Office of Language Services makes the “Office of Language Services Contractor Application Form” available via its internet site. Respondents can submit the form via email.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) established the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (Program) that allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Federal highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. This Program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years of State participation to ensure compliance with program requirements. This is the fourth audit of the responsibilities assigned to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) under the Program. This notice announces the final fourth audit report for ADOT.
Rebecca Yedlin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (480) 340-6270,
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the specific docket page at
The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, codified at 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 327, known commonly as Program Assignment, allows a State to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities for review, consultation, and compliance for Federal-aid highway projects. When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FHWA. The ADOT published its application for NEPA assumption on June 29, 2018, and solicited public comment. After considering public comments, ADOT submitted its application to FHWA on November 16, 2018. The application served as the
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits to ensure compliance with the MOU during each of the first 4 years of State participation and, after the fourth year, monitor compliance. FHWA must make the results of each audit available for public comment. FHWA published a notice in the
This is Audit #4 of the Arizona Department of Transportation's (ADOT) assumption of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. Under the authority of 23 United State Code. (U.S.C.) 327, ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on April 16, 2019, to define ADOT's NEPA responsibilities and liabilities for Federal-aid highway projects and other related environmental reviews for highway projects in Arizona. This MOU covers environmental review responsibilities for projects that require the preparation of environmental assessments (EA), environmental impact statements (EIS), and unlisted (identified as individual by ADOT) categorical exclusions (CE).
FHWA conducted the fourth audit of ADOT's performance according to the terms of the MOU from March 27 to March 31, 2023. Prior to the audit, the FHWA audit team reviewed ADOT's environmental manuals and procedures, NEPA project files, ADOT's response to FHWA's pre-audit information request (PAIR), and ADOT's NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Report. During the fourth audit, the audit team conducted interviews with staff from ADOT's Office of Environmental Planning (EP), Civil Rights Office, Construction Districts, Right-of-Way, Alternative Delivery Group, and the Deputy Director, as well as the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Arizona Attorney General's Office (AGO) and prepared preliminary audit results. The audit team presented these preliminary results to ADOT EP leadership on March 30, 2023, and to ADOT leadership on April 7, 2023.
The audit team found that ADOT has carried out the responsibilities it assumed consistent with the terms of the MOU and ADOT's application. The ADOT continues to develop, revise, and implement procedures and processes required to deliver its NEPA Assignment Program. This report describes several general observations and successful practices, as well as identified non-compliance observations where ADOT must implement corrective actions pursuant to MOU Part 13.2.2. This report concludes with the status of FHWA's observations from the third audit review. After the fourth year of ADOT's participation in the program, FHWA will continue to monitor ADOT's compliance with the terms of this MOU, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(h).
The purpose of the audits performed under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 327 is to assess a State's compliance with the provisions of the MOU as well as all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies, and guidance. FHWA's review and oversight obligation entails the need to collect information to evaluate the success of the NEPA Assignment Program; to evaluate a state's progress toward achieving its performance measures as specified in the MOU; and to collect information for the administration of the NEPA Assignment Program. This report summarizes the results of the fourth audit in Arizona and ADOT's progress towards meeting the program review objectives identified in the MOU.
The overall scope of this audit review is defined both in statute (23 U.S.C. 327) and the MOU (Part 11). The definition of an audit is one where an independent, unbiased body makes an official and careful examination and verification of accounts and records. Auditors who have special training with regard to accounts or financial records may follow a prescribed process or methodology in conducting an audit of those processes or methods. FHWA considers its review to meet the definition of an audit because it is an unbiased, independent, official, and careful examination and verification of records and information about ADOT's assumption of environmental responsibilities.
The audit team consisted of NEPA subject matter experts from FHWA Headquarters, Resource Center, Office of the Chief Counsel, and staff from FHWA's Arizona Division. This audit is an unbiased official action taken by FHWA, which included an audit team of diverse composition, and followed an established process for developing the review report and publishing it in the
The audit team reviewed six NEPA Assignment Program elements: program management; documentation and records management; quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC); performance measures; legal sufficiency; and training. The audit team considered three additional focus areas for this review: the project-level conformity procedures outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93; the Section 106 consultation procedures contained in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800
The audit team conducted a careful examination of ADOT policies, guidance, and manuals pertaining to NEPA responsibilities, as well as a representative sample of the ADOT project files. Other documents, such as ADOT's PAIR responses and ADOT's Self-Assessment Report, also informed this review. In addition, the audit team interviewed ADOT, the Arizona AGO and THPO staff, as well as the Arizona SHPO in person and via videoconference.
The timeframe defined for this fourth audit includes highway project environmental approvals completed between January 1 and December 31, 2022. During this timeframe, ADOT completed NEPA approvals and documented NEPA decision points for seven projects. Due to the small sample size, the audit team reviewed all seven projects. This consisted of three EA re-evaluations, one EA with a Finding of No Significant Impact, one draft EA that completed the public hearing and review process, and two unlisted CEs. FHWA also reviewed information pertaining to project tracking and mitigation commitment compliance for all projects that have been processed by ADOT since the initiation of the NEPA Assignment Program.
The PAIR submitted to ADOT contained 25 questions covering all 6 NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit team developed specific follow-up questions for the interviews with ADOT staff and others based on ADOT responses to the PAIR. The audit team conducted a total of 18 interviews. Interview participants included staff from ADOT, a THPO and the Arizona AGO, as well as the Arizona SHPO.
The audit team compared ADOT manuals and procedures to the information obtained during interviews and project file reviews to determine if ADOT's performance of its MOU responsibilities is in accordance with ADOT procedures and Federal requirements. The audit team documented individual observations and successful practices during the interviews and reviews and combined these under the six NEPA Assignment Program elements. The audit results are described below by program element.
The audit team found that ADOT has carried out the responsibilities it has assumed consistent with the terms of the MOU. FHWA is notifying ADOT of two non-compliance observations identified in this audit that require ADOT to take corrective action. The ADOT must address these non-compliance observations per MOU Part 13.2.2 and continue making progress on non-compliance observations in the previous audits as a section of the 327 MOU renewal process. Future monitoring reviews will continue to report on ADOT's corrective actions. By addressing the observations cited in this report, ADOT will continue to ensure a successful program.
Successful practices are practices that the team believes are positive and encourages ADOT to consider continuing or expanding the use of those practices in the future. While not accounting for all the successful practices used by ADOT in implementing the NEPA Assignment Program, the audit team identified four successful practices in this report.
Observations are items the audit team would like to draw ADOT's attention to, which may improve processes, procedures, and outcomes. The audit team identified 13 general observations in this report.
Non-compliance observations are instances where the audit team finds the State is not in compliance or is deficient with regard to a Federal regulation, statute, guidance, policy, State procedure, or the MOU. Non-compliance may also include instances where the State has failed to secure or maintain adequate personnel or financial resources to carry out the responsibilities they have assumed. FHWA expects the State to develop and implement corrective actions to address all non-compliance observations. The audit team identified three non-compliance observations in this report.
The ADOT EP meets monthly with the Arizona (AZ) Division. This has resulted in improved communication and contributes to the tracking and ultimate resolution of issues.
The audit team acknowledges the efforts to address lessons learned on alternative delivery projects through the development of NEPA and Public Private Partnership Guidance. These include improving communication with ADOT EP and advancing environmental commitment activities earlier for more successful projects.
The ADOT has taken steps over the past year to improve Tribal engagement. The ADOT EP sent letters to Tribes introducing the EP Tribal Liaison and offered to meet. The ADOT created and filled a Native Nations Ambassador for Infrastructure position in the State Engineer's Office to improve communication with the Tribes and be a point of contact for them regarding any issues. And finally, ADOT EP developed the first project-specific Tribal Environmental Engagement Plan which outlines communication protocols, outreach practices and points of contact for a project that crosses into Tribal land.
The ADOT is responsible for inputting project information for assigned projects into the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard (Dashboard), per MOU Part 8.5.1. During the time period covered by this audit, the audit team reviewed the Dashboard and found that it did not include all Federal permit and authorization information for the applicable projects assigned to ADOT. In addition, the audit team found that not all active projects were included, updates appeared in draft form or were not published. The audit team also found that milestone dependencies, which are milestone dates on the Permitting Dashboard that are contingent on the completion of another milestone found in the permitting timetable, were not identified and there were misidentifications of Major Infrastructure Projects which no longer applied due to the recission of Executive Order 13807, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects. Per the Office of the Secretary of Transportation Dashboard reporting standards, ADOT is required to identify all Federal permits and authorizations that are anticipated to be needed for the project to complete construction, and to input target and actual milestone completion dates for those permits and authorizations. In accordance with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation Dashboard reporting standards, ADOT must take corrective action to address this issue.
The audit team reviewed ADOT's manuals and procedures. Part 4.2.4 of the MOU specifies that ADOT must implement procedures to support appropriate environmental analysis and decisionmaking under NEPA and associated laws and regulations. The audit team identified the following deficiencies in ADOT's manuals and procedures which may result in incomplete project documentation or analysis and increase the risk for non-compliance:
• The ADOT manuals and procedures do not make a clear statement that the 23 U.S.C. 327 MOU disclosure language is required in the consultation that is completed as part of the NEPA process for Local Public Agency (LPA)/
• The ADOT EA/EIS Manual should be updated to clearly indicate that a purpose and need statement should not include discussion of the build alternative nor use the build alternative as justification for the need to construct a transportation facility.
FHWA recommends an update to the ADOT EA/EIS Manual related to the public involvement process for re-evaluations. While public circulation is not required for re-evaluations, FHWA recommends that ADOT establish a review process to determine if controversial projects or those of public concern require public outreach, or at a minimum, to post the NEPA document for public and stakeholder review.
Interviews with ADOT staff, the SHPO and a THPO identified the need for ADOT to continue efforts to improve Tribal consultation practices and relationships with Tribes. The SHPO encourages ADOT to engage Tribes earlier, strengthen consultation processes, and build trust, while emphasizing the need for more training of ADOT staff. The THPO expressed continued communication and transparency issues with ADOT, noting that ADOT lacked an understanding of Tribal consultation requirements, frustration with continued violations of cultural commitments during construction, and continued lack of trust. The audit team acknowledges that ADOT seems to be attempting to work on some of these issues, but the actions are inconsistent. FHWA recommends:
• ADOT seek input from THPOs and AZ SHPO on the specification developed to address cultural resource commitment non-compliance by construction contractors and advance the specification to implementation.
• ADOT improve transparency regarding project information for projects in Tribal land or of Tribal interest.
• ADOT build and maintain relationships with the Tribes.
• ADOT fully implement the FHWA/ADOT Tribal Consultation Letter Agreement executed on August 5, 2022.
During Audit #3, the previous audit team identified that ADOT divisions outside of EP have NEPA responsibilities and these divisions have not been identified or addressed in the ADOT EP procedures; nor were they included in the ADOT documentation and reporting. Based on interviews of ADOT staff, the PAIR responses and review of ADOT's manuals for this audit, ADOT has not taken corrective actions to develop or implement procedures to apply the 327 MOU provisions to all divisions of ADOT in accordance with MOU Part 1.1.2. In addition, the audit team identified a lack of training and awareness of NEPA assignment and MOU responsibilities within the other divisions, in particular at management levels. The ADOT should identify methods to ensure future compliance.
The ADOT is obligated to implement all committed environmental impact mitigation measures (23 CFR 771.109(b)(2)) for projects funded with Federal-aid. Therefore, it is also responsible for environmental commitment tracking. The ADOT does not have a process manual or consolidated report which documents the tracking of all environmental commitments made during the environmental review process. Based on the ADOT interviews, ADOT has taken steps to establish some tracking mechanisms to cover environmental commitments which are the responsibility of ADOT EP or the contractors. This includes official use of the Environmental, Permits, Issues, and Commitments (EPIC) tracking sheet. The ADOT Districts are inconsistent in how they describe tracking commitments, and reporting whether they prepare documentation demonstrating implementation of the remaining types of environmental commitments. These gaps include commitment tracking that are the responsibility of other divisions of ADOT, LPA/CA, and those covered by a standard specification. Project file reviews indicated that environmental commitments were not stated clearly or if they were identified in environmental documentation, ADOT's record keeping did not demonstrate how, when, and who is responsible for environmental commitment documentation. The ADOT will need to take corrective actions to address the lack of documentation, implementation and tracking of environmental commitments and mitigation compliance.
For this audit, FHWA requested all project files pertaining to the NEPA approvals and documented NEPA decision points completed during the audit review period. The audit review team received project file information from ADOT, but this information was found to be incomplete with attachments or other supporting information missing. FHWA worked with ADOT Information Technology (IT) Group to ensure that project file issues were not due to technology challenges resulting from the transfer of electronic files between ADOT and FHWA. While FHWA had fewer issues when attempting to access the files ADOT provided for the audit than in past years, the audit team still found several inconsistences between ADOT's procedures for maintaining project files and the project file documentation provided to FHWA. Examples of missing documentation included: public involvement plan (PIP); public involvement summary report; signed noise analysis form; Section 404 and 408 documentation; Section 106 Closeout Memorandum; 327 air quality EA/EIS checklist; authorization letters/NEPA certification approval; Statewide Transportation Improvement Program/Transportation Improvement Program verification; and email communication. In addition, there were instances of missing or incomplete QC reviews, and environmental commitments resulting from technical analysis or consultation that were not included in the NEPA document. In these instances, the determinations were not supported by the project file. The audit review team could not reconcile information about project file completeness and QC provided through interviews with the content of project files supplied by ADOT. It may also be the case that there is a shortfall in ADOT filing practices performed by an individual developing a project file to ensure a project file is complete. By this observation the audit review team is making ADOT aware that both by (1) implementing sound internal controls related to project filing and records retention, and (2) improving QCs, fewer ADOT files would contain errors or omissions once the reviews are complete.
The ADOT has a number of manuals and procedures that describe the requirements for Section 4(f) analyses, consultation, and documentation. Based on those requirements, the review team found some of the project files to be deficient. Observations based on project file reviews included: (1) no Section 4(f) form or memorandum; (2) lack of documented communication with the official with jurisdiction; (3) no research documentation to support the determinations; (4) an empty Section 4(f) file folder; (5) a Section 4(f) resource that was not accounted for in the project documentation; and (6) one instance where the consultation letter did not determine whether the Section 4(f) archeological resource had value for preservation in place. FHWA recommends that ADOT personnel who have Section 4(f) training identified as a requirement for their position take the training within a year and that ADOT EP updates the Section 4(f) manual to increase reviews and oversight of decisions made.
While ADOT has made progress regarding the level of communication and coordination with FHWA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on project-level air quality conformity analysis, the audit team identified areas in need of improvement. Per MOU Part 3.2.4, FHWA retained responsibilities for conformity determinations. This authority includes whether a conformity determination remains valid under 40 CFR 93.104(d). The ADOT does not include FHWA in the decisionmaking process when it determines that project level conformity determinations remain valid for re-evaluations, which conflicts with FHWA authority under 40 CFR 93.104(d). In addition, no interagency consultation is conducted by ADOT for those decisions. Re-evaluations should be shared with interagency consultation partners as early as possible so their input can inform the FHWA determination of whether a conformity determination remains valid. FHWA also recommends that, for interagency consultation, when a consultation period ends, ADOT summarizes who responded, who did not, and what follow-up ADOT did with those agencies that did not provide a response. The ADOT should continue to build on the progress made with the air quality conformity process and maintain communication amongst all the interagency consultation partners.
Part 3.1.3 of the MOU specifies that ADOT shall include a disclosure statement to the public, Tribes and agencies as part of agency outreach and public involvement procedures. The audit team project file reviews found the absence of the statement in agency correspondence and technical reports, and public involvement materials, as well as the wrong MOU reference when the statement was present. The audit team found no consistent process or procedure for inclusion of the 327 MOU disclosure statement in the current ADOT manuals or guidance as required by MOU Part 3.1.3. The ADOT should strive to achieve consistency in the placement of disclosure statements in documents. The audit team acknowledges that the new ADOT PIP has updated requirements and details to prevent instances in future public involvement materials.
The ADOT has an EA/EIS guidance manual that contains EA re-evaluation procedures. The manual states, “the re-evaluation should consider the entire project analyzed in the original NEPA document. All environmental sections require re-evaluation to review whether impacts have changed as compared with the previous NEPA document and whether any impact changes result in new or significant impacts. . . Documentation should be appropriate to the project changes, environmental impacts from the changes, potential for controversy, and length of time since the last NEPA document was completed.” Observations based on project file reviews included (1) lack of supporting documentation in the project files for all analyses summarized in EA re-evaluation errata that support the outcome of the re-evaluation, and (2) two project files with purpose and need statements that changed from the original EA and did not document whether that change affected the validity of the re-evaluation conclusion. Based on the required procedures, the review team found some of the project files to be deficient.
The review team found that a draft EA purpose and need statement contained a discussion of the build alternative throughout. The need statement had a figure with the build alternative in it, travel demand data that included the build alternative, and the connectivity discussion referenced the build alternative. The purpose and need statement serve as the basis for the alternatives analysis and should not discuss alternatives. The alternatives analysis is the section of the document to explain how the considered range of alternatives meet the purpose and need. In addition, the purpose section of the draft EA used population and employment growth as a justification but presented no data.
The ADOT has procedures in place for QA/QC which are described in the ADOT QA/QC Plan and the ADOT Project Development Procedures. When implemented, ADOT focuses on the completeness of the project files, not the accuracy or technical merits of the decisions documented by those files. The ADOT does not appear to have an adequate process to review and confirm compliance of the decision making according to its own procedures and it is therefore unclear how the project-level QC reviews inform the program. These observations were also found with Audits #1, #2, and #3, and no updates were made to the ADOT QA/QC procedures in response. The ADOT does not appear to have a process in place for assessing the effectiveness of its QA/QC procedures to identify opportunities to improve the processes and procedures in its program, in ways that could help ensure improved compliance with MOU requirements.
The audit team reviewed ADOT's development and implementation of performance measures to evaluate their program as required in the MOU (Part 10.2.1). The ADOT's QA/QC Plan, PAIR response, and self-assessment report identified several performance measures and reported the data for the review period. The ADOT's reporting data dealt primarily with increasing efficiencies and reducing project delivery schedules rather than measuring the quality of relationships with agencies and the general public, and decisions made during the NEPA process. The metrics ADOT has developed are not being used
During the audit period, ADOT had no formal legal sufficiency reviews of assigned environmental documents. This is based on the information provided by ADOT and interviews of the Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) assigned to ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program. Currently, ADOT retains the services of two AAGs for NEPA Assignment reviews and related matters. The assigned AAGs have received formal and informal training in environmental law matters and participated in a legal sufficiency training conducted by FHWA Office of Chief Counsel in May 2023. The ADOT and the AGO also have the option to procure outside counsel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(a)(2)(G), but this was not necessary during the audit period.
Through the interviews, the audit team learned ADOT seeks to involve lawyers early in the environmental review phase, with AAGs participating in project coordination team meetings and reviews of early drafts of environmental documents. The AAGs will provide legal guidance at any time ADOT requests it throughout the project development process. For formal legal sufficiency reviews, the process includes a submittal package from ADOT's NEPA program manager containing a request for legal sufficiency review. Various ADOT manuals set forth legal sufficiency review periods, which involve typically a 30-day review period, and the AAGs coordinate with ADOT to ensure timely completion of legal sufficiency reviews. In addition, the AAGs regularly notify ADOT of relevant changes in Federal law and guidance applicable to the NEPA Assignment Program.
Since FHWA began auditing ADOT in 2020, the AGO's has regularly cited attorney-client privilege when answering interview questions posed by FHWA Office of Chief Counsel (HCC) staff about the legal sufficiency process it employs when reviewing ADOT NEPA documents. The ADOT's position is unique as compared to its peer NEPA Assignment States in the West. FHWA's HCC interviewers have affirmed, consistently, they seek only to understand the role of the AGO's in implementing ADOT's NEPA Assignment Program and do not seek privileged communications or advice. Nevertheless, the AGO's has maintained that disclosing any specific information about its role in advising on legal issues would constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege under the State's open records act and could present legal risks to their clients. As a result, FHWA interviews of the AAG's have produced a somewhat informative, but limited and incomplete understanding of the AGO's role in NEPA Assignment matters in AZ.
The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2023 Training Plan, interview responses, and ADOT's PAIR responses pertaining to its training program. The ADOT's EP staff training matrix indicates that many staff have not taken the required training. In addition, there is no data regarding training from the other divisions within ADOT who have 327 MOU responsibilities. The ADOT made no changes to the ADOT training plan in response to FHWA's previous training gap observations.
This section describes the actions ADOT has taken or is taking in response to observations made during the third audit. The ADOT was provided the third audit draft report for review and provided comments to FHWA on November 17, 2022.
During Audit #3, the audit team identified deficiencies in the information ADOT is required to post on the Dashboard. The ADOT did post some of the additional projects and missing project information to the Dashboard but not until the week before audit week. The ADOT needs to establish a consistent and ongoing process to maintain the project information required to be inputted into the Dashboard.
During Audit #3, the audit team identified deficiencies in ADOT's manuals and procedures which may result in incomplete project documentation or analysis and increase the risk for non-compliance. The first was in the ADOT CE Checklist Manual and the EA/EIS Manual, specifically the process for re-evaluations for EAs and EISs was not well-defined. The other was that neither the ADOT EA/EIS Manual nor the current 2017 ADOT PIP approved prior to NEPA assignment contained procedures detailing the criteria ADOT uses to make the determination on when to hold public hearings for EA-level projects and what criteria will be used to make determinations on whether to hold a public hearing when one is requested, as specified in 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(iii). The ADOT EA/EIS Manual was not updated to address this deficiency and the updated PIP was not approved at the time of the audit. The deficiencies identified in Audit #3 were not addressed by ADOT, and additional related issues were identified by the audit team in Audit #4.
The audit team observed in Audit #3 the need for improved engagement with the Tribes for ADOT to develop procedures that identify its responsibilities to coordinate and consult with Tribes in all phases of project development, and implementation of the FHWA/ADOT Tribal Consultation Letter Agreement executed on August 5, 2022. The deficiencies identified in Audit #3 were not addressed completely by ADOT, as the Letter Agreement was not fully implemented, and continued issues were identified by the audit team in Audit #4. The ADOT staff participated in the Section 106 and Tribal Consultation Training given by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and FHWA staff on June 13 and June 14, 2023.
During Audit #3, the team identified ADOT divisions outside of EP that have responsibilities under NEPA Assignment. These divisions have not been identified by ADOT EP during the past review processes or addressed in the ADOT EP procedures, manuals, or plans. The ADOT was directed to develop and implement procedures to apply the 327 MOU provisions to all divisions of ADOT who have responsibilities under the 327 MOU.
During Audit #3, ADOT was unable to provide FHWA with a process manual or consolidated report documenting the tracking of environmental commitments made during the environmental review process. The ADOT was unable to identify a meaningful tracking and monitoring system for environmental commitments and mitigation compliance. Since the last audit, ADOT has developed a spreadsheet for EP responsibilities and has rolled out the EPIC tracking sheet process which covers the Contractor responsibilities—non-standard specification commitments only. There is still no process manual or consolidated reporting of all environmental commitments required for each project.
As was observed in previous audits, during Audit #3, the audit team found several inconsistencies between ADOT's procedures for maintaining project files and the project file documentation provided to FHWA. Since that audit, ADOT's IT Group worked with the AZ Division to resolve the project file issue on the technological side. The ADOT IT Group determined that the electronic transfer process is working and is therefore not the cause of the incomplete project file submissions.
During Audit #1 and #2, FHWA identified inconsistencies with ADOT's Section 4(f) evaluation and documentation of archaeological sites. In response to the Audit #2 finding, ADOT updated their Section 106 Federal-aid Programmatic Agreement Manual with new preservation in place language and in Audit #3 FHWA recommended edits to the new language. The ADOT has made the recommended edits.
During Audit #3, the audit team project file reviews found inconsistent use of the disclosures statement on agency correspondence and technical reports, as well as absence of the statement in public involvement materials. The audit team found no consistent process or procedure for inclusion of the 327 MOU disclosure statement in the ADOT manuals and guidance as required by MOU Part 3.1.3. The ADOT has drafted a new PIP that contains disclosure statement guidance, but no updates were found in the ADOT EP manuals.
The audit team identified continuing issues with ADOT's QA/QC procedures, including the fact that ADOT does not check for compliance of the decision making and it is therefore unclear how the project-level QC reviews inform the program. These observations were also found with Audits #1, #2, and #3. In addition, it is unclear how the QA/QC procedures, such as the use of QC checklists, are informing ADOT about the technical adequacy of the environmental analyses conducted for projects and thereby inform the performance measures. No updates to the ADOT QA/QC procedures were made.
During Audit #2 and #3, the audit team reviewed ADOT's performance measures and reporting data submitted for the review period and concluded that ADOT had made progress toward developing and implementing its performance measures. For Audit #4, FHWA continues to identify this program objective as an area of concern, described in the observations above, and will continue to evaluate this area in subsequent audits.
The audit team reviewed ADOT's 2021 training plan and ADOT's PAIR responses pertaining to its training program. The ADOT's EP staff training matrix indicates that while ADOT identifies the availability of staff training, many staff have not taken advantage of the opportunity for training, including other ADOT divisions subject to the 327 MOU provisions. The ADOT's training plan identifies that the training interval for some topics, such as the NEPA Assignment Program, is once only per staff member regardless of the period of time since the previous round of training. Staff may benefit from regular “refresher” type training, especially as regulatory requirements and policy may change over time. No changes in response to this observation were made to the 2023 training plan.
FHWA provided a draft of the audit report to ADOT for a 14-day review and comment period pursuant to Part 11.4.1 of the MOU, as well as notification of the non-compliance observations. The ADOT provided comments which the audit team considered in finalizing this draft audit report. The audit team acknowledges that ADOT has begun to address some of the observations identified in this report and recognizes ADOT's efforts toward improving their program. This includes an action plan defined by ADOT and the AZ Division Office to address non-compliance observations identified in the AZ Program reviews to date. FHWA published the draft audit report for public comment pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(2)(B) and no comments were received. FHWA is publishing this notice in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed Second Renewal MOU and request for comments.
This notice announces that FHWA received and reviewed a renewal package from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) requesting participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (Program). This Program allows for FHWA to assign, and States to assume, responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and all or part of FHWA's responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under any Federal environmental law with respect to one or more Federal highway projects within the State. The FHWA has determined the renewal package to be
Please submit comments by April 6, 2026.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
Section 327 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), allows the Secretary of the DOT to assign, and a State to assume, the responsibilities under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The ODOT entered the Program on December 28, 2015 after submitting its application to FHWA, obtaining FHWA's approval, and entering into a MOU in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327 and FHWA's application regulations for the Program (23 CFR part 773). The MOU was amended on June 6, 2018. On December 6, 2019, after coordination with FHWA, ODOT submitted the renewal package in accordance with the renewal regulations in 23 CFR 773.115. The First Renewal MOU was executed on December 14, 2020 and currently set to expire on December 28, 2025. On November 5, 2025, FHWA extended the First Renewal MOU to June 28, 2026.
Under the proposed renewal MOU, FHWA would assign to the State, through ODOT, its responsibility of making project-level decisions in relation to NEPA on highway projects within the State of Ohio that are proposed to be funded with Title 23 funds or otherwise require FHWA approval, and that require preparation of a categorical exclusion determination, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement with the exception of the following: (1) highway projects authorized under 23 U.S.C. 202 and 203, highway projects under 23 U.S.C. 204 unless the project will be designed and constructed by ODOT; (2) projects that cross State boundaries; (3) projects that cross or are adjacent to international boundaries; (4) recreational trails projects under 23 U.S.C. 206; and (5) any project advanced by a Non-ODOT Direct Recipient of Federal-Aid Highway Funds,
The assignment would give the State the responsibility to conduct environmental review, consultation, and other related activities for project delivery under the following laws and requirements:
• Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, with the exception of project level conformity determinations (42 U.S.C. 7506)
The Secretary's responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes, as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m), are not assigned to or assumed by ODOT under the proposed MOU. The FHWA will retain responsibility for conducting formal government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes. ODOT will conduct routine consultation with Indian Tribes and understands that an Indian Tribe has the right for government-to-government consultation with FHWA upon request.
Nothing in the proposed MOU shall be construed to permit ODOT's assumption of the Secretary's responsibilities for conformity determinations required by Section 176 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7506) or any responsibility under 23 U.S.C. 134 or 135, or under 49 U.S.C. 5303 or 5304.
On the cover page of all environmental analyses prepared under the authority granted by this MOU, ODOT shall insert the following language in a way that is conspicuous to the reader, or include it in a CE project record: The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by ODOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated [MMDDYYYY] and executed by FHWA and ODOT.
ODOT will also disclose to the public, agencies and Tribes as part of agency outreach and public involvement procedures, the above disclosure.
ODOT will not make any determination that an action constitutes a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property under 49 U.S.C. 303/23 U.S.C. 138 without first consulting with FHWA and obtaining approval of such determination.
A copy of the proposed Second Renewal MOU and renewal package may be viewed on the docket at
The FHWA Ohio Division, in consultation with FHWA Headquarters, will consider the comments submitted when making its decision on the proposed MOU. FHWA and ODOT may revise the MOU based on substantive comments and will be make the final renewal MOU available to the public.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad (RBMN) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning stenciling and reflectorization of rail cars.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by April 6, 2026. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Michael Barron, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-1367, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters received July 7, 2025 and January 21, 2026, RBMN petitioned FRA for a special approval pursuant to 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards), and a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained in part 215, Subpart D (Stenciling) and part 224 (Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2025-0324.
Specifically, RBMN requests a special approval pursuant to § 215.203,
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 April 6, 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.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; request for information (RFI); extension of comment period.
On February 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), published in the
The comment period for the notice published on February 4, 2026 (91 FR 5150) is extended. The due date for submitting comments is March 20, 2026.
For questions about this RFI, please email
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on March 2, 2026. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On March 2, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. GASHUGI, Stanislas, Kigali, Rwanda; DOB 03 Mar 1973; POB Burundi; nationality Rwanda; Gender Male; National ID No. 1197380088990106 (Rwanda) (individual) [DRCONGO].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13413 of October 27, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” as amended by E.O. 13671 of July 8, 2014, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo” (E.O. 13413, as amended) for being a leader of an entity, including any armed group, that is or whose members are responsible for or complicit in, or who have engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
2. KARUSISI, Ruki, Kigali, Rwanda; DOB 05 Jun 1974; POB Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13413, as amended, for being a leader of an entity, including any armed group, that is or whose members are responsible for or complicit in, or who have engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the DRC.
3. MUGANGA, Mubarakh (a.k.a. “MK MUBARKH”), Rugando, Kigali, Rwanda; DOB 26 Jun 1967; POB Kampala, Uganda; nationality Rwanda; Gender Male; Passport PD100862 (Rwanda) expires 19 Aug 2026; National ID No. 1196780016764179 (Rwanda) (individual) [DRCONGO].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13413, as amended, for being a leader of an entity, including any armed group, that is or whose members are responsible for or complicit in, or who have engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the DRC.
4. NYAKARUNDI, Vincent, Kigali, Rwanda; DOB 05 Nov 1969; POB Cikitoke, Burundi; nationality Rwanda; Gender Male (individual) [DRCONGO].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13413, as amended, for being a leader of an entity, including any armed group, that is or whose members are responsible for or complicit in, or who have engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the DRC.
1. RWANDA DEFENCE FORCE (a.k.a. “RDF”), Ministry of Defence, KG 1 Roundabout, Kigali, Rwanda; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) and section 1(a)(ii)(F)(ii) of E.O. 13413, as amended, for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the DRC, and for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of M23, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13413, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of re-establishment of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP).
The Treasury Department has determined that it is in the public interest to reestablish the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) and the Internal Revenue Service's Chief Executive Officer approved the TAP Public Interest Determination statement. A Charter for the TAP has been prepared and will be filed no earlier than 7 days following the date of publication of this notice.
Saul Hernandez, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Acting Director, at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 8(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1008, that the Taxpayer Advisory Panel will be re-established for an additional two years beginning on the date that the charter is filed.
The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is a federal advisory committee operating per the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Under the Act, no advisory committee may conduct any meeting in the absence of a charter being properly filed by the Committee Management Officer.
TAP was established in 2002 and increases opportunities for U.S. taxpayers to communicate with the IRS. TAP is made up of a cross-section of the taxpaying public with at least one member from each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, in addition to one member representing international taxpayers. TAP is composed of approximately 75 member volunteers who help the IRS improve its services by performing grassroots outreach activities by which TAP members identify taxpayer issues.
(1)
(i)
(ii) Proposed payments to members and number of members: 75 members. TAP does not have any proposed payments to members.
(iii) Reimbursable costs: $142,125. Typically, at the beginning of the TAP year, the TAP staff coordinate and deliver an all-TAP Member Business Meeting that's held in the IRS Headquarters, Washington, DC The cost represents two travel days and three days of covering topics, such as:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The TAP fulfills the requirements of 41 CFR 102-3.60 because its functions require a unique, independent structure for obtaining nationwide grassroots taxpayer input that cannot be replicated through other means. Established by the Department of the Treasury in 2002 and operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, TAP ensures that taxpayer advice and recommendations are objective, transparent, and accessible to the public while remaining accountable to Treasury, the IRS, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. Supported administratively by the Taxpayer Advocate Service, TAP is composed of private citizen volunteers, not IRS employees, who bring real-world experiences and community-based perspectives that internal processes cannot provide. With up to 75 members, including at least one representative and alternate from each state, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and a member representing U.S. taxpayers living and working abroad, TAP reflects broad geographic, demographic, and taxpayer diversity, including underserved populations. Through structured dialogue, challenge of assumptions, and consensus-based recommendations, TAP elevates taxpayer insights into IRS programs, processes, and potential enhancements. Ongoing annual recruitment and member rotation ensure fresh perspectives and sustained credibility. This independent, nationwide, citizen-driven model enables the IRS to hear directly from taxpayers in a way no other advisory mechanism can, making TAP essential to effective, inclusive, and responsive tax administration.
(6)
The TAP serves the public interest by providing an independent, transparent, and structured forum through which taxpayers can directly influence how IRS programs and services are designed and delivered. Composed of dedicated volunteers from across the country, including an international member, TAP supports the IRS mission of delivering top-quality service and helping taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibilities by elevating grassroots issues and offering practical, taxpayer-centered recommendations. TAP members prioritize, research, document, and submit referrals to IRS program owners and collaborate on assigned projects, ensuring real-world taxpayer perspectives are incorporated into critical tax administration decisions. TAP has submitted more than 3,000 recommendations from grassroots taxpayers, which is a remarkable record for a volunteer advisory panel.
In 2024, TAP submitted 37 referrals with 380 recommendations, and in 2025, members submitted 20 referrals with 188 recommendations. Our members have conducted over 1,300 outreach activities and have dedicated over 8,000 hours of their personal time reaching over 150,000 taxpayers from December 2023 through November 2025.
Recently, the Government of Accountability Office (GAO) requested that our TAP members be part of a focus group related to in-person services provided by the IRS. The focus group is part of an open audit with the IRS Taxpayer Services division. Questions being asked of our members are shared below.
What are the challenges, if any, associated with IRS's in-person services?
What suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve the quality of IRS's in-person services?
What factors do you think are most important for IRS to consider in making decisions about the future of in-person services, including where they are located and what types of services are offered?
Some of the TAP notable accomplishments include:
• Involved in evaluating the clarity and accuracy of public facing tax product Form 8915-F, Qualified Disaster Retirement Plan Distributions and Repayments. The committee determined the form, and instructions
• Procedural changes to the way the IRS handles 3rd party authorization and verification of taxpayers in with identity issues.
• Completely re-wrote the Form 709, United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return.
• Members were asked to participate in an IRS Taxpayer First focus group on the topic of service. The members influenced a process change within the IRS tollfree lines by introducing call back technology.
• Produced substantive recommendations to clarify taxpayer rights related to Form 8821.
• The members' advocacy led to influencing asynchronous communication options, and contributions to clearer installment agreement notices that strengthened taxpayers' understanding of their right to appeal.
These outcomes would not be possible without TAP's existence. By representing diverse, real-life taxpayer experiences and elevating them to IRS leadership, TAP enhances fairness, transparency, government efficiency, and customer service—strengthening public trust and voluntary compliance, which are foundational to an effective and credible tax system.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing regulatory amendments to the hazardous waste manifest regulations to establish a date for sunsetting use of paper manifests in favor of electronic manifests. Phasing out paper manifests would unlock the estimated $28.5 million annual savings through decreased burden to manifest users while also increasing human health and environmental protection through better tracking of hazardous waste and greater transparency for regulators and the public. The proposed rule also introduces several conforming amendments to existing regulations. These include new registration requirements with the EPA's e-Manifest system for RCRA hazardous waste transporters, certain PCB waste generators, and PCB waste transporters. Additionally, the rule updates exception reporting requirements for very small quantity generators (VSQGs) managing hazardous waste from episodic events, as well as for healthcare facilities and reverse distributors handling hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. It also revises discrepancy reporting requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities operating under standardized permits. Lastly, the proposed rule includes four technical corrections to the import and export requirements to correct EPA's mailing address, remove obsolete text, and correct a citation associated with manifest corrections for export shipments.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2026. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before April 6, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3456, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general information about this proposed rulemaking contact Bryan Groce (email address:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
This proposed rule potentially affects hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that use hazardous waste manifests under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to track shipments of hazardous waste. In addition, this proposed rule would also impact entities handling state-only regulated wastes and entities handling polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that are required to use hazardous waste manifests to track shipments of such wastes.
Additionally, this proposed rule would affect entities (including exporter, importer, transporters, disposal facility owner/operator, or recovery facility owner/operator) who are involved in transboundary movements of hazardous waste for recovery or disposal, with or without associated prior storage that are subject to the manifest regulations to track their import or export shipments in the United States.
Finally, this proposed rule would affect entities who would be required to complete any of the following manifest-related reports when specific, unresolved problems or irregularities occur to waste shipments that are subject to manifesting: (1) an Exception Report when the generator has not received a final signed manifest from the receiving facility within the required timeframe; (2) a Discrepancy Report when there is a significant difference between the quantity or type of hazardous waste on the manifest or shipping paper and the hazardous waste received by the designated facility on the manifest; and (3) an Unmanifested Waste Report when hazardous wastes arrive at a facility without the required accompanying shipping paper or hazardous waste manifest.
Potential affected entities include, but are not limited to:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in the title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 271, and 761. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this proposed rulemaking to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
This rulemaking proposes regulatory amendments to the RCRA and TSCA manifest regulations to establish a date for sunsetting use of paper manifests in favor of electronic manifests. After the sunset date established by this rulemaking, only hybrid or fully electronic manifests would be valid for tracking hazardous waste shipments under Federal or State law.
Under the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (“e-Manifest Act”), Public Law 112-195, codified at 42 U.S.C. 6939g, Congress directed EPA to establish a national system to track hazardous waste shipments electronically. Since the e-Manifest system launched in 2018, EPA has taken numerous non-regulatory steps to increase the percentage of electronic manifests used versus paper. However, electronic manifests currently account for less than 1% of all manifests that have been submitted to the e-Manifest system since system launch. EPA has consulted the e-Manifest Advisory Board and held several public meetings over the years to determine the barriers to increased adoption of electronic manifesting. Establishing a date by which paper manifests will be phased out would provide a consistent and shared target for industry to enable efforts to finally shift to using electronic manifests. Phasing out paper manifests would unlock an estimated $26.4 to $28.5 million in annual savings, using discount rates of 7% and 3%, through decreased burden (
This rulemaking also proposes changes to the exception and discrepancy reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 262, subpart L; part 266, subpart P; and part 267, subpart E. These provisions apply, respectively, to VSQGs managing an episodic event, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors managing hazardous waste pharmaceuticals, and to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities operating under a standardized permit issued under 40 CFR part 270, subpart J. These proposed changes would conform to changes made to exception and discrepancy reporting requirements in the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule (89 FR 60692, July 26, 2024). This document also proposes conforming changes to the exception reporting requirements for PCB generators managing PCB wastes subject to manifesting. Under the e-Manifest Third Rule, EPA finalized electronic exception reporting requirements for large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity generators (SQGs) but did not extend these requirements to PCB waste generators. At that time, EPA chose not to require PCB waste generators to register with the e-Manifest system, a prerequisite for electronic exception reporting. To align with current e-Manifest system capabilities and regulatory requirements for other regulated entities, this action would update the relevant provisions to require PCB waste generators to register with EPA's e-Manifest system and to
Lastly, the proposed rule includes four technical corrections to the import and export requirements to correct EPA's mailing address, remove obsolete text, and correct a citation associated with manifest corrections for export shipments.
The authority to propose this rule is found in sections 1002, 2002(a), and 3001-3004, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6901, 6906
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this proposed rulemaking. The Economic Analysis for the Paper Manifest Sunset Proposed Rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking. EPA estimates that these regulatory changes will result in annual cost savings across all entities manifesting waste by approximately $26.4 to $28.5 million, using discount rates of 7% and 3%.
Sections 2(c) and 2(g)(1)(B) of the e-Manifest Act, 42 U.S.C. 6939g(c) and 6939g(g)(1)(B), provide EPA with mutually supportive authorities to implement and sustain the national e-Manifest system. Section 2(c) authorizes EPA to impose “such reasonable service fees as the Administrator determines to be necessary” to cover all system-related costs, including the costs of processing data from paper manifests that continue to be used after the system implementation date. Section 2(g)(1)(B) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations necessary to facilitate the transition from paper manifests to electronic manifests. Pursuant to these authorities, EPA promulgated the One Year Rule in 2014 (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014), which established the regulatory framework for electronic manifesting and set the stage for system development. EPA subsequently promulgated the User Fee Rule in January 2018 (83 FR 420, January 3, 2018), which finalized the service fee structure and announced that the national e-Manifest system would launch in June 2018. While promoting adoption of electronic manifesting, these rules preserved the option for generators, transporters, and receiving facilities to continue using paper manifests, which receiving facilities must submit to the e-Manifest system for data entry and inclusion in the national tracking database. To support a phased transition, EPA also introduced the hybrid manifest, a format initiated electronically by the first transporter or receiving facility, printed and signed on paper by the generator, and then completed electronically by subsequent handlers. Although it begins with a paper signature, the hybrid manifest is treated as an electronic manifest for regulatory and fee purposes, offering a transitional option for facilities not yet fully integrated into the e-Manifest system's electronic manifest workflow.
To further increase participation and reduce reliance on paper manifests, EPA promulgated the e-Manifest Third Rule in July 2024 (89 FR 60692, July 26, 2024). This rule was designed to increase utility of the e-Manifest system in delivering benefits to reduce administrative burden and improve tracking of hazardous waste shipments. Key provisions included mandatory e-Manifest registration for large and small quantity generators, integration of export manifests, and electronic submission requirements for Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports. The rule also revised the paper manifest from a 5-copy to a 4-copy form, eliminated the requirement for TSDFs to have to mail back the final manifest to registered generators (who can instead use e-Manifest to access their final manifests), and required regulated entities to make data corrections.
Besides promulgation of the e-Manifest rules, EPA has made other attempts to increase electronic manifest adoption. This includes, in 2020, introduction of the “Quick Sign” feature in e-Manifest to streamline the electronic signature process for generators, transporters and initial receipt by the receiving facility. The Quick Sign method simplified registration by eliminating the need for identity-proofing and challenge questions for users completing signatures for generators, transporters and the initial receiving facility receipt. Then, in 2023, EPA introduced the Remote Signer Policy, which allows generators, transporters, and receiving facilities to execute electronic signatures remotely. This policy addressed challenges to adopting electronic manifesting such as limited internet access and high turnover among field personnel. The policy also added flexibility for the timeframe in which the electronic signature must be executed by the registered user in the e-Manifest system—remote signers have until the earlier of either (1) 24 hours from the time that their field personnel received the waste from the preceding waste handler (
While EPA has taken numerous non-regulatory steps to increase the percentage of electronic manifests used versus paper, electronic manifests currently account for less than 1% of manifests. EPA has consulted the e-Manifest Advisory Board and held several public meetings over the years to determine the barriers to increased adoption of electronic manifesting, including IT readiness, training, and cost.
At the most recent meeting in September 2025, the Advisory Board reiterated these concerns and recommended a longer compliance timeline tied to industry readiness,
In addition, as explained in EPA's response to the Advisory Board (Environmental Protection Agency Response to Recommendations from the September 17-18, 2024, e-Manifest Advisory Board Meeting, available in the public docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0307, the Agency implemented a deliberate discount for data plus image manifests for the FY2026/2027 fee cycle to empower companies to invest in electronic manifesting infrastructure, creating a bridge for users to modernize systems incrementally while transitioning away from paper. By lowering the cost of the user fee for data plus image manifests, the Agency is providing a financial incentive for facilities to invest the savings from this reduced fee into upgrading IT systems and workflows. Facilities can use this cost difference to fund technology upgrades and integrate the use of e-Manifest into their processes to prepare for a future without paper manifests.
EPA is proposing to sunset the use of paper manifests 24 months after the publication of EPA's final rule. Specifically, EPA is proposing amendments to the following RCRA manifest regulations under 40 CFR parts 262 through 267 for hazardous waste and to the TSCA PCB regulations in part 761:
If finalized, these provisions would go into effect on the paper manifest sunset compliance date (“paper sunset date”). On and after this date, EPA would no longer accept paper hazardous waste manifests, including image only and data plus image submission types to the e-Manifest system, for all shipments initiated on and after this date. Waste handlers, including generators, transporters, and receiving facilities, would need to use electronic manifests, including fully electronic or hybrid manifests, for all shipments initiated on and after this sunset date.
EPA would establish a paper sunset date that is 24 months after the publication of this final rule to allow manifest users additional time to come into compliance with the new rule requirements, including allowing for sufficient time to adjust information technology (IT) systems and processes. EPA's proposal sets a 24-month compliance timeline before eliminating paper manifest tracking, reflecting its view that a firm and consistent target is necessary to break the status quo and accelerate adoption. The Board's recommendation emphasized additional time to accommodate readiness and resource constraints, particularly for small businesses, rural generators, and PCB transporters. Taking these perspectives into account, EPA believes the proposed compliance date strikes a balance, providing sufficient time for industry to adjust to fully electronic manifesting while maintaining momentum toward the e-Manifest program's goals of modernizing hazardous waste tracking, enabling real time visibility, decreasing administrative burdens, and maximizing data quality, efficiency, transparency, and potential cost savings. In addition to the proposed changes to § 262.20 described above, EPA is revising paragraph (a)(3) of this section to make its purpose clearer once paper manifests are eliminated on and after the paper sunset date. The current requirement explains that a person may choose to use an electronic manifest instead of a paper one. Because this proposed rule would set a date when paper manifests can no longer be used, that wording could be misunderstood by suggesting that electronic manifests remain optional after the sunset date.
To avoid confusion, EPA is proposing to remove words “in lieu of” in the introductory text of paragraph (a)(3) so that it simply describes the requirements that apply when a generator uses an electronic manifest. This revision does not change what generators must do when using an electronic manifest. It only ensures that paragraph (a)(3) applies both to generators who use electronic manifests before the sunset date and to all generators after the sunset date, when electronic manifests become the only allowable method. Additionally, the paper sunset date would allow time for the Agency to complete updates to the e-Manifest system and to accommodate the EPA ID assignment under TSCA for PCB waste generators and transporters, and registration with EPA's e-Manifest system. (For further discussion about proposed registration and ID assignment, please see preamble sections II.D.2a and b.)
This rulemaking proposes changes to certain manifest-related definitions in 40 CFR 260.10, 264.1310, 265.1310, and 761.3 to support the proposed changes to sunset paper manifests described in section II.B of this preamble. Specifically, EPA is proposing revisions to the definitions of “electronic manifest,” “manifest,” and “user of electronic manifest system.”
EPA is proposing revisions to the definitions of “Electronic manifest” and “Manifest” in 40 CFR 260.10 and 761.3 to clarify the relationship to EPA Forms 8700-22 (Manifest) and 8700-22A (Continuation Sheet). Under the proposed revision to the definition of “Electronic manifest,” an electronic manifest would simply mean the electronic format of the manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) and the continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A). Under the proposed revision to the definition of “Manifest,” a manifest would mean a shipping document designated as EPA Form 8700-22, including EPA Form 8700-22A, whether completed in either paper or electronic format, and signed
In proposing these revisions, EPA acknowledges that its language regarding the relationship of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A to electronic manifests has evolved since the authorization of electronic manifesting in the 2014 One Year Rule. EPA initially stated that electronic manifests would be accepted by the e-Manifest system as the legal equivalent for the paper manifest and continuation sheet forms (EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A). However, as the program has evolved and EPA envisions a future consisting of entirely electronic manifests, this language is outdated. Electronic manifests are not just the legal equivalent for paper manifests—they are the hazardous waste manifest. As electronic manifests capture the data elements on EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A verbatim, the electronic manifest satisfies all regulatory requirements for information capture, signature authentication, transmission, retention, and inspection. These proposed changes thus would more simply align the regulatory language with the way the EPA's e-Manifest system is implemented in practice. Beginning on the paper sunset date, all references to EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A throughout the manifest regulations would thus mean electronic manifests completed and transmitted to the e-Manifest system.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing changes to the definition “User of electronic manifest system” in 40 CFR 260.10 to reflect that e-Manifest users can no longer use paper manifests for all shipments initiated on and after the paper sunset date. The current definition refers to users that elect to use e-Manifest to either obtain, complete, and transmit an electronic manifest or use a paper manifest and submit to the e-Manifest system. EPA is proposing amendments to the definition to reflect that users of the EPA's e-Manifest system could no longer use paper manifests beginning on the paper manifest sunset date. Manifest users must use an electronic manifest for all shipments initiated on and after that date. For shipments initiated prior to that date using a paper manifest that are completed (meaning the shipment arrives at the designated facility and is either accepted and signed for, or partially or fully rejected) on or after that date, paper submission formats will be accepted.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing changes to the definition of “Paper manifest submissions” in 40 CFR 264.1310 and 265.1310. Currently, paper manifest submissions mean “submissions to the paper processing center of the EPA's e-Manifest system by facility owners or operators, of the data from the designated facility copy of a paper manifest, EPA Form 8700-22, or a paper Continuation Sheet, EPA Form 8700-22A. . .”. Consistent with the proposed changes discussed above for the definitions of “Manifest” and “Electronic manifest,” EPA proposes to revise the definition of paper manifest submissions to clarify that such submissions refer to data submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest paper processing center by facility owners or operators, originating from the designated facility's completed paper versions of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A. The proposed definition would also eliminate existing language referring to how submissions of paper manifests can be made,
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
To align the manifest regulations with the proposed paper sunset date discussed in this preamble section II.B, EPA is proposing six global changes throughout the manifest regulations under 40 CFR parts 262 through 267 and 761.
EPA proposes to delete instances of the words “handwritten” and “by hand” with respect to the RCRA hazardous waste manifest at §§ 262.23(a)(1) and (2); 262.24(a) and (a)(1), 263.20(a)(4) and (a)(4)(i), 263.20(a)(6)(iii), 263.20(d)(1), 263.20(e)(3), 263.20(f)(3)(i), 263.20(f)(4)(i), 264.71(a)(2)(i), 264.71(f) and (1), 264.71(h)(1), 265.71(a)(2)(i), 265.71(f) and(1), and 265.71(h)(1). These manifest regulations explicitly require hazardous waste generators, transporters, and receiving facilities to sign manifests “by hand” or obtain “handwritten” signatures and could be interpreted to require the use of paper manifests once paper manifest use ends on and after the paper sunset date, except for hybrid manifest workflows or when the system is unavailable (see this preamble section II.E.3 for further discussion about hybrid manifests and paper replacement manifests). EPA finalized similar changes for the TSCA PCB manifest regulations at 40 CFR 761.210(a)(1) and (2), 761.211(d)(1), (e)(3), (f)(3)(i), (f)(4)(i), and 761.213(a)(2)(i) in the July 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule. However, EPA inadvertently omitted similar changes to the exception reporting requirements at 40 CFR 761.217(a)(1) and (b)(1) for generators of PCB waste. To address this oversight, EPA is proposing to amend these requirements in this rule.
These changes support the proposed changes to the definitional terms discussed above and would mitigate any confusion that waste handlers must continue to comply with signing manifests by hand when use of paper manifests ends.
Additionally, consistent with the proposed revisions to the definitions of “Manifest” and “Electronic manifest” discussed in this preamble section II.C.2, EPA is proposing corresponding amendments to 40 CFR 262.24(a), 263.20(a)(4), 264.71(f), 265.71(f), 761.207(g)(2) and (2)(i), and 761.217(c) and (1). Specifically, EPA proposes to delete the existing language stating that electronic manifests are the “legal equivalent of paper manifest forms bearing handwritten signatures.” As explained in section II.C.2 of this preamble, electronic manifests are not merely substitutes for paper manifests, they constitute the hazardous waste manifest itself. Accordingly, references suggesting that electronic manifests are equivalent to, or serve as substitutes for, EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A are no longer necessary and are proposed for removal. EPA is proposing similar changes to 40 CFR 761.218(e) and (1) and 761.219(e) and (1) to remove legal equivalency language pertaining to electronic certificates of disposal and one-year exception reports for PCB waste.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing global changes to the manifest regulations that, if finalized, would impact LQGs and SQGs, very small quantity generators (VSQGs) managing episodic events under 40 CFR part 262 subpart L, hazardous waste transporters, hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (both permitted and interim status), facilities operating under a standardized permit, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to the hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements at 40 CFR part 266 subpart P, PCB waste generators, PCB waste transporters, and PCB commercial storage and disposal facilities. Specifically, EPA is proposing regulatory amendments to existing manifest regulations to require, as applicable (1) registration with the EPA's e-Manifest system; (2) assignment of unique EPA identification numbers for e-Manifest registration purposes; (3) mandatory manifest data corrections; and (4) mandatory record retention in the e-Manifest system. EPA notes that some of these proposed changes were finalized for some hazardous waste handlers under previous e-Manifest rules (
EPA is proposing changes to the RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA PCB regulations to require that specific waste handlers register with EPA's e-Manifest system. Required registration would ensure that these regulated waste handlers, which are currently required to use a manifest, can use electronic manifests and satisfy other manifest-related obligations such as manifest data corrections, electronic reporting, and recordkeeping.
These registration requirements would mirror current requirements for large and small generators to register for e-Manifest at 40 CFR 262.20(a)(1) and (2) and 262.42. Large and small quantity generators must currently maintain e-Manifest accounts to access their final signed manifests from the EPA's e-Manifest system and to submit manifest data corrections and Exception Reports electronically to EPA's e-Manifest system.
To obtain signed and dated copies of completed manifests from the e-Manifest system, VSQGs managing episodic events under 40 CFR part 262, subpart L, hazardous waste transporters, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to the hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements at 40 CFR part 266 subpart P, PCB waste generators, and PCB waste transporters would be required to register personnel with the e-Manifest system. Specifically, EPA is proposing changes to 40 CFR 262.232(a)(3) (VSQGs managing episodic events), 263.20(a)(3) (hazardous waste transporters), 266.508(a) (healthcare facilities and reverse distributors of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals), and 761.208(b) (TSCA PCB waste generators, transporters, and commercial storage and disposal facilities). (See this preamble sections II.D.2.b and II.E.13.b for further discussion about registration.) EPA recommends that each waste handler register at least two employees as Site Managers. The “Site Manager” permission level would enable these entities to use electronic manifests, acknowledge or verify shipment receipts, and satisfy other reporting requirements (
While VSQGs managing episodic events under 40 CFR part 262 subpart L, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to the hazardous waste pharmaceutical requirements at 40 CFR part 266 subpart P, and PCB waste generators, would be required to track their wastes using an electronic manifest, such entities can use hybrid manifests. Hybrid manifests would allow these entities the ability to sign a hard copy printout of the electronic manifest, allowing field personnel, employees, and contractors with direct physical responsibility for the waste shipment to avoid registering in the EPA's e-Manifest system. However, registration would still be required to access the completed electronic manifest, make corrections, and file electronic exception reports. To support modernization and enhance data quality, EPA encourages these entities to adopt fully electronic manifests whenever feasible.
EPA acknowledges that transporters may face barriers for electronic manifesting, including for hybrid manifesting, for various reasons. While EPA has established the remote signer policy to mitigate barriers for electronic manifesting, EPA is considering an alternate additional electronic signature solution, detailed in preamble section II.E. The alternate electronic signature approach would offer more flexibility than the remote signer policy option by allowing a transporter to sign an electronic manifest directly in the EPA's e-Manifest system, via Short Message Service (SMS), without the need to access the system either through an individual, registered e-Manifest account or communicating with a remote signer with an individual, registered e-Manifest account.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule, with one exception for PCB waste generators and transporters. To support a smooth transition to the updated e-Manifest system, the EPA is proposing a delayed compliance timeline for e-Manifest registration for PCB waste generators and PCB waste transporters. While most provisions in this rule would take effect upon the effective date of the final rule, these entities would be required to register with the e-Manifest system by the paper manifest sunset date, as outlined in this preamble section II.B.
This delay serves two key purposes:
It allows the EPA time to update the e-Manifest system to accept TSCA EPA ID numbers in place of RCRA EPA ID numbers (see section II.D.2.b. of this preamble below).
It provides PCB waste generators and transporters with additional time to understand and comply with the new rule requirements.
By aligning the registration deadline for PCB generators and transporters with the paper sunset date, the EPA aims to reduce disruption, support compliance, and ensure that PCB waste generators
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
As explained above in this preamble section II.D.2.a, EPA is proposing to require all waste handlers subject to manifesting, including hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSCA regulated PCB waste handlers, to be registered with the e-Manifest system. Historically, registration with e-Manifest has required an EPA ID issued under RCRA (referred to as a RCRA-issued EPA ID) obtained via EPA Form 8700-12 (Site Identification Form). However, PCB waste handlers have a separate notification process under the TSCA regulations using EPA Form 7710-53 (Notification of PCB Activity), under which certain PCB waste handlers receive an EPA ID issued under TSCA (referred to as a TSCA-issued EPA ID). To date, if a PCB waste handler wanted access to e-Manifest, they would have had to complete both EPA Form 7710-53 as well as EPA Form 8700-12. In addition, some PCB waste handlers are exempt from notification and are not required to obtain a TSCA-issued EPA ID.
To enable PCB waste handlers to use electronic manifests, EPA is proposing the following changes:
PCB waste handlers would be allowed to register for e-Manifest access using either a RCRA-issued EPA ID obtained via EPA Form 8700-12 or a TSCA-issued EPA ID obtained using EPA Form 7710-53; EPA would update its e-Manifest system accordingly.
Under existing 40 CFR 761.205, non-exempt PCB waste generators, commercial storers, transporters, and disposers are required to notify EPA and obtain an ID via EPA Form 7710-53. These entities would be able to use this TSCA-issued ID (or an ID issued under RCRA) to register in the e-Manifest system.
PCB waste generators who are exempt (
EPA emphasizes that an EPA ID is required for all waste handlers to register with e-Manifest in order to access the manifests associated with a specific site and satisfy other requirements such as data corrections and electronic exception reporting. RCRA handlers and non-exempt PCB waste handlers that would be required to use electronic manifests and register for e-Manifest under this proposal are already required to notify EPA and obtain an ID. Thus, only PCB waste generators who are currently exempt would be newly subject to requirements to notify EPA and obtain an ID under this's proposal.
For further discussion regarding PCB waste generator notification and TSCA-issued ID assignment for e-Manifest registration, refer to this preamble section II.E.11.b.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing data correction requirements for very small quantity generators managing episodic events under 40 CFR part 262, subpart L and healthcare facilities and reverse distributors subject to the hazardous waste pharmaceutical regulations under 40 CFR part 266, subpart P. These data correction requirements would mirror current requirements for large and small quantity generators. Under the existing regulations, LQGs and SQGs must submit data corrections to manifests within 30 days of receipt of the request by EPA or authorized state.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
Existing manifest regulations under 40 CFR parts 262 through 266 and 761 generally require waste handlers to retain signed manifests and manifest-related reports (see this preamble sections II.E.5 and II.E.14) for at least three years, with recordkeeping periods extended during an enforcement action or upon request by the Administrator. Under current regulation and policy, entities registered with and maintaining access to e-Manifest through a handler account may satisfy the obligation to retain records of their manifests (whether paper or electronic) set forth at 40 CFR 264.74 by accessing their official manifest records (both paper and electronic) through e-Manifest.
Therefore, EPA is proposing changes to most recordkeeping requirements for manifests and, as applicable, manifest-related reports, under 40 CFR 262.23(f)(4), 262.40, 263.22, 264/265.71(a)(2)(vi) and (b)(5), 267.71(a)(5) and (b)(5), 266.502(j)(1) and (2), 266.510(c), and §§ 761.210(e)(4), 761.213(b)(5), and 761.214(a)(1) and (2), (c)(1) and (2), and (d), with such documents retained in the e-Manifest system accounts in lieu of on-site facility recordkeeping. (Also, see this preamble sections II.E.11.a and II.E.14.a for proposed changes to recordkeeping requirements for PCB waste handlers' annual records and Exception Reports).
EPA would continue to require manifest recordkeeping requirements as it relates to the hybrid manifest. Generators would continue to retain their initial copy of the hybrid electronic manifests for the three-year recordkeeping period since, under the hybrid electronic manifest flow, generators sign a hard copy printout of the electronic manifest, and this copy is not housed in e-Manifest. Under the hybrid flow, this signed hard copy would be the only version of the manifest created that has the generator's signature and thus would need to be retained and made available for inspection. In addition, EPA would continue to require recordkeeping in the rare event that the e-Manifest system becomes unavailable for electronic manifesting. In this rare event, waste handlers would need to revert to hard copy paper manifests that would need to be retained for the three-year recordkeeping period until the final copy of the manifest is able to be submitted to the system. Please see this preamble section II.E.4 for further discussion about paper replacement manifests.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes. EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should require upload of generators' paper copies of hybrid manifests in e-Manifest, thereby capturing all manifest copies in the e-Manifest system and eliminating the need to require recordkeeping by generators for these copies.
EPA is proposing to add new paragraph (a)(3) under 40 CFR 262.21. Section 262.21 details the requirements for manifest tracking numbers, printing, and obtaining paper manifests. These provisions apply primarily to registrants authorized by EPA to print and distribute the paper manifest forms and govern:
How registrants apply to print the paper formats of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A.
Procedures for assigning manifest tracking numbers to printed paper forms.
Specifications for printed manifests such as paper type, paper weight of each copy, ink color of the instructions and binding method of the copies.
Oversight of third-party printing operations.
Additionally, the manifest provision at 40 CFR 262.21(g)(1) allows a generator to use paper manifests printed by any source (
Beginning on and after the paper sunset date, only electronic manifests would be used for tracking shipments of hazardous waste. Further, only the EPA's e-Manifest system would assign unique MTNs to electronic manifests. Therefore, the manifest registry regulations would be unnecessary. EPA is proposing to sunset the manifest registry requirements beginning on the paper sunset date. At that time, hazardous waste generators would no longer obtain paper manifest forms from registered sources. Additionally, registered printers would no longer produce paper manifest forms for use.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
To further support the transition away from paper manifests and enhance data transparency in the e Manifest system, EPA is proposing additional changes to 40 CFR 262.23. This amendment would require hazardous waste generators to explicitly identify brokers who assist in preparing or arranging hazardous waste shipments by including a standardized statement in Item 14 of the manifest. EPA is also proposing parallel amendments to 40 CFR 761.210 to apply this same reporting requirement to generators of PCB waste. This change aims to ensure broker information is consistently captured in the e-Manifest system, thereby enabling brokers to participate in electronic manifesting by accessing manifest records, correcting manifest data, and preparing electronic manifests on behalf of their generator customers.
Currently, although brokers may be listed on paper manifests, their information is often omitted from the e-Manifest system due to the absence of clear regulatory direction. As a result, brokers, who frequently play a central role in coordinating shipments, may be unable to access the manifest records for shipments they helped facilitate. Brokers provide essential administrative and logistical support to small and mid-sized generators, including manifest preparation, data correction, transporter and facility coordination, and customer service. While brokers may not take physical custody of the waste, their involvement is integral to the shipment process.
To address this gap, EPA proposes to redesignate existing paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(4) and add a new paragraph (a)(3) to 40 CFR 262.23 and 761.210. The new provision would require generators of hazardous or PCB waste to enter the following statement in the Item 14 field of the manifest when a broker is involved: “[Broker company name], EPA ID [EPA identification number], prepared and/or arranged the shipment on behalf of the generator.”
EPA also proposes to revise the manifest instructions for Item 14 to direct generators to include this broker information. If finalized, generators would be responsible for ensuring the statement is entered and that the broker's company name and EPA ID number are accurately included. Generators may arrange for the broker or other entities associated with the shipment to provide this information on their behalf. For paper manifests, EPA does not propose adding a new broker field. Instead, revised instructions would guide generators to enter the broker's details in Item 14, alerting the receiving facility to input this information into the e-Manifest system. For electronic manifests, brokers may
Hybrid manifests, which are electronic manifests, currently allow generators who are not registered in e-Manifest or do not have an EPA ID number, to sign a printed copy of the electronic manifest generated from the e-Manifest system. The electronic manifest, printed and formatted on standard 8.5 x 11 office paper and printed from any available printer device, is signed in hard copy by both the generator and initial transporter. The generator retains a copy and provides one to the transporter, which may also serve as the U.S. DOT shipping paper. The transporter keeps the signed paper copy with the shipment until delivery to the receiving facility. Meanwhile, the initial transporter and all subsequent parties, including additional transporters and the designated facility, electronically sign the manifest in the system.
Beginning on the paper sunset date, manifest users would be required to use electronic manifests, either hybrid or fully electronic, to track hazardous waste shipments during transportation. EPA would no longer accept paper manifest submissions in any format, including scanned images or data-plus-image files, except when in the rare event the EPA's e-Manifest system becomes unavailable as described below. To align with proposed updates to the recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR 262.40 as discussed in this preamble section II.D.2.d, EPA is proposing a new provision at 40 CFR 262.24(c)(2) and to clarify that any generator, or healthcare facility or reverse distributor subject to 40 CFR part 266, subpart P who elects to use the hybrid manifest must retain the initial paper copy of the manifest at the facility for the full three-year record retention period. EPA is also proposing parallel amendments to 40 CFR 761.214(a)(1) to apply this same retention requirement to generators of PCB waste who use hybrid manifests. This copy is the only version that includes the generator's signature on the generator/offeror certification and is not uploaded to the EPA's e-Manifest system. As a result, the initial paper copy would not be accessible for electronic viewing, correction, or inspection via the EPA's e-Manifest system, nor could the entities print hard copies of their initial manifests from the system at the request of an inspector. Thus, this initial paper copy must be available for inspection at the facility or made available immediately upon request for inspection.
EPA recognizes that the point of custody transfer between the generator and transporter has been one of the key barriers to broader adoption of electronic manifests. This barrier arises because the individual physically present at the pickup, typically a transporter driver, often lacks a device, system access, or real time coordination needed to execute an electronic signature at the time of custody transfer (Remote Signer). EPA also recognizes that waste handlers face other key barriers, such as limited network access in the field where transporters pick up waste from generators. Another barrier is the technical and resource demands associated with adapting existing industry system to using electronic signatures. These challenges have made it difficult for some generators and transporters to fully transition to electronic manifests.
In light of EPA's proposal to require electronic manifests by the paper sunset date, EPA is considering additional, non-regulatory system enhancements to improve usability of electronic signature options and support broader adoption. Further discussion of EPA's evaluation of an SMS-based signature approach is provided in this preamble section II.F.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on whether the hybrid manifest provision at 40 CFR 262.24(c)(1) remains necessary. Considering the proposed signature method, the planned sunset of paper manifests, and the requirement for all manifest users to register with the e-Manifest system, the hybrid manifest may no longer be needed. On the other hand, the hybrid manifest could still be useful in cases where there is no cell/network coverage at the generator site.
EPA is proposing to revise the existing manifest provisions at 40 CFR 262.24(e), 263.20(a)(6), 264.71(h)(1)(4), and 265.71(h)(1) through (4). These provisions require that waste handlers follow paper-based manifest procedures when the e-Manifest system is unavailable. Since system launch in June 2018, system downtime has been extremely limited, with manifest submission functionality exceeding 99.99% uptime. Currently, in the rare event that the e-Manifest system is unavailable to complete the tracking of a shipment that was initiated with an electronic manifest, generators must complete paper manifests and follow paper-based manifest procedures. Transporters must reproduce sufficient copies, include a notation in Item 14 identifying the manifest as a replacement, reference the original tracking number, and sign each copy by hand (40 CFR 263.20(a)(6)). Receiving facilities must sign and date Item 20, report discrepancies in Item 18 and send signed copies to the generator and the EPA's e-Manifest system within 30 days. (40 CFR 264.71(h) and 265.71(h)). All parties on the manifest must retain copies for recordkeeping.
To facilitate a complete sunset of paper manifests, EPA would amend these provisions to allow for generators and other waste handlers listed on the manifest to complete signatures on the printed copy of the electronic manifest and complete electronically in the system at such time as the e-Manifest system becomes available. If users are unable to access e-Manifest to print their electronic manifest, EPA envisions allowing users to print a stand-alone manifest from an EPA website on a separate network and follow paper-based manifest tracking procedures for the transportation of the waste shipment. As soon as access to the EPA's e-Manifest system resumes, a receiving facility would be required to submit a paper replacement manifest to the EPA's e-Manifest system.
Additionally, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 264.71(h)(3) and (4) and 265.71(h)(3) and (4) to align with the registration requirements established in the e-Manifest Third Rule and those proposed in this document. Currently, these provisions require receiving facilities to send a signed and dated copy of the paper replacement manifest to the generator and send an additional signed and dated copy of the paper replacement manifest to the electronic manifest system within 30 days of delivery of the shipment. Additionally, a receiving facility must retain at their site one copy of the paper replacement manifest for at least three years from the date of delivery. As discussed in this preamble section II.D.2.d, the proposed changes under consideration for
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect on the paper sunset date. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
In addition, and to align with our efforts to modernize hazardous waste tracking and ensure consistent data quality across the e-Manifest system, the Agency is considering establishing a requirement that would restrict paper manifest submissions to data plus image uploads when the e-Manifest system is temporarily unavailable, and waste handlers must revert to paper manifest tracking during contingency scenarios. Currently, image-only submissions are permitted during system outages to ensure continuity of operations. However, EPA is evaluating whether it would be appropriate to allow image-only submissions after the paper manifest sunset date, given the expectation that facilities would be fully equipped to support data plus image workflows. Requiring data plus image uploads during system outages would reduce reliance on manual data entry, improve the accuracy and timeliness of manifest records, and reinforce digital readiness across the regulated community. EPA requests public comment on this potential requirement, which would go into effect on the paper sunset date.
EPA is proposing several conforming changes to the exception, discrepancy, and unmanifested waste reporting requirements under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 267. These changes are intended to align the regulations with the electronic reporting framework established in the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule, clarify EPA's original intent, and ensure consistency across generator categories and receiving facilities.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 262.42(a) and (b) to require LQGs, SQGs, and VSQGs managing episodic events under 40 CFR part 262, subpart L to submit Exception Reports electronically via the e-Manifest system. This change ensures that regulators can access reports directly through the system, eliminating the need for written submissions. To that end, EPA is also proposing to remove and reserve outdated provisions that authorize written reporting at 40 CFR 262.42(a)(2) and (b)(1).
Additionally, EPA is clarifying that the electronic exception reporting provisions at 40 CFR 262.42(d), established in the e-Manifest Third Rule, also apply to receiving facilities that must prepare an Exception Report for full or partial load rejections and container residues. These provisions ensure that facilities registered with and maintaining access to e-Manifest through a handler account:
Satisfy record retention obligations under 40 CFR 264.74 and 265.74 by accessing official Exception Report records through the system; and
Are not liable for failing to produce these reports during inspections if the failure is solely due to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR 264.72, 265.72, and 267.72 to clarify electronic reporting requirements, including electronic recordkeeping, are also in effect now under the e-Manifest program. These changes are intended to align the regulations with the intent of the e-Manifest Third Rule and correct regulatory inconsistencies. To align hazardous waste reporting requirements with the full implementation of the EPA's e-Manifest system, EPA is proposing to delete and reserve 40 CFR 264/265.72(c)(1) and amend 267.72(b) which reflect legacy paper-based discrepancy reporting. Sections 264.72(c)(1) and 265.72(c)(1) and 267.72(b) required that facility owners or operators submit a written exception report to EPA when discrepancies in waste shipments occur. This ensures that unresolved discrepancies are formally documented and communicated to the Agency.
However, as of December 1, 2025, paper-based discrepancy reporting is no longer allowed; facilities must comply with 40 CFR 264.72(c)(2) and 265.72(c)(2), which mandates the use of electronic discrepancy reporting through the EPA's e-Manifest system. (EPA inadvertently omitted electronic discrepancy reporting for facilities operating under the standardized permit regulations and is proposing to amend 40 CFR 267.72 accordingly.)
Similarly, the proposed rule updates manifest transmittal requirements for rejected waste and residue shipments forwarded to another facility for management (40 CFR 264.72(e)(6) and 265.72(e)(6)). Under the e-Manifest Third Rule, large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity generators (SQGs) must obtain final, completed manifest copies from the EPA's e-Manifest system. Currently, the regulations require designated facilities that receive waste but subsequently forward it—either in full, in part, or as container residues—to prepare and sign a new manifest and mail the initial copy to the generator. To align with the sunset of paper manifests and the electronic reporting practices established in the e-Manifest Third Rule, EPA now proposes that these facilities transmit the initial manifest copies through the e-Manifest system instead of mailing them.
Lastly, the proposed rule clarifies that electronic recordkeeping requirements established in the e-Manifest Third Rule apply to electronic Discrepancy Reports. Specifically, the proposed changes:
Add new paragraphs 40 CFR 264.72(c)(3) and (4), 265.72(c)(3) and (4), and 267.72(c). These additions would clarify that receiving facilities satisfy record retention obligations by accessing official Discrepancy Report records through the system and will not be held liable for failing to produce electronic Discrepancy Reports during inspections if the failure is solely due to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control. These protections were intended for electronic discrepancy, exception, and unmanifested waste reporting all electronic requirements in the Third Rule but were not explicitly extended to discrepancy reporting.
Amend 40 CFR 264.72(f)(8) and 265.72(f)(8). These revisions would clarify the recordkeeping provisions in
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
Consistent with the removal of outdated provisions for exception and discrepancy reporting, EPA is also proposing to remove and reserve outdated provisions 40 CFR 264.76(a) and 265.76(a) that authorize written reporting of unmanifested waste. Additionally, EPA is proposing to clarify that facilities satisfy record retention obligations under 40 CFR 264.74 and 265.74 by accessing official Unmanifested Waste Report records through the system. To that end, EPA proposes to add 40 CFR 264.76(c) and 265.76(c). These new provisions would clarify that receiving facilities satisfy record retention obligations under 40 CFR 264.74 and 265.74 by accessing official Unmanifested Waste Report records through the system; and are not liable for failing to produce unmanifested waste reports during inspections if the failure is due exclusively to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing amendments to hazardous waste export and import regulations at 40 CFR 262.83 (hazardous waste export shipments) and 262.84 (hazardous waste import shipments). EPA is additionally proposing three technical corrections to the import and export requirements.
EPA is proposing two changes to the hazardous waste export regulations. First, EPA is proposing conforming revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(c) to clarify that hazardous waste exporters must register with and use the EPA's e-Manifest system for manifest submissions, data corrections, and record retention, to correct the regulatory citation for confirmation of receipt and to clarify when data corrections for export manifests must be made consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 265.71(l). These revisions are intended to codify existing requirements that exporters must perform to comply with existing e-Manifest regulations and reinforce the electronic workflow established under prior e-Manifest rulemakings. Under current regulations, hazardous waste exporters are already required to submit completed manifests, whether initiated electronically or on paper, to the EPA's e-Manifest system, and to make any necessary data corrections electronically. Both functions require exporters to maintain active accounts within the e-Manifest system, effectively mandating registration. The proposed text revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(c)(4)(v) correct the citation for a foreign receiving facility certifying receipt of a hazardous waste export shipment, changing the reference from paragraph (d)(2)(xvii) to the correct paragraph (d)(2)(xv). The revisions also clarify that data corrections must be made if either of the following occurs:
The exporter receives a confirmation of receipt from the foreign receiving facility, as per 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xv), that documents significant differences in quantity (as defined by 40 CFR 265.72(b)) compared with the quantity listed on the RCRA export manifest submitted to the e-Manifest system.
The exporter submits an exception report to EPA, as per 40 CFR 262.83(h)(1)(iii), because the foreign receiving facility rejected part or all of a hazardous waste export shipment and the rejected waste was sent to an alternate management facility or returned to the generator.
These thresholds parallel the manifest discrepancy requirements in 40 CFR 265.72(a) through (b) for significant differences in waste quantity received and significant differences in waste type. For domestic shipments, receiving facilities must document and report discrepancies but are not required to reject the waste. For foreign shipments, the process begins similarly, discrepancies must be documented and reported to the country of import and the exporter under the country of import's regulations, and additionally to EPA if the waste is rejected in full or in part. Whether the shipment is rejected in full or in part depends on the importing country's consent and applicable international agreements (
Additionally, exporters meet the record retention requirements under 40 CFR 265.71(a)(2)(vi) by submitting manifests to the e-Manifest system, where the documents are automatically stored in their registered accounts. As a result, the proposed clarification on recordkeeping does not create new obligations but simply reaffirms the compliance practices already in place.
Second, EPA proposes removing the manifest provision in 40 CFR 262.83(c)(3) and reserving it for future use and adding paragraph (c)(5). To track the transportation of an export shipment to a U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a U.S. road or rail port of exit, this current provision requires an exporter to obtain and use a paper manifest from a source that is registered and approved by EPA to print the manifest. However, this requirement is duplicative because it is already addressed in 40 CFR 262.21(g)(1) which is incorporated by reference in the introductory text of 40 CFR 262.83(c). Additionally, considering EPA's proposal to sunset paper manifests, EPA believes removal of this requirement would mitigate any confusion that waste handlers must continue to comply with these requirements when paper-based manifest tracking ends on the paper sunset date.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing two changes to the hazardous waste import requirements regulations to align with the broader transition to electronic manifesting. First, EPA is proposing conforming revisions consistent with those discussed above for hazardous waste exporters. Specifically, EPA proposes to revise 40 CFR 262.84(c) to: (1) clarify that hazardous waste importers must register with and use EPA's e-Manifest
Consistent with the exporter's requirements mentioned above, hazardous waste importers are subject to the LQG and SQG requirements under 40 CFR part 262, subpart B. Current manifest provisions require importers to comply with 40 CFR 262.20 to track hazardous waste. Thus, EPA is revising 40 CFR 262.84(c)(1) to clarify that hazardous waste importers must comply with all manifest requirements of 40 CFR 262.20 through 262.25 except that the importer or the importer's agent must sign and date the certification and obtain the signature of the initial transporter. Additionally, EPA proposes to remove 40 CFR 262.84(c)(2) and reserve the paragraph. This provision currently requires importers to obtain a paper manifest from an EPA-registered printer. In light of EPA's broader efforts to phase out paper manifest tracking and transition to exclusive use of electronic manifests, the importers would no longer be able to obtain paper manifests from registered printing sources. If finalized, this proposed change would go into effect upon the paper sunset date. Other proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing four technical corrections to the import and export requirements. First, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 261.41(a)(2) and 262.82(e)(1) and (2) to reflect the updated organizational name and correct mail code for the International Waste Branch.
Second, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(a)(6) to reflect that the AES compliance date of December 31, 2017 (which was specified in an announcement in a
Third, EPA is proposing revisions to the introductory text in 40 CFR 262.83(c)(4) to correct “final domestic transporter” to “last transporter” as the last transporter to carry the shipment to or across the U.S. port of exit could be a foreign transporter.
Lastly, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 262.84(b)(1) to reflect that all U.S. importer-submitted import notices are submitted electronically using the Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) application in RCRAInfo at this time. Electronic import notices have made EPA's processing more efficient and allow importers and receiving facilities to store and download EPA Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC) letters and import consent documentation within WIETS rather than keeping paper copies for recordkeeping on site.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing to amend paragraph 40 CFR 263.20(a)(1) to reflect the proposed changes to the definition of manifest. This proposed amendment conforms with the proposed change to the definition of manifest and aligns this regulatory provision with the way the EPA's e-Manifest system is implemented in practice. Following the paper sunset date, all references to EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A in this section will apply exclusively to electronic manifests.
Consistent with the proposed changes to the hazardous waste generator regulations discussed in preamble section II.E., EPA proposes to amend § 263.20(a)(6). This paragraph outlines the replacement manifest procedures that hazardous waste transporters must follow if the e-Manifest system becomes unavailable.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comments on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing additional changes to the manifest provisions in 40 CFR 264.70(b), 265.70(b) and 264.71(a)(1), 265.71(a)(1), 267.71(a)(1) and (2), 264.71(j)(1), 265.71(j)(1), and 264.1311, 265.1311 and adding a new provision, 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv), and 265.71(a)(2)(iv).
EPA is proposing to remove and reserve paragraphs (b) from 40 CFR264.70 and 265.70. These provisions were added in 2005 to explain that the revised manifest form and related procedures would not take effect until September 5, 2006. That date has long passed, and the manifest system has been updated several times since then, including through the development of the national e-Manifest system. The effective date language no longer serves any purpose and can be removed to improve clarity.
EPA is proposing conforming revisions to 40 CFR 264.71(a)(1), 265.71(a)(1), 267.71 (a)(1) to clarify that receiving facilities must register with and use the EPA's e-Manifest system for manifest submissions, data corrections, and record retention. These revisions are intended to codify existing requirements that facilities must perform to comply with existing e-Manifest regulations and reinforce the electronic manifest workflow established under prior e-Manifest rulemakings. Under current regulations, receiving facilities are already required to submit completed manifests, whether initiated electronically or on paper, to the EPA's e-Manifest system, and to make any necessary data corrections electronically (see additional revisions for facilities operating under standardized permits under this preamble section II.E.10). Both obligations require facilities to maintain active accounts within the e-Manifest system, effectively mandating registration. Additionally, receiving facilities satisfy the record retention requirements under 40 CFR 264.71 (a)(2)(vi), 265.71(a)(2)(vi) and 267.71(a)(5) when they submit manifests to the system and those manifests are delivered to their registered accounts. Therefore, the recordkeeping clarification proposed in this rule does not impose any new administrative burden but rather confirms existing compliance expectations.
EPA is proposing to amend the manifest requirements under 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv), which are currently reserved, by adding a new provision to improve transparency and data accessibility in
Under the proposed amendments, 40 CFR264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv) would also require the designated receiving facility to ensure that the broker's information is entered into the e-Manifest system at the time the manifest is submitted. Specifically, EPA proposes to require receiving facilities to report broker information when submitting manifest data to ensure this key role is consistently documented. Between the effective date of the final rule and the paper sunset date, when use of paper manifests would still be allowed, receiving facilities are in the best position to report broker information from Item 14 given they are the entities responsible for submitting paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. Furthermore, EPA anticipates that many generators will use hybrid manifests after the paper sunset, meaning they will sign printed copies of electronic manifests by hand and may not originate or sign manifests electronically in the system. Additionally, paper replacement manifests may still be used during system outages. However, when a fully electronic manifest is used and the broker's information is entered during manifest preparation, the receiving facility would not need to retrieve or re-enter that information, and the requirement would be considered satisfied. To ensure broker data is consistently captured across all manifest formats, EPA is proposing that receiving facilities report this information when submitting manifest data.
Similarly, EPA is also proposing provisions under the requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities operating under a standardized permit and for commercial storers and disposers of PCB wastes. Specifically, EPA proposes to revise the existing requirement at 40 CFR 267.71(a)(4) and add a new requirement, 40 CFR 761.213(a)(2)(vi), for hazardous waste and PCB waste shipments to require that these entities ensure that the broker's information is entered into the e-Manifest system at the time the manifest is submitted.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes and the proposed manifest instruction for Item 14.
Sections 264.71(j)(1) and 265.71(j)(1) alert receiving facilities to their fee obligations, which are outlined in 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. EPA proposes to remove the terms “electronic” and “paper” from 40 CFR 264.71(j)(1) and 265.71(j)(1) to align with EPA's proposed sunset of paper manifests in lieu of electronic manifests. As EPA plans to sunset paper manifests and revise the fee provisions to reflect that shift, references to specific submission types are no longer necessary and would be removed for consistency. Sections 264.1311 and 265.1311 currently: (a) establish per-manifest fees for electronic and paper submissions; (b) permit receiving facilities to upload image files of completed paper manifests; and (c) allow submission of data files and image files representing paper manifests. Under the proposed revisions, EPA would add new paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(3), and (c)(4) to eliminate paper manifests as acceptable submission formats beginning on the paper sunset date, except in limited situations if the e-Manifest system is unavailable. In such cases, receiving facilities would be permitted to submit paper replacement manifests to the EPA's e-Manifest system and would remain subject to the applicable per-manifest fee.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
In addition to the proposed changes described in this preamble section II.E.5.b, EPA is proposing changes to the existing requirements at 40 CFR 264.72(g) and 265.72(g). Under existing 40 CFR 264.72(g) and 265.72(g), a permitted or interim status facility that rejects a hazardous waste shipment, either in full or in part, or identifies a residue, and forwards the waste to an alternate facility, or returns it to the generator of the waste, must:
Amend the original manifest to reflect the new destination.
Re-sign the manifest to certify the changes;
Send copies of the amended manifest to the generator of the waste and the transporter who brought the waste to the facility; and
Submit the amended manifest to the EPA's e-Manifest system within 30 days of forwarding the shipment.
These steps ensure that all parties are informed of the change in destination and that data collected in the EPA's e-Manifest system is an accurate record of the waste's movement and final disposition. In light of the proposed changes to sunset paper manifests and require mandatory e-Manifest registration for entities required to manifest, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 264.72(g) and 265.72(g) to require that such facilities follow the existing post-receipt manifest data correction procedures at 40 CFR 264.71(l) and 265.71(l) to correct their manifest information. Such corrections are completed electronically via the EPA's e-Manifest system and are transmitted to all parties involved with the shipment once the receiving facility submits the manifest corrections electronically to the system.
If finalized, the proposed changes described in this preamble section would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the exception reporting requirements for healthcare facilities and reverse distributors under 40 CFR 266.502(i)(2) and 266.510(c)(9)(ii), respectively. These provisions currently require healthcare facilities to submit an exception report to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator if they do not receive a signed manifest from the designated facility within 60 calendar days of the hazardous waste pharmaceuticals being accepted by the initial transporter, and reverse distributors to do so within 45 calendar days. The proposed changes would align these requirements with those requirements finalized for LQGs and SQGs in the e-Manifest Third Final Rule, which mandates electronic submission of exception reports via the EPA's e-Manifest system rather than by postal mail. For LQGs, the regulations require two actions: (1) contacting the transporter or receiving facility if a signed manifest is not received within 45 calendar days, and (2) submitting an electronic exception report to the EPA e-Manifest system if the signed manifest is still not received within 60 calendar days. SQGs must submit an electronic exception report if they have not received a signed manifest within 60 calendar days of shipment. Under the proposed changes to 40 CFR 266.502(i)(2) and 266.510(c)(9)(ii),
EPA is also proposing conforming revisions to § 266.509, which governs the tracking requirements for shipments of potentially creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from healthcare facilities and reverse distributors to a reverse distributor. Under the existing 40 CFR part 266 subpart P regulation, these shipments are not subject to the hazardous waste manifest requirements; instead, the regulation replaces the manifest form and procedures with the use of a DOT shipping paper and a requirement for confirmation of receipt upon delivery. The receiving reverse distributor must provide confirmation of delivery to the healthcare facility or reverse distributor that initiated the shipment, and the shipper must follow up if that confirmation is not received. EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 266.509(c) to extend this follow up period from 35 days to 45 calendar days to conform with analogous changes made to exception reporting as part of the 2024 Manifest Third Rule, and to provide additional flexibility while maintaining appropriate oversight of shipment tracking.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the manifest and discrepancy reporting requirement at 40 CFR 267.71 and 267.72, respectively. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed changes, described below.
EPA established post-receipt manifest data correction requirements in the e-Manifest One Year Rule and later updated them in the Third Final Rule. These provisions enable entities listed on a hazardous waste manifest to electronically submit corrections to post-receipt data, including the manifest tracking number, corrected item numbers, original and revised data, and a certified statement with a valid electronic signature. Corrections may be submitted voluntarily at any time; however, if requested by EPA or authorized state, they must be completed within 30 days.
EPA inadvertently omitted equivalent manifest correction requirements under 40 CFR 267.71 for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities operating under a standardized permit. To address this oversight, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 267.71 to clarify that these facilities are also obligated to correct manifest data errors upon EPA or authorized state request. Specifically, EPA proposes to add the post-receipt manifest data procedures at 40 CFR 267.71(a)(8).
The discrepancy reporting provisions in 40 CFR 267.72 currently require owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities operating under a standardized permit to identify and resolve any significant discrepancies, as defined in 40 CFR 267.72(a) between the quantity or type of hazardous waste listed on the manifest than what was received within 15 days of receipt of the shipment from the delivering transporter. If the discrepancies cannot be reconciled, the facility must submit a written report to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, detailing the discrepancy, reconciliation efforts, and attaching a copy of the accompanying manifest.
The proposed changes would align with the requirements finalized for permitted and interim status facilities under 40 CFR 264.72 and 265.72 in the e-Manifest Third Final Rule which mandates electronic submission of exception reports through the EPA's e-Manifest system rather than by postal mail. While the discrepancy reporting requirements in 40 CFR 267.72 are similar, they differ in reporting period. Permitted and interim status facilities have 20 calendar days to resolve discrepancies before reporting, while facilities operating under a standardized permit currently have 15 calendar days. Additionally, 40 CFR 264.72 and 265.72 include provisions for the electronic submission of discrepancy reports, which are not yet reflected in 40 CFR 267.72. Under the proposed revisions, standardized permit facilities would conform to both the 20-day reporting timeline and the electronic submission process consistent with the requirements for permitted and interim status facilities.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
To align with the registration and recordkeeping requirements under consideration in this proposed rule, EPA is proposing conforming changes to the PCB regulations under 40 CFR part 761 at 40 CFR 761.66, 761.180, and subpart K. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes, as described below.
EPA is proposing changes to the annual recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 761.180(a) and (b). Currently, owners and operators of facilities using or storing certain PCBs and PCB Items and facilities used for commercial storage and disposal of PCBs and PCB Items must maintain annual records (including signed manifests, certificates of disposal, and inspection and cleanup records) at their facilities for at least three years (or for landfills, 20 years) after the facility ceases relevant PCB operations. The annual records also must be made available for inspection at the facility. To align this provision with the proposed changes to the manifest recordkeeping requirements discussed in section II.D.2.d of this, EPA is making conforming changes to paragraphs (a) and (b) to clarify that the signed manifests portion of the annual records may be maintained electronically in EPA's e-Manifest system.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
Under existing regulations, PCB waste generators must prepare a manifest before transporting waste off site for commercial storage or disposal (40 CFR 761.207(a)). Currently, only PCB waste generators who own or operate PCB storage facilities subject to 40 CFR 761.65(b) or (c)(7) are required to notify EPA of their PCB waste activities and obtain an EPA identification number under 40 CFR 761.205(c)(2). This has created a subset of manifesting generators who are exempt from requirements to notify and obtain an identification number from EPA and therefore unable to register with the e-Manifest system, which requires a valid EPA identification number. As described above in section II.D.2.b of this preamble, EPA is proposing to require PCB waste generators who are currently exempt (
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 761.202(a) to provide that generators of PCB waste who are currently exempted from notifying EPA because their PCB
EPA is also proposing to remove and reserve 40 CFR 761.205(b), which required PCB waste handlers who had already notified EPA or states of their hazardous waste activities under RCRA to submit EPA Form 7710-53 by April 4, 1990, to notify EPA of their PCB waste activities and authorize use of their existing EPA identification number for PCB oversight. This one-time requirement is obsolete because EPA believes that affected entities have already complied with the 1990 deadline.
EPA also proposes to revise 40 CFR 761.66(f), Emergency Situations, to eliminate the provision allowing use of the generic ID “40 CFR PART 761” in lieu of an EPA ID on manifests for PCB waste in emergency situations while facilities wait for their identification number to be assigned. EPA believes ID issuance is no longer a time-consuming exercise due to automation of the process, such that facilities' use of the generic ID is not expected to be necessary.
In addition, EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR 761.180(a), (b), and (b)(3), 761.202(b), (c), and (d), 761.205(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) to eliminate outdated language and applicability and compliance dates related to PCB waste management activities. The dates established in 40 CFR 761.202 and 761.205, including: June 4, 1990 (40 CFR 761.202(b)); February 5, 1990 (40 CFR 761.202(c) and (d); 761.205(a)(1) and (2); 761.205(c)(2)(ii)); and April 4, 1990 (40 CFR 761.205(a)(1), (b), and (c)(2)(i)), were intended to differentiate between legacy operations and new entrants to the regulated community. Similarly, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 761.180(a), (b), and (b)(3), including the February 5, 1990, start date and the July 15, 1991, first reporting deadline, were designed to establish a baseline for annual documentation and reporting. These dates served as regulatory thresholds, determining whether facilities were subject to immediate notification and identification requirements or qualified for transitional provisions. This approach allowed EPA to bring existing PCB waste handlers into compliance while ensuring that any new PCB waste activities initiated after those dates were fully integrated into the regulatory framework from the outset.
After more than three decades, EPA believes the transitional need for these provisions has passed. Continued reliance on the generic code is unnecessary and incompatible with the e-Manifest system for tracking purposes, including in emergency situations under 40 CFR 761.66(f), where EPA proposes to eliminate the allowance for generic IDs. The regulated community has had ample time to comply, and the vast majority of PCB waste handlers now possess valid EPA IDs issued under TSCA or RCRA programs. Likewise, the historical references to initial reporting periods in 40 CFR 761.180(a), (b), and (b)(3) no longer serve a regulatory function and are outdated. To preserve the reporting cycle and enforcement clarity without anchoring the requirements to obsolete dates, EPA is proposing to revise the language in paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect ongoing obligations tied to calendar year cycles rather than historical start dates. In paragraph (b)(3), EPA is proposing to remove references to the July 15, 1991, submission date and the February 5 to December 31, 1990, reporting period, while retaining the requirement for annual reports to be submitted by July 15 of each year for the preceding calendar year.
If finalized, these proposed changes generally would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. However, under this proposed rulemaking, generators of PCB waste who are currently exempt from the notification and EPA ID assignment requirements per 40 CFR 761.205(c)(1) may continue to use the generic identification number until the paper sunset date or until they have obtained a unique EPA identification number, whichever occurs first. No later than that date, they must obtain a unique EPA identification number to register with the e-Manifest system. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
In addition to the proposed changes to 40 CFR 761.180(b)(3) discussed in the above section, EPA is further amending paragraph (b)(3) to remove language that suggests submissions of PCB annual reports should be sent to a physical address, and paragraph (b)(3)(vii) to correct that annual report submissions shall be made to the Director of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery instead of the Regional Administrator. The Agency is also revising the definition of Director, Office Resource Conservation and Recovery at 40 CFR 761.3 to add flexibility for other types of submissions besides postal mail to one address. For example, form instructions may require submission to a different postal address, a web address, or to an electronic reporting system, as applicable. Conforming changes were made to 40 CFR 761.205(a)(3) to harmonize the submission language for the PCB annual reports and the notification of PCB activity forms. EPA believes these changes improve consistency and provide flexibility for alternative submissions of PCB forms.
In addition to the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 761.207(g) described in this preamble sections II.B and II.D.1, including the sunset of paper manifests,
To support the proposed delayed compliance date for the mandatory registration requirement discussed in the preamble, EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR 761.207(g)(2)(v). These amendments would clarify that both PCB waste generators and transporters who are not registered with the EPA's e-Manifest system must arrange with interested persons listed on the manifest (
To align the registration requirement with the paper sunset date, the proposed changes would explicitly extend this obligation to unregistered transporters. This clarification aims to eliminate ambiguity about whether PCB waste generators and transporters must register with the EPA's e-Manifest system by the paper sunset date in order to fulfill their obligation to submit corrections to post-receipt data within 30 days of a request by an authorized state or EPA.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 761.208 by revising existing paragraph (a)(1), adding new paragraph (a)(3), and revising existing paragraph (b).
Similar to the hazardous waste generator requirements for obtaining manifests under 40 CFR 262.21(g)(1), PCB waste generators currently may obtain and use paper manifests from any source, so long as the source of the printed form is registered with EPA to print the paper manifest forms. As explained in this preamble section II.E.3, beginning on the paper sunset date, hazardous waste generators would no longer be allowed to obtain paper manifest forms from registered sources or use them for manifest tracking. In addition, registered printers would no longer produce these forms for use. EPA is proposing corresponding changes to 40 CFR 761.208(a)(1) and (a)(2) for PCB waste generators.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
As explained in this preamble section II.D.2.a, EPA is proposing changes to 40 CFR 761.208(b) to require all PCB waste handlers subject to manifesting during transportation to register with the EPA's e-Manifest system in order to meet existing obligations for electronic reporting, data corrections, and recordkeeping. PCB waste generators and transporters would be newly subject to this registration requirement but would have additional time to comply before paper manifests are phased out. Commercial storers and disposers of PCB waste are not expected to be impacted, as they have been actively using the system since its launch in 2018.
Under current regulations, commercial storage and disposal facilities of PCB waste are already required to submit completed manifests, whether initiated electronically or on paper, to the EPA's e-Manifest system, and to make any necessary data corrections electronically. Both obligations require facilities to maintain active accounts within the e-Manifest system, effectively mandating registration. Additionally, receiving facilities satisfy the record retention requirements under § 761.180 when they submit manifests to the system and those manifests are delivered to their registered accounts. Thus, the proposal to require that these entities register with the EPA's e-Manifest-system simply formalizes what they are already doing and supports the shift to fully electronic tracking.
EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing both new and conforming changes to the exception, discrepancy, and unmanifested waste reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 761 for PCB wastes. These changes are intended to support the transition to electronic reporting under the July 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule, clarify EPA's original intent, and ensure consistency across hazardous waste and TSCA PCB waste programs. The proposed amendments include a new requirement for PCB waste generator registration and electronic Exception Report submission, as well as conforming updates to discrepancy and unmanifested waste reporting provisions for receiving facilities.
As discussed in this preamble section II.D.2.a, EPA is proposing to require that PCB waste generators register with the EPA e-Manifest system. If finalized, the registration requirement would mandate that all generators and transporters of PCB waste register with the e-Manifest system by the paper sunset date. Prior to that date, PCB waste generators may continue to submit written Exception Reports to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. However, beginning on the paper sunset date, PCB waste generators would be required to submit electronic Exception Reports to the e-Manifest system and maintain those electronic reports in their registered accounts within the EPA national e-Manifest system. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to revise paragraph 40 CFR 761.217(c) to require that PCB waste generators submit electronic Exception Reports to the e-Manifest system beginning on the paper sunset date, or once they have obtained a unique EPA identification number, whichever occurs first, in lieu of submitting them to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. Prior to the paper sunset date, PCB waste generators that have not obtained an EPA identification number may continue to submit written Exception Reports to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator and must maintain each written Exception Report onsite for three years, consistent with 40 CFR 761.214(d). Once a PCB waste generator has obtained an EPA identification number, the generator must submit each Exception Report electronically through the EPA e-Manifest system and maintain those reports in the generator's registered e-Manifest-account, even before the paper
EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the discrepancy reporting requirements for TSCA PCB wastes to align with the electronic reporting framework established in the e-Manifest Third Rule. Specifically, EPA is proposing to delete and reserve 40 CFR 761.215(c)(1). As explained in preamble section II.E.5.b, paper-based discrepancy reporting is no longer allowed as of December 1, 2025. Facilities must comply with 40 CFR 761.215(c)(2), which mandates the use of electronic discrepancy reporting through the EPA's e-Manifest system. Additionally, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 761.215(e)(6) to extend the removal of the final copy transmittal requirement to designated alternate facilities managing full and partial load rejections. EPA intended to include this change in the e-Manifest Third Rule, which established that receiving facilities are only required to submit completed manifest copies to the e-Manifest system. EPA is proposing additional amendments in 40 CFR 761.215 to clarify that electronic recordkeeping also applies to electronic discrepancy reporting.
To further support electronic reporting, EPA is proposing to:
Add new paragraph 40 CFR 761.215(c)(3) to specify that commercial storers and disposers satisfy record retention obligations by accessing official Discrepancy Report records through the system and are not liable for failing to produce these reports during inspections if the failure is solely due to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control.
Add new paragraph 40 CFR 761.215(c)(4) to provide that commercial storers and disposers of PCB wastes would not be held liable for failing to produce electronic Discrepancy Reports during inspections if the failure is solely due to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control.
Amend 40 CFR 761.215(f)(8) to extend the electronic exception reporting requirements (40 CFR 761.217(c)) to commercial storers and disposers of PCB wastes that must prepare Exception Reports for full or partial load shipments that must be forwarded to an alternate facility or returned to the generator. EPA proposes to amend this provision by clarifying that these facilities must comply with the electronic Exception Reports under 40 CFR 761.217(a)(1) and (c) in lieu of the written report provision under 40 CFR 761.217(a)(2).
These changes would align the requirements with the Third Rule's intent and current electronic reporting practices. If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
To align with the proposal to delay compliance with the mandatory registration requirements for generators and transporters of PCB waste discussed in this preamble section II.D.2.a, EPA is proposing to modify the current requirement at 40 CFR 761.215(g). Under the current requirement, facilities that reject a waste shipment after signing, dating, and returning a copy of the manifest to the delivering transporter or generator must initiate a new manifest to document the rejection. The facility must complete the new manifest and send copies to the appropriate parties, while also maintaining records of both the original and new manifests in accordance with paper-based transmittal and recordkeeping procedures.
To support the transition to electronic manifesting, EPA is proposing to sunset the paper-based data correction, transmittal and recordkeeping requirements specified in this section. Effective on the paper sunset date, facilities would no longer be required to comply with the paper manifest procedures outlined in this paragraph. Instead, facilities would adhere to the electronic manifest data correction procedures. Specifically, if a facility rejects a waste after having signed, dated, and returned a copy of the manifest to the delivering transporter or generator, it will follow the post-receipt manifest data correction procedures described in 40 CFR 264.71(l). This would include noting the rejection in the discrepancy space of the manifest and recording the manifest tracking number from Item 4 of the new manifest in the discrepancy space of the amended manifest.
EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the unmanifested waste reporting requirements for TSCA PCB wastes to reflect the transition to electronic reporting. Specifically, EPA proposes to remove and reserve 40 CFR 761.216(a), which references written unmanifested waste reporting. This provision is now obsolete due to the establishment of electronic reporting protocols under the e-Manifest Third Rule.
To further support electronic reporting and ensure consistency with other waste programs, EPA is also proposing to add new paragraph 40 CFR 761.216(c) to specify that commercial storers and disposers satisfy record retention obligations by accessing official Unmanifested Waste Report records through the system and are not liable for failing to produce these reports during inspections if the failure is solely due to a technical issue with the e-Manifest system beyond their control. (EPA inadvertently omitted electronic recordkeeping requirements for electronic unmanifested waste reporting for commercial disposers and storers and is proposing to amend 40 CFR 761.216 accordingly.) These amendments reflect EPA's commitment to modernizing TSCA PCB waste regulations, harmonizing reporting requirements across RCRA and TSCA programs, and supporting the continued implementation of the e-Manifest system.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA is requesting comment on these proposed changes.
In addition to the proposed changes to § 761.214 described in this preamble sections II.D.2.d and II.E.3, EPA proposes to add new paragraphs 40 CFR 762.214(f) and (g) to clarify generator and transporter liability protections when the e-Manifest system is unavailable for producing manifests and exception reports during an inspection. These proposed changes would not go into effect until the paper sunset date.
This proposal aligns with the existing manifest and electronic exception reporting regulations at 40 CFR 761.207(g)(2)(iv) and 761.217(c)(4) (redesignated as 761.217(c)(3)(iv) under this proposed rule), which state that a generator may not be held liable for failing to produce an electronic manifest or exception report during inspection if the generator can demonstrate that the failure was due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest
These proposed changes would not go into effect until the paper sunset date because PCB waste generators and transporters would not be required to comply with requirements to register with the e-Manifest system until that date. As such, before the paper sunset date, unregistered generators and transporters would be required to retain any paper copies they obtain in executing waste shipments that involve paper manifests for at least three years in accordance with the existing recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 761.214(a) through (e) as these paper copies, including written Exception Reports (40 CFR 761.214(d), will be viewed as their legal copies of record.
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
Under existing 40 CFR 761.218 and 761.219, electronic certificates of disposal and one-year exception reports generated through EPA-approved electronic systems are considered legally equivalent to their paper counterparts bearing handwritten signatures. These electronic documents fulfill all regulatory requirements for completion, signature, provision, and retention. EPA is proposing revisions to paragraphs (e) and (e)(1) of 40 CFR 761.218 and 761.219 to remove references to their legal equivalency to written documents or reports. This change aligns with broader updates to electronic manifests and electronic manifest-related reporting provisions detailed in this rule and aims to ensure consistency across all PCB waste reporting obligations within the regulatory framework.
If finalized, these proposed changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is considering establishing a new signature option to supplement the electronic manifest workflow and provide flexibility to users. The goal of this option is to make the electronic manifest signature interaction as close to the paper handwritten signature process as possible. Under this option, a user would not need to be registered in order to sign or change the manifest. The printed manifest shipping paper would contain information, including instructions, a number to text to and a Quick Response (QR) code to scan with a mobile device to access the manifest via a link. Per these instructions, a user would interact with the system by texting this number or scanning the QR code, then receiving a SMS or via a link to sign and make changes to the manifest within the e-Manifest system.
Under this proposed option, the process to create the manifest remains the same, whereby any registered user can create the initial manifest in the e-Manifest system that contains the generator, initial transporter, designated facility and draft waste information. This manifest can be initiated directly in the e-Manifest system or from an industry system and submitted to the e-Manifest system via API.
When the waste is ready to be shipped and the initial transporter arrives at the generator site for pickup, the generator may review and finalize the waste information on the printed manifest, such as descriptions, containers, quantities and waste codes, and then would sign the manifest using an existing signature option or this proposed option which is further described below.
Below is the basic workflow for signing the manifest if there are no changes to the manifest:
Registered user creates the initial manifest in the e-Manifest system that contains the generator, initial transporter, designated facility and draft waste information and prints a copy and brings to the site.
User texts their EPA ID and Manifest Tracking Number (MTN) to the e-Manifest system or scans a QR code (in accordance with instructions on printed manifest).
System confirms manifest is eligible to be signed by validating the user's combination of MTN and EPA ID.
System confirms that EPA ID number matches manifest and responds with certification statements.
○ If the current signer is the generator, system sends generator a Generator/Offeror certification.
○ If the current signer is the transporter, system sends transporter(s) an Acknowledgement of Receipt.
System produces copy of a manifest (
User enters and texts/communicates the name to the system.
System accepts the provided name as the signer of the manifest and sets the current date as the date signed.
If there are changes to the manifest, the user scans the QR code that appears on the printed manifest or accesses the link and provides the MTN and EPA ID Number to obtain access. The user can make the necessary changes and proceed with the signing process using the SMS steps described above or complete the signature using the link where they would see the appropriate certification statement and provide their name to complete the signature.
The existing electronic signature workflow would remain in place where each party signs the manifest when the waste changes custody. Each party could elect to use an existing signature option, or the new proposed signature option described above.
The SMS signature option would afford the same signature timing flexibility as the remote signer policy. Currently a handler utilizing the remote signer policy must execute an electronic signature to the hazardous waste manifest within the earlier of either 24 hours from the time that a handler's field personnel received the waste from the preceding waste handler (
The table below provides a summary of EPA's proposed changes for specific waste handlers. This table does not include the technical corrections to the hazardous waste import and export requirements described in this preamble section II.E.6.c.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a state hazardous waste program to operate in lieu of the Federal program within the state. Following authorization, EPA maintains its enforcement authorities, although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility for their authorized programs. The standards and requirements for state authorization are found in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), an authorized state hazardous waste program operated entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that state. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities in that state. When new, more stringent or broader Federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to adopt equivalent authorities under state law within specified time frames. However, new requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted such equivalent authorities, and these requirements did not become part of the authorized program enforceable by EPA until EPA authorized them.
In contrast, with the enactment of RCRA section 3006(g), which was added by HSWA, new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by section 3006(g) to implement HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions in authorized states until EPA authorizes equivalent state authorities. While states must still adopt state-law equivalents to HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions to retain final authorization, until the states do so, and EPA authorizes the state-law equivalents, EPA implements and enforces these provisions in authorized states.
Authorized states are required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). If EPA promulgates a Federal requirement that is less stringent or narrower in scope than an existing requirement or of equivalent stringency, authorized states may, but are not required to, adopt a new equivalent requirement regardless of whether or not it is promulgated under HSWA authority.
The e-Manifest Act contains similar authority to HSWA with respect to Federal and state implementation responsibilities in RCRA authorized states. Section 2(g)(3) of the e-Manifest Act, entitled Administration, provides that EPA shall carry out regulations promulgated under the Act in each state unless the state program is fully authorized to carry out such regulations in lieu of EPA. Also, section 2(g)(2) of the Act provides that any regulation promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest Act shall take effect in each state (under Federal authority) on the same effective date that EPA specifies in its promulgating regulation. Thus, the result is that regulations promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest Act, like HSWA-based regulations, are implemented and enforced by EPA until the states are authorized to carry them out.
EPA changes to Federal manifest form requirements must be implemented consistently in the States and on the same effective date. See 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 4, 2005). This is true
TSCA does not grant the EPA authority to authorize States to administer the PCB program. The EPA directly implements the Federal PCB regulations in all States and territories. Because TSCA is not administered by State programs, all changes to 40 CFR part 761 become effective in all States and territories on the effective date of the rule.
All States would comply with the proposed requirements for sunsetting the use of paper manifests on and after the paper sunset date.
The remainder of this section discusses the State authorization implications for this's proposed manifest requirements.
Except for two provisions that would be promulgated under HSWA authority, the rest of this proposal would be promulgated solely under e-Manifest statutory authority. The two provisions in this proposal that would be promulgated under HSWA authority (specifically, RCRA section 3006(g)) are proposed 40 CFR 262.83(c)(5) and 262.84(c)(5), which would consist of provisions to sunset paper manifest tracking for hazardous waste export and import shipments. Therefore, when promulgated, the Agency would add these sections of the rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to the statutory authority that was added by HSWA. States must apply for final authorization for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as discussed in the following section of this preamble. The proposed regulatory provisions would contain language to sunset paper based manifest tracking. Manifest users could use paper manifests prior to the paper sunset date. Thereafter, manifest users would be required to track their waste shipments electronically via the EPA e-Manifest system. Therefore, proposed 40 CFR 262.83(c)(5) and 262.84(c)(5) would take effect under Federal authority prior to State authorization but only when the electronic manifest form is used in these States in lieu of the paper forms.
All other aspects of the proposed amendments detailed in this rule are based on the authority of the e-Manifest Act. If finalized, the EPA would implement, and regulated entities would be required to comply with these provisions in all States consistently either on the effective date of the rule or on the proposed paper sunset date. States would be required to adopt the authorizable e-Manifest Act-based provisions of this final rule in order to enforce them under State law, and to maintain manifest program consistency. However, the EPA would continue to implement and enforce these provisions until such time as the State modifies its authorized program to adopt these provisions and receives authorization from the EPA for the program modification.
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the manifest provisions in 40 CFR 264.71(j)(1) and 265.71(j)(1) and in 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. Sections 264.71(j)(1) and 265.71(j)(1) alert facilities to their fee obligations, which are outlined in 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. EPA proposes to remove the terms “electronic” and “paper” from 40 CFR 264.71(j)(1) and 265.71(j)(1) to align with EPA's regulatory shift towards fully electronic manifests and removing outdated paper-based references. These user fee provisions in subpart FF are based on the authority of the e-Manifest Act and will be implemented and enforced by the EPA on the effective date of the final rule and perpetually thereafter. The user fee provisions of subpart FF describe the methods and processes that the EPA alone will use in setting fees to recover its program costs, and in administering and enforcing the user fee requirements. Therefore, States cannot be authorized to implement or enforce any of the subpart FF provisions.
This proposed rule includes conforming changes to 40 CFR 271.10, 271.11, and 271.12, addressing the requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and receiving facilities, respectively, that must be included in authorized state programs to maintain consistency with the Federal program. These changes are designed to support EPA's transition to exclusive electronic manifesting and to ensure that authorized state programs remain consistent with the Federal requirements and procedures governing use of the national e-Manifest system.
There are three key general changes proposed across these sections, tailored to each handler category:
The following table “Summary of Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR part 271”, summarizes the proposed revisions to 40 CFR271.10, 271.11, and 271.12, outlining changes that authorized state programs must adopt to remain consistent with Federal requirements. It highlights updates across generator, transporter, and facility categories, including mandatory e-Manifest registration, the sunset of paper manifesting, and recognition of both paper and electronic formats as EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A. EPA notes that the proposed revisions sunsetting paper manifesting (40 CFR 271.10(f)(1), 271.10(j)(3), 271.11(c)(5), and 271.12(n)) would begin on the paper sunset date. All other revisions would begin upon the final rule's effective date.
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at
This proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This proposed rulemaking is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 0801.29. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The primary effect of this proposed rule will be to replace all paper-based information requirements with electronic-based requirements. The sunsetting of paper is not expected to increase burden. This ICR shows a decrease in burden and cost to 1,945,606 and $105,850,379 from the previous final rule ICR 2,585,955 and $135,404,144. Additionally, the number of respondents has been updated from previous final rule ICR of 199,796 to 103,059 to reflect active generators.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will result in cost savings for regulated entities, including small entities. The analysis supporting this conclusion is described in the Economic Assessment associated with this proposed rule.
This action does not contain unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The proposed rule is expected to lead to net annual cost savings.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rulemaking does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not impose any new requirements on Tribal officials, nor will it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. This proposed rulemaking will not create a mandate for Tribal governments,
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order.
Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply. This action is proposing the sunsetting of paper manifests in favor or electronic manifests. There are no children's health considerations for this action.
This proposed rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference.
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Recycling, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, International organizations, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous recyclable materials, Imports, Precious metal recovery, Recycling, Spent lead-acid batteries, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous Substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, 6939g, and 6974.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(3) Elects to use the paper format of the manifest form and submits to the system for data processing purposes by uploading a paper copy of the manifest (or a copy and the data from such a paper copy), in accordance with § 262.24(e) of this chapter as a contingency in the event the EPA electronic manifest system is not available.
(4) Except as provided in § 262.24(e) of this part, beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], users of the electronic manifest system may no longer use the paper manifest format of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A for all shipments initiated on and after this date. Users must obtain, complete and transmit an electronic manifest format supplied by the EPA electronic manifest system on and after the paper sunset date.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
(a) * * *
(2) Notifications submitted by mail should be sent to the following mailing address: Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Waste Identification, Notice, and Generators Division, International Waste Branch (Mail Code 2255T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, 6938 and 6939g.
(a) * * *
(1)
(3)
(a) * * *
(3) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section no longer apply. Beginning on the paper sunset date, a registrant may no longer print, or have printed, the manifest for use of distribution nor assign manifest tracking numbers to manifests and generators may no longer obtain manifests from any source authorized by EPA to produce and distribute manifest paper forms. Except as described in § 262.24(e) of this part, beginning on the paper sunset date, manifests must be obtained from and manifest tracking numbers assigned by EPA.
(a) The generator must: (1) Sign the manifest certification; and
(2) Obtain the signature of the initial transporter and date of acceptance on the manifest; (3) When a broker performs activities such as preparing the manifest or arranging the shipment (
(4) Retain one copy, in accordance with § 262.40(a).
(f) * * *
(4) Retain at the generator's site a copy of each manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's account by the designated facility which rejected the waste under the rejection or container residue procedures of § 264.72 or § 265.72
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign a manifest or manifest certification, or to obtain a signature, is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25.
(c) * * *
(2) A generator must retain at the facility the initial paper copy of the manifest for at least three years. This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter.
(e)
(i) Complete a paper copy of the electronic manifest described in paragraph (d) of this section in accordance with § 262.23 of this part, retain a copy of the printed manifest, and reproduce sufficient copies of the printed manifest in accordance with § 262.22 of this part to provide the initial transporter and all subsequent waste handlers with a copy for their files.
(ii) If the generator is unable to access the EPA e-Manifest system to print their electronic manifest due to a documented outage of the EPA's e-
(a) A generator must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's registered account by the designated facility which received the waste. In hybrid manifest situations a generator must keep the initial copy of a signed paper manifest described in § 262.24(c)(1). This initial signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter.
(b) A generator must keep a copy of Biennial Report for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report. A generator must maintain an Exception Report in the generator's registered account in the EPA's e-Manifest system.
(d) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest or electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic manifest or electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A copy of the manifest for which the generator does not have confirmation of delivery.
(b) Beginning on December 1, 2025, the EPA will no longer accept mailed paper Exception Reports from small quantity generators. Beginning on December 1, 2025, a small quantity generator must submit a copy of the manifest, with some indication that the generator has not received confirmation of delivery, to the EPA e-Manifest system. Generators that are normally VSQGs but are subject to the SQG provisions of this paragraph (b) because of an episodic generation event pursuant to § 262.232(a)(5), must also submit a copy of the manifest, with some indication that the generator has not received confirmation of delivery, to the EPA e-Manifest system.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) The exporter or a U.S. authorized agent submits Electronic Export Information (EEI) for each shipment to the Automated Export System (AES) or its successor system, under the International Trade Data System (ITDS) platform, in accordance with
(ii) Commodity classification code for each hazardous waste per 15 CFR 30.6(a)(12);
(iii) EPA consent number for each hazardous waste;
(iv) Country of ultimate destination code per 15 CFR 30.6(a)(5);
(v) Date of export per 15 CFR 30.6(a)(2);
(vi) RCRA hazardous waste manifest tracking number, if required;
(vii) Quantity of each hazardous waste in shipment and units for reported quantity, if required reporting units established by value for the reported commodity classification number are in units of weight or volume per 15 CFR 30.6(a)(15); or
(viii) EPA net quantity for each hazardous waste reported in units of kilograms if solid or in units of liters if liquid, if required reporting units established by value for the reported commodity classification number are not in units of weight or volume.
(c)
(v) Manifest data corrections must be made if the foreign facility has certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by sending a copy of the movement document to the exporter per paragraph (d)(2)(xv) of this section that documents significant differences in quantity (as defined by 40 CFR 265.72(b)) when compared with the quantity listed on the RCRA export manifest, or if the exporter has submitted an export exception report to EPA per paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section because the foreign receiving facility rejected part or all of a hazardous waste export shipment and the rejected hazardous waste was sent to an alternate management facility or returned to the generator. The post-receipt data corrections may be submitted at any time. If requested by the Director, an exporter must address manifest data corrections within 30 days from the date of the request. Data correction submissions must be made electronically via the post-receipt data corrections process as described in § 265.71(l) of this chapter, which applies to corrections made to either paper or electronic manifests.
(5) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], hazardous waste exporters may obtain, complete, sign, use, retain, and submit paper manifests to the EPA e-Manifest system to satisfy the requirements of this section. Beginning on the paper sunset date, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4)(iv) of this section, exporters must obtain, complete, sign, provide, use, and retain electronic manifests in accordance with the regulations under § 262.24 of this
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) The importer is required to provide notification in English to EPA of the proposed transboundary movement of hazardous waste at least sixty (60) days before the first shipment is expected to depart the country of export. Notifications must be submitted electronically using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system. The notification may cover up to one year of shipments of one or more hazardous wastes being sent from the same foreign exporter, and must include all of the following information:
(c)
(1) The importer must comply with the manifest requirements of §§ 262.20 through 262.25 except that:
(i) In place of the generator's name, mailing and site addresses and EPA identification number, the name and site address of the foreign generator and the importer's name, mailing address and EPA identification number must be used.
(ii) In place of the generator's signature on the certification statement, the importer or his agent must sign and date the certification and obtain the signature of the initial transporter.
(5) Except as provided in § 262.24(c)(1) and (e) of this part for paper manifest use, beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], an importer may no longer use paper manifests to satisfy the requirements under this section. Beginning on the paper sunset date, an importer must obtain, complete, sign, provide, use, or retain an electronic manifest in accordance with the regulations under §§ 262.20 through 262.25 of this part for all shipments initiated on or after this date.
(a) * * *
(3)
(8) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a very small quantity generator must use an electronic manifest for the tracking of waste shipments involving any RCRA hazardous waste initiated on or after this date, except that a very small quantity generator may comply with the manifest requirements for electronic manifest use specified under § 262.24(c)(1) and (2) of this part.
42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, 6938, and 6939g.
(a) * * *
(1)
(3)
(4)
(i) Any requirement in these regulations to sign a manifest or manifest certification, or to obtain a signature, is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of 40 CFR 262.25.
(6) * * *
(i) The transporter in possession of the hazardous waste when the electronic manifest becomes unavailable due to a documented outage of the EPA's e-Manifest system shall reproduce sufficient copies of the printed manifest that is carried on the transport vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section or obtain a manifest from the EPA's alternative e-Manifest website, complete the printed manifest in accordance with §§ 262.20
(iii) A transporter signing a replacement manifest to acknowledge receipt of the hazardous waste must ensure that each paper copy is individually signed and that a signature appears on each copy.
(d) * * *
(1) Obtain the date of delivery and the signature of that transporter or of the owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest; and
(e) * * *
(3) The delivering transporter obtains the date of delivery and signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility on either the manifest or the shipping paper; and
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Obtain the date of delivery and signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest or the shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received by the facility); and
(4) * * *
(i) Obtain the date of delivery and the signature of the next non-rail transporter on the manifest; and
(a) A transporter of hazardous waste must keep a copy of the manifest signed by the generator, himself, and the next designated transporter or the owner or operator of the designated facility until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the waste.
(c) * * *
(1) The initial rail transporter must keep a copy of the manifest and shipping paper with all the information required in § 263.20(f)(2) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the initial rail transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the waste; and
(2) The final rail transporter must keep a copy of the signed manifest (or the shipping paper if signed by the designated facility in lieu of the manifest) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the final rail transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the waste. Note: Intermediate rail transporters are not required to keep records pursuant to these regulations.
(d) A transporter who transports hazardous waste out of the United States must keep a copy of the manifest indicating that the hazardous waste left the United States until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's registered account when the manifest is submitted by the exporter.
(f) For a paper replacement manifest, a transporter described in paragraphs (a), (c), or (d) of this section must retain a copy of the paper replacement manifest described in § 263.20(a)(6) until the paper replacement manifest is submitted to the EPA e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's account when the replacement manifest is uploaded by the receiving facility.
(g) No transporter may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest for inspection under this section if the transporter can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic manifest is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the transporter bears no responsibility.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6939g.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) A facility must register and use the EPA's e-Manifest system to comply with the data correction requirements in paragraph (l) of this section, the record retention requirements in paragraph (a)(vi) of this section and the reporting requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) of this section and § 264.71(f) of this part. If a facility receives hazardous waste accompanied by a manifest, the owner, operator, or the agent of the owner/operator, must sign and date the manifest as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, that the hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space of the manifest, or that the hazardous waste was rejected as noted in the manifest discrepancy space.
(2) * * *
(i) Sign and date each copy of the manifest;
(iv) If a broker statement is provided in Item 14 of the manifest, the receiving facility must ensure that the broker's information is included in the manifest data submitted to the e-Manifest system. This requirement is satisfied when the manifest is fully electronic, and the broker's information is entered during manifest preparation. For paper or hybrid manifests, the receiving facility must coordinate with the broker, generator, and/or other listed parties to ensure the information is accurately reported at the time of manifest submission.
(v) * * *
(C)
(vi) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(b) * * *
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest and shipping paper (if signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(f)
(1) Any requirement in these regulations for the owner or operator of a facility to sign a manifest or manifest certification, or to obtain a signature, is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of 40 CFR 262.25.
(h) * * *
(1) Upon delivery of the hazardous waste to the designated facility, the owner or operator must sign and date each copy of the paper replacement manifest in Item 20 (Designated Facility Certification of Receipt) and note any discrepancies in Item 18 (Discrepancy Indication Space) of the paper replacement manifest,
(3) Within 30 days of delivery of the waste to the designated facility, the owner or operator of the facility must send a signed and dated copy of the paper replacement manifest to the EPA e-Manifest system, and
(4) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(j)
(1) As prescribed in § 264.1311, and determined in § 264.1312, an owner or operator who is a user of the electronic manifest system shall be assessed a user fee by EPA for the submission and processing of each manifest. EPA shall update the schedule of user fees and publish them to the user community, as provided in § 264.1313.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) Any requirement in § 264.74 for a facility to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Discrepancy Report in the facility's account on the EPA e-Manifest system, provided that the Discrepancy Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(4) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Discrepancy Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
(e) * * *
(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as the offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation and transmit the initial copy of the manifest to the generator via the manifest to the EPA's e-Manifest system.
(f) * * *
(8) For full or partial load rejections and container residues contained in non-empty containers that are returned to the generator, the facility must also comply with the exception reporting requirements in § 262.42(a) and (d).
(g) If a facility rejects a waste or identifies a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for “empty” containers set forth in § 261.7(b) of this chapter after it has signed, dated, and returned a copy of the manifest to the delivering transporter or to the generator, the facility must follow the post-receipt manifest data correction procedures at § 264.71(l) of this part to note the rejection or residue in the discrepancy space of its manifest. The facility must also record the manifest tracking number from Item 4 of the new manifest to the Discrepancy space of the amended manifest.
(c)(1) Any requirement in § 264.74 for a facility to keep or retain a copy of an Unmanifested Waste Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the facility's account on the EPA's e-Manifest system, provided that the Unmanifested Waste Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(2) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Unmanifested Waste Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
(a) * * *
(4) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e-Manifest system for all hazardous waste shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept paper manifest submissions or image/data file uploads for these shipments, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 264.71(h). For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests. For replacement manifests submitted under § 264.71(h), a fee will be assessed based on the method of submission, either by
(5) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system for all return shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept paper return shipment manifests or image/data file submissions, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 264.71(h). For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests. For replacement manifests submitted under § 264.71(h), a fee will be assessed based on the method of submission—either by uploading an image file or a data file representation of the paper manifest.
(b) * * *
(3) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system for all hazardous waste shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept image file uploads of paper manifests for these shipments, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 264.71(h). For such replacement manifests, the responsible representative must continue to make a CROMERR-compliant certification, and the facility will be assessed a fee based on the method of submission. For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests.
(c) * * *
(4) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system for all hazardous waste shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept data file uploads of paper manifests for these shipments, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 264.71(h). For such replacement manifests, the responsible representative must continue to make a CROMERR-compliant certification, and the facility will be assessed a fee based on the method of submission. For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, 6937, and 6939g.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) A facility must register and use the EPA's e-Manifest system to comply with the data correction requirements in paragraph (l) of this section, the record retention requirements in paragraph (a)(vi) of this section and the reporting requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) of this section and § 264.71(f) of this part. If a facility receives hazardous waste accompanied by a manifest, the owner, operator, or the agent of the owner/operator, must sign and date the manifest as indicated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, that the hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space of the manifest, or that the hazardous waste was rejected as noted in the manifest discrepancy space.
(2) * * *
(i) Sign and date each copy of the manifest;
(iv) If a broker statement is provided in Item 14 of the manifest, the receiving facility must ensure that the broker's information is included in the manifest data submitted to the e-Manifest system. This requirement is satisfied when the manifest is fully electronic, and the broker's information is entered during manifest preparation. For paper or hybrid manifests, the receiving facility must coordinate with the broker, generator, and/or other listed parties to ensure the information is accurately reported at the time of manifest submission.
(v) * * *
(C)
(vi) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(b) * * *
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest and shipping paper (if signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(f)
(1) Any requirement in these regulations for the owner or operator of a facility to sign a manifest or manifest certification, or to obtain a signature, is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of 40 CFR 262.25.
(h) * * *
(1) Upon delivery of the hazardous waste to the designated facility, the owner or operator must sign and date each copy of the paper replacement manifest in Item 20 (Designated Facility Certification of Receipt) and note any discrepancies in Item 18 (Discrepancy Indication Space) of the paper replacement manifest,
(3) Within 30 days of delivery of the waste to the designated facility, the owner or operator of the facility must send a signed and dated copy of the paper replacement manifest to the EPA e-Manifest system, and
(4) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(j)
(1) As prescribed in § 264.1311, and determined in § 264.1312, an owner or operator who is a user of the electronic manifest system shall be assessed a user fee by EPA for the submission and processing of each manifest. EPA shall update the schedule of user fees and publish them to the user community, as provided in § 264.1313.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) Any requirement in § 265.74 for a facility to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Discrepancy Report in the facility's account on the EPA e-Manifest system, provided that the Discrepancy Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(4) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Discrepancy Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
(e) * * *
(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as the offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation and transmit the initial copy of the manifest to the generator via the manifest to the EPA's e-Manifest system.
(f) * * *
(8) For full or partial load rejections and container residues contained in non-empty containers that are returned to the generator, the facility must also comply with the exception reporting requirements in § 262.42(a) and (d).
(g) If a facility rejects a waste or identifies a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for “empty” containers set forth in § 261.7(b) of this chapter after it has signed, dated, and returned a copy of the manifest to the delivering transporter or to the generator, the facility must follow the post-receipt manifest data correction procedures at § 265.71(l) of this part to note the rejection or residue in the discrepancy space of its manifest. The facility must also record the manifest tracking number from Item 4 of the new manifest to the Discrepancy space of the amended manifest.
(c)
(1) Any requirement in § 265.74 for a facility to keep or retain a copy of an Unmanifested Waste Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the facility's account on the EPA's e-Manifest system, provided that the Unmanifested Waste Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(2) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Unmanifested Waste Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
31. Amend § 265.1310 by revising the definition “Paper manifest submissions” to read as follows:
Paper manifest submissions mean submissions to the EPA e-Manifest system, by facility owners or operators, of the data from the designated facility copy of the completed paper manifest format of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A. Such submissions may be made by submitting image files from paper manifests or continuation sheets in accordance with
(a) * * *
(4) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e-Manifest system for all hazardous waste shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept paper manifest submissions or image/data file uploads for these shipments, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 265.71(h). For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests. For replacement manifests submitted under § 265.71(h), a fee will be assessed based on the method of submission, either by uploading an image file or a data file representation of the paper manifest.
(5) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system for all return shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept paper return shipment manifests or image/data file submissions, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 265.71(h). For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests. For replacement manifests submitted under § 265.71(h), a fee will be assessed based on the method of submission, either by uploading an image file or a data file representation of the paper manifest.
(b) * * *
(3) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system for all hazardous waste shipments originating on or after that date. EPA will no longer accept image file uploads of paper manifests for these shipments, except as permitted under the limited paper manifest use provisions in § 265.71(h). For such replacement manifests, the responsible representative must continue to make a CROMERR-compliant certification, and the facility will be assessed a fee based on the method of submission. For electronic manifest submissions, a fee will be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifests.
(c) * * *
(4) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e Manifest system
42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001-3009, 3014, 3017, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922, 6924-6927, 6934, and 6937.
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(j) * * *
(1) A healthcare facility must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the healthcare facility's account by the designated facility which received the non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. A healthcare facility must keep a copy of a signed paper manifest described in § 262.24(c)(1). This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter.
(2) A healthcare facility must maintain an Exception Report in the healthcare facility's registered account in the EPA's national e-Manifest system. No healthcare facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the healthcare facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the healthcare facility bears no responsibility.
(a) Shipping non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals or evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. A healthcare facility and reverse distributor operating under this subpart must register with the EPA's e-Manifest system to obtain signed and dated copies of completed manifests from the EPA e-Manifest system and comply with the manifest data correction requirement at § 262.20(a)(2) of this chapter, and the biennial reporting requirements of this part regardless of its hazardous waste generator category for non-pharmaceutical hazardous waste. A healthcare facility must ship non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals, and a reverse distributor must ship evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals off-site to a designated facility (such as a permitted or interim status treatment, storage, or disposal facility) in compliance with:
(2) * * *
(i) A healthcare facility shipping non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals is not required to list all applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers (
(ii) A healthcare facility shipping non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals must write the word “PHRM” or “PHARMS” in Item 13 of the manifest. A healthcare facility may also include the applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers (
(c)
(c) * * *
(9) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) A reverse distributor must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the reverse distributor's account by the designated facility that received the evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceutical. A reverse distributor must keep a copy of a signed paper manifest described in § 262.24(c)(1). This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the evaluated waste was accepted by the initial transporter. This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceutical was accepted by the initial transporter.
(iv) A reverse distributor must maintain an Exception Report in the healthcare facility's registered account in the EPA's national e-Manifest system. No reverse distributor may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the reverse distributor can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
42 U.S.C. 6902, 6912(a), 6924-6926, and 6930.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) A facility must register and use the EPA's e-Manifest system to comply with the data correction requirements in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, the record retention requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this section and the reporting requirements of this section and § 264.71(f) or § 265.71(f) of this part. If a facility receives hazardous waste accompanied by a manifest, the owner or operator, or his agent, must:
(4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the manifest to the EPA e-Manifest system per 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(v) or 265.71(a)(2)(v) and comply with the manifest provisions under 40 CFR part 264, subpart FF or 40 CFR part 265, subpart FF of this chapter regarding fees for the electronic hazardous waste; manifest program. If a broker statement is provided in Item 14 of the manifest, the receiving facility must ensure that the broker's information is included in the manifest data submitted to the e-Manifest system. This requirement is satisfied when the manifest is fully electronic, and the broker's information is entered during manifest preparation. For paper or hybrid manifests, the receiving facility must coordinate with the broker, generator, and/or other listed parties to ensure the information is accurately reported at the time of manifest submission.
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account; and
(7) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], facilities must submit electronic manifests to the EPA e-Manifest system in accordance with applicable regulations. Paper manifest submissions will only be accepted after the sunset date under the limited use provisions described in § 264.71(h) and must follow the applicable submission and fee requirements.
(8) Comply with the post-receipt manifest data corrections requirements at § 264.71(l) or § 265.71(l) of this part.
(b) * * *
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest and shipping paper (if signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account.
(b) Upon discovering a significant discrepancy, the owner or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the waste generator or transporter (
(c)
(1) Any requirement in § 264.74 for a facility to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Discrepancy Report in the facility's account on the EPA e-Manifest system, provided that the Discrepancy Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(2) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.
The additions read as follows:
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) The State shall have authority to require all generators register with and use the EPA's e-Manifest system for data corrections, record retention and reporting. States must require that generators comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements equivalent to those under 40 CFR 262.40 and 262.41. States that choose to receive electronic documents must include the requirements of 40 CFR part 3-(Electronic reporting) in their Program (except that states that choose to receive electronic manifests and/or permit the use of electronic manifests must comply with any applicable requirements for e-Manifest in this section of this section).
(f) * * *
(1) Use a manifest system that ensures that interstate and intrastate shipments of hazardous waste are designated for delivery and, in the case of intrastate shipments, are delivered to facilities that are authorized to operate under an approved state program or the Federal program. The manifest system must require the use of the paper or electronic manifest formats as required by § 262.20(a) of this chapter. No other paper or electronic format of the manifest form, shipping paper, or information other than that required by Federal requirements, may be required by the state to travel with the shipment, or to be transmitted electronically, as a means to track the transportation and delivery of hazardous waste shipments. No other electronic signature other than that required by the Federal electronic manifest requirements may be required by a state to be executed in connection with the signing of an electronic manifest. Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the manifest system must require the use of the electronic manifest format as required by § 262.20(a)(3) of this chapter. Authorized state programs must ensure that all off-site shipments of hazardous waste are tracked exclusively through the EPA's national e-Manifest system. The use of paper manifests is no longer permitted for shipments initiated on or after the paper sunset date, except as specifically authorized under § 262.24 (c)(1) or (e) of this chapter.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, ensure that all wastes offered for transportation are accompanied by an electronic or paper format of the manifest form, except:
(h) The state must follow the Federal manifest format for the paper and electronic format of the manifest forms (EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A) and their instructions. The state must follow the Federal electronic manifest format and instructions as obtained from the Electronic Manifest System described in § 260.10 of this chapter.
(j) * * *
(3) The State program must require that exporters of hazardous waste comply with requirements equivalent to those under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H. States must ensure that exporters use the EPA e-Manifest system to initiate and track all export shipments of hazardous waste, consistent with §§ 262.82(a) and 262.83(b). For shipments initiated on or after the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the use of paper manifests is no longer permitted, except as specifically authorized under emergency or contingency provisions. Exporters must submit an electronic format of the manifest form to the EPA's e-Manifest system in accordance with § 262.83(c)(4) and must retain electronic records in accordance with § 262.40(a). State programs must incorporate the requirements of 40 CFR part 3—(Electronic Reporting) and ensure consistency with Federal electronic manifesting procedures for export shipments.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) The State shall have authority to require and must require all transporters register and use the EPA's e-Manifest system for data corrections, record retention and reporting. Transporters must comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements equivalent
(c)
(1) The State must require the transporter to carry the paper format of manifest forms (EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A) during transport, or, where the electronic manifest format of the forms is used and the U. S. Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR parts 171 through 180, require a paper shipping document on the transport vehicle, to carry one printed copy of the electronic manifest during transport, except in the case of shipments by rail or water, for which transporters may carry a shipping paper as specified in 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f).
(5) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the use of paper manifests is no longer permitted, except as specifically authorized under § 263.20(a)(6) of this part. The State must require transporters to use the electronic manifest format exclusively beginning on the paper sunset date and to carry a printed copy of the electronic manifest only when required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR parts 171 through 180. The State program must ensure that transporters comply with all applicable requirements for electronic manifesting under § 263.20(a)(4) of this chapter, except when access to the EPA system is unavailable. In such instances, the state must require that the transporter comply with paper replacement manifest procedures during transport in accordance with § 263.20(a)(6) of this chapter.
(h) Inspections, monitoring, registration with and use of EPA's e-Manifest system (for manifest data correction and recordkeeping), and reporting. States that choose to receive electronic documents must include the requirements of 40 CFR part 3-(Electronic reporting) in their Program (except that states that choose to receive electronic manifests and/or permit the use of electronic manifests must comply with paragraph (i) of this section);
(n) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], requirements for owners and operators to submit electronic manifests to the EPA e-Manifest system in lieu of paper manifests except when electronic manifests are unavailable. In such instances, requirements for owners and operators to submit paper replacement manifests in accordance with §§ 264.71(h) and 265.71(h) of this chapter.
15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616 and 42 U.S.C. 6939g.
(a) PCBs and PCB Items in service or projected for disposal. Each owner or operator of a facility, other than a commercial storer or a disposer of PCB waste, using or storing at any one time at least 45 kilograms (99.4 pounds) of PCBs contained in PCB Container(s), or one or more PCB Transformers, or 50 or more PCB Large High or Low Voltage Capacitors shall develop and maintain at the facility, or a central facility provided they are maintained at that facility, all annual records and the written annual document log of the disposition of PCBs and PCB Items. The written annual document log must be prepared for each facility by July 1 covering the previous calendar year (January through December). The annual document log shall be maintained for at least three years after the facility ceases using or storing PCBs and PCB Items in the quantities prescribed in this paragraph (a). Annual records shall be maintained for the same period. The annual records and the annual document log shall be available for inspection at the facility where they are maintained by authorized representatives of EPA during normal business hours, except that manifests in the annual records instead may be maintained electronically in EPA's e-Manifest system in accordance with § 761.180(f)(2), and each owner or operator of a facility subject to these requirements shall know the location of these records.
(b) Disposers and commercial storers of PCB waste. Each owner or operator of a facility (including high efficiency boiler operations) used for the commercial storage or disposal of PCBs
(3) The owner or operator of a PCB disposal facility (including an owner or operator who disposes of their own waste and does not receive or generate manifests) or a commercial storage facility shall submit an annual report using EPA Form 6200-025, which briefly summarizes the records and annual document log required to be maintained and prepared under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to the Director, Office Resource Conservation and Recovery by July 15 of each year. The annual report shall contain no confidential business information. The annual report shall consist of the information listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(vii) The requirement to submit annual reports to the Director, Office Resource Conservation and Recovery continues until the submission of the annual report for the calendar year during which the facility ceases PCB storage or disposal operations. Storage operations have not ceased until all PCB waste, including any PCB waste generated during closure, has been removed from the facility.
The revisions and addition as follows:
(a) * * * No later than the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], generators of PCB waste whose PCB waste activities are not described under § 761.205(c)(2) of this part, must have obtained an EPA identification number using the notification procedures and form described in § 761.205(a)(2) solely for the purpose of registering with the EPA e-Manifest system.
(b)
(1) * * *
(i) Process, store, dispose of, transport, or offer for transportation PCB waste without having received an EPA identification number from EPA. A generator of PCB waste who is exempted from notification under § 761.205(c)(1), shall be regarded as having received from EPA the identification number “40 CFR PART 761” only until the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], or until they have obtained a unique EPA identification number, whichever occurs first. Beginning on the paper sunset date, these generators must have obtained a unique EPA identification number in accordance with § 761.205(a)(2) of this part and shall not offer for transportation PCB waste without having received an EPA identification number from EPA.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) All generators (other than generators whose PCB waste activities are not described under paragraph (c)(2) of this section), commercial storers, transporters, and disposers of PCB waste shall notify EPA of their PCB waste activities by filing EPA Form 7710-53 with EPA prior to engaging in PCB waste handling activities. Upon receiving the notification form, EPA will assign an EPA identification number to each entity that notifies.
(2) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], generators of PCB waste whose PCB waste activities are not described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, must comply with the notification requirements in paragraph (a) of this section by having filed EPA Form 7710-53, except for paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of this section. These generators shall notify EPA in order to comply with the e-Manifest registration requirement at § 761.208(b) of this part.
(3) Any person required to notify EPA under this section shall submit EPA Form 7710-53 to the Director, Office Resource Conservation and Recovery.
(c) * * *
(1) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], generators of PCB waste need not notify EPA and receive unique EPA identification numbers under this section, unless their PCB waste activities are described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Generators exempted from notifying EPA under this paragraph (c) shall use the generic identification number “40 CFR PART 761” on the manifests, records, and reports which they shall prepare under this subpart, unless such generators elect to use a unique EPA identification number previously assigned to them under RCRA by EPA or a State or until an EPA identification number has been assigned to them under TSCA by EPA. No later than the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
(2) * * *
(i) Generators storing PCB waste subject to the storage requirements of § 761.65 (b) or (c)(7) shall notify EPA by filing EPA Form 7710-53 with EPA.
(ii) Generators who desire to commence storage of PCB waste shall notify EPA and receive an EPA identification number before they may commence storage of PCBs at their facilities established under § 761.65 (b) or (c)(7).
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Except as provided in § 262.24(c) and (e) of this chapter, beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a person required to prepare a manifest under this section may no longer prepare and use paper formats of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A, or any other PCB manifest continuation sheet. Beginning on the paper sunset date, a person required to prepare a manifest under this section must prepare and use an electronic manifest in accordance with § 262.24 of this chapter and must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 3.10 for the reporting of electronic documents to the EPA.
(2) Use of electronic manifest. Electronic manifests that are obtained, completed, and transmitted in accordance with § 262.20(a)(3) of this chapter, and used in accordance with §§ 262.20, 262.24, and 262.25 of this chapter in electronic manifest format of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A, satisfy for all purposes any requirement in subpart K of this part to obtain, complete, sign, provide, use, or retain a manifest.
(i) Any requirement in subpart K of this part to sign a manifest or manifest certification, or to obtain a signature, is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25 of this chapter.
(ii) Any requirement in
(iv) No person may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest for inspection under this section if the generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic manifest is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
(v) After facilities have certified that the manifest is complete, by signing it at the time of submission to the EPA e-Manifest system, any post-receipt data corrections may be submitted at any time by any interested person (
(a) * * *
(1) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a generator may use manifests printed by any source so long as the source of the printed form has received approval from EPA to print the manifest under 40 CFR 262.21(c) and (e). A registered source may be a:
(3) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies. Except as described in § 262.24(e) of this chapter, beginning on the paper sunset date, a generator may no longer use paper manifests and manifests must be obtained from and have manifest tracking numbers assigned by EPA's e-Manifest system.
(b) Generators, commercial storers and disposers, and transporters of PCB waste must register with the EPA e-Manifest system to obtain signed and dated copies of completed manifests from the EPA e-Manifest system and comply with the manifest data correction, recordkeeping, and electronic reporting requirements of this part. Generators and transporters of PCB waste must register with the EPA e-Manifest system no later than the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) The generator must do each of the following:
(1) Sign the manifest certification;
(2) Obtain the signature of the initial transporter and date of acceptance on the manifest;
(3) When a broker performs activities such as preparing the manifest or arranging the shipment (
(4) Retain one copy, in accordance with § 761.214(a)(1).
(e) * * *
(4) Retain at the generator's site a copy of each manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's account by the designated facility which rejected the waste under the manifest procedures of § 761.215(e) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) If a broker statement is provided in Item 14 of the manifest, the commercial storage or disposal facility must ensure that the broker's information is included in the manifest data submitted to the e-Manifest system. This requirement is satisfied when the manifest is fully electronic, and the broker's information is entered during manifest preparation. For paper or hybrid manifests, the commercial storage or disposal facility must coordinate with the broker, generator, and/or other listed parties to ensure the information is accurately reported at the time of manifest submission.
(b) * * *
(5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest and shipping paper (if signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the facility's registered account. No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest or Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic manifest is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the electronic manifest system for which the owner or operator bears no responsibility.
(f) Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a commercial storage or disposal facility must submit electronic manifests to the EPA's e-Manifest system in accordance with applicable regulations for all shipments initiated on or after this date. Paper manifest submissions will only be accepted after this date under the limited use provisions described in § 265.71(h) of this chapter and must follow the applicable submission and fee requirements under paragraph (e) of this section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a generator must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 761.210(a) for three years or until they receive a signed copy from the designated facility which received the PCB waste. This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. A generator who is registered with EPA's e-Manifest system and maintains access to e-Manifest can use the records stored in e-Manifest to satisfy the manifest recordkeeping requirement of this paragraph. Such generators must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste. Beginning on the paper sunset date, a generator must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste. In hybrid manifest situations, a generator must keep the initial copy of a signed paper manifest described in § 262.24(c)(1). This initial signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. A generator subject to annual document requirements under § 761.180 shall retain copies of each manifest in accordance with this paragraph (a).
(2) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a transporter of PCB waste must keep a copy of the manifest signed by the generator, himself, and the next designated transporter or the owner or operator of the designated facility for a period of three years from the date the PCB waste was accepted by the initial transporter. A transporter who is registered with e-Manifest and maintains access to e-Manifest can use the records stored in e-Manifest to satisfy the manifest recordkeeping requirement of this paragraph. These transporters must keep a copy of each manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste. Beginning on the paper sunset date, a transporter must keep a copy of each manifest signed in accordance with § 262.23(a) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste.
(c) * * *
(1) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the initial rail transporter must keep a copy of the manifest and shipping paper with all the information required in § 761.211(f)(2) for a period of three years from the date the PCB waste was accepted by the initial transporter. An initial rail transporter who is registered with e-Manifest and maintains access to e-Manifest can use the records stored in e Manifest to satisfy the manifest recordkeeping requirement of this paragraph (c). These transporters must keep a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the generator's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste; beginning on the paper sunset date, the initial rail transporter must keep a copy of the manifest until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the transporter's registered account by the designated facility which received the PCB waste; and
(2) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the final rail transporter must keep a copy of the signed manifest (or the shipping paper if signed by the designated facility in lieu of the manifest) for a period of three years from the date the PCB waste was accepted by the initial transporter. The final rail transporter who is registered with e-Manifest and maintains access to e-Manifest can use the records stored in e Manifest to satisfy the manifest recordkeeping requirement of this paragraph. These transporters must keep a copy of the signed manifest (or the shipping paper if signed by the designated facility in lieu of the manifest) until the manifest is submitted to the EPA's e-Manifest system and delivered to the
Note to paragraph (c): Intermediate rail transporters are not required to keep records pursuant to these regulations.
(d) Prior to the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], a generator must keep a copy of each Exception Report for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report. Beginning on the paper sunset date, a generator must maintain each Exception Report in the generator's registered account in the EPA's e-Manifest system.
(f) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest or electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
(g) No transporter may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic manifest for inspection under this section if the transporter can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) Any requirement in § 761.180(f)(2) for a facility to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Discrepancy Report in the facility's account on the EPA e-Manifest system, provided that the Discrepancy Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(4) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Discrepancy Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
(e) * * *
(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as the offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation and transmit the initial copy of the manifest to the generator via the manifest to EPA's e-Manifest system.
(f) * * *
(8) For full or partial load rejections that are returned to the generator, the facility must also comply with the exception reporting requirements in § 761.217 (a)(1) and (c).
(g) * * * Beginning on the paper sunset date [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the paper transmittal and recordkeeping requirements in this paragraph (g) no longer apply. Beginning on the paper sunset date, if a facility rejects a waste after it has signed, dated, and returned a copy of the manifest to the delivering transporter or to the generator, the facility must follow the post-receipt manifest data correction procedures at § 264.71(l) of this chapter to note the rejection in the discrepancy space of its manifest. The facility must also record the manifest tracking number from Item 4 of the new manifest to the Discrepancy space of the amended manifest.
(c)
(1) Any requirement in this part for a facility to keep or retain a copy of an Unmanifested Waste Report upon request is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Discrepancy Report in the facility's account on the EPA e-Manifest system, provided that the Discrepancy Report is readily available if requested by the EPA.
(2) No facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Unmanifested Waste Report for inspection under this section if the facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e- Manifest system for which the facility bears no responsibility.
(a)
(1) A generator of PCB waste, who does not receive a copy of the manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility within 45 days of the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter, shall immediately contact the transporter and/or the owner or operator of the designated facility to determine the status of the PCB waste.
(b) * * *
(1) The copy of the manifest received by the generator must have the signature of the owner or operator of the alternate facility in place of the signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility, and
(c) Prior to the paper manifest sunset date, a generator may submit Exception Reports electronically through the EPA e-Manifest system in lieu of paragraph (a) of this section unless the generator has obtained an EPA identification number, in which case the generator must submit any Exception Report electronically through the e-Manifest system. Beginning on the paper manifest sunset date, a generator must submit and retain all Exception Reports electronically through the EPA e-Manifest system. The Exception Report shall include the following:
(1) A copy of the manifest for which the generator does not have confirmation of delivery.
(2) An explanation of the efforts taken to locate the hazardous waste and the results of those efforts.
(3) Electronic Exception Reports that are originated in the EPA e-Manifest system in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and used in accordance with this section satisfy for all purposes any requirement in this section to complete, sign, provide, and retain an Exception Report.
(i) Any requirement in this section to sign an Exception Report certification is satisfied by signing with a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25 of this chapter.
(ii) Any requirement in this section to give, provide or send an Exception
(iii) Any requirement in § 761.214 for a generator to keep or retain a copy of an Exception Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Exception Report in the generator's account on the national e-Manifest system, provided that the Exception Report is readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized State inspector.
(iv) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
(e) Electronic certificates of disposal that are originated in an EPA-approved electronic system in accordance with this section satisfy for all purposes any requirement in this section to complete, sign, provide, and retain a certificate of disposal.
(1) Any requirement in this section to sign a certificate of disposal is satisfied by signing with a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25 of this chapter.
(e) Electronic One-year Exception Reports that are originated in an EPA-approved electronic system in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and used in accordance with this section satisfy for all purposes any requirement in this section to complete, sign, provide, and retain a One-year Exception Report.
(1) Any requirement in this section to sign a One-year Exception Report certification is satisfied by signing with a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25 of this chapter.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule to revise its reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations. The proposed rule would make the RIF regulations more streamlined, efficient, and merit-based by prioritizing performance over tenure and length of service when determining which employees will be retained in a RIF and modifying the types of employees who are excluded from RIF competition. OPM also proposes to revise its regulations regarding the reemployment priority list (RPL), career transition assistance program (CTAP), the interagency career transition assistance program (ICTAP), transfers of function, and furloughs.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2026.
You may submit comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this
Mr. Noah Peters at (202) 606-0960 or by email at
OPM is proposing to revise its regulations governing a RIF and make related changes to its regulations under statutory authority found at 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 1302, 3304, 3320, 3330, 3502, 3503, 3596, 4305, and 4315.
For approximately 150 years, Congress has recognized Federal agencies' authority to engage in RIFs. The first such statute, enacted in 1876, required that veterans receive a preference over other employees when such reductions were undertaken. 19 Stat. 169 (Aug. 15, 1876); see also
Later, the Executive Branch implemented a system whereby employees were placed into classes for purposes of determining which positions would be eliminated in a RIF. In 1921, President Harding issued an executive order directing demotions and dismissals of employees with the lowest ratings in each class, with a preference provided to veterans. Executive Order (E.O.) 3560. A subsequent executive order issued by President Coolidge in 1929 detailed how to categorize employees during a RIF. E.O. 5068. The Civil Service Commission then issued regulations that codified the various requirements governing RIFs. United States Civil Service Commission, Departmental Circular No. 372 (Sept. 4, 1942). These regulations recognized that a RIF may be “necessary because of insufficient appropriations, consolidation of functions, diminution of work, or other reason, whereby one or more employees serving in other than temporary appointments will be required to be dropped from the rolls.”
As World War II concluded, a widespread understanding emerged that the Federal Government would need to shrink dramatically as the nation shifted from a wartime footing to a peace-time posture. President Roosevelt recognized that agencies may need to undertake reductions in personnel: “Veterans should be accorded special consideration in connection with any reductions in total personnel which it may be necessary for Federal agencies to work out from time to time.” H.R. Rep. No. 78-1289 (1944). Congress then enacted the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. The intent of the statute was to “give legislative sanction to existing veterans' preference, to the rules and regulations in the executive branch of the Government. . . .”
Similarly, in enacting the Federal Employee Pay Act of 1945, Congress recognized the Executive Branch's authority to reduce the size of the Government. A Senate Committee Report preceding enactment of the Act stated: “It was the feeling of the committee that the interests of efficiency and economy could best be served a policy of reduction of force in many Government agencies. By this proposal, authority of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to fix ceilings for agencies within the executive branch is extended to all employees of executive agencies, including the Postal Service, Wage Board employees as well as employees subject to the Classification Act.” S. Rep. No. 79-265, at 6 (1945).
In 1944, the Civil Service Commission exercised the authority delegated by the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 to enact regulations governing reductions in force. See 9 FR 9575 (Aug. 8, 1944). The regulations encouraged agencies to proactively manage the size of their workforce. “Looking ahead for changes in workloads, available funds and employee turnover, and restricting appointments in certain lines of work
In the 1966 recodification of Title 5, Congress amended the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 428 (1966). The amended statute provided: “[t]he Civil Service Commission shall prescribe regulations for the release of competing employees in a reduction in force which give due effect to” four specified factors. The current version of the statute is substantively the same, with OPM substituted for the Civil Service Commission. 5 U.S.C. 3502. It provides that OPM “shall prescribe regulations for the release of competing employees in a reduction in force which give due effect to—(1) tenure of employment; (2) military preference, subject to section 3501(a)(3) of this title; (3) length of service; and (4) efficiency or performance ratings.” 5 U.S.C. 3502(a)(1)-(4).
In addition, the RIF statute provides that a preference eligible employee with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more whose performance has not been rated “unacceptable” is entitled to be retention preference ahead of other veterans.
The regulations acknowledge agencies' discretion when deciding that a RIF is necessary. An agency conducting a RIF must determine the categories within which positions are required, where those positions are to be located, and when those positions are to be filled, abolished, or vacated. § 351.201(a)(1). These agency decisions include determining when there are too many employees at a particular location in a particular line of work. The regulations further emphasize that, when an agency determines a RIF is necessary, the agency is responsible for following and applying the RIF regulations. § 351.204.
On numerous occasions since the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 was enacted, the Federal Government has exercised its authority to conduct RIFs. As noted, widespread reductions in the Federal workforce were necessary after World War II ended. See 64 Ann. Rep. U.S. Civil Service Comm'n 10 (1946-1947). President Truman acknowledged the widespread reductions in force and expressed hope that separated employees would be able to compete for other Federal positions. President Truman also noted that “[i]t is unrealistic to expect . . . that all these employees can be placed in current vacancies in the Federal service, which very properly is contracting in size.” Harry S Truman, Statement by the President on Federal Employees Displaced by the Reduction-in-Force (Sept. 3, 1949),
The 1980s also featured Executive Branch-led efforts to reduce the Federal workforce, including through RIFs. These efforts were undertaken under the Reagan Administration's policy of reducing the size of Government. As President Reagan explained in a radio address, “[f]ifteen departments, agencies, and commissions have been able to reduce their payroll numbers by 20 percent or more.” Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Federal Civilian Employment (Aug. 20, 1983),
In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration maintained the policies of the Reagan Administration, both in terms of reducing the number of Federal employees and in exercising control over agencies to ensure that they were responsive to the President's policy goals. To promote the goal of reducing the size of the Federal Government, President Clinton issued E.O. 12839 the month after he took office. E.O. 12839, 58 FR 8515 (Feb. 10, 1993). The order outlined a plan to reduce 100,000 Federal positions. E.O. 12839 relied upon the President's authority under the Constitution and U.S. statutes, including 3 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 3301, and 31 U.S.C. 1111. The order required each executive department or agency with over 100 employees to eliminate at least 4 percent of its civilian personnel positions (on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis) over 3 fiscal years. It further instructed that the eliminated positions were to be vacated through attrition or “early out programs” established at the discretion of the agency heads. The E.O. also required at least 10 percent of the reductions to come from the Senior Executive Service, GS-15 and GS-14 levels or equivalent. Target dates for the reductions were 25 percent of total reductions by the end of fiscal year (FY) 1993 and 62.5 percent by the end of FY 1994, with the reductions complete by the end of FY 1995. Finally, the E.O. created a role for OMB in the implementation of these cuts, instructing the Director of OMB to issue guidance directing agencies on how to implement the order and allowing OMB to create exemptions as necessary to ensure the continued delivery of essential services and compliance with applicable law.
Later in 1993, President Clinton signed a presidential memorandum entitled “Streamlining the Bureaucracy” in which he directed each executive agency head to submit a streamlining plan to the OMB Director as part of a goal to reduce the executive branch civilian work force by 252,000. 58 FR 48583 (Sept. 11, 1993). Also in 1993, President Clinton signed a presidential memorandum directing executive agencies to appoint officials responsible for, among other things, overseeing agency-specific application of personnel reductions. Implementing Management Reform in the Executive Branch, 58 FR 52393 (Oct. 1, 1993). Ultimately, during the Clinton Administration, there was a substantial reduction in the number of Federal employees, approximating 400,000, due in part to the implementation of RIFs.
More recently, under President Trump, agencies prepared RIF and reorganization plans pursuant to E.O. 14210,
In 2025, the Trump Administration oversaw the largest peacetime reduction in the size of the Federal workforce ever, some 317,000 employees (for a net reduction of about 250,000 employees). However, the overwhelming majority of these departures (over 92.5%) were due to voluntary programs like the Deferred Resignation Program, Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, and other voluntary resignations. Only a very small percentage of departures resulted from RIFs.
Since RIF rules were codified in the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, Congress has given OPM (and its predecessor agency the Civil Service Commission) broad authority to establish regulations necessary for agencies to effectuate reductions in force. Despite statutory amendments necessitating revisions to these regulations over the years, the amount of discretion provided to OPM by Congress remains broad.
The applicable statute (5 U.S.C. 3502) directs OPM to prescribe regulations “for the release of competing employees in a reduction in force” that give “due effect” to four factors: tenure of employment; military preference, length of service; and efficiency or performance ratings.
Through its years of administering RIF rules, which include adjudicating requests for recognition of new competitive areas under 5 CFR 351.402 and shortened notice periods under 5 CFR 351.801, as well as providing extensive guidance, technical assistance, and RIF services to agencies on a reimbursable basis, OPM has accrued a deep knowledge and unique perspective on the application of these provisions by Federal agencies and their impact on the Federal workforce. In the 21st century these rules have become cumbersome and inflexible. Congress has granted agencies broad powers to reorganize and restructure their workforce and has granted OPM broad regulatory authority to implement appropriate RIF procedures (see 5 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter II). But current RIF rules have calcified to the extent that they impede timely, if not effective, agency restructuring efforts due to the considerable investment in agency resources needed to invoke them. Over the decades, this disparity has been grinding against the changing needs of agencies which oftentimes include large-scale and urgent workforce restructurings.
For example, one author (an experienced former Federal employee and consultant for Federal agencies) called the current OPM RIF regulations “the ultimate bureaucratic poison pill.” Fred Mills,
OPM has seen these inefficiencies play out over the past year. OPM has seen how the current regulatory framework has not always supported agency downsizing efforts in an efficient manner. In 2025, OPM provided technical policy advice on, as well as provided advice and assistance and ran (on a reimbursable basis) numerous RIFs for Federal agencies. The cumbersome and intricate rules make RIFs more time-consuming and resource intensive than necessary and create the possibility of more errors when agencies attempt implementation. Further, the current rules prioritize tenure and length of service over performance ratings, meaning that high-performing employees may be separated while lower-performing, but more senior employees, may be retained in a RIF. As a result, agencies need a more streamlined and merit-based regulatory framework to support their workforce reshaping requirements.
In light of this, OPM is proposing these changes to improve the efficiency of the RIF process to effect better outcomes with less burden on agencies invoking these rules, and to increase the focus on merit in determining retention standing. The current regulatory framework has been in place for decades and emphasizes tenure and length of service, non-merit factors, over employee performance. As discussed in more detail in section IV.A., RIF rules have become outdated and lack the flexibility that agencies need when downsizing in the modern environment. Simply put, the current regulations are antiquated and no longer reflect the needs of agencies operating in the 21st century. This framework may have been appropriate for an earlier time but has not kept pace with changes in the size, scope, and organizational complexity of Federal agencies, or the development and establishment of many positions those agencies rely upon. Instead, the current regulatory framework resembles the one in place in the late 1940s.
OPM is addressing this challenge by proposing a more efficient and merit-based set of RIF rules that agencies can use in conjunction with other modern downsizing tools, such as Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (
OPM, under its statutory authority in 5 U.S.C. 3502, is proposing, in accordance with the procedural requirements under 5 U.S.C. 1103(b), to amend its regulations at subparts B, C, E, and H of 5 CFR part 351 and to make corresponding changes to part 316, subpart I, part 330, subparts A, B, D, F, and G, part 351, subparts D, F, and G, part 362, subpart B, and part 430, subpart B, to streamline, consolidate and revise tenure groups I, II, III into a “competitive service tenure group” and an “excepted service tenure group,” along with two subgroups for each tenure group, as well as to prioritize
OPM proposes to modify § 351.201(a)(2) to remove from the list of actions that require agencies to use RIF procedures reclassification of an employee's position due to erosion of duties if the action would take effect after an agency had formally announced a RIF in the employee's competitive area and the RIF would take effect within 180 days.
In 1986 revisions to its regulations, OPM generally removed reclassifications due to erosion in duties from among the categories of actions subject to RIF procedures.
Upon review, OPM considers it unreasonable and impracticable to require agencies to follow RIF procedures, including building a retention register, when they reclassify an employee's position based on erosion of duties within 180 days of an announced RIF. Indeed, OPM is not aware of any agency actually executing an erosion-of-duties reclassification action using RIF procedures since the 1986 revision to its regulations. It is therefore confusing to include erosion-of-duties reclassifications within 180 days of an announced RIF as one of the categories of actions that require agencies to follow RIF procedures, and OPM thus proposes to remove this category from § 351.201(a)(2).
To address the earlier-expressed concern of commenters about agencies using erosion-of-duties reclassifications to engage in RIF manipulation, OPM proposes to revise § 351.202(c)(3) to straightforwardly bar agencies from undertaking an erosion-of-duties reclassification action between the time an agency has formally announced a reduction in force in the employee's competitive area and the completion of the reduction in force, where the reclassification action would adversely affect an employee's retention standing in the proposed reduction in force.
Proposed § 351.202(b) and (c) rename these paragraphs `Employees exempted' and `Actions exempted' because covered individuals and actions described therein are not subject to part 351.
Proposed § 351.202(d),
Proposed new § 351.202(d) establishes the list of employees excluded from RIF procedures, as they fall outside the definition of “competing employees” under 5 U.S.C. 3502(a) whose release due to furlough, separation, demotion, or reassignment due to lack of work, shortage of funds, insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization, or the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights is subject to RIF procedures. Since U.S.C. 3502 does not define “competing employees,” OPM has for many years supplied by regulation a definition of the categories of “competing employees” whose release is subject to RIF procedures.
OPM has long defined “competing employees” by reference to tenure groups, differentiated by such factors as whether the employee has competitive status and has completed a probationary period, whether the employee has career or career-conditional status, and whether the employee is serving a temporary, term or indefinite appointment. The statutory term “competing employees” most naturally refers to employees in the competitive service whose appointment has been finalized;
Congress has broadly directed that appointments to the excepted service also follow the principle of veterans' preference,
OPM is now updating its definition of “competing employees,” and, in proposed § 351.202(d), is specifying expressly the categories of employees who fall outside RIF competition. OPM's revised definition of “competing employees” includes employees in the competitive service tenure group and the excepted service tenure group. The competitive service tenure group includes all employees in the competitive service with a career who, as of the date of the applicable RIF notice, are not serving an initial probationary period or a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less under subpart C or subpart D of part 316 of this chapter. The competitive service tenure group is further divided between tenure subgroup I (consisting of all career employees, as that term is used in part 315 of this chapter [typically those employees with more than 3 years of creditable service]) and subgroup II (all other competitive service employees who have completed an initial probationary period and are not serving under a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less).
The excepted service tenure group is defined as all employees occupying a career position (as defined in part 213 of this chapter) in the excepted service
OPM is also providing a formal definition of “reduction in force”: the release of a competing employee from his or her competitive level by furlough for more than 30 days, separation, or demotion, or reassignment requiring displacement, when the release is required because of lack of work; shortage of funds; insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization; or the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights. This definition closely tracks the longstanding coverage of OPM's RIF regulations, as reflected in 5 CFR 351.201(a)(2). Since the procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 3502(d) only apply to employees who are released “due to a reduction in force,” employees who are not “competing employees” may be retained or separated independent of “competing employees,” and they do not require the notice set for in 5 U.S.C. 3502(d) when they are separated, furloughed, released, or reassigned.
Under OPM's revised definition of “competing employees,” and its definition of “reduction in force,” several enumerated groups of employees would be excluded from RIF competition. Proposed § 351.202(d) specifies that the provisions of this part do not apply to these groups of employees. Thus, an employee holding one of these appointments may be retained, furloughed, separated, demoted or reassigned without regard to the provisions of this part. They include employees on time-limited appointments of 1 year or less and employees serving probationary and trial periods. These are typically more junior, less-tenured employees who have historically been the first ones separated in a RIF. Specifying that the retention, furlough, separation, demotion or reassignment of these employees is not subject to RIF procedures would streamline RIF processes and the management of these positions without unduly disadvantaging these employees. Exempting these employees from RIF procedures would in fact make it more likely that they could continue Federal employment, as it would enable agencies to retain such employees without regard to their standing in a retention register.
Under OPM's definition of “competing employees,” employees in the competitive service who are serving an initial probationary period would be excluded from RIF procedures. OPM is making this change for several reasons.
OPM notes that, however, a supervisory or managerial employee with career tenure but who is only on probation with respect to those supervisory or managerial functions (
The proposed paragraph (d) also enumerates many exclusions for excepted service positions from the RIF procedures. For example, employees holding a career position (as defined in part 213 of this chapter,
In addition, competitive and excepted service employees who are serving temporary or time-limited appointments of 1 year or less would be excluded from RIF competition. In the case of employees serving temporary or time-limited appointments of 1 year or less, it is unnecessarily burdensome to require agencies to undergo RIF procedures to separate such employees before their expected end date. OPM has traditionally excluded at least some categories of employees on temporary appointments of less than a year from RIF competition. For example, in its
Excluding these categories of employees would streamline the operation of a RIF, while making it more likely that an agency would be able to retain these employees, as the decision to retain or separate these employees would no longer depend on their retention standing. Employees holding such appointments could be retained or separated without regard to RIF procedures. In addition, Schedule C and Schedule G appointments would expressly not be subject to RIF procedures. (It is doubtful that any agencies have ever actually used RIF procedures when retaining or terminating such non-career employees.) OPM is making corresponding changes to 5 CFR part 351, subpart E—Retention Standing.
OPM expects that agencies undergoing restructuring will appropriately account for these categories of employees (that is, employees serving initial probationary periods or trial periods, employees serving temporary or time-limited appointments of 1 year or less, and Schedule C and G employees) in their workforce planning efforts, consistent with budgetary constraints and mission needs.
Proposed § 351.203 modifies the definition of the term
Proposed § 351.203 also modifies the current definitions for
Proposed § 351.203 also modifies the definition of the term
In addition to not being required by the statutory text, the requirement to follow elaborate transfer-of-function procedures whenever a function is transferred
OPM is also proposing to modify § 351.203
OPM is defining
OPM is defining
OPM is correcting a typo in § 351.204 to change “reduction force” to “reduction in force.”
The proposed revisions substitute the word “agency” for “competitive area” throughout subpart C and make other conforming changes, so as to align with the text of the statute Congress enacted governing transfers of functions (5 U.S.C. 3503), which applies to transfers of functions
OPM proposes to revise § 351.302(b) to remove the unclear term “liquidation” and make the meaning of this section more plain by adapting language from OPM's
The proposed revision to § 351.302(g) clarifies the procedures that agencies must follow in asking employees whether they wish to transfer with the function, when functions are transferred between agencies. It clarifies that this procedure applies only to employees who have been identified with the transferring function via § 351.303. It also clarifies that agencies may require the employee to respond to the canvass letter asking the employee whether he or she wishes to transfer with the function within a set period of time but must give the employee at least 30 days to consider the offer. The revision specifies that an agency may treat a failure to respond to the canvass letter as a declination of the offer to transfer with the function, unless the employee establishes that the failure to respond within the specified timeframe was due to circumstances beyond the employee's control such as the employee not receiving the letter or employee or family member illness. OPM also proposes to remove some of the provisions of § 351.302 regarding allowing and disallowing employees to change their initial decisions whether to transfer with the function (depending on whether the employee is seeking to change from initial acceptance of the transfer to subsequent declination, versus initial declination to subsequent acceptance). OPM's intention in proposing this change is to allow the agency flexibility and discretion as to whether to allow an employee to change his or her mind or not.
OPM's proposed revision to § 351.303 significantly simplifies the process for identifying which employees are identified with the transferring function. In place of “Identification Method One” (paragraph (c)), “Identification Method Two” (paragraph (d)), and paragraph (e), which allows employees to volunteer to transfer with the function in place of employees identified by Identification Method One and Identification Method Two, OPM proposes a single, simple method of identifying which positions are identified with the transferring function: whether the agency determines that an employee performs the transferring function during at least half of his or her work time, as determined by such sources as the employee's position description, work reports, organizational time logs, work schedules, and information obtained from supervisors.
Proposed § 351.402(b) redefines and simplifies the definition of a competitive area to provide additional clarity for agencies in managing their reduction in force activities and to remove confusing and outdated language in the current regulation. The proposed language will allow agencies to designate a competitive area as being any organizational unit, or combination of organizational units, on an agency's official organizational chart. Organizational charts must be available on the agency's public facing web page or otherwise appropriately documented by the agency.
In addition, OPM proposes to revise § 351.402(b) to require that an organizational unit for purposes of a RIF must be clearly distinguished from other organizational units with regard to its operation, work function, staff, and supervisory oversight. OPM believes this terminology—drawn in part from OPM's
In addition, OPM proposes that field or regional offices officially established by the agency as discrete organizational units and shown on the agency's official organizational chart may be their own competitive area(s). For example, an agency may have an officially established headquarters office and officially established regional offices (
If an employee works from an approved alternate location, then the employee must be assigned to the competitive area for the organizational unit to which they are formally assigned within the organization. For example, an employee working at an alternate location as a result of a reasonable accommodation or an agency-approved exemption to the “Return to In-Person Work” Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (90 FR 8251) would compete with the assigned organizational unit and could not be placed in a competitive area based on the geographic location where he or she works. An agency may create a separate competitive area for employees who are assigned to a geographic location, such as a national park or a county. For example, four employees assigned to the same geographic location or territory may be treated as one competitive area, even if they are in separate organizational units. When applying this provision, geographic location is the competitive area. This provision does not include employees who happen to work from different geographic locations as a part of a reasonable accommodation or Return to In-Person Work exemption, as those employees must be assigned to the competitive area for the organizational unit to which they are officially assigned, without regard to their geographic location.
OPM is proposing to revamp 5 CFR part 351, subpart E “Retention Standing,” with revised and reorganized content in §§ 351.501 through 351.504. As an initial matter, OPM is proposing to renumber current § 351.505
Proposed § 351.501
Under current regulations at 5 CFR 351.501 (entitled “Order of retention—competitive service”), the order of retention for classifying competing employees on a retention register is (in descending order): (1) tenure of employment, (2) veterans' preference, (3) length of service, and (4) performance. Length of service is augmented by performance; an employee receives additional retention service credit (
In proposing to place performance and veterans' preference ahead of tenure and length of service in determining retention standing, OPM is also guided by the experience of the Department of Defense (DOD). Section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), enacted on November 25, 2015, directed that the Secretary of Defense establish procedures to provide that, in any reduction in force of civilian positions in the competitive or excepted service, the order of retention will be based primarily on performance. In implementing this statutory mandate, DOD implemented procedures for RIFs that placed performance ahead of tenure, veterans' preference, and length of service. The operative statute was amended in December 2021 to remove the directive that employee performance be the “primary” factor in determining which employees are to be separated by a RIF—instead, it is one factor that the Secretary may consider.
Under the current regulations at 5 CFR 351.504, credit for performance is used to supplement an employee's length of service for purposes of determining an employee's standing on a retention register (both of these retention factors are expressed in years). An employee receives additional retention service credit based on his or her performance as reflected in up to three ratings of record and their assigned summary levels received within the last four years. This
OPM is proposing to elevate performance above tenure and length of service in the RIF order of retention. Under this proposal, employees competing in a RIF will first be sorted into: their appropriate tenure group (competitive service versus excepted service); then within each tenure group, by performance in descending order based on values assigned for the employee's three most recent ratings of record (
In proposed § 351.502
OPM also proposes to identify two tenure subgroups within both the competitive service tenure group and the excepted service tenure group, in alignment with proposed changes proposed changes to § 351.202(b)
Competitive service tenure subgroup II would consist of every other competitive service employee who, as of the date of the RIF notice, is not serving an initial probationary period or a temporary or term appointment of 1 year or less. OPM is proposing to exclude employees serving an initial probationary period and a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less from competitive service tenure subgroup II, and the competitive service tenure group, for the reasons explained above in connection with proposed changes to § 351.202(b): that is, to give agencies undergoing workforce restructuring additional flexibility in determining whether to retain or separate these employees (to the extent that these employee are not otherwise covered under the proposed competitive service tenure subgroups I and II). OPM believes that streamlining and simplifying current competitive service tenure groups I, II and III into two tenure subgroups, with exclusions for employees serving an initial probationary period or a time-limited or temporary appointment of 1 year or less, will aid in making RIF procedures more streamlined and merit-based by reducing the importance of tenure in the RIF process.
Excepted service tenure subgroup I would include all employees occupying a career position (that is to say, not in Schedule C or G) in the excepted service who, as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice, are not serving a trial period and whose appointment carries no restriction or condition such as conditional, indefinite, or specific time limit. This definition is substantially the same as current excepted service tenure group I. Excepted service tenure subgroup II would consist of all other career employees in the excepted service (that is to say, not in Schedule C or G) who are not serving a trial period or a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less. OPM is proposing to exclude trial period employees from the excepted service tenure subgroup II for reasons explained above in connection with proposed changes to § 351.202(b), and notes that excepted service employees serving temporary appointments of 1 year or less are generally excluded from RIF competition under current regulations. OPM believes that streamlining and simplifying current excepted service tenure groups I, II and III into two tenure subgroups, with exclusions for employees serving a trial period or a time-limited or temporary appointment of 1 year or less, will aid in making RIF procedures more streamlined and merit-based by reducing the importance of tenure in the RIF process.
Proposed § 351.503
We are proposing that an agency calculate a value to represent an employee's performance credit. Ratings of record will be assigned a numerical value in conjunction with the patterns of summary level in 5 CFR 430.208(d) as follows:
• 7 for a Level 5 (Outstanding or equivalent) summary level,
• 5 for a Level 4 (Exceeds Fully Successful or equivalent) summary level,
• 3 for a Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) summary level,
• 0 for a Level 2 (Minimally Successful or equivalent) summary level,
• 0 for a Level 1 (Unacceptable) summary level.
Agencies will list competing employees on the retention register in descending order (within the same tenure group) based on each employee's performance credit, which is the sum of the values assigned for their three most recent ratings of record received during the 4-year period prior to the issuance of RIF notices. OPM believes listing employees in descending order (
For example, the employees below are covered under a pattern H five-summary level rating performance appraisal system as described in 5 CFR 430.208(d). Their ratings and totals are:
These employees would be listed on the retention register in the following order: Alice, Fred, Carol, then Bill.
Proposed § 351.503(b)
Proposed § 351.503(c)
New paragraph § 351.503(d)
For example, an agency could, instead of assigning a value of “3”, assign a value of “7” for all employees who received the agency's highest sustained performance award in a particular year, a value of “5” for all employees who received an organizational or component-specific award in a particular year, and a value of “4” for all employees who received a time off award. An agency that chooses this option must specify and document, in advance of any RIF, how it will
For example, the employees below are covered under a three-summary level pattern as described in 5 CFR 430.208(d). Their agency has an established policy of providing enhanced performance credit by assigning 7 points for agency awards, 5 points for organizational awards, and 4 points for various performance awards. (An agency award is designated by “A”; a component-level award is designated by “O”; and a performance award or QSI is designated by “P”.) Their ratings and totals are:
New paragraph § 351.503(e)
OPM is also proposing that, where an employee who goes from an appraisal system which uses a higher pattern of summary levels to a lower one (
Lastly, this proposed section requires an agency that seeks to recognize outstanding performance in this way in conducting a RIF to (1) specify the basis on which it will consider exceptional or higher-level performance as described in § 351.503(d) and transmute or assign an employee a higher rating in accordance with the pattern of summary level used during the RIF, (2) make this information readily available for review prior to running a reduction in force, and (3) apply this criteria consistently to all competing employees. OPM is proposing to allow agencies to provide enhanced performance credit to competing employees in this manner in order to implement the policy that an agency emphasize performance over tenure and length of service in a RIF. OPM recognizes that performance awards should be used by agencies to reward high performers and that managers and supervisors are expected to make decisions regarding award determinations consistent with the applicable regulations and agency polices. This method allows agencies to adopt policies that would prevent exceptional performers from being disadvantaged because they may be covered under two or more patterns of summary rating levels which may not make meaningful distinctions for performance among employees. However, OPM is not requiring agencies to adopt such policies. OPM believes that agencies may reasonably choose to prioritize administrability in determining an employee's performance credit, instead of seeking to award
Paragraph (f)
Proposed § 351.504
The following examples illustrate and contrast the impact of performance ratings of record and their summary levels on a retention register under the current rules and the proposed rules. Consider the following employees in a General Schedule (GS) 201-12 position:
Under the current rules, a retention register constructed in 2018 for these employees would look like this, based on retention factors considered in this order: Tenure | Vets Pref | Adjusted Service Computation Date (ASCD)—
Under the proposed rule, the retention register for these same competing employees would look like this, based on considering retention factors in this order: Tenure, Performance based on the total of the employee's summary levels augmented by Veterans' Preference, and Service Computation Dates:
The following illustrates how veterans' preference and length of service apply under the proposed rules. Assume the same group of employees but with one difference: Emma receives additional performance credit based on status as a veteran with a compensable service-connected disability, as follows:
Under the proposed rule, the retention register for these employees would look like this, based on considering retention factors in this order: Tenure | Performance based on the total of the employee's summary levels | Vets Pref | Service Computation Date. In this example Emma is listed ahead of Carl because she receives additional performance credit as a veteran with a compensable service-connected disability, despite being in the same tenure subgroup and having less service credit than Carl.
OPM is modifying proposed § 351.506(c) to attune these provisions with proposed changes in § 351.505.
OPM is proposing to revise § 351.507 to make clear that the effective date of retention standing is measured as of the date the employee receives a specific reduction in force notice, not the date a RIF separation actually occurs. This will make it more administratively feasible for agencies to conduct a RIF in instances where the actual date of RIF separation is delayed due to litigation or other unforeseen factors. Measuring retention standing as of the date of RIF separation would require an agency to undergo the costly and time-consuming task of re-running the retention register whenever a RIF separation is delayed, without undermining merit or fairness.
OPM is proposing to modify § 351.601 for consistency with how retention standing is to be calculated under Subpart E of part 351.
OPM proposes to modify § 351.602 to remove the prohibition on retaining an employee serving a specifically limited temporary appointment in a competitive level while releasing a competing employee from that level. OPM believes that agencies should have the flexibility to retain or terminate a temporary employee without regard to RIF procedures.
OPM is proposing to simplify and streamline its regulations in § 351.604 regarding furloughs of more than 30 consecutive calendar days (or more than 22 workdays if done on a discontinuous basis over a period not exceeding 1 year). The present regulations require agencies to always furlough employees based on retention standing, and to always recall employees to duty from furlough based on retention standing. This means that agencies must presently undergo the time-consuming and expensive process of building a retention register before conducting a
OPM proposes to allow agencies additional leeway to furlough employees and recall employees from furlough. Instead of building a retention register, agencies must communicate to competing employees, in writing and in advance of the furlough, the criteria by which employees will be furloughed and subsequently recalled to duty. In determining which competing employees will be furloughed and the order in which they will be recalled to duty, the agency's policy may consider the agency's operational and mission needs, along with normal retention factors like an employee's tenure group and subgroup; an employee's performance as reflected in the employee's most recent rating of record; veteran preference; and the employee's length of service.
OPM is proposing to revamp and clarify § 351.605
OPM proposes to modify § 351.606(a) to clarify its meaning and to align its provisions with other changes in this rulemaking. Under this provision, an agency would be required to give retention priority to a competing employee restored to duty following uniformed service who is entitled to retention under § 351.209(b) for either 6 months or 1 year after reemployment. In addition, OPM proposes to modify § 351.606(c) because employees released under § 351.603 (where all positions in a competitive area are being abolished in 180 days) no longer must be released in order of retention standing.
OPM is proposing to modify and clarify current § 351.607
OPM is proposing to modify and clarify § 351.608
Proposed § 351.608(c) modifies the existing government obligation provision to include examples of situations in which the exception may be used, such as when an employee, or spouse of employee, is pregnant on the effective date of a RIF or an employee has not used all available paid parental leave to care for a recently born child or a child recently placed with the employee for adoption purposes. This paragraph proposes that an employee must sign a written agreement in which the employee understands or attests to limitations established by the agency and § 351.608. OPM is proposing these changes to provide agencies with additional flexibilities to recognize a Government obligation, as newly defined in § 351.203 to assist Federal employees who otherwise would face a lapse or termination of their Federal health insurance upon the effective date of a RIF.
Paragraph (d) of § 351.608 would expand the existing exception to allow employees with medical conditions or other circumstances that would qualify for use of sick leave to use other appropriate leave (paid or unpaid) or other paid time off in addition to sick leave, subject to a 90-day cap and provided that the leave is used continuously.
Proposed § 351.608(e) labels this provision “annual leave” to make clear the type of leave appropriate for an exception under this paragraph, which has been expanded to include not only employees covered by a Federal leave system under an authority other than 5 U.S.C. chapter 63 but also employees
The exception at the current § 351.608(f) would be moved to paragraph (g) with minor edits for consistency with the language elsewhere in this section.
A new § 351.608(f) establishes a temporary exception for military spouses as defined in § 351.203. An agency may retain an eligible military spouse for up to 60 days beyond the effective date of a RIF. OPM is proposing this action to further enhance the Administration's on-going support for military spouses. On May 9, 2018, the President signed Executive Order E.O. 13832 (83 FR 22343) to “improve military spouse employment by enhancing job opportunities within the Federal Government, expanding licensure portability, and increasing remote and flexible job options that provide continuity and financial stability for military spouses.” In early 2025, the President exempted military spouses from the return-to-office directive for Federal civilian employees. In a May 9, 2025, proclamation honoring Military Spouses the President noted that employment is a critical challenge for military spouses. “Military spouses face a 21 percent unemployment rate—one of the highest demographics in the country—and a 25 percent wage gap compared to their civilian counterparts.” (Proclamation 10936, 90 FR 20359) This proposal provides an additional flexibility for military spouses facing separation through a reduction in force.
Proposed § 351.701(a) replaces tenure groups I and II with the competitive service tenure group. In addition, OPM notes that it is proposing in a separate rulemaking to remove the Level 2 summary rating,
OPM proposes to consolidate § 351.701(b) and (c). Based on the new method of defining tenure groups and assigning retention standing based on performance credit as augmented by veterans' preference, with tenure subgroup and length of service as tiebreakers, subgroups would no longer play a predominant role in determining retention standing, and thus there is no longer a need for the separate concepts of an employee “bumping” another employee in a lower subgroup, and “retreating” to the position of a lower-ranked employee in the same subgroup. OPM proposes instead that a released employee be assigned to a position held by another employee with lower retention standing in the same tenure group, who is not more than three grades below the position from which the employee was released, and for which the released employee is qualified, pursuant the criteria set forth in § 351.702 and § 351.703.
OPM proposes to eliminate § 351.701(d) “Limitation.” This provision meant to prohibit an employee with a current annual performance rating of record of Level 2 or “minimally successful” from obtaining assignment to a position held by an employee with a higher performance rating. However, with the new method of calculating retention standing proposed in this rulemaking, which emphasizes performance over length of service, OPM believes that this provision is no longer necessary. Further, OPM is proposing to award no performance credit for employees who have received a Level 2 rating (or equivalent), further rendering this provision unnecessary. OPM also recognizes that 5 U.S.C. 3502(b) and (c) requires that veterans' preference in retention standing be awarded to preference eligibles “whose performance has not been rated unacceptable under a performance appraisal system implemented under chapter 43 of this title,” and a Level 2 rating under current OPM regulations is “minimally satisfactory,” not “unacceptable.” Thus, this section is not consistent with the new method of calculating retention standing, which simplifies the process of determining assignment rights.
Proposed § 351.702(a)(4), pertaining to qualifications for assignment, is modified to include language clarifying that in determining qualifications for reassignment an agency must use an assessment that allows for demonstration of job-related skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies; is based on a job analysis; and does not rely on a self-assessment from an automated examination. Paragraph (a)(4) also provides examples of the types of assessments an agency may use, which include: structured interviews; a work-related exercise; a custom or generic procedure for measuring an employee's employment or career-related qualifications and interests; a structured resume review; or another assessment (such as a USA Hire assessment) provided it demonstrates job-related technical skills, abilities and knowledge, and is relevant for the position for which the assessment is developed.
OPM is proposing to modify current § 351.705
OPM proposes to modify § 351.802(a)(2) to substitute “veterans' status” for “subgroup,” and to add references to notifying employees of their tenure group and subgroup. OPM proposes to update language in § 351.802(a)(3) by requiring agencies to provide competing employees with a link to 5 CFR part 351 and access to the agency's records pertinent to the RIF being run.
OPM proposes to revise § 316.911, which specifies how RIF procedures apply to employees hired under the post-secondary student hiring authority under 5 U.S.C. 3116 and part 316, subpart I, of this chapter, to comport with the changes that part 351 that OPM is elsewhere proposing.
Under the proposed revisions to part 351, it continues to be the case that, as before, “[s]tudents whose initial appointment was for a period of 1 year or less are not assigned a tenure group and do not compete with other employees in a RIF.” However, students whose initial appointment is for a period expected to last more than 1 year would no longer be placed in tenure group III for purposes a RIF, as OPM is
OPM proposes to change the “definitions” section of § 330.101 to accommodate the modifications of tenure groups I, II and III proposed elsewhere in this rulemaking. Specifically, OPM would eliminate the definition of “tenure groups” and, in its place, include the definition of the “competitive service tenure group” in 5 CFR 351.502(a). OPM also proposes to change the definition of “permanent competitive service workforce” and “permanent competitive service employees” to encompass all employees serving under career or career-conditional appointments in the competitive service tenure group, no longer tenure groups I and II. OPM would modify the definition of “Agency” to align with the definition of the same term proposed in § 351.203, to encompass all Executive agencies plus GPO, but excluding GAO, on the ground that GPO has competitive service employees and GAO does not.
The provisions of 5 CFR part 330 relating to the Reemployment Priority List (RPL), Career Transition Assistance Program (CTAP) and Interagency Career Transition Program (ICTAP) relate closely to RIFs, as these programs are designed to assist employees who have been or are about to be displaced by a RIF in finding continued Federal employment. Unsurprisingly, the current regulations regarding these programs cross-reference 5 CFR part 351 in several places. Thus, OPM believes it to be appropriate to update its 5 CFR part 330 regulations so that definitions and concepts align with similar definitions and concepts in 5 CFR part 351.
OPM proposes to change the definition of “qualified” in § 330.202 to align with OPM's definition of that same term in § 351.702 (in the content of assignment rights in a RIF). To be qualified for a position, an RPL registrant, just like an employee competing in a RIF, would be required to have the capacity, adaptability, and special skills necessary to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position without undue interruption. And just like an employee competing in a RIF, OPM proposes that such capacity, adaptability, and special skills must be demonstrated through an assessment that allows for demonstration of job-related skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies; is based on a job analysis; and does not solely include or principally rely on a self-assessment of the candidate's own abilities. As in § 351.702, OPM proposes to provide acceptable examples of such assessments. OPM is retaining the additional requirement in § 330.202 that, to be qualified for a position, an RPL registrant must meet any other applicable requirements for competitive service appointment, and it is providing a specific example of such an additional requirement: that the RPL registrant meet suitability requirements specified under part 731 of this chapter.
OPM also proposes to amend § 330.203 to substitute “the competitive service tenure group” for the previous terms “tenure group I or II.” OPM understands that it is defining the term “the competitive service tenure group” differently from how it previously defined “tenure group I or II”; in particular, it is excluding employees who had been serving an initial probationary period from the competitive service tenure group, where such employees had previously been included in competitive service tenure group II.
It is OPM's intention that this change not be applied retroactively to employees who are currently registered on the RPL. Therefore, it is adding that employees who hold another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM, will be eligible for the RPL. OPM intends by this provision to ensure that its definition of “the competitive service tenure group” will not be applied retroactively to disadvantage employees who previously received a RIF notice before the effective date of the new rules, or who previously became eligible for the RPL due to a qualifying injury or disability that predated the effective date of the new rule.
OPM proposes to modify § 330.206 to remove a reference to tenure groups I and II and replace it with a reference to the competitive service tenure group. OPM also proposes to modify § 330.212(c), under the heading “Agency flexibilities,” to remove the reference to RPL registrants having the capacity, adaptability, and special skills needed to satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of the position, as determined by the agency. Instead of being part of the criteria for modifying an OPM or OPM-approved qualification standard, OPM is moving this provision so that it is part of the definition of a “qualified” RPL applicant, so as to align the definition of “qualified” in § 351.702 with the definition of the same term in § 330.202. OPM additionally believes that the reference to having “the capacity, adaptability, and special skills needed to satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of the position” more appropriately describes what should be required of a qualified applicant for a vacant position, as opposed to a criteria for an exception from an OPM or OPM-approved qualification standard. OPM is removing the reference to an RPL registrant having to meet any minimum educational requirements for the position, notwithstanding an agency's decision to modify a qualification standard, to give agencies more flexibility in waiving educational requirements for RPL applicants. This flexibility aligns with Executive Order 13932,
In addition, OPM proposes to modify § 330.213(b) to remove references to tenure groups I and II and subgroups, both of which are being modified by changes to Part 351. Instead, an agency using this selection method must only place qualified RPL candidates in retention standing order and may not pass over a candidate with a higher retention standing to select a candidate with a lower retention standing.
OPM proposes to modify § 330.213(c), which prescribes a method for selecting qualified RPL placement priority candidates based on numerical scoring. Instead of rating and ranking candidates based on job experience and education, OPM proposes that an agency using this method must instead rate and rank candidates based on their job-related skills, knowledge, and competencies as a measured by an assessment. The assessment must be based on a job analysis, and agencies cannot rely principally on a candidate's self-assessment of their own skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies. Agencies using the numerical scoring method would be required to rate and rank qualified RPL placement priority in a fair and consistent manner and would
The changes to the numerical scoring method align with the Federal government's move towards skills-based hiring, as measured by validated assessments, and away from educational requirements. This process was initiated by Executive Order 13932 that has continued with the Chance to Compete Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-188), Executive Order 14170 (
OPM proposes to amend § 330.404 to revise an outdated reference to the “Government Printing Office,” and to substitute the term “the competitive service tenure group” for “tenure group I or I.”
OPM proposes to amend the definitions section in § 330.602 remove references to “tenure group I or I” and add in their place “the competitive service tenure group” in describing employees eligible for CTAP. OPM does not intend this change to apply retroactively so as to deprive employees who received a RIF separation notice, declined a directed geographic reassignment, or received a notice of expected separation before the effective date of the rule of CTAP eligibility. OPM is therefore adding that an employee holding another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM, would be CTAP eligible.
OPM proposes grammatical and formatting changes to the list in § 330.609 of permitted personnel actions that may be taken as an exception to CTAP selection priority. It also proposes to add a new permitted personnel action: to retain, or finalize the appointment of, an employee serving a probationary or trial period pursuant to Civil Service Rule 11.
OPM proposes to amend the definitions section in § 330.702 to remove references to “tenure group I or I” and add in their place “the competitive service tenure group” in describing employees eligible for ICTAP. OPM does not intend this change to apply retroactively and so is adding that an employee holding another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM, would be ICTAP eligible.
OPM proposes a grammatical revision to § 330.705 to correct a typo: an agency must not appoint any candidate from outside its permanent competitive service workforce
OPM proposes grammatical and formatting changes to the list in § 330.707 of permitted personnel actions that may be taken as an exception to ICTAP selection priority. It also proposes to add a new permitted personnel action: to retain, or finalize the appointment of, an employee serving a probationary or trial period pursuant to Civil Service Rule 11.
OPM proposes to remove a reference to tenure group III in § 353.301(a). Instead of “tenure group III,” OPM proposes to substitute “term or indefinite appointment,” which encompasses the categories previously included in tenure group III.
Consistent with the proposed changes to the definition of “furlough” in § 351.203, OPM proposes to revise the definition of “furlough” in § 359.802 (regulating furloughs in the SES) to align with OPM's longstanding guidance that “SES competitive furlough requirements are not applicable to emergency shutdown furloughs because the ultimate duration of an emergency shutdown furlough is unknown at the outset and is dependent entirely on Congressional action, rather than agency action.”
OPM proposes to modify § 362.205 of its regulations regarding the Pathways Program by removing references to how RIF procedures apply to Pathways interns, as those references would no longer be accurate or necessary given OPM's proposed changes to Part 351. Pursuant to proposed § 351.502(b), the termination of a Pathways intern would only be covered by RIF procedures if the intern had completed a trial period under 5 CFR 11.3. Otherwise, Pathways interns could be retained or separated by an agency without regard to RIF procedures.
OPM notes that it is engaged in three additional rulemakings that include proposals to modify 5 CFR part 351. Reduction in Force Appeals (RIN 3206-AO99) would amend subpart I, which this rulemaking does not address.
OPM is also proposing to modify § 430.208(d) to remove the current reference to assigning additional retention service credit to align this provision with the proposed changes in 5 CFR part 351. Paragraph (d)(5) of § 430.208 would be revised to remove the reference to “the number of years of additional retention service credit” and replace it with a general reference to proposed § 351.503
In the third rulemaking, Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing Rate, and Certain Other Employees (RIN 3206-AP06), OPM has also proposed amendments to part 430.
The proposed changes are needed because current RIF rules are outdated and no longer address the needs of agencies in the twenty first century. The current regulatory framework has been in place since the middle of the twentieth century with few modifications since then. The current rules have become cumbersome and inefficient. The proposed changes offer a more streamlined RIF structure that emphasizes performance over other factors in the downsizing process. These changes promote the general principle that employees should be retained
The proposed rules would also allow agencies more flexibility in moving functions internally without also reassigning employees, and in furloughing employees. Current rules impose unnecessary burdens and requirements and do not allow for the flexibility that many agencies need.
OPM expects the impact of this proposed rule, once finalized, will be a more efficient and more merit-based RIF process than is currently the case. The proposed rule modernizes a number of existing provisions. By prioritizing performance over tenure and length of service in a RIF the proposed rule aims to increase in the likelihood that top or higher-level performers will be retained over employees with lower performance ratings or those who have merely been on the job for longer periods of time. This proposed change will increase the impact of merit in the RIF process which currently prioritizes non-merit factors such as tenure and length of service. OPM also believes that its changes to the regulations governing the RPL, CTAP and ICTAP will similarly enhance efficiency and merit in administering the selection priority for employees who have been impacted by restructuring actions.
This proposed rule, once finalized and in effect, will affect RIFs run by most Federal agencies—ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies. OPM will provide updated guidance on implementing this rulemaking in the form of frequently asked questions and updates to OPM's workforce policy guidance, and the RIF landing page. OPM estimates that this rulemaking will require individuals employed by these agencies to modify RIF policies and procedures to implement the rulemaking and train human resources (HR) practitioners and hiring managers on its use. For this cost analysis, the assumed average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work will be the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $91.02 hourly locality rate). We assume that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $182.04 per hour.
To comply with the regulatory changes in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, affected agencies will need to review the rule and update their policies and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of the final rule, doing so will require an average of 300 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $143.76. This work would result in estimated costs in that first year of implementation of about $43,128 per agency, and about $3,450,240 in total Governmentwide. Some agencies may incur additional costs to ensure they have staff with the necessary assessment measurement expertise to use these proposed procedures.
We do not believe this rulemaking will substantially increase the ongoing administrative costs to agencies (including the administrative costs of using these new procedures and training new staff) because the rulemaking modernizes existing procedures and processes.
OPM seeks comment on any reliance interests that could be impacted by this rule and will address them with particularity in any final rule that it issues.
The proposed rules offer several positive improvements to the RIF process. Agencies will benefit by having an increased ability to retain their better-performing employees in a RIF. This outcome will help agencies more effectively and efficiently meet their mission-critical responsibilities in the aftermath of a RIF and thus provide a higher level of service to the public than would otherwise be the case.
OPM expects that modernized rules will be less cumbersome and more flexible than current rules in their application. The rule provides agencies more flexibility in moving functions internally without also reassigning employees, and in furloughing employees for more than 30 days.
OPM expects these rules will result in cost savings for an agency running a RIF under part 351. These rules exclude individuals serving probationary and trial periods from the coverage of RIF procedures, along with competitive service tenure group and the excepted service tenure group, plus two tenure subgroups, which OPM believes will simplify and streamline RIF procedures. OPM is also modifying the definition of competitive areas by providing agencies with more clarity in recognizing competitive areas. Lastly, OPM is also modifying the rules to give agencies greater flexibility when abolishing all positions in a competitive area. The revised rules alleviate an agency from having to compile a retention register and apply the assignment rights (
A RIF is a complex operational endeavor comprised of several phases, and actions within each phase. Preparing for and running a RIF is oftentimes a protracted process which can last as long as 14 months from
• employee data/record review, validation, and correction—$20,000 based on 2 hours review time for a 100-person competitive area, and
• retention register creation—$2,000 based on 20 hours for a 100-person competitive area.
Procuring a vendor or shared-service provider may result in higher costs to the agency running the RIF due to the price paid for the vendor's or provider's specialized expertise in delivering these services, something many agencies lack. Agencies will realize significant savings with respect to these processes. The proposed changes will result in significant time and cost savings to an agency running a RIF under part 351.
The rule will also result in cost savings for agencies moving or reassigning functions within the agency, as they will not have to undergo cumbersome processes for identifying employees associated with the function and then giving those employees the opportunity to be reassigned within the agency. It will also result in cost savings for agencies who choose to furlough employees for more than 30 consecutive days, as they will no longer be required to do so strictly based on retention standing.
OPM considered several alternatives to the proposed rulemaking. One option was to make no changes to the current reduction in force regulations. OPM did not deem this to be a viable alternative. As documented in the preamble, the current regulations do not address the challenges facing many agencies in the twenty-first century. OPM determined that it has an opportunity to revise these rules with the aim of making the reduction in force process more efficient and streamlined while providing agencies with greater flexibility to retain its top performers by emphasizing performance over tenure and length of employment.
Another alternative was to reissue the proposed rulemaking published in the
OPM proposes that, if any of the provisions of this proposed rule as finalized is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, it shall be severable from its respective section(s) and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other dissimilar circumstances. In enforcing civil service protections and merit system principles, OPM will comply with all applicable legal requirements.
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which 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). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This rulemaking is not expected to be considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects Federal agencies and employees.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Employment, Government employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces reserves, District of Columbia, Government employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Government employees.
Decorations, Government employees.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR parts 316, 330, 351, 353, 359, 362, and 430 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302; E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729; 5 CFR 2.2(c).
Post-secondary students are covered by part 351 of this chapter for purposes of a reduction in force (RIF) as follows:
(a) Students whose initial appointment was for a period of 1 year or less are not assigned a tenure group and do not compete with other employees in a RIF.
(b) Students whose initial appointment was for a period expected to last more than 1 year are placed in the competitive service tenure group for purposes of part 351 of this chapter upon completion of an initial probationary period.
5 U.S.C. 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 3304, and 3330. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-58 Comp., p. 218.
Section 330.103 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3327.
Section 330.104 also issued under sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 114-137, 130 Stat. 312 (5 U.S.C. 3318 note).
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3315 and 8151.
Section 330.401 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3310.
Subparts F and G also issued under Presidential Memorandum on Career Transition Assistance for Federal Employees, September 12, 1995.
Section 330.609 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3115.
Subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8337(h) and 8456(b).
Section 330.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3115 and 3116.
Section 330.1301 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 9201-9206; sec. 1122(b)(1), Public Law 116-92, 133 Stat. 1607 (5 U.S.C. 9201 note).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
The revision and addition read as follows:
(5) Has the capacity, adaptability, and special skills needed to satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of the position. In determining these qualifications an agency must use an assessment that:
(i) Allows for demonstration of job-related skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies;
(ii) Is based on a job analysis; and
(iii) Does not solely include or principally rely on a self-assessment from an automated examination.
(iv) Acceptable examples of the types of assessments include: structured interviews; a work-related exercise; a custom or generic procedure for measuring an employee's employment or career-related qualifications and interests; a structured resume review; or another assessment provided:
(A) It demonstrates job-related technical skills, abilities and knowledge; and
(B) Is relevant for the position for which the assessment is developed; and
(6) Meets any other applicable requirements for competitive service appointment (including employment suitability requirements under part 731 of this chapter).
(a) * * *
(1) Must be serving in an appointment in the competitive service in the competitive service tenure group (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM);
(b) * * *
(1) Must be serving in, or separated from, an appointment in the competitive service in the competitive service tenure group (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM);
(b) * * *
(1) Have a representative rate no higher than the position from which
(c)(1) Modify the OPM or OPM-approved qualification standard used to determine if an RPL eligible is qualified for a position, provided the exception is applied consistently and equitably in filling a position.
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) For each vacancy to be filled, the agency rates RPL placement priority candidates according to their job-related skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies, as measured by an assessment that does not principally rely on a self-assessment from an automated examination. The assessment must be based on a job analysis, and the agency must rate and rank RPL placement priority candidates in a fair and consistent manner. The agency assigns the candidates a numerical score of at least 70 on a scale of 100, based on the evaluation criteria developed under this paragraph. The agency must grant 5 additional points to veterans' preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(A) and (B), and 10 additional points to veterans' preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C) through (G).
An individual agency and OPM both have additional responsibilities when the agency decides, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, to contract out the work of a preference eligible who holds a restricted position. These additional responsibilities as described in §§ 330.405 and 330.406 are applicable if a preference eligible holds a competitive service position (other than in the Government Publishing Office) that is:
(a) A restricted position as designated in 5 U.S.C. 3310 and § 330.401; and
(b) In the competitive service tenure group, as defined in § 351.203 of this chapter.
(1) A current competitive service employee in the competitive service tenure group at grade GS-15 (or equivalent) or below (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM) who:
(1) A current competitive service employee in the competitive service tenure group at grade GS-15 (or equivalent) or below (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM) who received a Certification of Expected Separation under part 351 of this chapter or other official agency certification or notification indicating that the employee's position is surplus (for example, a notice of position abolishment or a notice of eligibility for discontinued service retirement).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(e) Convert an employee serving under an appointment that provides noncompetitive conversion eligibility to a competitive service appointment, including from:
(1) A Veterans Recruitment Appointment under part 307 of this chapter;
(2) An appointment under 5 U.S.C. 3112 and part 316 of this chapter of a veteran with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more;
(3) An excepted service appointment under part 213 of this chapter; and
(4) A post-secondary student appointment under 5 U.S.C. 3116 and part 316, subpart I, of this chapter;
(dd) Effect a transfer or a position change of an employee under part 412 of this chapter;
(ee) Convert an employee's time-limited appointment in the competitive or excepted service to a permanent appointment in the competitive service if the employee accepted the time-limited appointment while a CTAP eligible;
(gg) Make an appointment using the post-secondary student hiring authority under 5 U.S.C. 3116 and part 316, subpart I, of this chapter; or
(hh) Retain, or finalize the appointment of, an employee serving a probationary or trial period pursuant to Civil Service Rule 11.
(1) A current competitive service employee of any agency in the competitive service tenure group at grade GS-15 (or equivalent) or below (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM) whose current performance rating of record is at least fully successful (Level 3) or equivalent and who:
(2) A former competitive service employee of any agency who was in the competitive service tenure group at grade GS-15 (or equivalent) or below (or
(4) A former competitive service employee of any agency who was in the competitive service tenure group (or another qualifying competitive service appointment, as determined by OPM) who retired with a disability annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8337 or 8451 and who has received notification from OPM that the disability annuity has been or will be terminated.
(a) An agency must not appoint any candidate from outside its permanent competitive service workforce into a vacancy if there is an ICTAP selection priority candidate available for the vacancy, unless the personnel action to be effected is an exception under § 330.707.
(v) Transfer or effect a position change of an employee under part 412 of this chapter;
(w) Retain, or finalize the appointment of, an employee serving a probationary or trial period pursuant to Civil Service Rule 11;
(x) Make an appointment using the college graduate hiring authority under 5 U.S.C. 3115 and part 315 of this chapter; or
(y) Make an appointment using the post-secondary student hiring authority under 5 U.S.C. 3116 and part 316, subpart I, of this chapter.
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3502, 3503; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729; 5 CFR 2.2(c). Sec. 351.801 also issued under E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 569.
(a) * * *
(2) Each agency shall follow this part when it releases a competing employee from his or her competitive level by furlough for more than 30 days, separation, or demotion, or reassignment requiring displacement, when the release is required because of lack of work; shortage of funds; insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization; or the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b)
(c)
(3) A change to lower grade based on reclassification of an employee's position due to erosion of duties, except that an agency shall not undertake such a reclassification action between the time an agency has formally announced a reduction in force in the employee's competitive area and the completion of the reduction in force where such the reclassification action would adversely affect an employee's retention standing in the announced reduction in force.
(d)
(1) In the excepted service:
(i) An employee serving under a temporary or time-limited appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(ii) An employee serving a trial period as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice;
(iii) Schedule C appointments; and
(iv) Schedule G appointments.
(2) In the competitive service:
(i) Employees on indefinite appointments serving an initial probationary period as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice;
(ii) Career-conditional employees serving an initial probationary period as of the date the agency issues a reduction in force notice; and
(iii) An employee serving on a temporary or term appointment of 1 year or less under subpart C or D of part 316 of this chapter.
(3) An employee holding one of these appointments is not a “competing employee” for purposes of a reduction in force, and such employees may be retained, furloughed, separated, demoted or reassigned without regard to the provisions of this part.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Each agency covered by this part is responsible for following and applying the regulations in this part when the agency determines that a reduction in force is necessary.
(a) Before a reduction in force is made in connection with the transfer of any or all of the functions of one agency to another agency, each competing employee in a position identified with the transferring function or functions must be transferred to the agency gaining the function without any change in the tenure of his or her employment.
(b) An employee whose position is transferred under this subpart and who is identified with a function or functions that will be terminated in the gaining agency within 60 days is not a competing employee for other positions in the agency gaining the function or functions and does not have a right to any continuing positions in the agency gaining the function or functions.
(c) Regardless of an employee's personal preference, a competing employee only has the right to transfer with his or her function when the alternative in the agency losing the function is separation or demotion.
(d) Except as permitted in paragraph (e) of this section, the losing agency must use the adverse action procedures found in part 752 of this chapter if it chooses to separate a competing employee who declines to transfer with his or her function.
(e) The losing agency may, at its discretion, include competing employees who decline to transfer with their function in a concurrent reduction in force.
(f) An agency may not separate a competing employee who declines to transfer with the function any sooner than it transfers competing employees who chose to transfer with the function to the gaining agency.
(g) Agencies may ask employees whose positions are identified with the transferring function pursuant to § 351.303, via a canvass letter, whether the employees prefer to transfer with the function when the function transfers to a different agency. The canvass letter must give the employee information regarding the consequences of accepting the offer to transfer, and the consequences of declining the offer to transfer. The agency may require an employee to respond to the canvass letter within a set period of time but must give the employee at least 30 calendar days to consider the offer. The agency may treat a failure to respond to the canvass letter as a declination of the offer to transfer with the function, unless the employee establishes that the failure to respond within the specified timeframe was due to circumstances beyond the employee's control such as the employee not receiving the letter or employee or family member illness.
(a) The agency losing the function is responsible for identifying the positions of competing employees with the transferring function. A competing employee is identified with the transferring function on the basis of the employee's official position.
(b) A competing employee is identified with a transferring function if the agency determines that employee performs the function during at least half of his or her work time.
(c) In determining what percentage of time an employee performs a function in the employee's official position, the agency may supplement the employee's official position description by the use of appropriate records (
(b)(1) Except as authorized in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a competitive area must be defined in
(2) An agency may define a geographic location (
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for the purposes of defining a competitive area, an agency must assign employees working at an approved alternate location to the organizational unit to which they are officially assigned.
When determining the order of retention in a reduction in force under this part, an agency must classify competing employees on the appropriate retention register on the basis of four factors (tenure of employment, performance, veterans' preference, and length of service) as follows:
(a) By tenure group, with the competitive service tenure group and the excepted service tenure group listed on separate retention registers;
(b) Within each tenure group, by performance credit in descending order as determined in § 351.503, as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504;
(c) When two or more competing employees have the same performance credit, as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504, the competing employees are further ranked in descending order by tenure subgroups (as described in § 351.502), with tenure subgroup I listed ahead of tenure subgroup II, and then by years of service beginning with the earliest service computation date, as computed under § 351.505.
(a)
(1) The competitive service tenure group includes all employees in competitive service tenure subgroups I or II.
(2) Competitive service tenure subgroup I includes each career employee (as that term is used in part 315 of this chapter) in the competitive service who, as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice, is not serving an initial probationary period. The following employees are in competitive service tenure subgroup I as soon as the employee completes any required probationary period for initial appointment:
(i) An employee for whom substantial evidence exists of eligibility to acquire status and career tenure immediately, and whose case is pending final resolution by OPM (including cases under Executive Order 10826 to correct certain administrative errors);
(ii) An employee who acquires competitive status and satisfies the service requirement for career tenure when the employee's position is brought into the competitive service;
(iii) An administrative law judge appointed prior to establishment of excepted service schedule E and who remains in the competitive service;
(iv) An employee appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3104, which provides for the employment of specially-qualified scientific or professional personnel, or a similar authority; and
(v) An employee who acquired status under 5 U.S.C. 3304(c) on transfer to the competitive service from the legislative or judicial branches of the Federal Government.
(3) Competitive service tenure subgroup II includes each employee in the competitive service who, as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice, is not in competitive service tenure subgroup I and is not serving an initial probationary period or a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less under subpart C or D of part 316 of this chapter.
(b)
(1) The excepted service tenure group includes all employees in excepted service tenure subgroups I or II.
(2) Excepted service tenure subgroup I includes all employees occupying a career position (as defined in part 213 of this chapter) in the excepted service who, as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice, are not serving a trial period and whose appointment carries no restriction or condition such as conditional, indefinite, or specific time limit.
(3) Excepted service tenure subgroup II includes all other employees in the occupying a career position (as defined in part 213 of this chapter) in the excepted service who, as of the date the agency issues a specific reduction in force notice, are not serving a trial period and who are not serving in a temporary or time-limited appointment of 1 year or less.
(a)
(1) For each rating used, assign a numerical value as follows in conjunction with the patterns of summary level in § 430.208(d) of this chapter: 7 for a Level 5 (Outstanding or equivalent) summary level, 5 for a Level 4 (Exceeds Fully Successful or equivalent) summary level, 3 for a Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) summary level, 0 for a Level 2 (Minimally Successful or equivalent) summary level, 0 for a Level 1 (Unacceptable) summary level.
(2) Sum the values assigned for each rating.
(b)
(2) For competing employees who received ratings of record while covered by part 430, subpart B, of this chapter, the summary levels assigned for those ratings of record must be used to establish the employee's performance credit in a reduction in force in accordance with § 351.501 (as augmented by veterans' preference in accordance with § 351.504).
(3) For competing employees who received performance ratings while not covered by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and subpart B of part 430 of this chapter, those performance ratings must be considered ratings of record with summary levels for designating an employee's performance credit in a
(c)
(2) To provide adequate time to determine employee performance credit, an agency may provide for a cutoff date, a specified number of days prior to the issuance of reduction in force notices after which no new ratings of record will be put on record and used for purposes of this subpart. When a cutoff date is used, an employee's performance credit will be based on the three most recent ratings of record received during the 4-year period prior to the cutoff date.
(3) To be considered for purposes of this subpart, a rating of record and its assigned summary level (including any adjustments to performance consistent with this subpart) must have been issued to the employee, with all appropriate reviews and signatures, and must also be on record (
(4) The use of performance ratings of record and assigned summary levels (including any adjustments to performance) for purposes of this subpart must be uniformly and consistently applied within a competitive area, and must be consistent with an agency's' appropriate issuance(s) that implement this part. Each agency must specify in its appropriate issuance(s):
(i) The conditions under which a rating of record is considered to have been received for purposes of determining whether it is within the 4-year period prior to either the date the agency issues reduction in force notices or the agency-established cutoff date for ratings of record, as appropriate; and
(ii) If the agency elects to use a cutoff date, the number of days prior to the issuance of reduction in force notices after which no new ratings of record will be put on record and used for purposes of this subpart.
(d)
(1) An agency may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, assign additional points to level “3” employees with demonstrated exceptional performance if, within the 4-year period prior to either the date the agency issues reduction in force notices or the agency-established cutoff date for ratings of record, the agency has applied performance-related criteria and taken an action that recognizes the employee's exceptional performance. Such actions may include awarding an employee: the highest Agency or Departmental award (such as a Secretary's or Chairman's award), a special act or service award, a quality step increase, or other performance awards or bonuses (
(2) An agency may determine, in its sole and exclusive discretion, whether to give more weight to the performance-related action(s) described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for purpose of differentiating performance on a retention register. Points may be added to the value assigned for the rating of record on an annual basis or as a single addition to the calculated performance credit.
(3) An agency that chooses to assign additional credit for performance must specify and document, in advance of the reduction in force, how it will prioritize performance awards for these purposes and make this criterion readily available for review.
(e)
(i) An agency may transmute or assign an employee a higher summary level rating than what he or she received under their previous appraisal system only when there is documented evidence of exceptional or higher level performance as evidenced by an employee who received the highest Agency or Departmental award (such as a Secretary's or Chairman's award), a quality step increase, or appraisal performance awards or bonuses (
(ii) If an agency chooses to provide additional retention credit for performance in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, it must specify and document, in advance of the reduction in force, the basis on which it will transmute an employee's rating;
(2) An agency that elects to provide additional retention credit to competing employees in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section must transmute the rating of the employee who meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(i) to the highest summary level of the pattern summary level being applied to the reduction in force (
(3) In situations in which the agency conducting the reduction in force is using a pattern summary level rating appraisal system with a summary level no higher than a level “3” (
(f)
(1) The performance credit of an employee who has not received any rating of record for any year during the 4-year period must be based on the modal rating as defined in § 351.203 for the summary level pattern that applies to the employee's official position of record at the time of the reduction in force.
(2) For an employee who has received two previous ratings of record during the 4-year period calculate the performance credit by using a proxy value for the missing rating. Calculate the proxy value by adding the assigned values for the two actual ratings of record and dividing by 2, with the result being either a whole number or a number with .5 decimal value. The performance credit is the sum of the value for the missing rating (
(3) For an employee with only one actual rating of record during the period, calculate the performance credit by multiplying the points assigned for that rating of record times three.
(a) Veterans' preference for both competitive and excepted service employees is applied as follows:
(1) Each preference eligible employee who has a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more receives an additional 5 points added to their performance credit. These employees should be identified as being in veterans' preference Subgroup AD on the retention register.
(2) Every other preference eligible employee receives an additional 3 points added to their performance credit. These employees should be identified as being in veterans' preference Subgroup A on the retention register.
(3) Non-preference eligible employees receive 0 additional points added to their performance credit. These employees should be identified as being in veterans' preference Subgroup B on the retention register.
(b) A retired member of a uniformed service is considered a preference eligible under this part only if the member meets at least one of the conditions of the following paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, except as limited by paragraph (b)(4) or (5) of this section:
(1) The employee's military retirement is based on disability that either:
(i) Resulted from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict; or
(ii) Was caused by an instrumentality of war incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by 38 U.S.C. 101 and 301.
(2) The employee's retired pay from a uniformed service is not based upon 20 or more years of full-time active service, regardless of when performed but not including periods of active duty for training.
(3) The employee has been continuously employed in a position covered by this part since November 30, 1964, without a break in service of more than 30 days.
(4) An employee retired at the rank of major or above (or equivalent) is considered a preference eligible under this part if such employee is a disabled veteran as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2108(2) and meets one of the conditions covered in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(5) An employee who is eligible for retired pay under 10 U.S.C. chapter 67 and who retired at the rank of major or above (or equivalent) is considered a preference eligible under this part at age 60, only if such employee is a disabled veteran as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2108(2).
(a) All civilian service as a Federal employee, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105(a), is creditable for purposes of this part. Civilian service performed in employment that does not meet the definition of
(b)(1) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3502(a)(A), all active duty in a uniformed service, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2101(3), is creditable for purposes of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
(2) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3502(a)(B), a retired member of a uniformed service who is covered by § 351.503(b) is entitled to credit under this part only for:
(i) The length of time in active service in the Armed Forces during a war, or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign or expedition badge has been authorized; or
(ii) The total length of time in active service in the Armed Forces if the employee is considered a preference eligible under 5 U.S.C. 2108 and 5 U.S.C. 3501(a), as implemented in § 351.504(b).
(3) An employee may not receive dual service credit for purposes of this part for service performed on active duty in the Armed Forces that was performed during concurrent civilian employment as a Federal employee, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105(a).
(c)(1) The agency is responsible for establishing the service computation date applicable to each employee competing for retention under this part. If applicable, the agency is also responsible for adjusting the service computation date to withhold retention service credit for non-creditable service.
(2) The service computation date includes all actual creditable service under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) The service computation date is computed on the following basis:
(1) The effective date of appointment as a Federal employee under 5 U.S.C. 2105(a) when the employee has no previous creditable service under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section; or if applicable,
(2) The date calculated by subtracting the employee's total previous creditable service under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section from the most recent effective date of appointment as a Federal employee under 5 U.S.C. 2105(a).
(a) The agency is responsible for maintaining correct personnel records that are used to determine the retention standing of its employees competing for retention under this part.
(b) The agency must allow its retention registers and related records to be inspected by:
(1) An employee of the agency who has received a specific reduction in force notice, and/or the employee's representative if the representative is acting on behalf of the individual employee; and
(2) An authorized representative of OPM.
(c) An employee who has received a specific notice of reduction in force under authority of subpart H of this part has the right to review any completed records used by the agency in a reduction in force action that was taken, or will be taken, against the employee, including:
(1) The complete retention register, if applicable, with the released employee's name and other relevant retention information (including the names of all other employees listed on that register, their performance credit calculated under § 351.503 as augmented by veterans' preference under § 351.504, and their service computation dates under § 351.505), so that the employee
(2) The complete retention registers, if applicable, for other positions that could affect the composition of the employee's competitive level, and/or the determination of the employee's assignment rights (
(d) An employee who has not received a specific reduction in force notice has no right to review the agency's retention registers and related records.
(e) The agency is responsible for ensuring that each employee's access to retention records is consistent with both the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).
(f) The agency must preserve all registers and records relating to a reduction in force for at least 2 years after the date it issues a specific reduction in force notice.
(a) The retention standing of each employee released from a competitive level in the order prescribed in § 351.601 is determined as of the date the employee receives a specific reduction in force notice.
(b) The retention standing of each employee retained in a competitive level as an exception under § 351.606(b), § 351.607, or § 351.608 is determined as of the date the employee receives a specific reduction in force notice, irrespective of when the employee would have been released had the exception not been used. The retention standing of each employee retained under any of this paragraph (b) remains fixed until completion of the reduction in force action which resulted in the temporary retention.
(c) When an agency discovers an error in the determination of an employee's retention standing, it must correct the error and adjust any erroneous reduction in force action to accord with the employee's proper retention standing as of the effective date established by this section.
(c) When competing employees in the same tenure group have identical performance credits as calculated pursuant to § 351.503 (as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504), are in the same tenure subgroup, and have identical service dates (as calculated pursuant to § 351.505) and are therefore tied for release from a competitive level, the agency may select any tied employee for release.
An agency may not release a competing employee from a competitive level while retaining in that level an employee with:
(a) A specifically limited temporary or term promotion; or
(b) A written decision under part 432 or 752 of this chapter of removal or demotion from the competitive level.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) Prior to engaging in a furlough, an agency must communicate to competing employees, in writing, the criteria by which competing employees will be furloughed and recalled to duty. In determining the criteria by which competing employees will be furloughed and the order in which they will be recalled to duty, the agency may consider the agency's operational and mission needs, along with factors such as employee's tenure group and subgroup; the employee's performance as reflected in the employee's most recent rating of record; veterans' preference; and the employee's length of service.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(c)
An agency may make an exception to the order of release in § 351.601 and to the action provisions of § 351.603 when needed to retain an employee (
(a)
(2) After the effective date of a reduction in force action, an agency may not amend or cancel the reduction in force notice of an employee retained under a temporary exception to avoid completion of the reduction in force action. This does not preclude the employee from receiving or accepting a job offer in the same competitive area in accordance with a Reemployment Priority List established under part 330, subpart B, of this chapter, or under a Career Transition Assistance Plan established under part 330, subpart E, of this chapter, or equivalent programs.
(3) Each exception under a paragraph in this section stands alone and may not be sequenced or stacked in combination with another exception. If an agency determines that it can approve more than one exception for an employee, the agency may apply the exception that provides for the longest period of retention.
(4) When an agency makes an exception under this section for more than 30 days, it must:
(i) Notify in writing each higher standing employee in the same competitive level reached for release of the reasons for the exception and the latest date the lower standing employee's retention is projected to end; and
(ii) List opposite the employee's name on the retention register the reasons for the exception and the latest date the employee's retention is projected to end.
(b)
(c)
(1) An exception may be approved under this paragraph (c) for an employee who is eligible for, and has not exhausted, paid parental leave under 5 U.S.C. 6382(d)(2) (or equivalent authority) based on the birth of a child of the employee before the effective date of the reduction in force. The exception may be approved through the date by which the employee would be able to use all remaining available paid parental leave to the employee's credit in connection with the birth, if the leave is used continuously starting on the effective date of the reduction in force.
(2) An exception may be approved under this paragraph (c) for an employee who is eligible for, and has not exhausted, paid parental leave under 5 U.S.C. 6382(d)(2) (or equivalent authority) based on the placement of a child with the employee for adoption purposes before the effective date of the reduction in force. The exception may be approved through the date by which the employee would be able to use all remaining available paid parental leave to the employee's credit in connection with the placement, if the leave is used continuously starting on the effective date of the reduction in force.
(3) An exception may be approved under this paragraph (c) for an employee who is pregnant, or whose spouse is pregnant, as of the effective date of reduction in force and who would be eligible for paid parental leave under 5 U.S.C. 6382(d)(2) (or equivalent authority) based on the expected birth. The exception may be approved through the date that is 12 weeks after the birth.
(d)
(1) Such condition or circumstance continues throughout the period of retention;
(2) The employee first uses any available sick leave in accordance with the requirements part 630, subpart D, of this chapter (or other applicable sick leave system), before using any other appropriate leave (paid or unpaid) or paid time off, consistent with any applicable requirements governing use of the leave or paid time off;
(3) The use of leave or paid time off is continuous through all tour-of-duty hours of the period of retention; and
(4) The period of retention does not exceed 90 days.
(e)
(i) Is being involuntarily separated under this part;
(ii) Is not covered by § 351.606(b) (because the employee is covered by a Federal leave system under an authority other than 5 U.S.C. chapter 63, the employee is covered by a retirement law not referenced in § 351.606(b), or is covered by a health benefits law other than 5 U.S.C. chapter 89); and
(iii) Will attain first eligibility for an immediate retirement benefit under 5 U.S.C. 8336, 8412, or 8414 (or other authority), and/or establish eligibility under 5 U.S.C. 8905 (or other authority) to carry health benefits coverage into retirement during the period represented by the amount of the employee's accrued annual leave.
(2) An agency may not approve an employee's use of any other type of leave after the employee has been retained under this paragraph (e).
(3) This exception may not exceed the date the employee first becomes eligible for immediate retirement or for continuation of health benefits into retirement, except that an employee may be retained long enough to satisfy both retirement and health benefits requirements.
(4) Accrued annual leave includes all accumulated, accrued, and restored annual leave, as applicable, in addition to annual leave earned and available to the employee after the effective date of the reduction in force. When approving a temporary exception under this paragraph (e), an agency may not advance annual leave or consider any annual leave that might be credited to an employee's account after the effective date of the reduction in force other than annual leave earned while in an annual leave status.
(f)
(g)
(a) When a competitive service tenure group employee with a current annual performance rating of record of minimally successful (Level 2) or equivalent, or higher, is released from a competitive level, an agency must offer assignment, rather than furlough or separation, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section to another competitive position that requires no reduction, or the least possible reduction, in representative rate. The employee must be qualified for the offered position. The offered position must be in the same competitive area and have the same type of work schedule (
(b) In accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, a released employee shall be assigned to a position:
(1) That is held by another employee with lower retention standing in the same tenure group; and
(2) That is not more than three grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent) below the position from which the employee was released, except that for a preference eligible employee with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more the limit is five grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent) (The agency uses the grade progression of only the released employee's position of record to determine the applicable grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent) of the employee's assignment right. The agency does not consider the grade progression of the position to which the employee has an assignment right.); and
(3) For which the released employee is qualified, pursuant the criteria set forth in §§ 351.702 and 351.703.
(c)(1) The determination of equivalent grade intervals shall be based on a comparison of representative rates.
(2) Each employee's assignment rights shall be determined on the basis of the pay rates in effect on the date of issuance of specific reduction-in-force notices, except that when it is officially known on the date of issuance of notices that new pay rates have been approved and will become effective by the effective date of the reduction in force, assignment rights shall be determined on the basis of the new pay rates.
(d)(1) In determining applicable grades (or grade intervals) under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the agency uses the grade progression of the released employee's position of record to determine the grade (or interval) limits of the employee's assignment rights.
(2) For positions covered by the General Schedule, the agency must determine whether a one-grade, two-grade, or mixed grade interval progression is applicable to the position of the released employee.
(3) For positions not covered by the General Schedule, the agency must determine the normal line of progression for each occupational series and grade level to determine the grade (or interval) limits of the released employee's assignment rights. If the agency determines that there is no normal line of progression for an occupational series and grade level, the agency provides the released employee with assignment rights to positions within three actual grades lower on a one-grade basis. The normal line of progression may include positions in different pay systems.
(4) For positions where no grade structure exists, the agency determines a line of progression for each occupation and pay rate and provides assignment rights to positions within three grades (or intervals) lower on that basis.
(5) If the released employee holds a position that is less than three grades above the lowest grade in the applicable classification system (
(e) If a competitive area includes more than one local commuting area, the agency determines assignment rights under this part on the basis of the representative rates for one local commuting area within the competitive area (
(f) If a competitive area includes positions under one or more pay bands, a released employee shall be assigned in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to a position in an equivalent pay band or one pay band lower, as determined by the agency, than the pay band from which released. A preference eligible with a service-connected disability of 30 percent or more must be assigned in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to a position in an equivalent pay band or up to two pay bands lower, as determined by the agency, than the pay band from which released.
(g) If a competitive area includes positions under one or more pay bands, and other positions not covered by a pay band (
(1) Determining the representative rate of positions not covered by a pay band, consistent with § 351.203;
(2) Determining the representative rate of each pay band, or competitive level within the pay band(s), consistent with § 351.203; and
(3) As determined by the agency, providing assignment rights under paragraph (b) of this section, consistent with the grade intervals covered in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and the pay band intervals in paragraph (f) of this section.
(a) * * *
(4) Has the capacity, adaptability, and special skills needed to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position without undue interruption. In determining these qualifications an agency must use an assessment that:
(i) Allows for demonstration of job-related skills, abilities, knowledge, and competencies;
(ii) Is based on a job analysis; and
(iii) Does not solely include or principally rely on a self-assessment from an automated examination.
(iv) Acceptable examples of the types of assessments include: structured interviews; a work-related exercise; a custom or generic procedure for measuring an employee's employment or career-related qualifications and interests; a structured resume review; or another assessment provided:
(A) It demonstrates job-related technical skills, abilities and knowledge; and
(B) Is relevant for the position for which the assessment is developed.
(a) An agency may, at its discretion, adopt provisions that provide competing employees in the excepted service with assignment rights to other positions under the same appointing authority on the same basis as assignment rights provided to competitive service employees under § 351.701.
(a) * * *
(2) The employee's competitive area, competitive level, veteran status, tenure group and subgroup, service date, and three most recent ratings of record received during the last 4 years;
(3) A link to part 351 of this chapter and access to the agency's records pertinent to the reduction in force being taken;
5 U.S.C. 8151; 38 U.S.C. 4301
(a)
5 U.S.C. 3133, 3136, 3595a, and 3596.
For the purpose of this subpart,
E.O. 13562, 75 FR 82585, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 291, as amended by E.O. 14217, 90 FR 10577.
(a)
(b)
5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5307(d).
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(4) The designation of a summary level and its pattern must be used to provide consistency in describing ratings of record and as a reference point for applying other related regulations, excluding enhanced performance values under § 351.503(d) and (f) of this chapter.