Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations that implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide clarity, promote agency accountability, improve efficiency in responding to FOIA requests, update roles and responsibilities, and align the regulations with current Federal best practices for implementing FOIA. This final rule addresses the Department of Justice (DOJ) recommendation that the NRC update its FOIA regulations and incorporate the DOJ's model language for FOIA regulations, where appropriate. The NRC is not soliciting public comment for these changes because the change is limited to an agency rule of procedure and practice.
This final rule is effective on March 6, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Amy McKenna, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7000, email:
On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. Though rulemaking to update the NRC's Freedom of Information Act regulations began in 2024, the Commission directed staff to include it as part of the NRC's comprehensive review and reform of its regulations in accordance with E.O. 14300.
The NRC promulgated its initial regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Public Law 90-23, 5 U.S.C. 552) on June 29, 1967 (32 FR 9214) in title 10 of the
On September 16, 2020, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) published their compliance assessment of the NRC FOIA program. OGIS stated in Finding 2 of that assessment that the “NRC's regulations and official guidance for administering the FOIA are out of date and do not consistently or accurately reflect the agency's practices for implementing the statute.” OGIS recommended that the NRC “update its FOIA regulations, FOIA Management Directive, and FOIA Desk Guide to ensure they are plainly written and reflect current processes and statutory requirements.” OGIS also noted that the “NRC should reform its administrative appeals process to conform with [U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)] guidance.” On December 2, 2022, the DOJ Office of Information Policy published a FOIA regulation template that (1) contains guidelines addressing key elements to be addressed in each section of FOIA regulations, (2) is updated as needed by the Office of Information Policy to reflect changes in law and policy, and (3) provides sample language for
On March 20, 2024, the NRC staff submitted to the Commission via SECY-24-0024 a rulemaking plan that would address the recommended revisions identified in the OGIS report and incorporate the DOJ template language into the NRC's FOIA regulations, as appropriate. On April 24, 2024, in SRM-SECY-24-0024, the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to initiate a rulemaking to revise the NRC's FOIA regulations.
This final rule amends 10 CFR part 9, subpart A, “Freedom of Information Act Regulations,” to align with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) “Template for Agency FOIA Regulations,” as well as revises language for clarity and re-organizes the content and names of sections for consistency with other agencies.
Additionally, this final rule includes more specific actions for NRC's FOIA Public Liaison. Generally, under the current regulations, the liaison is responsible for assisting in reducing delays, increasing transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and assisting in the resolution of disputes. In this final rule, the NRC specifically details that its FOIA Public Liaison will: (1) ensure that NRC's website of posted records is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis; (2) assist requesters in determining the appropriate fee category, formatting requests, or resolving any problems that arise prior to submitting a request or during the processing of a request; (3) assist requesters when the statutory 20-day time limit to respond to requests will be extended for unusual circumstances; (4) assist requesters when the NRC grants requests in full or in part, or when the NRC denies requests in full or in part; and (5) assist requesters in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
Overall, this final rule assists the public with locating relevant provisions to submit their FOIA requests with greater ease and introduces customer service principles addressed by the FOIA Public Liaison that will be codified in relevant sections of the rule.
This final rule will apply to future FOIA requests submitted to and processed by NRC. It amends the following areas, as outlined in the DOJ template that reflect changes in law and policy and sets forth requirements for Federal agencies:
This final rule revises § 9.11 to include references to the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget. It also incorporates references to Privacy Act requests and considerations for processing these requests, as outlined in 10 CFR part 9, subpart B, “Privacy Act Regulations.” These changes clarify that there is a separate subpart addressing requirements for individuals seeking records about themselves, which is a common type of request received by the NRC.
This final rule renames § 9.21 from “Publicly available records” to “Publicly available records and proactive disclosures.” It also revises the section to provide clarity and re-organize content to align with the structure of the statutory language at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1-3). More specifically, this section clarifies: (1) how the NRC makes public information available, (2) how the NRC makes information available for public inspection in electronic format, and (3) how the NRC addresses requests for records and makes records promptly available to any person. In addition, the final rule requires the NRC to review and update its website of posted records on an ongoing basis. Finally, it adds requirements for offering requesters the assistance of the NRC's FOIA Liaison Officer in locating posted materials.
This final rule renames § 9.23 from “Requests for records” to “Requirements for making requests.” It revises the section to provide clarity and re-organize content to set forth the instructions and requirements for submitting FOIA requests to the NRC and what occurs if the requests do not reasonably describe the records sought. This section is critical to the public understanding of what to include and how to submit a FOIA request. This final rule revises this section to include modern and frequently used methods for request submissions, such as email and online portals. Moreover, this section adds requirements to: (1) allow the requester to specify the proposed format of requested records, (2) offer resources of the FOIA Public Liaison to aid the requester in making a request and to assist requesters in correcting a request that does not reasonably describe the records sought, (3) describe the agency's obligation to inform the requester why a particular request is insufficient, and (4) describe the consequences to the requester for failing to reasonably describe the records.
This final rule renames § 9.25 from “Initial disclosure determination” to “Responsibility for responding to requests.” It revises the section to clarify and re-organize its content to align with DOJ guidance. This final rule revises this section to: (1) designate a standard end-date for searches, (2) describe handling of misdirected requests, (3) describe how to handle requests involving classified information, and (4) include the use of record exclusions.
This final rule adds § 9.26, titled “Timing of responses to requests.” It relocates certain requirements from § 9.23, “Requests for records,” and § 9.25, “Initial disclosure determination,” to consolidate timeline considerations into a single section. This section addresses when the NRC considers a request as received, specifies the timeline for initial disclosures and multi-track processing, and outlines extensions for unusual circumstances, expedited processing, and exceptional circumstances. Integrating all these topics under one section heading simplifies and clarifies the method of identifying timeline requirements.
This final rule renames § 9.27 from “Form and content of responses” to “Responses to requests.” It revises this section to align with statutory language by making clarifying changes and re-organizing content. This final rule revises this section to add: (1) details to the requirements for content of denials that includes an estimate of the volume of records withheld, (2) a description of the appeal requirements, and (3) additional information on the assistance available from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison. Additionally, this final rule revises this section to include a detailed description of adverse determinations of requests and markings on released documents.
This final rule renames § 9.28 from “Predisclosure notification procedures for information containing trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information” to “Requests for business
This final rule renames § 9.29 from “Appeal from initial determination” to “Administrative appeals.” It updates this section to align with DOJ guidance in addition to clarifying NRC's administrative appeal process.
This final rule renames § 9.35, “Duplication fees,” to “Duplication fees for documents in the Public Document Reading Room and for NRC Advisory Committee proceedings.” While the content of the section remains unchanged, the new title more accurately reflects the specific types of duplication services the fees cover.
This final rule renames § 9.37, “Fees for search and review of agency records by NRC personnel,” to “Fees for processing NRC FOIA requests.” It consolidates and replaces six other fee-related sections including § 9.33, “Search, review, and special service fees”; § 9.34, “Assessment of interest and debt collection”; § 9.35, “Duplication fees”; § 9.39, “Search and duplication provided without charge”; § 9.40, “Assessment of fees”; § 9.41, “Requests for waiver or reduction of fees”; and § 9.43, “Processing requests for a waiver or reduction of fees.” The updated § 9.37 ensures that FOIA-related searches, reviews, and duplications are handled efficiently and cost-effectively, outlines payment procedures, and provides clear information on duplication practices for FOIA responses.
This final rule adds § 9.38 and titles it “Preservation of Records.” This section addresses the preservation of all correspondence associated with a request until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 33 or the General Records Schedule 4.2.
This final rule replaces § 9.41, “Requests for waiver or reduction of fees,” with “Other rights and services.” It revises the section to clarify that individuals are not entitled, as a matter of right, to services or disclosures beyond what FOIA provides. Provisions related to fee waivers or reductions are relocated to § 9.37.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)) (APA), notice and comment requirements do not apply “to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” Because this revision affects the NRC's rules of agency procedure and practice, the notice and comment provisions of the APA do not apply. Moreover, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.
The amendments are effective upon publication in the
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect those who make requests for access to information under the provisions of the FOIA. This rulemaking would align the NRC's FOIA regulations with the DOJ template consistent with other agencies. These are considered minor, non-substantive amendments and will not have an economic impact on NRC licensees or the public.
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared because this final rule amends the NRC's FOIA regulations to incorporate language and guidance from the Department of Justice Template for Agency FOIA Regulations. The amendments in this final rule improve the clarity of existing regulations and are considered procedural, minor, non-substantive amendments. Further, these amendments do not have an economic impact on NRC licensees or members of the public.
This final rule amends the NRC's FOIA implementing regulations to improve clarity by using plain language, promote agency accountability, improve efficiency in responding to FOIA requests, update roles and responsibilities, and align the regulations with current Federal best practices for implementing FOIA. The final rule does not meet the definition of backfitting in 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76, or affect issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the NRC has determined that this final rule does not constitute a backfit or affect issue finality for any approvals issued under 10 CFR part 52.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action eligible for categorical exclusion because it meets the criterion described in § 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
This final rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this final rule is not significant regulatory action.
NRC has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes in this rule are necessary for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of Executive Order 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this final rule.
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has found that it does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The NRC will not be issuing guidance for this rulemaking. The amendments in this final rule would not necessitate creating new public guidance on the FOIA process.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Criminal penalties, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sunshine Act.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is amending 10 CFR part 9 as follows:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, sec. 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Subpart A also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Subpart E also issued under 42 U.S.C. 405 note.
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 9.23, 9.25, 9.26, 9.28, 9.29, 9.37, 9.53, 9.54, 9.55, 9.65, 9.66, and 9.67.
This subpart prescribes procedures for making Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) agency records available to the public for inspection and copying pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and provides notice of procedures for obtaining NRC records otherwise publicly available. This subpart should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Guidelines). Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) are processed in accordance with NRC's Privacy Act regulations at subpart B of this part. This subpart does not affect the dissemination or distribution of NRC-originated, or NRC contractor-originated, information to the public under any other NRC public, technical, or other information program or policy.
As used in this part:
(1) Publicly-available books, periodicals, or other publications that are owned or copyrighted by non-Federal sources;
(2) Records solely in the possession and control of NRC contractors;
(3) Personal records in possession of NRC personnel that have not been circulated, were not required to be created or retained by the NRC, and can be retained or discarded at the author's sole discretion, or records of a personal nature that are not associated with any Government business; or
(4) Non-substantive information in logs or schedule books of the Chairman or Commissioners, uncirculated except for typing or recording purposes.
(1) That a failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(2) With respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records demanded in a single request; or
(3) The need for consultation, which will be conducted with all practical speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the NRC having substantial subject-matter interest therein.
The NRC will make available for public inspection and copying any reasonably described agency record in the possession and control of the NRC under the provisions of this subpart, and upon request by any person. Records will be made available in any form or format requested by a person if the record is readily reproducible by NRC in that form or format. The NRC will make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible. The NRC will make reasonable efforts to search for records in electronic form or format when requested, except when these efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of any of the NRC's automated information systems. Records that the NRC routinely makes publicly available are described in § 9.21. Procedures and conditions governing requests for records are set forth in § 9.23.
(a) The FOIA provides for public access to information and records developed or maintained by Federal agencies.
(b) The following types of agency records are exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b):
(1) Records—
(i) That are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and
(ii) That are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) Records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the agency;
(3) Records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552b), provided that the statute—
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in a manner that leaves no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential;
(5) Interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege would not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;
(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of these law enforcement records or information—
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority, or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, or information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) Matters contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(c) Nothing in this subpart authorizes withholding of information or limiting the availability of records to the public except as specifically provided in this part, nor is this subpart authority to withhold information from Congress.
(d)(1) The NRC will withhold information under this subpart only if—
(i) The NRC reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(ii) Disclosure is prohibited by law.
(2) Nothing in this subpart requires disclosure of information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure by law, or otherwise exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).
(e) Whenever a request is made that involves access to agency records described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the NRC may, during only the time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this subpart when—
(1) The investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and
(2) There is reason to believe that—
(i) The subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency; and
(ii) Disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
(a) For records required to be made available under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), the NRC will delete information that is exempt under one or more of the exemptions cited in § 9.17. The amount of information deleted will be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless providing this information would harm an interest protected by the exemption(s) under which the matter has been withheld.
(b) In responding to a request for information submitted under § 9.23, in which it has been determined to withhold exempt information, the NRC will segregate—
(1) Information that is exempt from public disclosure under § 9.17 from nonexempt information; and
(2) Factual information from advice, opinions, and recommendations in predecisional records unless the information is inextricably intertwined, or is contained in drafts, legal work products, and records covered by the attorney-client privilege, or is otherwise exempt from disclosure.
(c) In denying a request for records, in whole or in part, the NRC will make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any information requested that is denied and provide the estimate to the person making the request, unless providing the estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemption(s) under which the information has been denied.
(d) When entire records or portions thereof are denied and deletions are made from parts of the record by computer, the amount of information deleted will be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless providing this indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption(s) under which the matter has been denied.
(a)
(1) Descriptions of its headquarters and regional organization and the established place at which, the persons from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submissions or requests, or obtain decisions;
(2) Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(3) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(4) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the NRC and available for public disclosure if subject to the Executive Order 12866 OIRA review process; and
(5) Each amendment, revision, or repeal of matters referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(b)
(1) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, and orders of the NRC issued as a result of adjudication of cases;
(2) Those statements of policy and interpretations that have been adopted by the NRC but are not published in the
(3) NRC rules and regulations;
(4) NRC manuals and instructions to NRC personnel that affect any member of the public; and
(5) Copies of all records made publicly available pursuant to this section.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) A person may request access to publicly available records in person, by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, by email at
(2) Each record requested must be described in sufficient detail to enable the NRC Public Document Room staff to locate the record.
(3) To obtain copies of records expeditiously, a person may open an account with the NRC Public Document Room reproduction contractor. Payment for reproduction services will be made directly to the contractor in accordance with § 9.35.
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1) By mail or delivery service to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
(2) By email to
(3) Electronically to the National FOIA Portal at
(c)
(2) If after receiving a request the NRC determines that it does not reasonably describe the records sought, the NRC will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. If a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the agency's response to the request may be delayed.
(3) To ensure the NRC's ability to communicate effectively with a requester, a request must include contact information for the requester, including the name of the requester and, to the extent available, a mailing address, telephone number, and email address at which the NRC may contact the requester regarding the request.
(4) A requester may specify the preferred form or format (including an electronic format) for the records they seek. The NRC will accommodate the requester's preference if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format.
(5) A requester must indicate in the request whether the requester is a commercial user, an educational institution, a non-commercial scientific institution, a representative of the news media, or “other” requester as those terms are defined in § 9.13, and the basis for claiming that fee category as described in § 9.37.
(6) If a requester seeks a waiver or reduction of fees associated with processing a request, then the request must include a statement to that effect as required by § 9.37.
(7) If a requester seeks expedited processing of a request, then the request must include a statement to that effect as required by § 9.26.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(2) For records originated by, or located in, the files of the Office of the Inspector General, the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, or their delegate, will make the initial determination either to grant or to deny in whole or in part requests for records. If disclosure is authorized, the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations will furnish the agency records to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, who will notify the requester of the determination.
(3) For records originated by, or transmitted to, the Commission, a Commissioner, or records originated by, or for which the Office of the Secretary or an Advisory Committee has primary responsibility, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission, or their delegate, will make the initial determination either to grant or to deny in whole or in part a request for records. If disclosure is authorized, the head of the office will furnish the agency records to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, who will notify the requester of the determination.
(4) For records originated by, or for which the Office of the General Counsel has principal responsibility, the General Counsel will make the initial determinations either to grant or to deny in whole or in part requests for records. If disclosure is authorized, the head of the office will furnish the agency records to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, who will notify the requester of the determination.
(b)
(i) State the exemptions relied upon to deny the request in part or in whole;
(ii) If technically feasible, indicate the amount of information deleted and the exemptions under which the deletion is made at the place in the record where such deletion is made (unless providing such indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption relied upon to deny such material);
(iii) Set forth the name and title or position of the responsible official;
(iv) Advise the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison, or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section;
(v) Advise the requester of the right to an administrative appeal in accordance with § 9.29; and
(vi) Specify the official or office to which such an appeal will be submitted.
(2) If the NRC determines, after a reasonable search for records, that no responsive records have been found to exist, the NRC will notify the requester of the determination in writing or by email. The notification will also advise the requester of the right to administratively appeal the NRC's determination that no responsive records exist (
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(2) The NRC will maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of the exclusion by the Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Whenever the NRC refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, the NRC will document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral, informing the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.
(3)
(f)
(2) Whenever a request involves a record containing information that has been classified or may be appropriate for classification by another agency under any applicable executive order concerning the classification of records, the NRC will refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the agency that classified the information, or that should consider the information for classification. Whenever an agency's record contains information that has been derivatively classified (
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The NRC will advise a requester of the track into which their request falls and, when appropriate, will offer the requester an opportunity to narrow the scope of their request so that it can be placed in a different processing track. The NRC will notify the requester in writing if subsequent information substantially changes the estimated time to process a request. A requester may modify the request to allow it to be processed faster or to reduce the cost of processing. The NRC may provide partial or interim responses to requester, as appropriate.
(3) The NRC uses a three-track system.
(i) The first track is for expedited processing. The NRC will process a FOIA request on an expedited basis when a requester satisfies the requirements for expedited processing as set forth in paragraph (g) of this section.
(ii) The second track is for simple requests (
(iii) The third track is for complex requests that, because of their unusual volume or other complexity, are expected to take more than 30 working days to complete (
(d)
(2) In unusual circumstances, the NRC may extend the time limit prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section by not more than 10 working days. The extension may be made by written notice to the person making the request to explain the reasons for the extension and indicate the date on which a determination is expected to be made. The NRC may consider the following factors in determining whether “unusual circumstances,” as defined in § 9.13, apply:
(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from three or more offices within NRC's headquarters and/or regional offices;
(ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records demanded in a single request;
(iii) The need for consultation with another Government agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request;
(iv) The need to undertake a declassification review of records;
(v) The need to refer records to a licensee or other business submitter under § 9.28; or
(vi) The need to retrieve records from Federal Records Centers or other off-site facilities.
(e)
(f)
(2) A requester will be provided an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed in a shorter amount of time, or to agree to a reasonable alternative time frame for processing. When notifying a requester under this paragraph (f), the NRC will make available its FOIA Public Liaison to assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency and will notify the requester of the requester's right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration. See § 9.25(c).
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph (f), “exceptional circumstances” do not include delays that result from the normal predictable workload of FOIA requests or a failure by the NRC to exercise due diligence in processing the request. A requester's unwillingness to agree to reasonable modification of the request or an alternative time for processing the request may be considered as factors in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist and whether the agency exercised due diligence in responding to the request.
(g)
(2) A request for expedited processing must:
(i) Be made in writing;
(ii) Be labelled “Expedited Processing Requested”;
(iii) Be submitted as part of a request for records in accordance with § 9.23; and
(iv) Include a statement certifying the compelling need given to be true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. The NRC may waive the certification requirement as a matter of administrative discretion.
(3) The Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, or their delegate, will make the initial determination whether to grant or deny a request for expedited processing and will notify a requester within 10 calendar days after the request has been received whether expedited processing will be granted.
(4) If the NRC grants a request for expedited processing, then the NRC will give the expedited request priority over non-expedited requests and will process the expedited request as soon as practical.
(5) If the NRC denies a request for expedited processing, then the requester will have the right to submit an appeal to the denial determination in accordance with § 9.29. The NRC will communicate this appeal right as part of its written notification to the requester denying expedited processing. The requester will label its appeal request “Appeal for Expedited Processing.”
(a)
(b)
(1) The applicable tracking number;
(2) The date of receipt, as determined in accordance with § 9.23;
(3) A brief statement identifying the subject matter of the request; and
(4) Confirmation, with respect to any fees that may apply to the request pursuant to § 9.37, that the requester has sought a waiver or reduction in such fees, has agreed to pay any and all applicable fees, or has specified a higher limit that the requester is willing to pay in fees to process the request.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the head of the office recommending denial of the record;
(3) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 9.29, and a description of the appeal requirements; and
(5) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the agency's FOIA Public Liaison, and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS in accordance with § 9.25(c).
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA; or
(ii) The NRC has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.
(2) The notice requirements of this paragraph (c) will not apply if:
(i) The NRC determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;
(ii) The information lawfully has been published or otherwise made available to the public;
(iii) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600; or
(iv) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (d)(1) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the NRC will, within a reasonable time prior to a specified disclosure date, give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information.
(d)
(2) If a submitter fails to respond to the notice within the time specified in the notice, the submitter will be considered to have no objection to the disclosure of the information. Information provided by the submitter that is received after the specified date for a response will not be considered unless that date is extended by the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer upon request by the submitter.
(e)
(1) A statement of the reasons for which the submitter's disclosure objections were not sustained;
(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date that is not less than 30 calendar days after the notice of the final decision to release the requested information has been sent, by mail or email, to the submitter, after which the information will be made available to the public.
(f)
(a)
(1) Denial of a Freedom of Information Act request for access, in whole or part, to agency records;
(2) Denial of a request for waiver or reduction of fees, including a denial to assign a requester to a particular fee category; or
(3) Denial of a request for expedited processing.
(b)
(c)
(1) The appeal must be made in writing;
(2) An appeal, other than an appeal of the denial of an expedited processing request, must be postmarked or submitted electronically within 90 calendar days of the date of an adverse determination;
(3) An appeal of a denial of an expedited processing request must be made within 10 calendar days of the date of an adverse determination;
(4) If an appeal is submitted by mail or delivery service, it must be addressed as set forth on the NRC's website;
(5) The appeal must be labelled “Freedom of Information Act Appeal”;
(6) If an appeal is submitted by electronic means, it must be addressed as set forth on the NRC's website,
(7) The appeal must set forth contact information for the requester, including to the extent available, a mailing address, telephone number, or email address at which the NRC may contact the requester regarding the appeal; and
(8) The appeal must specify the applicable request tracking number, the date of the initial request, and the date of the initial determination; and, where
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2) The official authorized to act on an appeal will decide whether to reverse the initial determination (in whole or in part), or to remand the initial determination to the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer for further action, and will notify the requester of this decision in writing within 20 working days, as defined in § 9.3, after the date of receipt of the appeal, unless extended pursuant to § 9.26(d) and (f).
(3) If the appeal is denied (in whole or in part), the requester will be:
(i) Notified in writing of the denial;
(ii) Notified of the reasons for the denial, including which of the FOIA exemptions were relied upon;
(iii) Notified of the name and title or position of the official responsible for the determination on appeal;
(iv) Provided with a statement that judicial review of the denial is available in the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, the judicial district in which the requested records are located, or the District of Columbia in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); and
(v) Provided with notification that dispute resolution services are available to the requester as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation through the Office of Government Information Services in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(3). Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If the NRC agrees to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by the Office of Government Information Services, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. See § 9.30 for OGIS contact information.
(4) If an initial determination is remanded or modified on appeal, the requester will be notified of that determination in writing. The NRC will then further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and will respond directly to the requester.
(g)
(h)
(a) NRC's FOIA Public Liaison:
(1) By mail—11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; and
(2) By email—
(b) Office of Government Information Services within National Archives and Records Administration:
(1) By mail—8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, MD 20740;
(2) By facsimile—202-741-5769; and
(3) By email—
(a)(1) The charges by the duplicating service contractor for the duplication of records made available under § 9.21 at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room OWFN-P1 B35, Rockville, Maryland, may be found on the NRC's website at
(i) Paper-to-paper reproduction is $0.30 per page for standard size (up to and including 11″ x 14″ reduced). Pages 11″ x 17″ are $0.30 per page. Pages larger than 11″ x 17″, including engineering drawings, are $1.50 per square foot.
(ii) Pages larger than 11″ x 17″ are $1.50 per square foot.
(iii) Microfiche-to-paper reproduction is $0.30 per page. Aperture card blowback to paper is $3.00 per square foot.
(iv) Microfiche card duplication is $5.00 per card; CD-ROM duplication is $10.00 each.
(v) The charges for Electronic Full Text (EFT) (ADAMS documents) copying are as follows:
(A) Electronic Full Text (EFT) copying of ADAMS documents to paper (applies to images, OCR TIFF, and PDF text) is $0.30 per page.
(B) EFT copying of ADAMS documents to CD-ROM is $5.00 per CD plus $0.15 per page.
(C) CD-ROM-to-paper reproduction is $0.30 per page.
(vi) Priority rates (rush processing) are as follows:
(A) The priority rate offered for standard size paper-to-paper reproduction is $0.35, microfiche-to-paper reproduction is $0.40, EFT copying of ADAMS documents to paper, and CD-ROM-to-paper production is $0.35 per page.
(B) The priority rate for aperture cards is $3.50 per square foot. The priority rate for copying EFT to CD-ROM is $6.00 per CD-ROM plus $0.20 per page.
(vii) Facsimile charges are $1.00 per page for local calls; $2.00 per page for U.S. long distance calls, and $6.00 per page for foreign long-distance calls, plus the regular per page copying charge.
(2) A requester may submit mail-order requests for contractor duplication of NRC records made by writing to the NRC Public Document Room. The charges for mail-order duplication of records are the same as those set out in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, plus mailing or shipping charges.
(3) A requester may open an account with the duplicating service contractor. A requester may obtain the name and address and billing policy of the contractor from the NRC Public Document Room.
(4) Any change in the costs specified in this section will become effective immediately pending completion of the final rulemaking that amends this section to reflect the new charges. The Commission will post the charges that will be in effect for the interim period at the NRC Public Document Room. The Commission will publish a final rule in the
(b) The NRC will assess the following charges for copies of records to be duplicated by the NRC at locations other than the NRC Public Document Room located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
(1) Sizes up to 8
(2) The charge for duplicating records other than those specified in paragraphs
(c) In compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a requester may purchase copies of transcripts of testimony in NRC Advisory Committee proceedings, which are transcribed by a reporting firm under contract with the NRC directly from the reporting firm at the cost of reproduction as provided for in the contract with the reporting firm. A requester may also purchase transcripts from the NRC at the cost of reproduction as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Copyrighted material may not be reproduced in violation of the copyright laws. Requesters will be given the citation to any copyrighted publication and advised to contact the NRC Public Document Room to arrange to view the publication.
(a)
(1) The NRC will generally respond to a request electronically. Except where a requester specifically asks that the NRC provide released records in paper format, or where the records must be scanned to process the records, the NRC will ordinarily not charge duplication fees. However, where a requester asks that the NRC provide released records in paper format, or where scanning records into a digital format is necessary to process the records, the NRC will charge a requester the fees for the cost of printing or copying records at the rate of $0.20 per page.
(2) The NRC will charge the following hourly rates for search and review of agency records by NRC personnel, rounded up to the nearest full hour:
(i) Clerical search and review at a salary rate that is equivalent to a GG-9/step 7, plus 16 percent fringe benefits;
(ii) Professional/managerial search and review at a salary rate that is equivalent to a GG-14/step 7, plus 16 percent fringe benefits; and
(iii) Senior executive or Commissioner search and review at a salary rate that is equivalent to an ES-Maximum, plus 16 percent fringe benefits.
(3) Search costs will be assessed even if no records are located, or, if records are located, all are exempt from disclosure.
(4) The NRC will honor the requester's preference for receiving records in a particular format whenever the NRC can readily reproduce the record in that format.
(b)
(2) The requester will have the right to submit an appeal of the NRC's determination of fee category in accordance with § 9.29. The NRC will communicate this appeal right as part of its written determination of one of the following fee categories:
(i) Commercial user.
(ii) Educational institution.
(iii) Noncommercial scientific institution.
(iv) Representative of the news media.
(v) Other requester.
(c)
(1) Commercial users will be charged the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the requested records.
(i) When a request is received for a disclosure that is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the NRC will not consider a request for a waiver or reduction of fees based upon the assertion that disclosure would be in the public interest. The NRC may recover the cost of searching for and reviewing records even when there is ultimately no disclosure of records or no records are located.
(ii) The NRC will not charge commercial use requesters for review at the administrative appeal stage of exemptions applied at the initial review stage. However, any costs associated with an agency's re-review of withheld information may be assessed as review fees.
(2) Educational and non-commercial scientific institution requesters will be charged only for the cost of duplicating records they request, except that the NRC will provide the first 100 pages of duplication free of charge.
(3) Representatives of the news media will be charged only for the cost of duplicating the records they request, except that the NRC will provide the first 100 pages of duplication free of charge.
(4) Other requesters who do not fit any of the categories described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section will be charged the full direct cost of searching for and duplicating records that are responsive to the request, except that the NRC will provide the first 100 pages of duplication and the first two hours of search time free of charge.
(i) For copies of records produced on tapes, disks, or other media, the NRC will charge the direct costs of producing the copy, including operator time. The NRC may recover the cost of searching for records even if there is ultimately no disclosure of records, or no records are located.
(ii) Requests from persons for records about themselves filed in the NRC's systems of records will be assessed fees as provided under the fee provisions in § 9.85.
(d)
(1) If the cost of collecting a fee would be equal to or greater than the total FOIA processing fee, taking into account any free services to which the requester is entitled under this section, then the NRC will not charge a requester the FOIA processing fees.
(2) If the NRC has waived or reduced FOIA processing fees in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, then the NRC will not charge the portion of the FOIA processing fees that has been waived or reduced.
(3) If the NRC fails to comply with any time limit under § 9.26, then the NRC will not assess search fees.
(4) If the requester is a representative of the news media or an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, then the NRC will not assess duplication fees, unless:
(i) A court has determined that exceptional circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, exist; or
(ii) The NRC has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined under § 9.13 and referenced in § 9.26, apply to the processing of the request; and
(A) Provided timely written notice to the requester of the unusual circumstances in accordance with § 9.26;
(B) Determined that more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request; and
(C) Discussed with the requester (or made not less than three good faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request.
(5) If the NRC determines, as a matter of administrative discretion, that waiving or reducing the fees would serve the interest of the United States Government.
(e)
(i) Requests such waiver or reduction of fees in writing as part of the FOIA request;
(ii) Labels the request for waiver or reduction of fees “Fee Waiver or Reduction Requested” on the FOIA request; and
(iii) Demonstrates that the fee reduction or waiver is in the public interest because:
(A) Furnishing the information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government; and
(B) Furnishing the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(2) However, a requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time, so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal.
(3) When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester must pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
(f)
(2) When the NRC determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, the NRC will require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the NRC within 30 calendar days of the billing date, the NRC will require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and make an advance payment of the full amount of any estimated fee before the NRC begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. Where the NRC has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity to avoid paying outstanding fees, the NRC may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In situations in which the NRC requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of the agency's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(g)
(i) If only a portion of the fee can be estimated readily, the NRC will advise the requester accordingly.
(ii) If the request is for a noncommercial use, the notice will specify that the requester is entitled to the statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication at no charge.
(iii) If the requester is charged search fees, two hours of search time will be provided at no charge, and the NRC will advise the requester whether those entitlements have been provided.
(2) If the NRC notifies the requester that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. The NRC will not accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but the NRC estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the agency will toll (pause) the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. The agency will inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) The NRC FOIA Public Liaison is available to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost. Contact the NRC FOIA Public Liaison in accordance with § 9.30.
(h)
(2) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by the NRC at a Federal records center operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the NRC will charge additional costs in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by NARA.
(i)
(2) The NRC will use its debt collection procedures that are in part 15 of this chapter for any overdue fees.
(j)
(k)
The NRC will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records described in this section will not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
(a) On or before February 1 of each year, the NRC will submit a report covering the preceding fiscal year to the Attorney General of the United States and to the Director of the Office of Government Information Services that will include the information required by 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(1).
(b) The NRC will make its annual FOIA reports available to the public at the NRC website,
Nothing in this subpart will be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Civil Rights and EEO, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; further delay of effective date.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is further extending the effective date of the direct final rule “Rescinding Regulations for Loans for Minority Business Enterprises Seeking DOE Contracts and Assistance,” published on May 16, 2025.
As of March 6, 2026, the effective date of the direct final rule published May 16, 2025, at 90 FR 20769, delayed until September 12, 2025 (90 FR 31137), further delayed until December 9, 2025 (90 FR 43539), and again delayed until March 9, 2026 (90 FR 56967) is further delayed until June 4, 2026.
Mr. Jeffrey Novak, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-5281 or
On May 16, 2025, DOE published a direct final rule. 90 FR 20769. DOE stated in that direct final rule that if significant adverse comments were received by June 16, 2025, DOE would withdraw the direct final rule.
In this document, DOE is further extending the effective date in order to follow the Department of Justice direction on the topic of the direct final rule under Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” and Executive Order 12250, “Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws.” 90 FR 17537 (April 28, 2025); 45 FR 72995 (Nov. 4, 1980).
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Additionally, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 2026, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Civil Rights and EEO, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; further delay of effective date.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is further extending the effective date of the direct final rule “Rescinding Construction Requirements Related to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities,” published on May 16, 2025.
As of March 6, 2026, the effective date of the direct final rule published May 16, 2025, at 90 FR 20783, delayed until September 12, 2025 (90 FR 31140), further delayed until December 10, 2025 (90 FR 43907), and again delayed until March 9, 2026 (90 FR 56968) is further delayed until July 6, 2026.
Mr. Jeffrey Novak, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-5281 or
On May 16, 2025, DOE published a direct final rule. 90 FR 20783. DOE stated in that direct final rule that if significant adverse comments were received by June 16, 2025, DOE would withdraw the direct final rule.
In this document, DOE is further extending the effective date in order to
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Additionally, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 2026, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Civil Rights and EEO, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; further delay of effective date.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is further extending the effective date of the direct final rule “Rescinding Regulations Related to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities (General Provisions),” published on May 16, 2025.
As of March 6, 2026, the effective date of the direct final rule published May 16, 2025, at 90 FR 20777, delayed until September 12, 2025 (90 FR 31140), further delayed until December 9, 2025 (90 FR 43539), and again delayed until March 9, 2026 (90 FR 56967) is further delayed until July 6, 2026.
Mr. Jeffrey Novak, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-5281 or
On May 16, 2025, DOE published a direct final rule. 90 FR 20777. DOE stated in that direct final rule that if significant adverse comments were received by June 16, 2025, DOE would withdraw the direct final rule.
In this document, DOE is further extending the effective date in order to follow the Department of Justice direction on the topic of the direct final rule under Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” and Executive Order 12250, “Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws.” 90 FR 17537 (April 28, 2025); 45 FR 72995 (Nov. 4, 1980).
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Additionally, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 2026, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Civil Rights and EEO, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; further delay of effective date.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is further extending the effective date of the direct final rule “Rescinding Regulations Related to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” published on May 16, 2025.
As of March 6, 2026, the effective date of the direct final rule published May 16, 2025, at 90 FR 20788, delayed until September 12, 2025 (90 FR 31141), further delayed until December 9, 2025 (90 FR 43540, 90 FR 45317), and again delayed until March 9, 2026 (90 FR 56968) is further delayed until July 6, 2026.
Mr. Jeffrey Novak, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-5281 or
On May 16, 2025, DOE published a direct final rule. 90 FR 20788. DOE stated in that direct final rule that if significant adverse comments were received by June 16, 2025, DOE would withdraw the direct final rule.
In this document, DOE is further extending the effective date in order to follow the Department of Justice direction on the topic of the direct final
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Additionally, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 2026, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Farm Credit Administration.
Notification of effective date.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, or we) is publishing the effective date of the final rule correcting citations and making other technical updates and corrections throughout its regulations.
The final rule amending 12 CFR parts 611, 614, 620, 626, 628, and 630, published on January 26, 2026 (91 FR 3027), is effective February 25, 2026.
On January 26, 2026, FCA issued a final rule correcting citations and making other technical updates and corrections in 12 CFR parts 611, 614, 620, 626, 628, and 630. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252(c)(1), the final rule provided the regulation would become effective 30 days after publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, 767-300, 767-300F, and 767-400ER airplanes. This AD was prompted by a heavy maintenance check that found corrosion damage on a Model 767 satellite communications (SATCOM) high gain antenna adapter plate. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate for corrosion and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 10, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 10, 2026.
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; 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 The Boeing Company Model 767-200, 767-300, 767-300F, and 767-400ER airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and United Airlines, who supported the NPRM without change.
In addition, the FAA received a comment from Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to differentiate between a serviceable SATCOM adapter plate that has been inspected for corrosion with no damage findings and a repaired SATCOM adapter plate that has been inspected for corrosion and applicable on-condition corrective actions have been done. Delta also requested that the FAA add these specifications to the applicable table conditions and increase the repeat inspection interval for serviceable adapter plates to 96 months. Delta stated that the wording in note (b) of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, does not differentiate between an adapter plate that may have been repaired and one that has been inspected with no damage found and suggested that an adapter plate with no damage should be treated the same as a new adapter plate, with the repeat inspection interval for serviceable adapter plates increased to 96 months to match that of a new adapter plate.
The FAA does not agree with the request. The definition for a serviceable SATCOM adapter plate in note (b) of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, addresses both scenarios specified in Delta's comment. An adapter plate that has been inspected for corrosion, with applicable on-condition corrective actions performed, may have been repaired, and one that has been inspected with no damage found is included as part of the “applicable on-condition corrective actions” statement in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
Delta requested that the FAA provide guidance on AMM 23-25-18 and AMM 53-66-11, which are specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-23A0351, dated January 23, 2025. Delta suggested that there might be an error in the AMM numbers, since they are not located within the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) AMM manual. Delta stated that it does not have Boeing 767 AMM 23-25-18 and AMM 53-66-11 for antenna and adapter plate remove/installation and therefore cannot determine if AMM 23-25-19 for antenna and adapter plate install/removal is comparable to AMM 23-25-18 and AMM 53-66-11.
The FAA does not agree with the request. The FAA notes that the work instructions specified are in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-23A0351, dated January 23, 2025, not the mandated Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A00351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, and are therefore outside the scope of this AD. In addition to containing the same information that is required for compliance with the requirements bulletin, the service bulletin provides additional guidance, including references to accepted procedures for accomplishing the required actions. Since the references to the AMM sections in the service bulletin are “referred to” as additional guidance, operators are not required to use these sections to accomplish the removal, repair or replacement, and installation of the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate. Operators may use the appropriate AMM sections to accomplish the required actions. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
Delta requested the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow the application of BMS3-26, BMS3-29, or equivalent CIC to the adapter plate and increase the inspection intervals accordingly. Delta noted that although this is a corrosion-related issue, Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, does not recommend CIC application for corrosion. Delta suggested that CIC application would improve the corrosion protection of the plate and could therefore add time to the inspection intervals.
The FAA does not agree with the request. Substantiation would be necessary to justify the use of CIC and an increase of the repeat inspection interval. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently omitted the “Effectivity” paragraph and the “Condition” paragraph from the exception in paragraph (h), Exceptions to Requirements Bulletin Specifications, of the proposed AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include these paragraphs in that exception.
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 NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025. This material specifies procedures for repetitive DET of the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate for corrosion and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repairing the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate or replacing it with a new or serviceable SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate if any corrosion found is less than or equal to 0.005 inch in depth; and replacing the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate with a new or serviceable SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plate if any corrosion found is greater than 0.005 inch in depth.
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 597 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any repair or replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair or replacement:
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 10, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, 767-300, 767-300F, and 767-400ER airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 23, Communications.
This AD was prompted by a heavy maintenance check that found corrosion damage on a Model 767 satellite communications (SATCOM) high gain antenna adapter plate. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent corrosion damage of the SATCOM high gain antenna adapter plates, which could result in parts departing the airplane (PDA). A PDA event of the SATCOM high gain antenna system could damage the primary flight control surfaces which may result in loss of continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025.
Where the “Effectivity” paragraph and the Condition and Boeing Recommended Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office,
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-23A0351 RB, dated January 23, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For the Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model Trent 7000-72 and Trent 7000-72C engines. This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's determination that certain intervals for visual inspection of the intermediate pressure 8 (IP8) and high pressure 3 (HP3) air tubes need to be reduced for certain engines, and instructions for visual inspection of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes were not available for certain other engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 10, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 10, 2026.
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RRD Model Trent 7000-72 and Trent 7000-72C engines. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and Delta Air Lines Inc. (Delta). ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.
Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to add an exception for Group 1 engines (on-wing) requiring air tube inspection “within 50 cycles after the effective date of this AD” rather than “within 30 days after the effective date of the AD.” Delta noted that a cycle-based limit would allow compliant inspection for engines that are added to Delta's fleet in the future, which may be past the 30 day compliance time (B) listed in Table 1 of EASA AD 2023-0186.
The FAA disagrees with the request to change on-wing compliance time requirements to a cycle-based limit because the calendar time compliance adequately addresses the unsafe condition and the use of 30 days is consistent with the MCAI. Operators may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
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 NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0186, which specifies procedures for performing initial and repetitive visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement if necessary. 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 100 engines installed on airplanes 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 engines 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 10, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Model Trent 7000-72 and Trent 7000-72C engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7500, Engine Bleed Air System.
This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's determination that certain intervals for visual inspection of the intermediate pressure 8 (IP8) and high pressure 3 (HP3) air tubes need to be reduced for certain engines, and instructions for visual inspection of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes were not available for certain other engines. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IP8 and HP3 air tubes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced efficiency of internal cooling and sealing flows, failure of the IP8 air tubes and HP3 air tubes, damage to the engine, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, perform all required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2023-0186, dated October 27, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0186).
(1) Where EASA AD 2023-0186 requires compliance from its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2023-0186 states “any damage is detected”, this AD requires replacing that text with “any cracking, damage, or sign of air leakage is detected”.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” paragraph of EASA AD 2023-0186.
Although the service material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0186 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0186, dated October 27, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-23-02, which applied to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2023-23-02 required, for certain airplanes, revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations; and accomplishing certain aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) tasks and corrective actions following short-term or long-term storage. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-23-02, additional power control unit (PCU) disconnect findings show that the task intervals must be reduced to allow earlier detection of potential single PCU disconnect cases. This AD continues to require certain actions in AD 2023-23-02 and requires repetitive operational checks of the rudder PCUs and repetitive operational tests of the elevator PCUs. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 23, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 23, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 20, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Brenda L. Buitrago, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brenda L. Buitrago, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
The FAA issued AD 2023-23-02, Amendment 39-22604 (88 FR 86574, December 14, 2023) (AD 2023-23-02), for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2023-23-02 was prompted by an MCAI originated by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03, dated January 20, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03), to correct an unsafe condition. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 was prompted by reports of PCU rod end fractures due to pitting corrosion and a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
AD 2023-23-02 required, for certain airplanes, revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. AD 2023-23-02 also required accomplishing certain AMM tasks and corrective actions following short-term or long-term storage. The FAA issued AD 2023-23-02 to address fractured PCU rod ends. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to a disconnect between the PCU and the elevator or rudder control surface, resulting in potential loss of the control surface function or inadequate flutter suppression.
Since the FAA issued AD 2023-23-02, Transport Canada superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70, dated December 22, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states the manufacturer has determined that the PCU rod end spherical bearing could seize, inducing a bending moment on the PCU output rod. This repetitive bending of the rod end will eventually lead to fatigue failure. Transport Canada AD CF-2018-29, dated November 2, 2018 (Transport Canada AD CF-2018-29) required detailed inspections of the rudder and elevator PCU rod ends to allow timely detection of pitting corrosion. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 required operators to use the appropriate return-to-service tasks following short-term or prolonged and long-term storage. In addition, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 required, for certain airplanes, the incorporation of a revised Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) task for the operational check of each rudder PCU and a new CMR task for the operational check of each elevator PCU to improve detection of potential single PCU disconnect cases. The actions required by Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 are in addition to those required by Transport Canada AD CF-2018-29.
The MCAI also states, since issuance of Transport Canada AD CF-2018-29 and Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03, the manufacturer has identified additional PCU disconnect findings. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 retains the requirements of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 and requires accomplishment of certain AMM tasks for operational checks of each rudder PCU and operational tests of each
Although Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 states that the requirements of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 are retained, only the requirements for returning an airplane to service after short-term or long-term storage are retained from that AD with no changes. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 specifies accomplishing certain repetitive operational checks of the rudder PCUs and repetitive operational tests of the elevator PCUs in lieu of revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03. The FAA has determined that these repetitive checks and tests provide a different method of compliance and more restrictive compliance times for addressing the unsafe condition, retain the same underlying operational checks and tests as the airworthiness limitations.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA issued AD 2019-19-08, Amendment 39-19744 (84 FR 60902, November 12, 2019) (AD 2019-19-08), which applies to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2019-19-08 corresponds to Transport Canada AD CF-2018-29, which is referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-03 and Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70. AD 2019-19-08 requires detailed inspections of the elevator PCU rod ends and applicable corrective actions and prohibits using certain AMM tasks. The actions required by AD 2019-19-08 are in addition to those required by this AD and do not affect compliance with this AD.
Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2023-23-02, this AD retains certain requirements of AD 2023-23-02. Those requirements are referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 specifies procedures for accomplishing the following AMM tasks, as applicable:
• Repetitive operational checks of the rudder PCUs.
• Repetitive operational tests of the elevator PCUs.
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 also specifies procedures for accomplishing the following AMM tasks and corrective actions, as applicable, for returning an airplane to service after short-term or long-term storage:
• An operational test of the rudder PCUs.
• An operational test of the elevator PCUs.
• An operational test of the rudder control system.
• An operational test of the elevator control system.
• A detailed inspection of the rudder PCU rod end spherical ball.
• A detailed inspection of the elevator PCU rod end spherical ball.
The corrective actions include making sure that the applicable parts are moving or rotating correctly.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD retains certain requirements of AD 2023-23-02. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 for compliance will be available at
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the repetitive task intervals required by AD 2023-23-02 are not adequate for detecting disconnects between the PCU and the elevator or rudder control surface, which could result in loss of control surface function or inadequate flutter suppression; thus, a shorter repetitive task interval of 200 hours flight time or 3 months, whichever occurs first, is needed. Failure to detect a latent flight-critical PCU disconnect condition would increase risk to continued safe flight and landing. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 711 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 23, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2023-23-02, Amendment 39-22604 (88 FR 86574, December 14, 2023) (AD 2023-23-02).
This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.
(2) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes.
(3) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
(4) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
(5) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
(6) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of power control unit (PCU) rod end fractures due to pitting corrosion and a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD was also prompted by additional PCU disconnect findings that show the task intervals must be reduced to allow earlier detection of potential single PCU disconnect cases. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fractured PCU rod ends. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to a disconnect between the PCU and the elevator or rudder control surface, resulting in potential loss of the control surface function or inadequate flutter suppression.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70, dated December 22, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70).
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 refers to hours airtime, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) Where paragraph A in Parts II and III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70 specifies to repeat certain airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task(s) “every 200 hours airtime”, this AD requires replacing that text with “at the intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours”.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Brenda L. Buitrago, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-70, dated December 22, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of the main rotor pitch rod rupturing during flight. This AD requires inspecting the upper and lower pitch rod end bearings on the pitch rods of the main rotor and depending on the results, corrective actions. This AD also requires reporting the results of the inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 23, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 23, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 20, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2288.
Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4152; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2026-0020, dated January 27, 2026 (EASA AD 2026-0020) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Helicopters (AH) Model H160-B helicopters. The MCAI states that pilots reported significant vibrations during flight and a subsequent investigation revealed a rupture of a main rotor pitch rod and a permanent plastic deformation of the pitch rod in the failure area. EASA issued Emergency AD 2026-001-E, dated January 8, 2026; corrected January 9, 2026 (EASA EAD 2026-001-E) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2026-01-51) as an interim action to repetitively replace the affected parts: main rotor lower pitch rod end bearing part number (P/N) U623A30T1002 and U623A30T1006 (manufacturer P/N 12-14043P and 12-14631P), and main rotor upper pitch rod end bearing P/N U623A30T1001 and U623A30T1005 (manufacturer P/N 12-14042P and 12-14630P). The MCAI is a supplementary measure to perform a one-time inspection of the affected parts; EASA EAD 2026-001-E is not superseded. EASA considers the MCAI an interim action.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the structural failure of the main rotor lower and upper pitch rod end bearings. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the main rotor pitch rod with consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2026-0020, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the upper and lower pitch rod end bearings on the pitch rods of the main rotor. Depending on the results, EASA AD 2026-0020 requires contacting AH for approved corrective actions. EASA AD 2026-0020 also requires the inspection results to be reported to AH. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the EASA AD 2026-0020, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
The MCAI specifies reporting the results of the inspection within 7 days, whereas this AD requires reporting the results within 10 days.
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2026-0020 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2026-0020 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2026-0020 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2026-0020. Material required by EASA AD 2026-0020 for compliance will be available at
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there is a significant risk of structural failure in the lower or upper main rotor pitch rod end bearings of helicopters and the inspection must be accomplished within 5 hours time-in-service. The compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these replacements:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 23, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model H160-B helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6200, Main Rotor System.
This AD was prompted by a report of the main rotor pitch rod rupturing during flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the structural failure of the main rotor lower and upper pitch rod end bearings. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the main rotor pitch rod with consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2026-0020, dated January 27, 2026 (EASA AD 2026-0020).
(1) Where EASA AD 2026-0020 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2026-0020 requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2026-0020 specifies to “before further flight, contact AH [Airbus helicopters] for the approved corrective actions(s) instructions, and within the compliance time specified therein”, this AD requires replacing that text with “before further flight, repair any discrepancy using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature”.
(4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2026-0020 specifies to “Within 7 days”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Within 10 days”.
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2026-0020 specifies “check”, this AD requires replacing that text with “inspection”.
(6) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2026-0020 specifies if a minimum of one out of roundness value is equal to or more than 0.3 mm (.012 in) “contact Airbus Helicopters for further instructions before resuming flights”, this AD requires replacing that text with “before further flight, perform corrective actions using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature”.
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2026-0020.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4152; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2026-0020, dated January 27, 2026.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace area designated as a surface area for an airport and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK. Additionally, this action makes administrative amendments to the airport's Class E airspace legal descriptions. These actions support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 14, 2026, The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA FAA-2025-5579 in the
Class E2 and E5 airspace areas are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area designated as a surface area and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK.
An airspace evaluation was conducted to analyze the airspace containment of a new special procedure at the airport. The evaluation identified several areas where the airspace at Ketchikan was not providing the minimum containment necessary for IFR operations within surface and transitional Class E airspace. Prior to this final rule, the Class E surface area airspace at the airport did not fully contain IFR departures until reaching the base of the next adjacent controlled airspace, nor did it fully contain the airport's approach procedures when operating less than 1,000 feet above the surface, with the only exception being the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS])-B approach procedure. FAA Order JO 7400.2,
The airspace review conducted on Ketchikan International Airport also revealed that its transitional Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface (Class E5) is not sized properly to contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The area of Class E5 immediately surrounding the airport is expanded to a 4.3-mile radius to better contain the circling portions of the Localizer (LOC) X Runway (RWY) 11, RNAV (GPS)-B, and RNAV (GPS)-C approach procedures. The northwestern portion of the Class E5 airspace is expanded approximately three miles and lengthened approximately 10 miles to better contain arriving and departing IFR operations when utilizing the Instrument Landing System (ILS) Y or LOC Y RWY 11, LOC X RWY 11, and WIGUL ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV) instrument flight procedures. The southeast portion of the Class E5 airspace is expanded by approximately two miles, lengthened by approximately one mile, and re-oriented to the south by approximately 10 degrees to better contain arriving and departing IFR operations when utilizing the ILS Y or LOC Y RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, ILS Z or LOC Z RWY 11, KETCHIKAN SIX DEPARTURE (Obstacle), ANNETTE THREE DEPARTURE (RNAV), DOOZI TWO DEPARTURE (RNAV), and UDENE THREE DEPARTURE (RNAV) procedures.
Further transitional containment above 1,200 feet above the surface is provided by the “Southeast Class E6” airspace that extends upward from 1,200 feet above the surface.
Furthermore, the airspace review identified administrative errors within the Ketchikan Class E airspace legal descriptions, which are being corrected. Ketchikan's geographic location (airport reference point) is updated to reflect the FAA's database, and the airspace areas are described using the updated location. This change creates a negligible shift in the airspace's lateral boundaries of approximately 700 feet. Additionally, Ketchikan's Class E airspace areas are partly described in relation to the Ketchikan LOC. Any reference to its LOC is removed as it is no longer needed to describe the airspace. Lastly, the Ketchikan Class E Surface Area Airspace contains a cut-out at the northwestern portion of the airspace near Ward's Cove that, prior to this final rule, was described using five named points. Of the five, only three of the listed points within the description's text header are usable as a reference due to their respective geographic locations, and one point is listed within the description body instead of its text header. Accordingly, “East Island” and “Decoy Benchmark” are removed as references, and the reference to the “Refuge Cove State Recreation Site Picnic Area” is shortened to “Refuge Cove State Recreation Site” and moved from the description's body to its text header.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Appendix B-2.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 3-mile radius of the airport, within 1.1 miles northeast and 1 mile southwest of the airport's 136° bearing extending to 4 miles southeast, and within 1 mile either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending to 4.7 miles northwest, excluding that airspace within a boundary defined by a line beginning at Refuge Recreation Site, thence to Danger Island, to Wrong Benchmark, thence northeast along the Ward Cove shoreline to the airport's 355° bearing at 3 miles, thence to the point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius, within 3 miles either side of the airport's 146° bearing extending to 10 miles southeast, within 2.2 miles either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending to 7.8 miles northwest, and within 3.5 miles either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending from 7.8 miles northwest of the airport to 20.2 miles northwest.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Final rule.
This rule removes HUD's Renewal Communities regulations because the designations were time limited, and all incentives have been repealed and sunset.
Wesley Armstrong, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7200, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2107 (this is not a toll-free number); email
The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (CRTR Act), enacted through the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763), authorized the designation of Renewal Communities (RCs). Under the CRTR Act, HUD had authority to designate up to 40 RCs, at least 12 of which were required to be rural communities. Once designated, RCs would receive special tax incentives administered by the Treasury Department, including zero-percent capital gains rate, renewal community employment credit, and commercial revitalization deductions, while HUD assisted RCs in planning and organizing development in conjunction with State and local governments.
On July 7, 2001, HUD published an interim final rule (66 FR 35850) defining key terms, establishing eligibility requirements, procedures for designation of RCs, and post-designation requirements applicable to RCs, with minor technical corrections issued on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 52675 to remove arson from the list of offenses included for purposes of determining the Local Crime Index. Designations were effective January 1, 2002, through “the earliest of: (a) December 31, 2009; (b) The termination date designated by the State and local governments in their nomination application, if any; or (c) The date HUD revokes the designation.” 24 CFR 599.501.
On January 24, 2002, HUD announced the designated Renewal Communities, with 28 urban areas and 12 rural. On October 3, 2003, HUD published a final rule (68 FR 57604) adopting the interim final rule without changes. Tax incentive designations were later extended to December 31, 2011, by § 753(a) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-312; 26 U.S.C. 1 note), in line with Empowerment Zone timelines.
The Renewal Communities provisions were removed by § 401(d)(5) of the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018, which allowed for a gradual phase out of existing benefits. All designations have now been fully sunset.
This rule is removing the Renewal Communities regulations, part 599, from title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. HUD is removing these regulations because the Renewal Communities designations have been
In accordance with regulations at 24 CFR part 10, it is the practice of the Department to offer interested parties an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. 24 CFR part 10 provides narrow exceptions to the notice and comment requirements if the Department finds good cause to omit notice and public participation. The good cause requirement under 24 CFR 10.1 may be satisfied when notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. To publish a rule prior to receiving and responding to public comments, the agency must find that at least one good cause exceptions is applicable.
HUD has determined that good cause exists to promulgate this final rule without prior notice and comment. Specifically, the Department has concluded that it is unnecessary to solicit and respond to public comments on the deletion of regulations when the designations are no longer in use and statutory authorization for the incentives repealed in 2018. Accordingly, HUD has concluded there is good cause to publish this rule prior to receiving and responding to public comments.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule eliminates language in 24 CFR part 599 relating to a designation no longer used and without statutory authority since 2018. Accordingly, this rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192, entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. OMB has determined that this final rule does not impose any regulatory costs as the regulations relate to designations that are all expired and is a repeal of a regulation for purposes of Executive Order 14192.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either: (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
Community development, Economic development, Housing, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Renewal communities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Urban areas.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is publishing a rule to migrate, without policy change,
This rule is effective March 6, 2026.
For clarification of content, contact Deborah Cullins-Threets, Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), at 202-501-0767 or
Federal agencies are responsible for issuing regulations and guidance that clearly communicate their statutory responsibilities to the public. Executive Order 13891 (E.O. 13891),
Likewise, E.O. 13777,
During GSA's review of its regulations, the Agency determined that its implementing regulation for the Age Act was improperly codified in the FPMR at 41 CFR part 101-8.7. The FPMR contains government-wide policy and guidance that applies across Federal agencies; however, the regulations at issue prohibit age discrimination in programs and activities of entities receiving Federal financial assistance through GSA and should be relocated to the GSPMR at 41 CFR part 105, which contains regulations that apply only to GSA. Relocating the regulations embraces the spirit and intent of E.O. 13777 to eliminate unnecessary regulatory costs by allowing GSA to close out the FPMR.
In summary, relocating the Age Act regulation is necessary to correct the regulatory placement, improve transparency and public understanding, and ensure consistency with E.O. 13777.
The legislative history of the Age Act reflects Congress's findings that age-based discrimination in federally assisted programs and activities constituted a barrier to full and fair participation by individuals of all ages. Congress identified a national need to establish uniform protections against age discrimination, consistent with its broader efforts to address age-related inequities, including those reflected in contemporaneous initiatives concerning older workers and older Americans. In November 1975, Congress enacted the Age Act as an amendment to the Older Americans Act (Pub. L. 94-135) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in all programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. 6101
GSA provides federal assistance through grants, public conveyances, and state surplus property programs and must hold its recipients accountable to the requirements of the Age Act and GSA's regulation. For example, GSA is required to define how the regulation applies to those programs, and establish its own compliance procedures, including a process for addressing complaints of age discrimination.
GSA's Age Act regulation gives GSA clear authority to conduct compliance reviews, investigate complaints, impose corrective actions, and enforce nondiscrimination requirements on recipients of GSA assistance. Without its own regulation, GSA could not formally impose requirements or take enforcement action to ensure compliance.
Additionally, GSA's regulation ensures that compliance requirements are tailored to real property, surplus property, and unique GSA assistance programs; processes that align with other GSA civil rights regulations, and compliance procedures that reflect GSA structure and workflows.
Having its own regulation ensures that GSA can update relevant terminology when necessary, modernize complaint-processing processes; add procedural clarity; and ensure alignment with current executive orders and the standards of other enforcement agencies.
Moreover, the regulation continues to be necessary because it provides protections for individuals interacting with GSA-funded programs; establishes clear expectations for GSA's recipients; supports GSA's compliance with government-wide civil rights responsibilities; and provides transparency, oversight, and accountability mechanisms to prevent age discrimination. GSA's regulation provides procedures to administer and authority to enforce the Age Act.
The migration of GSA's Age Act regulation makes no amendments to the underlying regulatory text; rather, it places the regulation in the appropriate part of the CFR to align with GSA's organizational structure and regulatory framework.
The revisions are administrative and non-substantive in nature. They do not modify policy intent, regulatory requirements, or program operations. Because the action has no economic impact, no additional costs, and no effect on the rights or responsibilities of any party, it does not constitute a significant regulatory action. The non-substantive changes are updating the numbering and cross-references due to the move to a new subpart, and the two sections with definitions have been combined into one to streamline the regulation.
This rulemaking is exempt from the advance notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), because this rulemaking relates to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rulemaking relates to both GSA's agency management and public property because it applies to Federally owned facilities under the jurisdiction, custody and control of GSA and the disposition of personal property.
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, it was reviewed under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rulemaking is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
This rule does not meet the definition of a rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. OIRA has determined that this rule does not meet the definition of a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. Title II, Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), is also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA. The CRA generally provides that before a rule may take effect, unless excepted, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This rule is excepted from CRA reporting requirements prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 as it relates to agency management or personnel under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B).
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FMR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR subchapter A as follows:
Title 40 U.S.C. 121(c).
Title 40 U.S.C. 121(c).
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.
This regulation sets out General Services Administration's (GSA) policies and procedures under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, in accordance with 45 CFR part 90. The Act and the Federal regulation permits Federally assisted programs or activities to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age which meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.
(a) The regulation applies to each GSA recipient and to each program or activity operated by the recipient.
(b) The regulations does not apply to:
(1) An age distinction contained in that part of Federal, State, local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body that:
(i) Provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age;
(ii) Establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or
(iii) Describes intended beneficiaries or target groups in age-related terms.
(2) Any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization or any labor-management apprenticeship training program, except for any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance for public service employment.
As used in these regulations, the term:
(1)
(2)
(1) Grants and loans of Federal funds,
(2) The grant or donation of Federal property and interests in property,
(3) the services of Federal personnel,
(4) the sale and lease of, and the permission to use (on other than a casual or transient basis), Federal property or any interest in such property without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is reduced for the purposes of assisting the recipient, or in recognition of the public interest to be served by such sale or lease to the recipient, and
(5) any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.
(1)(i) A department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or of a local government;
(ii) The entity of such state and local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other state or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a state or local government;
(2)(i) A college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(ii) A local educational agency (as defined in title 20 U.S.C. 7801), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(3)(i) An entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(A) If assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or
(B) Which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or
(ii) The entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(4) Any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this definition.
The rules stated in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 105-9.106 and 105-9.107 of this regulation.
(a)
(b)
(1) Excluding individuals from participating in, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
(2) Denying or limiting individual opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(c) The forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section are not necessarily a complete list.
A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited, if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor if:
(a) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics; and
(b) The other characteristic must be measured or approximated for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity; and
(c) The other characteristic can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and
(d) The other characteristic is impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.
(a) A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited by § 105-9.106, which is based on something other than age, even though the action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages.
(b) An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial correlation to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.
The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in § 105-9.106 and 105-9.107 is the recipient's.
Even in the absence of a finding of age discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects resulting in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity.
If a recipient's program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions is presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity.
Any age distinctions contained in a rule or regulation issued by GSA are presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program or activity to which the rule or regulation applies.
Each recipient of Federal financial assistance from GSA is responsible for ensuring that its programs or activities comply with the Act and this regulation and must take steps to eliminate violations of the Act. A recipient is also
(a) If a primary recipient passes on Federal financial assistance from GSA to subrecipients, the primary recipient provides to subrecipients, written notice of their obligations under the Act and this regulation.
(b) Each recipient makes necessary information about the Act and this regulation available to its beneficiaries to inform them about the protections against discrimination provided by the Act and this regulation.
(a)
(b)
(2) If an assessment indicates a violation of the Act and the GSA regulation, the recipient takes corrective action.
Each recipient must:
(a) Keep records in a form and containing information that GSA determines necessary to ensure that the recipient is complying with the Act and this regulation.
(b) Provide to GSA upon request, information and reports that GSA determines necessary to find out whether the recipient is complying with the Act and this regulation.
(c) Permit reasonable access by GSA to books, records, accounts, facilities, and other sources of information to the extent GSA finds it necessary to find out whether the recipient is complying with the Act and this regulation. GSA adopts the policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the kinds of data and information recipients are expected to maintain (Title 45 CFR Sec. 90.34). This regulation is parallel to compliance provisions in the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. While recognizing the need for enough data to assess recipient compliance, GSA is committed to reducing the data gathering burden on recipients. GSA further recognizes that there is no established body of knowledge or experience to guide the assessment of age discrimination. This regulation, therefore, does not impose specific data requirements upon recipients, rather, it allows GSA to be flexible in deciding what kinds of data should be kept by recipients, based on what kinds of data prove useful as GSA gains experience with the Age Discrimination Act, and age discrimination issues become clearer.
(d) In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 59-511), the reporting and record keeping provisions included in this regulation will be submitted, for approval, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). No data collection or record keeping requirement will be imposed on recipients or donees without the required OMB approval number.
(a) GSA may conduct compliance reviews and use similar procedures to investigate and correct violations of the Act and this regulation. GSA may conduct the reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The reviews may be as comprehensive as necessary to determine whether a violation of the Act and this regulation has occurred.
(b) If a compliance review indicates a violation of the Act or this regulation, GSA attempts to achieve voluntary compliance with the Act. If compliance cannot be achieved, GSA arranges for enforcement as described in § 105-9.121.
(a) Any person, individually or as a member of a class (defined at § 105-9.104 or on behalf of others, may file a complaint with GSA alleging discrimination prohibited by the Act or this regulation based on an action occurring after July 1, 1979. A complainant must file a complaint within 80 days from the date the complainant first has knowledge of the alleged act of discrimination. However, for good cause shown, GSA may extend this time limit.
(b) GSA considers the date a complaint is filed to be the date upon which the complaint is sufficient to be processed.
(c) GSA attempts to facilitate the filing of complaints if possible, including taking the following measures:
(1) Accepting as a sufficient complaint, any written statement that identifies the parties involved and the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged violation, describes the action or practice complained of, and is signed by the complainant;
(2) Freely permitting a complainant to add information to the complaint to meet the requirements of a sufficient complaint;
(3) Notifying the complainant and the recipient (or their representative) of their right to contact GSA for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process.
(d) GSA returns to the complainant any complaint outside the jurisdiction of this regulation, and states the reason(s) why it is outside the jurisdiction of the regulation.
(a) GSA promptly refers to the mediation agency designated by the Secretary, HHS, all sufficient complaints that:
(1) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and this regulation, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception; and
(2) Contain the information needed for further processing.
(b) Both the complainant and the recipient must participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgement that an agreement is not possible. Both parties need not meet with the mediator at the same time.
(c) If the complainant and the recipient agree, the mediator will prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator must send a copy of the agreement to GSA. GSA takes no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
(d) The mediator must protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of the mediation. No mediator may testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
(e) The mediation proceeds for a maximum of 60 calendar days after a
(1) 60 calendar days elapse from the time the complaint is filed; or
(2) Before the end of the 60 calendar-day period an agreement is reached; or
(3) Before the end of that 60 calendar-day period, the mediator finds that an agreement cannot be reached.
(f)The 60 calendar day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of GSA, for not more than 30 calendar days if the mediator determines that agreement is likely to be reached during the extension period.
(g) The mediator must return unresolved complaints to GSA.
(a)
(b)
A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who:
(a) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act of this regulation; or
(b) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, conciliation, and enforcement process.
(a) GSA may enforce the Act and these regulations through:
(1) Termination of a recipient's Federal financial assistance from GSA under the program or activity involved where the recipient has violated the Act or this regulation. The determination of the recipient's violation may be made only after a recipient has had an opportunity for a hearing on the record before an administrative law judge.
(2) Any other means authorized by law including, but not limited to:
(i) Referral to the Department of Justice for proceeding to enforce any rights of the United States or obligations of the recipients created by the Act or this regulation, or
(ii) Use of any requirement of or referral to any Federal, State, or local government agency that has the effect of correcting a violation of the Act or this regulation.
(b) GSA limits any termination to the particular recipient and program or activity or part of such program or activity GSA finds in violation of this regulation. GSA does not base any part of a termination on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient that does not receive Federal financial assistance from GSA.
(c) GSA takes no action under paragraph (a) of this section until:
(1) The administrator advises the recipient of its failure to comply with the Act and this regulation and determines that voluntary compliance cannot be obtained, and
(2) 30 calendar days elapse after the Administrator sends a written report of the grounds of the action to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the program or activity involved. The Administrator files a report if any action is taken under paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) GSA may also defer granting new Federal financial assistance from GSA to a recipient when a hearing under § 105-9.122 is initiated.
(1) New Federal financial assistance from GSA includes all assistance for which GSA requires an application or approval, including renewal or continuation of existing activities, or authorization of new activities, during the deferral period. New Federal financial assistance from GSA does not include assistance approved before the beginning of a hearing.
(2) GSA does not begin a deferral until the recipient receives notice of an opportunity for a hearing under § 105-9.122. GSA does not continue a deferral for more than 60 calendar days unless a hearing begins within that time or the time for beginning the hearing is extended by mutual consent of the recipient and the Administrator. GSA does not continue a deferral for more than 30 calendar days after the close of the hearing, unless the hearing results in a finding against the recipient.
(3) GSA limits any deferral to the particular recipient and program or activity or part of such program or activity GSA finds in violation of these regulations. GSA does not base any part of a deferral on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient which does not, and would not, receive Federal financial assistance from GSA.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Technical rules of evidence shall not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to this part, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination shall be applied where reasonably necessary by the officer conducting the hearing. The hearing officer may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by the parties and opportunity shall be given to refute facts and arguments advances on either side of the issues. A transcript shall be made of the oral evidence except to the extent the substance thereof is stipulated for the record. All decisions shall be based upon the hearing record and written findings shall be made.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Any applicant or recipient adversely affected by an order entered pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section may at any time request the responsible GSA official to restore fully its eligibility to receive Federal financial assistance. Any such request shall be supported by information showing that the applicant or recipient has met the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If the responsible GSA official determines that those requirements have been satisfied, he or she shall restore such eligibility.
(3) If the responsible GSA official denies any such request, the applicant or recipient may submit a request for a hearing in writing, specifying why it believes such official to have been in error. It shall therefore be given an expeditious hearing, with a decision on the record, in accordance with rules of procedure issued by the responsible GSA official. The applicant or recipient will be restored to such eligibility if it proves at such hearing that it satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. While proceedings under this paragraph are pending, the sanctions imposed by the order issued under paragraph (f) of this section shall remain in effect.
If GSA finds a recipient discriminated against on the basis of age, the recipient must take any remedial action that GSA may require to overcome the effects of the discrimination. If another recipient exercises control over the recipient that discriminated, GSA may require both recipients to take remedial action.
(a) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if:
(1) 180 calendar days elapse after the complainant files the complaint and GSA makes no finding with regard to the complaint; or
(2) GSA Issues a finding in favor of the recipient.
(b) If GSA fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, GSA must:
(1) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact;
(2) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring civil action for injunctive relief; and
(3) Inform the complainant:
(i) That the complainant may bring civil action only in a United States district court for the district in which the recipient is located or transacts business;
(ii) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint;
(iii) That before commencing the action the complainant must give 30 calendar days notice by registered mail to the Secretary, HHS, The Administrator, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient;
(iv) That the notice must state the alleged violation of the Act, the relief requested, the court in which the complainant is bringing the action, and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
(v) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.
If GSA withholds Federal financial assistance from a recipient under this regulation, the Administrator may disburse the assistance to an alternate recipient; any public or nonprofit private organization; or agency or State or political subdivision of the State. The Administrator requires any alternate recipient to demonstrate:
(a) The ability to comply with this regulation; and
(b) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal Statutes authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend domestic Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-16, V-35, V-37, V-53, V-133, V-136, V-143, V-259, V-310, V-364, V-409, V-415, V-454, and V-605 in the eastern United States. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte, NC (CLT), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME); Foothills, SC (ODF), VOR/DME; and Holston Mountain, TN (HMV), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). This action is in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2026-2452 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ASO-16 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the route structure to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning to decommission the Charlotte, NC (CLT), VOR/DME; Foothills, SC (ODF), VOR/DME; and Holston Mountain, TN (HMV), VORTAC in December 2026. The Charlotte VOR/DME, Foothills VOR/DME, and Holston Mountain VORTAC were candidate navigational aids (NAVAID) identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final Policy Statement, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
The Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes affected by the planned NAVAID decommissionings are VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-35, V-37, V-53, V-133, V-136, V-143, V-259, V-310, V-364, V-409, V-415, V-454, and V-605. There are two routes with the identifier V-16, one located in the state of Hawaii, and one located between the states of California and New York. This action only proposes to affect the V-16 located between the states of California and New York. There are two routes with the identifier V-454, one located in the state of Alaska, and one located between the states of Alabama and North Carolina. This action only proposes to affect the V-454 located between the states of Alabama and North Carolina.
With the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte VOR/DME, Foothills VOR/DME, and Holston Mountain VORTAC, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected ATS routes. As such, FAA is proposing modifications to VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-53, V-259, V-364, V-409, and V-415, which would result in the airways being shortened; modifications to VOR Federal Airways V-35, V-37, V-136, and V-310, which would result in gaps in the airways; and modifications to VOR Federal Airways V-133, V-143, V-454, and V-605, which would result in those airways being redesigned.
To avoid the proposed modifications to the affected routes, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could instead use adjacent VOR Federal Airways V-20, V-45, V-133, V-143, V-259, V-296, V-364, V-409, V-454, V-466, V-470, and V-519; or receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly through or circumnavigate the affected area. Additionally, IFR pilots with Area Navigation (RNAV)-equipped aircraft could also use the adjacent RNAV Routes T-202, T-203, T-206, T-215, T-224, T-258, T-398, T-414, T-423, T-424, T-426, T-437, and T-484; or navigate point-to-point using the existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued operations through the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via airways through the affected area could also take advantage of ATC services listed previously.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend domestic VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-35, V-37, V-53, V-133, V-136, V-143, V-259, V-310, V-364, V-409, V-415, V-454, and V-605 to support the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte, NC (CLT), VOR/DME; Foothills, SC (ODF), VOR/DME; and Holston Mountain, TN (HMV), VORTAC. This action is in support of the FAA's VOR MON Program.
The FAA proposes to remove the airway segments between the intersection of the Volunteer, TN (VXV), VORTAC 069° True (T)/072° Magnetic (M) and the Snowbird, TN (SOT), VORTAC 329°T/333°M radials (WHINS, TN, Fix) and the Pulaski VORTAC due to the planned decommissioning of the Holston Mountain VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Holly Springs VORTAC; between the Shelbyville VOR/DME and the WHINS Fix; between the Lynchburg VOR/DME and the Richmond VORTAC; and between the Smyrna VORTAC and the CREAM Fix. The airspace within Mexico and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States would remain excluded. The airspace within Restricted Areas R-5002A, R-5002C, R-5002D, and R-5002F would remain excluded during their times of use.
The FAA proposes to remove the airway segments between the Sugarloaf Mountain, NC (SUG), VORTAC and the Glade Spring, VA (GZG), VOR/DME due to the planned decommissioning of the Holston Mountain VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Lee County VORTAC and the St. Petersburg VORTAC; between the SINCA Fix and the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC; between the Glade Spring VOR/DME and the Morgantown VOR/DME; and between the Philipsburg VORTAC and the Stonyfork VOR/DME.
Due to the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte VOR/DME, the radials that make up the LINCO Fix would be changed to become the intersection of the Sugarloaf Mountain, NC (SUG), VORTAC 087°T/089°M and the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 197°T/203°M radials, which would preserve its location. The FAA proposes to update the route description of VOR Federal Airway V-133 with the new radials that would define the LINCO Fix.
As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the intersection of the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC 087°T/089°M and the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 197°T/203°M (LINCO Fix) and the Charleston VOR/DME; between the Saginaw VOR/DME and the Houghton VOR/DME; and between the International Falls VOR/DME and the Red Lake VOR. The airspace within Canada would remain excluded.
Due to the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte VOR/DME, the radials that make up the LINCO Fix would be changed to become the intersection of the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 197°T/203°M and the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC 087°T/089°M radials, which would preserve its location. The FAA proposes to update the route description of VOR Federal Airway V-364 with the new radials that would define the LINCO Fix. Additionally, the FAA proposes to remove the airway segments between the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC and the Holston Mountain VORTAC due to the planned decommissioning of the Holston Mountain VORTAC. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the intersection of the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 197°T/203°M and the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC 087°T/089°M (LINCO Fix) and the Sugarloaf Mountain VORTAC.
Concurrent changes to V-415 have been proposed in a separate rulemaking
Due to the planned decommissioning of the Charlotte VOR/DME, the radials that make up the GIZMO Fix would be changed to become the intersection of the Barretts Mountain, NC (BZM), VOR/DME 124°T/130°M and the Liberty VORTAC 253°T/256°M radials, which would preserve its location. The FAA proposes to update the route description of VOR Federal Airway V-454 with the new radials that would define the GIZMO Fix. As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Brookley VORTAC and the Monroeville VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 124°T/130°M and the Liberty VORTAC 253°T/256°M radials and the Liberty VORTAC.
Due to the planned decommissioning of the Holston Mountain VORTAC, the radials that make up the GENOD Fix would be changed to become the intersection of the Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 241°T/247°M and the Spartanburg VORTAC 001°T/003°M radials, which would preserve its location. The FAA proposes to update the route description of VOR Federal Airway V-605 with the new radials that would define the GENOD Fix. Additionally, the FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the GENOD Fix and the Holston Mountain VORTAC due to the planned decommissioning of the Holston Mountain VORTAC.
As amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the GENOD Fix and the Spartanburg VORTAC. Concurrent changes to V-605 have been proposed in a separate rulemaking docket, Docket No. FAA 2024-2614 published in the
The full proposed descriptions of the above routes are set forth below in the proposed regulatory text amendments to part 71. The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description regulatory text of this NPRM are stated in degrees True north. Additionally, minor editorial corrections to the airway descriptions are made to comply with ATS route formatting requirements.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Los Angeles, CA; Paradise, CA; Palm Springs, CA; Blythe, CA; Buckeye, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 155° and Stanfield, AZ, 105° radials; Tucson, AZ; San Simon, AZ; INT San Simon 119° and Columbus, NM, 277° radials; Columbus; El Paso, TX; Salt Flat, TX; Wink, TX; INT Wink 066° and Big Spring, TX, 260° radials; Big Spring; Abilene, TX; Bowie, TX; Bonham, TX; Paris, TX; Texarkana, AR; Pine Bluff, AR; Marvell, AR; to Holly Springs, MS. From Shelbyville, TN; Hinch Mountain, TN; Volunteer, TN; to INT Volunteer 069°T/072°M and Snowbird, TN, 329°T/333°M radials. From Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; to Richmond, VA. From Smyrna, DE; Cedar Lake, NJ; Coyle, NJ; INT Coyle 036° and Kennedy, NY, 209° radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 040° and Calverton, NY, 261° radials; Calverton; to INT Calverton 044° and Madison, CT, 142° radials. The airspace within Mexico and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The airspace within Restricted Areas R-5002A, R-5002C, R-5002D, and R-5002F is excluded during their times of use.
From Lee County, FL; INT Lee County 326° and St. Petersburg, FL, 152° radials; to St. Petersburg. From INT Dublin, GA, 309° and Athens, GA, 195° radials; Athens; Electric City, SC; to Sugarloaf Mountain, NC. From Glade Spring, VA; Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 051° and Elkins, WV, 264° radials; Clarksburg, WV; to Morgantown, WV. From Philipsburg, PA; to Stonyfork, PA.
From Craig, FL; Brunswick, GA; INT Brunswick 014° and Savannah, GA, 177° radials; Savannah; Allendale, SC; Columbia, SC; to INT Columbia 004°T/006°M and Chesterfield, SC, 240°T/243°M radials. From Pulaski, VA; Elkins, WV; Clarksburg, WV; INT Clarksburg 359° and Ellwood City, PA, 185° radials; to Ellwood City.
From Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; Spartanburg, SC; to Sugarloaf Mountain, NC. From Lexington, KY; Louisville, KY; INT Louisville 333° and Brickyard, IN, 170° radials; to Brickyard. The airspace within R-3401B is excluded.
From INT Sugarloaf Mountain, NC, 087°T/089°M and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197°T/203°M radials; Barretts Mountain; to Charleston, WV. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; to Houghton, MI. From International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Hinch Mountain, TN; INT Hinch Mountain 100° and Volunteer, TN, 243° radials; Volunteer; to Snowbird, TN. From Pulaski, VA; INT Pulaski 094° and South Boston, VA, 295° radials; South Boston; Raleigh-Durham, NC; Fayetteville, NC; to Grand Strand, SC.
From INT Barretts Mountain, NC, 124°T/130°M and Greensboro, NC, 228°T/231°M radials; Greensboro; Lynchburg, VA; Montebello, VA; INT Montebello 031° and Martinsburg, WV, 216° radials; Martinsburg; Lancaster, PA; Pottstown, PA; to Yardley, PA.
From Grand Strand, SC; Florence, SC; Chesterfield, SC; to INT Chesterfield 314° and Fayetteville, NC, 267° radials.
From Louisville, KY, to London, KY. From Greensboro, NC; INT Greensboro 105° and Raleigh-Durham, NC, 275° radials; Raleigh-Durham; Tar River, NC; to Elizabeth City, NC.
From INT Barretts Mountain, NC, 196°T/203°M and Sugarloaf Mountain, NC, 087°T/089°M radials; to Sugarloaf Mountain.
From INT Chesterfield, SC, 346°T/349°M and Liberty, NC, 228°T/231°M radials; Liberty; to Raleigh-Durham, NC.
From Montgomery, AL, to INT Montgomery 029°and Gadsden, AL, 124° radials.
From Brookley, AL; to Monroeville, AL. From INT Barretts Mountain, NC, 124°T/130°M and Liberty, NC, 253°T/256°M radials; to Liberty.
From INT Barretts Mountain, NC, 241°T/247°M and Spartanburg, SC, 001°T/003°M radials; to Spartanburg.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that would provide digital asset brokers that are required to furnish to their customers written statements reflecting information provided to the IRS with respect to digital asset sale transactions with an alternative process for obtaining consent from their customers to receive these statements in an electronic format without offering a paper delivery alternative.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by May 5, 2026.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically. Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Roseann Cutrone of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 317-5436 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and requests to participate in the public hearing, the Publications and Regulations Section at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number) or by sending an email to
This document contains proposed regulations that would amend regulations under section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 6045(a) provides authority to the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate (Secretary) to require every person doing business as a broker to file an information return in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe. Section 6045(a) further provides that such information return must show the name and address of each customer, and details regarding gross proceeds and such other information as the Secretary may by forms or regulations require with respect to such business. The Secretary is further authorized under section 401 of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWAA), Public Law 107-147, 116 Stat. 21 (March 9, 2002) to provide the manner of consent for a recipient to receive electronic payee statements.
Under section 6045 and the regulations thereunder, brokers are required to make a return of information regarding certain digital asset sale transactions to the IRS and furnish payee statements to the person whose identifying number is (or is required to be) shown on Form 1099-DA,
Section 6045 and the regulations thereunder generally require brokers to file information returns with the IRS with respect to certain transactions, including sales of digital assets, effected by the broker on behalf of each customer. Brokers required to make these returns must include identifying information of the customer, such as the customer's name and tax identification number (TIN), and such other relevant information, including the gross proceeds from the transaction, as the Secretary may require by forms or regulations. In certain circumstances, the returns must also include the customer's adjusted basis in the assets sold. Brokers must use either Form 1099-B,
Under section 6045(b) and § 1.6045-1(k)(1), a broker (which, where applicable includes a barter exchange) making a return of information under section 6045 must furnish either a 1099-B statement or a 1099-DA statement to the broker's customer showing the information required to be reported to the IRS as well as a legend stating that the information is being reported to the IRS. Under § 1.6045-1(k)(1), a payee statement is considered to be furnished to the broker's customer if it is mailed to the customer at the last address of the customer known to the broker. A separate 1099-B statement or 1099-DA statement must be furnished to the customer for each sale transaction effected for that customer during the calendar year. Brokers may furnish these payee statements to customers using Copy B of the official Form 1099 or an acceptable substitute statement if it contains the same information as the official IRS form.
Section 6045(b) requires brokers to furnish payee statements to their customers on or before February 15 of the year following the calendar year for which the return was required to be made. In certain circumstances, filers reporting more than one type of payment during a calendar year with respect to the same customer may furnish a combined payee statement (called a consolidated reporting statement) to that customer that combines different types of payments on the same statement. Section 6045(b) and § 1.6045-1(k)(3)(ii) extend the due date for furnishing statements that are furnished with the consolidated reporting statement from the due date set forth in the Code for such other payee statements (generally on or before January 31 of a calendar year) to February 15 of that year. The regulations permit this combination of statements on a consolidated reporting statement only if the statements are based on the same relationship of broker to customer as the statement required to be furnished under section 6045.
Section 6722 of the Code imposes a penalty for any failure to furnish a payee statement, including a payee statement required by section 6045, on or before the required furnishing date to the person to whom such statement is required to be furnished, and for any failure to include all the information required to be shown on the payee statement or for the inclusion of incorrect information on that payee statement.
Section 6724 provides that no penalty shall be imposed under section 6722 if the filer (payor) shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and was not due to willful neglect.
Section 401 of the JCWAA provides that any person required to furnish a payee statement under certain information reporting provisions (including section 6045) of the Code “may electronically furnish such statement . . . to any recipient who has consented to the electronic provision of the statement in a manner similar to the one permitted under regulations issued under section 6051 of such Code or in such other manner as provided by the Secretary.” The legislative history to section 401 of JCWAA also makes clear that obtaining consent to the electronic furnishing of payee statements by the recipient is mandatory. The Technical Explanation of the JCWAA provides that the provision “removes the statutory impediment” to electronically furnishing payee statements and that “these copies may be furnished electronically to a recipient who has consented to this.”
When JCWAA was enacted, temporary regulations, 66 FR 10191 (February 14, 2001) (Temporary Regulations), were in effect under section 6051 that generally required furnishers to comply with specific notice and consent requirements before they could electronically furnish payee statements to employee-recipients on Forms W-2,
The section 6051 regulations referenced by the JCWAA generally permit furnishers that pay remuneration for services to recipients to furnish payee statements to the recipients in an electronic format in lieu of paper if the furnisher obtains the recipient's consent and meets certain other requirements.
Section 4.6 of Publication 1179 applies the rules set forth in § 31.6051-1(j) regarding the electronic furnishing of payee statements to several different payee statements required to be furnished, including 1099-B statements required by section 6045(b) and § 1.6045-1(k). Publication 1179 is generally updated annually but has not yet been revised to include 1099-DA statements.
Stakeholders have provided comments indicating that transactions involving digital assets, including the purchase, sale, or disposition thereof, are almost exclusively conducted electronically. Customers who buy and sell digital assets using the custodial wallet services and exchange platform services of digital asset brokers must use computers or mobile devices to access their brokers' websites or mobile device applications. Given that customers have this technological capability, the Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view, consistent with that of stakeholder suggestions discussed later in this Part III of the
Congress enacted third party information reporting provisions to increase the IRS's ability to administer and enforce the tax laws and to improve taxpayer compliance with these laws.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Committee (IRSAC) in its public report for 2024 (IRSAC Report)
The current regulations in § 1.6045-1(k) and the guidance in Publication 1179, when revised to apply to brokers effecting sales of digital assets pursuant to the 2024 final regulations (TD 10000, 89 FR 56480 (July 9, 2024)), would
These proposed regulations would provide guidance under proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5) regarding the ability of brokers to obtain consent from their customers to furnish 1099-DA statements in an electronic format without offering a paper delivery alternative. For the reasons discussed in Part III. of this
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(i) would permit brokers required to furnish 1099-DA statements to obtain consent to furnish those statements in an electronic format in lieu of paper either (1) pursuant to guidance provided by the IRS in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or other publications (such as under section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179) applicable to other information return filers or (2) under the rules proposed in these proposed regulations. The rules proposed in these proposed regulations would not require the broker to furnish paper payee statements if the customer does not consent but, instead, would specifically permit brokers to terminate their business relationship with these customers. Additionally, unlike the existing rules, the rules proposed in these proposed regulations would not require brokers to permit customers to withdraw a previously provided consent. Customers not permitted to withdraw previously provided consents would need to move their digital asset investments to other brokers willing to furnish 1099-DA statements on paper in order to receive their 1099-DA statements on paper. Because customers would not have the right to have their 1099-DA statements furnished on paper, these proposed regulations would impose enhanced notification requirements on brokers to increase the likelihood that customers receive the communication that their 1099-DA statements have been transmitted or otherwise made available.
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(i) would permit brokers to furnish 1099-DA statements to customers in an electronic format in lieu of a paper format (and without the requirement to offer the paper format) if the broker obtains consent from the customer, uses one of two qualified electronic delivery methods, and meets certain other requirements relating to continuing disclosure, format, notice, and access period.
The proposed consent requirements are generally modeled after the consent requirements under § 31.6051-1(j) for W-2 payee statements but modify those rules where appropriate to reflect the technological knowledge of digital asset investors and traders and the significantly greater number of 1099-DA statements that must be furnished to each customer. Under the proposed regulations, brokers would be required to obtain the customer's positive consent to receiving the 1099-DA statement in an electronic format after receiving certain information from the broker regarding the scope of consent, the methods (including hardware and software requirements) necessary to access the electronically provided 1099-DA statements, the qualified electronic delivery method that will be used to furnish the 1099-DA statements, and other important information necessary for the customer to make an informed consent. Unlike the consent requirements under § 31.6051-1(j) for W-2 payee statements, these proposed regulations would not require brokers to give customers the option to receive their 1099-DA statements on paper nor would they require brokers to give customers the ability to withdraw a previously provided consent while remaining customers. Nevertheless, as further described in Part I.C.3.b. of this
Brokers that obtain the customer's positive consent would be required to furnish 1099-DA statements either by posting them to a specified location that is electronically accessible, such as the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform, or by attaching them to an email. Brokers that furnish 1099-DA statements by posting them to an electronically accessible specified location would be required to send customers a notice by email that the statements are available and, if requested by the customer, another notice using a communication method other than email. Brokers that furnish 1099-DA statements by attaching them to emails would not be required to send the customer a notice unless the customer requests a notice of that transmittal using a communication method other than email. Because brokers may not know if their customers, in fact, accessed their electronically furnished 1099-DA statements, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(i) would treat a broker that posts the 1099-DA statement to a specified location that is electronically accessible and that meets the consent, delivery, and other requirements in the proposed regulations as furnishing the 1099-DA statement as of the last of the following dates: (1) the date that the broker posts the 1099-DA statement to the specified location; (2) the date that the broker sends the customer a notice by email that the 1099-DA statement has been made available; and (3) the date that the broker sends the requested notice using a communication method other than email, if requested by the customer. For a broker that sends the customer an email with a 1099-DA statement attached and that meets the consent, delivery, and other requirements in the proposed regulations, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(i) would generally treat the broker as furnishing the 1099-DA statement as of the later of the date that the broker sends to the customer an email with a 1099-DA statement attached or the date that the broker sends the requested notice informing the customer that the customer's 1099-
The proposed consent requirements are generally modeled after the consent requirements under § 31.6051-1(j) for W-2 payee statements. For example, like the consent requirements under § 31.6051-1(j), the proposed consent requirements in these proposed regulations are designed to ensure that the customer is made aware that the customer is providing this specific consent to receive the 1099-DA statement in an electronic format. Additionally, like the consent requirements under § 31.6051-1(j), the proposed rules would require that customers be provided with a disclosure statement, prior to or at the time of this consent, setting forth important information regarding the consequences of consent and non-consent.
The proposed regulations would differ from the rules under § 31.6051-1(j), however, where appropriate to reflect the technological knowledge of digital asset traders and the significantly higher number of 1099-DA statements that might be furnished to each customer in comparison to the single-page W-2 payee statements that are required to be furnished to employees under § 31.6051-1(j). For example, the proposed regulations would not include the requirement in § 31.6051-1(j)(2)(i) that the recipient's consent be provided in a way that reasonably demonstrates the recipient's ability to access the statement in the electronic format. In addition, the proposed regulations would not include the requirements in § 31.6051-1(j)(3)(ii) and (v) that furnishers inform recipients that recipients will receive paper statements if they do not provide their consent or that recipients may withdraw a previously provided consent under specified procedures.
To achieve the objective that customers be made aware of what they are consenting to, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(A) would require that the customer provide positive consent to receive the 1099-DA statement in an electronic format. Positive consent would be treated as obtained, for this purpose, if the customer performs an explicit action to provide consent, such as by checking a box, clicking a button, or completing a fill-in screen.
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(A) would also require that the broker's solicitation of the customer's consent meet specific requirements designed to ensure that customers are aware of what they are agreeing to when they provide their consent. As discussed in Part III. of the
Additionally, to ensure that the customer's consent is an informed consent, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(A) would require that a clear and conspicuous disclosure statement be provided to the customer prior to or at the time of consent.
The rules under § 31.6051-1(j) and the guidance under section 4.6 of Publication 1179 require furnishers of payee statements to obtain the consent of each recipient to receiving the payee statement electronically before the statement can be furnished electronically to that recipient. Consent, for this purpose, requires that the recipient reasonably demonstrate the recipient's ability to access the payee statement in the electronic format.
Taxpayers who buy and sell digital assets using the custodial wallet services and exchange platform services of digital asset brokers must use computers or mobile devices to access their brokers' websites or mobile device applications. Consequently, these taxpayers have already demonstrated that they can access their brokers' websites or mobile device applications to retrieve information posted to these locations, such as a 1099-DA statement. Therefore, it is not necessary for customers to demonstrate their ability to access their broker's websites or mobile device applications. Similarly, by definition, if a taxpayer provides the broker with the taxpayer's email address, the taxpayer has confirmed that the taxpayer can access communications sent to this address. Therefore, it is not necessary for customers to demonstrate their technical ability to access their email accounts. By not adopting these requirements from § 31.6051-1(j), the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate that these proposed regulations will be less burdensome on electronic commerce without materially increasing the risk of harm to consumers. Accordingly, these proposed regulations do not require the method by which a customer provides consent to include a demonstration that the customer has the technical ability to access electronically furnished 1099-DA statements in the format in which it will be furnished.
As noted in Part I.B.1. of this
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C) also includes five pre-consent disclosure requirements that are not included in (or are different from) the pre-consent disclosures required by § 31.6051-1(j)(3) and described in section 2.6.2 of Publication 1179. For example, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C)(
If the broker chooses the qualified electronic delivery method that would require the broker to send a notice to the customer that the 1099-DA statement has been posted to a specified location that is electronically accessible, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C)(
Additionally, if the broker intends to limit the services available to customers that do not provide their consent, such as not effecting future sales for such customers, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C)(
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C)(
Finally, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C)(
Section 31.6051-1(j)(3)(ii) and (iv) require the furnisher to inform the recipient that a paper statement will be furnished if the recipient does not consent and the procedures the recipient must follow to obtain a paper statement after giving consent. These disclosures have not been added to the proposed regulations' disclosure requirements because these proposed rules do not require the broker to offer the customer a paper 1099-DA statement. Instead, as discussed earlier in this Part I.B.3, under the proposed regulations brokers may refuse to offer a paper statement and may decline to continue or begin their business relationship with customers that do not provide their consent.
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C) would provide that the pre-consent disclosure statement may be provided by the broker in any manner that is part of the consent solicitation. For example, the broker could include the information required to be disclosed on a pop-up screen shown to the customer as part of the request for the customer's consent or on another page on the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform to which the pop-up consent screen provides a direct link.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned, however, that customers that transact with brokers exclusively through one or more physical electronic terminals or kiosks might not remember the name or URL of the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform if it was only accessed using the broker's kiosk. Similarly, customers that transact with brokers that effect sales of digital assets as a processor of digital asset payments as defined in § 1.6045-1(a)(22) (PDAP broker), where the digital assets that the customer uses for payment are held in an account at a different custodial broker, might not be aware of the PDAP broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform. Accordingly, to ensure that customers using kiosks or PDAP brokers to effect sales of their digital assets have continuing access to this initial disclosure statement, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C) would require that PDAP brokers and brokers that transact exclusively with customers through one or more physical electronic terminals or kiosks also provide the disclosure statement to these customers by email or by using any mail or private delivery service within five business days of the customer's explicit action to provide positive consent. This five business-day requirement would ensure that the customer is familiar with the context of the communication when it is received. Additionally, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iii)(C) would require that these brokers also provide customers with the opportunity to receive this disclosure statement using an additional communication method described in Part I.C. of this
Comments are requested regarding these additional rules requiring the provision of the disclosure statement in the case of customers that transact with brokers that operate physical terminals or kiosks. For example, comments are requested on whether these customers regularly visit the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform when they are not at the broker's physical terminal or kiosk. Comments are also requested regarding the need for this rule in the case of customers that transact with PDAP brokers. For example, comments are requested on whether these customers regularly visit the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform. Finally, comments are requested regarding whether the requirement that brokers send the disclosure statements to the customer within five business days of the customer's explicit action to provide consent provides brokers with sufficient time to comply with this requirement.
Under § 31.6051-1(j)(2)(iii) and the guidance in section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179, if the furnisher changes the hardware or software that the recipient will need to access the payee statement and that change creates a material risk that the recipient will not be able to access the payee statement, the furnisher must obtain a new consent from the recipient to receive the payee statement electronically after notifying the recipient of the new hardware or software requirements. Because taxpayers who buy and sell digital assets are likely to have the technological wherewithal to access statements provided using the qualified electronic delivery methods described in proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii) (posted to an electronically accessible specified location or by direct transmittal), the condition that recipients be notified if there is a material risk that the recipient will not be able to access the payee statement has been revised. Specifically, if an intended change in the method by which the customer will need to access, download, and print the 1099-DA statement furnished in the electronic format, including a change in the hardware or software required to conduct these functions, would create a material risk that the customer will need to obtain new hardware or software to
The rules under § 31.6051-1(j)(3)(ii) and (v) as applied by section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179 require furnishers to inform recipients that payee statements will be furnished on paper if the recipient does not consent to receiving the payee statement electronically and that the recipient has the right to withdraw a previously provided consent. Additionally, § 31.6051-1(j)(2)(ii) as applied by section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179 provides that a previously provided consent from a recipient is not valid once a recipient's withdrawal of that consent takes effect. The Treasury Department and the IRS explained in the
In mandating that a paper delivery option be offered, the rules under § 31.6051-1(j) struck a balance between the desire of furnishers to reduce costs by furnishing W-2 payee statements electronically and the tax administration concerns associated with recipients being unable to access electronically furnished W-2 payee statements for use in filing accurate income tax returns. Unlike many of the single-page payee statements subject to the rules under § 31.6051-1(j) that reflect an aggregation of all reportable payments made within the calendar year, the § 1.6045-1 regulations require brokers to furnish a separate 1099-DA statement for each transaction (or a single substitute statement that includes information about each transaction) effected for customers within a calendar year. Given the number of digital asset transactions that may be effectuated by a single customer in a given year, even substitute 1099-DA statements that reflect each of these transactions, if printed, may be quite lengthy.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view that recipients have become increasingly able to access electronically furnished payee statements since the 2004 Final Regulations were first published. Compared to the early 2000s, most U.S. adults today say they use the internet (95%), have a smartphone (90%) or subscribe to high-speed internet at home (80%).
There may be customers that refuse to consent to receiving the 1099-DA statement in an electronic format even though the broker does not offer the customer an option to receive the 1099-DA statement on paper (or limits that option to customers with transaction numbers below a certain threshold). As discussed in Part II. of the
The rules under § 31.6051-1(j) and the guidance under section 4.6 of Publication 1179 require furnishers of payee statements to inform recipients that they have the right to withdraw consent.
The rules under § 31.6051-1(j) when originally proposed would have only permitted furnishers to furnish payee statements electronically by posting them to a website accessible to the recipient.
The 2004 Final Regulations do not provide any rules for brokers that fulfill their furnishing obligations by attaching payee statements to emails. In contrast, these proposed regulations include proposed rules for brokers that furnish 1099-DA statements by attaching them to emails because these furnishing rules are necessary to ensure customers receive their 1099-DA statements no matter how they are furnished. Additionally, furnishing rules for 1099-DA statements are necessary for all delivery methods because 1099-DA statements will be new to digital asset investors and traders who might not otherwise seek to obtain their statements if they do not receive an email regarding these statements. Given these considerations, it is important to provide brokers with clear rules for whichever electronic delivery method they use to furnish 1099-DA statements. Accordingly, these proposed regulations include rules for brokers that furnish 1099-DA statements by posting them to electronically accessible specified locations as well as for brokers that furnish 1099-DA statements by attaching them to emails. These methods are collectively referred to as qualified electronic delivery methods.
As discussed in Part I.A. of this
Regardless of which of these two proposed qualified electronic delivery methods the broker chooses to furnish 1099-DA statements electronically, the broker would be required to send an email to the customer either to provide notice that the statement has been made available in an electronically accessible specified location or to transmit the 1099-DA statement directly. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered whether brokers should be given the ability to choose a different communication method for these notices and transmittals but decided against providing brokers with this choice for several reasons. First, email is a ubiquitous method of communication with which most people are familiar. Because it is essential to tax administration that customers actually receive these important communications and view and use their 1099-DA statements, it is essential that the most broadly used and well-known method of communication be required. Second, most email providers have policies to prevent the reuse of previously used addresses and will return as undeliverable messages sent by email to an address that is not assigned to any user. In contrast, if a broker sent a communication by way of text message to a customer regarding the customer's 1099-DA statement, the broker might not be informed if the customer's mobile phone number was
The Treasury Department and IRS considered whether a customer's in-account messaging system with the broker (also referred to in certain circumstances as in-application messaging) should be permitted as a default communication method. This communication method was not proposed as a default method, however, because of the concern that this method did not provide a sufficient level of certainty that the communication will be received by most customers because it is unclear if all customers would even be aware that communications have been sent to their in-account messaging system. The Treasury Department and IRS also considered whether communications sent to a customer's cellular device in a manner that can be viewed even when the account application with the broker is not open (sometimes referred to as push notifications) should be permitted as a default communication method for this purpose. Because customers can turn off push notifications on their device without the broker's knowledge, the Treasury Department and the IRS also concluded that this method does not provide a sufficient level of certainty that the communication will be received by most customers.
The first type of qualified electronic delivery method is described in proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that some customers may not regularly check whether emails have been sent to an address that the customer provided to the broker or may not be aware if the customer's email provider filters out as unsolicited an important email from the broker. For example, a customer may regularly access a broker's website to carry out transactions but only occasionally check whether emails have been sent to an email address that the customer has provided to the broker. Additionally, some customers may not open emails from their broker because they are concerned that the emails may be compromised and could give rise to a phishing attack. Finally, some customers may find it useful to receive notices regarding their 1099-DA statements using a different communication method to remind them that they may have taxable digital asset transactions that need to be reported on their tax returns. Accordingly, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
Requiring brokers to provide customers with a choice of additional communication methods regarding these important communications is important to tax administration. First, providing customers that do not find email to be the best communication method with the ability to choose an additional communication method that is better suited to their needs will increase the likelihood that these customers actually receive these important communications and view and use their 1099-DA statements. Second, because 1099-DA statements will be new for digital asset investors and traders, it is more likely that these customers will not be experienced in knowing when they should look for email communications about their 1099-DA statements. For these reasons, the proposed regulations would require brokers to provide customers with the opportunity to receive a requested notice from the broker regarding the posting of their 1099-DA statements using an additional communication method. Because brokers would only be required to send requested notices to those customers that take the initiative to ask for these notices, the cost of this rule for the broker should be limited to those customers that need to receive the notice using another communication method.
If the customer asks for this requested notice by the required deadline, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
Although sending notices by mail or private delivery service may be more costly to brokers than sending them electronically, the Treasury Department and the IRS have proposed that brokers always offer customers this option because mail is likely the most common communication method for important tax documents other than email. Additionally, because these requested notices should be short
The second type of qualified electronic delivery method is described in proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(B)(
Additionally, as discussed in Part I.C.1. of this
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
Under proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
The Treasury Department and the IRS considered but declined to propose a rule that would allow brokers that send requested notices to customers to avoid mailing notices to customers when emailed notices are returned as undeliverable for several reasons. First, mail and email are the most common communication methods, with most digital asset customers at least aware that unexpected communications could be sent in this manner. Second, many of the additional communication methods do not have an undeliverable feature that would enable the broker to know whether the customer received the communication. Third, while brokers might be able to use technology to determine if the communication was opened, monitoring which customers opened these communications would likely be more burdensome than mailing the notices. Comments are requested regarding the reliability of these other communication methods in making the customer aware about their important tax documents.
As discussed in Part I.C.2. of this
The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that the consequence of an undeliverable direct transmittal of a 1099-DA statement by email under this rule could be costly if the broker is unable to obtain a corrected email address for the customer that is not returned as undeliverable because the broker would be required to provide a paper 1099-DA statement to the customer. Comments are requested regarding whether brokers anticipate using the direct transmittal method of delivery, whether this consequence of an undeliverable direct transmittal of a 1099-DA statement makes the direct transmittal method not viable, and whether the direct transmittal method should be removed from the final regulations as a qualified electronic delivery method. Comments are also requested regarding whether there are other less burdensome alternatives for brokers choosing to furnish 1099-DA statements using the direct transmittal method when emails to which the 1099-DA statements are attached are returned as undeliverable. Finally, comments are requested addressing whether there are any other methods of electronically delivering the 1099-DA statements that should be included as a qualified electronic delivery method.
The regulations under § 31.6051-1(j) include rules for furnishers that are required to furnish corrected payee statements. Specifically, under § 31.6051-1(j)(5)(iii), if the furnisher electronically furnished the original payee statement, the furnisher must also electronically furnish the corrected payee statement. The proposed rules adopt a similar rule for brokers required to furnish corrected 1099-DA statements. Thus, under proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii), if a broker has corrected a customer's 1099-DA statement, the broker would be required to furnish the corrected 1099-DA statement using the same delivery method that the broker used to furnish the original 1099-DA statement for that delivery method to be treated as a qualified electronic delivery method.
Additionally, under the proposed regulations, any required or requested notice that the broker was required to provide to the customer regarding the availability of the original 1099-DA statement (either because it has been posted to an electronically accessible specified location or directly transmitted) must also be provided with respect to the availability of the corrected 1099-DA statement.
See Part I.C.3. of this
The rules under § 31.6051-1(j)(3) and the guidance under section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179 do not include any continuing disclosure requirements after consent is given. However, because certain information that is included in the pre-consent disclosure as well as certain other information is more relevant to customers after the consent is provided, this information should be available to customers on an ongoing basis (continuing disclosures) after consent is provided so that customers can get the answers to their questions or change their contact information when appropriate. Accordingly, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(A) would require the broker to provide a location, such as on the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform, where customers can generally find
In addition, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(A) would also require the broker to provide to the customer on an ongoing basis four additional items of information that are typically not relevant to the customer at the time of consent. Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(A) would permit the information included in the continuing disclosures to generally be provided by the broker to the customer on the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform.
Like the concern discussed in Part I.B.3. of this
The additional information that would be included in the continuing disclosures are described in proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(B) through (E). First, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(B) would require the broker to provide a description of the procedures for customers to update the information needed by the broker to send the customer the required and requested notices that the 1099-DA statement has been posted to a specified location that is electronically accessible, the email to which the 1099-DA is attached, or the requested notice informing the customer that the customer's 1099-DA statement has been transmitted. Second, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(C) would require the broker to provide the broker's contact information in the event the customer has questions about the consent or about the customer's 1099-DA statement. Third, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(iv)(D) would require the broker to provide a description of the procedures for asking for the requested notices required to be offered by proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(ii)(A)(
Like the format requirement in § 31.6051-1(j)(4), proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(v) would require that the electronic version of a 1099-DA statement furnished to a customer contain all required information and comply with applicable revenue procedures relating to substitute statements.
Once electronically furnished 1099-DA statements have been posted to an electronically accessible specified location, such as the broker's website, mobile device application, or other online platform, it is essential that 1099-DA statements remain available for customers' use throughout the tax return filing season. Accordingly, similar to the access rules provided in § 31.6051-1(j)(6), proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(vi) would require brokers to maintain access for customers to 1099-DA statements posted on a website through October 15 of the year following the calendar year to which the 1099-DA statements relate. Additionally, proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(vi) would require brokers to maintain access for customers to corrected 1099-DA statements that are posted on the broker's website through October 15 of the year following the calendar year to which the statements relate or the date that is 90 days after the corrected statements are posted, whichever is later. The normal rules under section 7503 of the Code for when the last day prescribed for performing an act falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday would apply to these deadlines. Thus, for example, if October 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the 1099-DA statements would be required to be retained on the broker's website until the first business day after such October 15.
Finally, it is important that customers seeking to amend their timely filed tax returns have access to their 1099-DA statements during the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(a) and also during the six-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(e) for substantial omissions from gross income. These statute of limitations periods will generally begin to apply for most individual taxpayers after the April 15 filing due date for Federal income tax returns. Accordingly,
Comments are requested regarding whether this additional retention requirement creates any undue burdens for brokers.
The proposed regulations generally leave in place the existing consolidated reporting statement rules in § 1.6045-1(k)(3), which requires that any furnished statements included with a consolidated reporting statement required to be furnished under section 6045 be based on the same relationship of broker or barter exchange to customer as the statement required to be furnished under section 6045. Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(3) would amend existing § 1.6045-1(k)(3) by adding paragraph headings to existing § 1.6045-1(k)(3)(i) and (ii).
Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(3)(iii) would add rules regarding when a consolidated reporting statement is permitted to be furnished electronically. Under these proposed rules, a broker would be permitted to furnish a consolidated reporting statement in an electronic format in lieu of on paper if it has obtained consent from the customer under the applicable rules for consent for each of the statements to be included in the consolidated reporting statement. Therefore, to combine a 1099-B statement with respect to a sale of stock and a 1099-DA statement with respect to a sale of digital assets in an electronically furnished consolidated reporting statement, the broker would need to obtain consent from the customer with respect to the electronic furnishing of the 1099-B statement under the guidance set forth in section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179 (which generally follows the rules under § 31.6051-1(j)) and consent from the customer with respect to the electronic furnishing of the 1099-DA statement either under the guidance set forth in section 4.6.2 of Publication 1179 (when updated) or the rules set forth in proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5). Proposed § 1.6045-1(k)(5)(vii) would provide an example illustrating the application of this rule to facts involving a broker required to furnish both a 1099-B statement and a 1099-DA statement to the same customer. Comments are requested regarding whether the receipt from the same broker of a paper statement with respect to some payments and an electronic statement with respect to other payments could potentially lead to confusion for customers and whether brokers should be required to include a clear communication with each statement in such circumstances that another statement will be provided separately to minimize the risk of confusion.
The cost of furnishing 1099-B statements and other payee statements on paper can also result in compliance burdens to brokers. This is particularly true when customers engage in significant daily, and in some cases algorithmic, trading. However, unlike transactions involving digital assets, which are almost exclusively conducted through electronic means by a population comfortable transacting in such medium, it is likely that some investors who engage in securities and commodities transactions will not have a similar level of comfort. Because it is essential to effective tax administration that all investors, including those uncomfortable with website technology, mobile device applications or other online platforms, or emailed attachments, have the ability to conveniently access their furnished 1099-B statements, these proposed regulations would only apply to brokers that are required to furnish 1099-DA statements reflecting information reportable to the IRS on Form 1099-DA and would not apply to any other payee statements.
The sale by a customer of an interest in a widely held fixed investment trust (WHFIT) that holds digital assets is reported to the IRS on Form 1099-B instead of on Form 1099-DA, and brokers are not required to furnish statements to customers reflecting information reportable to the IRS on Form 1099-DA. Accordingly, these new proposed consent rules would not apply to brokers that report information regarding their customers' sales of interests in WHFITs that hold digital assets to the IRS on Form 1099-B.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are, however, considering whether to propose less burdensome consent procedures for customers that receive a 1099-B statement and recipients that receive certain other payee statements. To facilitate the receipt of comments from the public regarding the issues involved with electronic furnishing of 1099-B statements and certain other payee statements more broadly, Notice 2026-4 is being issued contemporaneously with these proposed regulations to request comments on the broader issues involved in these other circumstances. This notice will be published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Comments regarding these other payee statements should not be submitted in response to these proposed regulations but instead should be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in Notice 2026-4. Comments submitted on 1099-B statements or other payee statements will not be considered or incorporated into any final regulation that results from these proposed regulations.
The proposed regulations would apply to 1099-DA statements required to be furnished on or after January 1 of the calendar year immediately following [date of publication of final regulations in the
These proposed regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (July 4, 2025) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
The collection of information in these proposed regulations contain third party information reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The collection of information contained in proposed § 1.6045-1(k) is required only if a person required to furnish a taxpayer with a 1099-DA statement chooses to furnish that statement electronically under the proposed regulations instead of on paper or electronically under existing guidance set forth in Publication 1179 permitting electronic furnishing of payee statements. The collected information will be used by the broker to determine whether the broker's customer has consented to receive the 1099-DA statement electronically. Additionally, if a broker's customer has consented to receive the 1099-DA statement electronically, proposed § 1.6045-1(k) would require the retention of information for a period that is longer than the access period required under § 1.6051-1(j)(6) and set forth in section 4.3.6 of Publication 1179.
The proposed regulations mention third party information reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to the dispositions of digital assets, as detailed in § 1.6045-1(k). The burden for these requirements is included with the Form and Instructions for Form 1099-DA,
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation would affect brokers, which may meet the definition of “small entity” in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). However, because these proposed regulations would provide brokers with an additional option for electronically furnishing payee statements, the certification is based on this proposed regulation not imposing any additional obligations on small entities than that which is already imposed by existing regulations and Form 1099-DA.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This proposed regulation does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This proposed regulation does not have federalism implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and does not preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Before these proposed amendments to the regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits electronic or written comments. Requests for a public hearing also are encouraged to be made electronically. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date and time for the public hearing will be published in the
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
The principal authors of these regulations are Roseann Cutrone and Jessica Chase, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.6045-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6045(a).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) In general.
(ii) Due date for furnishing consolidated reporting statements.
(iii) Electronic furnishing of consolidated reporting statements.
(iv) Examples.
(5) Electronic furnishing of 1099-DA statements.
(i) In general.
(ii) Qualified electronic delivery method.
(A) Posted to an electronically accessible specified location.
(
(
(
(
(B) Direct transmittal.
(
(
(
(
(C) Additional communication method.
(iii) Consent.
(A) In general.
(B) Change in hardware or software requirements.
(C) Disclosure statement.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D) Examples.
(iv) Continuing disclosures.
(A) In general.
(B) Updating information.
(C) Broker information.
(D) Additional communication methods for requested notices.
(E) Access procedures for statements posted to an electronically accessible specified location.
(v) Format.
(vi) Access period for statements posted to an electronically accessible specified location.
(vii) Example of rules for electronic furnishing of consolidated reporting statements.
(6) Applicability date.
(7) Cross-reference to penalty.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(k) * * *
(1)
(3) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4) [Reserved]
(5)
(ii)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(7)
(D)
(
(
(
(
(3)
(
(4)
(
(5)
(
(iv)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(B)
(6)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes to remove regulations that identify certain partnership related-party basis adjustment transactions and substantially similar transactions as transactions of interest, a type of reportable transaction. The regulations would affect participants in these transactions as well as material advisors.
Electronic or written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 6, 2026.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Elizabeth V. Zanet of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs, Trusts, and Estates), (202) 317-5279 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, the Publications and Regulations Section at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).
This document proposes to remove § 1.6011-18 (Basis Shifting TOI Regulations) from 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations). The Basis Shifting TOI Regulations were issued under section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate (Secretary) under sections 6001, 6011(a), 6111, 6112(a), 6707A(c)(1), and 7805(a) of the Code.
On June 18, 2024, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-124593-23) in the
Since their publication, taxpayers and their material advisors have criticized the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations at § 1.6011-18 as imposing complex and burdensome compliance obligations on businesses. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered these public comments and determined that the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations may be appropriate for removal.
On April 17, 2025, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2025-23 (2025-19 IRB 1428). Notice 2025-23 announced that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing the removal of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations from the Income tax Regulations. Notice 2025-23 further stated that taxpayers and their material advisors can rely on the notice until the Treasury Department and the IRS removed the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations from the Income Tax Regulations. Notice 2025-23 additionally stated that the IRS will (i) waive penalties under section 6707A(a) for participants in transactions identified in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations, and (ii) waive penalties under sections 6707(a) and 6708 of the Code for material advisors to transactions identified in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
Consistent with Notice 2025-23, this notice of proposed rulemaking (Removal NPRM) proposes to remove the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations from the Income Tax Regulations.
The proposed removal of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations would be effective on the date that the Treasury Department and the IRS publish final regulations (Forthcoming Final Regulations). The Treasury Department and the IRS intend that the Treasury decision adopting the Forthcoming Final Regulations will provide that participants and material advisors may treat the removal of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as occurring on January 14, 2025, which is the applicability date of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations. Thus, participants and material advisors will be able to treat the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as never having taken effect. See section 7805(b)(7). Consistent with Notice 2025-23, participants and material advisors may continue relying on that notice until the Treasury Department and IRS finalize the Removal NPRM with the publication of the Forthcoming Final Regulations.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
These proposed regulations have been designated by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as subject to review under Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement of July 4, 2025 (MOA) between the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the OMB regarding review of tax regulations. OIRA has determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking (Removal NPRM) is significant and subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and section 1(c) of the MOA. Accordingly, the Removal NPRM has been reviewed by OMB.
A transaction of interest (TOI) is a type of reportable transaction. On January 14, 2025, the Treasury Department and the IRS published § 1.6011-18 (Basis Shifting TOI Regulations), which require taxpayers and material advisors to report information identifying certain partnership related-party basis adjustment transactions. Taxpayers and their material advisors have criticized the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as imposing complex and burdensome compliance obligations on businesses. The Treasury Department and the IRS received many public comments requesting that the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations be removed. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered the public comments and determined that the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations may be appropriate for removal.
On April 17, 2025, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2025-23 (2025-19 IRB 1428), which announced that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking removing the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
Consistent with that intention, this notice of proposed rulemaking (Removal NPRM) proposes to remove the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations from 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations). The proposed removal of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations would be effective on the date that the Treasury Department and the IRS publish final regulations (Forthcoming Final Regulations). The Treasury Department and the IRS intend that the Treasury decision adopting the Forthcoming Final Regulations will provide that participants and material advisors may treat the removal of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as occurring on January 14, 2025, which is the applicability date of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations. Thus, participants and material advisors will be able to treat the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as never having taken effect. See section 7805(b)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
Under subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Code, a distribution by a partnership of the partnership's property (partnership property) or a transfer of an interest in a partnership (partnership interest) may result in an adjustment to the basis of the distributed property, partnership property, or both.
A distribution of partnership property may result in an adjustment to the basis of the distributed property under sections 732(b) or (d) of the Code. In the case of a distribution of partnership property to a partner by a partnership with an election under section 754 of the Code (section 754 election), or with respect to which there is a substantial basis reduction as described in section 734(d) of the Code, the distribution may also result in an adjustment to the basis of the partnership's remaining property under section 734(b).
If a partnership interest is transferred by sale or exchange or on the death of a partner, and the partnership either has a section 754 election in effect or has a substantial built-in loss with respect to the transfer of the partnership interest as described in section 743(d) of the Code, the transfer may result in an adjustment to the basis of partnership property under section 743(b) with respect to the transferee partner.
As discussed above, the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations identify certain partnership related-party transactions and substantially similar transactions that result in basis adjustments under sections 732(b), 732(d), 734(b), and 743(b) as transactions of interest, a type of reportable transaction with disclosure requirements.
The purpose of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations is to provide information to the IRS that could help identify abusive basis shifting transactions. However, taxpayers and their material advisors have criticized the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations as imposing complex, burdensome, and retroactive disclosure obligations on many ordinary-course and tax-compliant business activities, creating costly compliance obligations and uncertainty for businesses. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the compliance burden of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations, as estimated below, is substantial and likely exceeds the benefits of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
Once the Removal NPRM is finalized, partnership related-party transactions and substantially similar transactions that result in basis adjustments would no longer be treated as transactions of interest. Thus, participants and material advisors to these transactions would no longer have the associated disclosure requirements.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have assessed the benefits and costs of these proposed regulations once finalized (as the Forthcoming Final Regulations) relative to a no-action baseline that reflects the anticipated Federal income tax-related behavior of taxpayers under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
Participants in transactions of interest must report their participation in the transaction on a Form 8886,
Based on analysis of partnership tax return data, the Treasury Department and the IRS have estimated that 10,000 basis adjustments would be reported in the absence of the Forthcoming Final Regulations. Tax return data indicate as many as 12,000 basis adjustments will be over the numeric thresholds in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations each year under sections 732(b), 732(d), 734(b), and 743(b). The Treasury Department and the IRS expect 10,000 of the 12,000
Under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations, the type of basis adjustment determines the number of participants. For example, a basis adjustment under section 732(b) would have two participants, the distributee partner and the distributing partnership. In contrast, a basis adjustment under section 743(b) would have three participants, the transferor partner, the transferee partner, and the partnership. The Treasury Department and the IRS have therefore estimated that each basis adjustment would have 2.5 participants on average.
The IRS's Research, Applied Analytics, and Statistics division (RAAS) estimates that the burden of filing Form 8886 is approximately 10 hours, 16 minutes for recordkeeping, 4 hours, 50 minutes for learning about the law or the form, and 6 hours, 25 minutes for preparing, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS, for a total of 21 hours and 31 minutes. In the Special Analyses of the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations, RAAS estimated that the appropriate wage rate was $102.00 (2022 dollars, equivalent to $109.33 in 2024 dollars) per hour. However, one commenter indicated that a better estimate is approximately $177.29 (2022 dollars, equivalent to $190.03 in 2024 dollars) per hour, as many affected individuals may seek specialists with higher hourly fees. The Treasury Department and the IRS have accepted the commenter's suggested wage. Therefore, the estimated burden of filing Form 8886 equals $4,088.81 (2024 dollars) (that is, $190.03 × 21 hours and 31 minutes).
Based on the above, the Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that the aggregate costs of filing Form 8886 under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations are approximately $102 million per year (2024 dollars) (that is, the product of (i) 10,000 basis adjustments, (ii) 2.5 participants per basis adjustment, and (iii) $4,088.81 average filing burden).
Material advisors to transactions of interests identified under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations must file Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement. The Treasury Department and the IRS have assumed that the aggregate costs of filing Forms 8918 under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations each year equal the product of (1) the number of affected basis adjustments, (2) the average number of material advisors per basis adjustment, and (3) the average cost of filing a Form 8918 per advisor.
For the same reasons discussed in Section IV.A.1., the Treasury Department and the IRS have estimated that 10,000 basis adjustments would be reported under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that each transaction that results in a reported basis adjustment will have at least one professional services firm that advises on the tax implications of the transaction (for example, a law firm or an accounting firm) and at least one accounting firm that prepares the relevant tax returns. The Treasury Department and the IRS therefore estimate that each transaction that results in a reported basis adjustment will have 2.2 material advisors on average.
RAAS estimates that the burden of filing Form 8918 is approximately 8 hours, 7 minutes for recordkeeping, 3 hours, 4 minutes for learning about the law or the form, and 3 hours, 20 minutes for preparing, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS, for a total of 14 hours and 31 minutes. If the appropriate wage rate is the same as Form 8886 ($190.03 (2024 dollars) per hour), the burden of filing Form 8918 is $2,758.60 (2024 dollars).
Based on the above, the Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that the aggregate costs of filing Form 8918 under the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations equals $61 million per year (2024 dollars) (that is, the product of (i) 10,000 basis adjustments, (ii) 2.2 material advisors per basis adjustment, and (iii) $2,758.60 average filing burden).
In total, the annual burden estimate related to the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations is $163 million (that is, $102 million per year with respect to Form 8886, plus $61 million per year with respect to Form 8918). The Treasury Department and the IRS do not anticipate any other material economic effects of the Forthcoming Final Regulations beyond the filing burden reduction. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS estimate that the aggregate economic effects of the Forthcoming Final Regulations would be a reduction in filing burdens by $163 million. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the magnitude of this estimate.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain OMB approval before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. These proposed regulations (Removal NPRM), which propose removing § 1.6011-18 (Basis Shifting TOI Regulations) from 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations), do not contain a collection of information and, in fact, remove what would otherwise have been a collection of information requirement in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations.
The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) hereby certifies that these proposed regulations (Removal NPRM) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). This certification is based on IRS data that allowed an estimate of the percentage of partnerships required to file disclosure statements under the proposed
The RFA discussion in the Basis Shifting TOI Proposed Regulations referenced data provided by IRS's Research, Applied Analytics, and Statistics (RAAS) division, which estimated the percentage of partnerships with gross receipts or sales of $25 million or less that might have been subject to the disclosure obligations as a result of a basis adjustment under section 743(b) of more than $5 million during the taxable year. That data suggested that of all partnerships with related parties and a basis adjustment under section 743(b) of more than $5 million during the taxable year, approximately two-thirds of the partnerships would have gross receipts or sales of $25 million or less and approximately one-third would have gross receipts or sales of $25 million or more. The Treasury Department and the IRS determined that the data did not indicate that the Basis Shifting TOI Proposed Regulations would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because not all partnerships with gross receipts or sales of $25 million or less are considered small businesses (
The RFA discussion in the Basis Shifting TOI Regulations referenced data from the IRS that indicated that, in the case of partnerships with gross assets of less than $25 million that reported basis adjustments under section 734(b) or section 743(b) for the taxable year, the average basis adjustment was less than the applicable threshold amount of $10 million or more. Thus, the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipated that many partnerships with gross assets of less than $25 million would not be subject to the disclosure requirements. Further, the data indicated that partnerships with gross assets of more than $25 million that reported basis adjustments under section 734(b) or section 743(b) for the taxable year that met the applicable threshold amount of $10 million or more represented less than one percent of all partnerships that file tax returns for the taxable year.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (updated annually for inflation). These proposed rules do not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132. These proposed regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of Executive Order 13132.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the
Notices cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
The principal authors of this notice of proposed rulemaking are personnel of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs, Trusts, and Estates). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the February 11, 2026,
This correction is effective March 6, 2026.
Jeff Wu, (301) 492-4305, Rogelyn McLean, (410) 786-1524, Grace Bristol, (410) 786-8437, for general information.
Ayesha Anwar, (301) 448-3625, or Joshua Paul, (301) 492-4347, for matters related to the HHS-operated risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation (HHS-RADV) programs.
In FR Doc. 2026-02769 of February 11, 2026 (91 FR 6292), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On pages 6306 through 6319, we inadvertently omitted column headings in Tables 1 through 7.
In FR Doc. 2026-02769 of February 11, 2026 (91 FR 6292), make the following corrections:
1. On pages 6306 through 6312, the table titled “TABLE 1: Proposed Adult Risk Adjustment Model Factors for the 2027 Benefit Year” is corrected to read as follows:
2. On pages 6313 through 6316, the table titled “TABLE 2: Proposed Child Risk Adjustment Model Factors for the 2027 Benefit Year” is corrected to read as follows:
3. On page 6317, the table titled “TABLE 3: HHS HCCs Selected for the HCC Interacted Counts Variables for the Adult and Child Models for the 2027 Benefit Year” is corrected to read as follows:
4. On page 6318, top half of the page, the table titled “TABLE 4: Proposed Infant Risk Adjustment Model Factors for the 2027 Benefit Year” is corrected to read as follows:
5. On page 6318, bottom half of the page, the table titled “TABLE 5: HHS HCCs Included in Infant Model Maturity Categories” is corrected to read as follows:
6. On page 6319 through the top half of page 6321, the table titled “TABLE 6: HHS HCCs Included in Infant Model Severity Categories” is corrected to read as follows:
7. On page 6321, bottom half of the page, the table titled “TABLE 7: R-Squared Statistics for Proposed 2027 Benefit Year HHS Risk Adjustment Models” is corrected to read as follows:
Children's Bureau (CB), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to remove the requirements issued in the final rule
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 6, 2026.
You may submit written comments, identified by docket number ACF-XXXX-XXXX and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0970-AD19, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Jennifer Haight, Children's Bureau, 202-329-6464, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services,
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is published under the authority granted to the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) by Section 1102 of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 1302, which authorizes the Secretary to publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, as may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions entrusted to the Secretary under the Act.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to remove the requirements issued in the final rule
On September 24, 2024, the State of Texas Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit against HHS alleging the final rule:
• Exceeds HHS's statutory authority,
• Violates the Spending Clause, and
• Is arbitrary and capricious.
The plaintiff asked the court to vacate the final rule and requested an immediate stay of the final rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 705. On March 13, 2025, the court concluded that the State of Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because the final rule “violates the APA in two independent ways.” 770 F. Supp. 3d at 948. First, HHS “lacked rulemaking authority to issue the Final Rule,” and second, the final rule “conflicts with the text of Title IV-E.”
On June 13, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a final judgment, vacating the final rule in its entirety.
We propose to remove 45 CFR 1355.22 and rescind the amendment to § 1355.34(c)(2)(i) made in the final rule,
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this NPRM is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.” This NPRM if finalized is expected to be a deregulatory action as defined by Section 3 of Executive Order 14192.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded Federal mandates on state, local, and Tribal governments, or on the private sector. Section 202 of UMRA requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2025, that threshold is approximately $187 million. This rulemaking does not contain mandates that will impose spending costs on state, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in excess of the threshold.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism requires that Federal agencies consult with state and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with Federalism implications. In accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this NPRM does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
There are no alternatives to issuing this NPRM because the final rule was vacated by the court and is no longer in effect.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being (sec. 654, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681). If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. ACF concluded it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment because this rulemaking would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
This NPRM does not affect any information collection requirements subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
In the final rule, ACF estimated that the costs to the Federal Government would be $10,827,381 over a three fiscal year period (FYs 2027-2029) for title IV-E/IV-B agencies to meet the requirements in the final rule (89 FR
Executive Order 13175,
List of Subjects in 45 CFR part 1355 Adoption and foster care, Child Welfare, Grant Programs-Social Programs
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, ACF proposes to amend 45 CFR part 1355 as follows:
:42 U.S.C. 620
:3. Amend § 1355.34 by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Provide, for each child, a written case plan to be developed jointly with the child's parent(s) that includes provisions: for placing the child in the least restrictive, most family-like placement appropriate to his/her needs, and in close proximity to the parents' home where such placement is in the child's best interests; for visits with a child placed out of State/Tribal service area at least every 12 months by a caseworker of the agency or of the agency in the State/Tribal service area where the child is placed; and for documentation of the steps taken to make and finalize an adoptive or other permanent placement when the child cannot return home (sections 422(b)(8)(A)(ii), 471(a)(16) and 475(5)(A) of the Act);
Department of Health and Human Services.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to amend the definition of “shellfish” in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by removing the phrase “having a shell” and adding specific taxa. This amendment would clarify that squid, cuttlefish, octopus, and other cephalopods are included within the regulatory definition of shellfish. This action is deregulatory in nature, as it reduces regulatory ambiguity, aligns the Service's regulations with current biological understanding and commercial practice, reduces regulatory burden and is within the Service's purview to amend definitions as needed.
We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before April 6, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
All submissions must include the docket number FWS-HQ-LE-2026-0628 this document. You must submit comments using one of the following methods:
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at
Douglas R. Ault, Assistant Director, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1949. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. For a summary of the proposed rule, please see the proposed rule summary document in Docket No. FWS-HQ-;LE-2026-0628 on
We are opening a 30-day comment period for this proposed rule. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and effective as possible. The Service invites interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. To effectively respond to comments, we recommend that comments include the following: a reference to a specific portion of the proposed rule, an explanation of the reason for any recommended change, and the inclusion of data, information, or authority that support that recommended change.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection at
The regulations in 50 CFR part 10 establish definitions applicable throughout Subchapter B of title 50 governing wildlife and wildlife products under the jurisdiction of the Service. Section 10.12 defines “shellfish” as an aquatic invertebrate having a shell. This formulation reflects historical terminology rather than contemporary biological classification or modern commercial use.
Cephalopods, including squid, cuttlefish, octopus, and nautilus, are mollusks but are characterized by either an internal shell, a reduced shell, or no shell at all. As a result, the current regulatory definition has created ambiguity as to whether cephalopods qualify as shellfish for purposes of wildlife importation, exportation, declaration, inspection, and enforcement under 50 CFR parts 10, 14, and related provisions.
In practice, this ambiguity has led to inconsistent treatment of mollusks and mollusk products at ports of entry, confusion among regulated entities, and unnecessary regulatory burden on importers, exporters, and enforcement personnel.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to modernize and clarify the definition of “shellfish” by removing an outdated morphological qualifier (“having a shell”) that no longer reflects biological taxonomy or regulatory. By doing so, the Service intends to reduce regulatory uncertainty and compliance costs for the seafood trade, improve consistency in inspection and enforcement decisions, avoid unnecessary permitting or documentation requirements resulting from misclassification, and ensure that Service regulations reflect current scientific understanding of molluscan biology.
The Service reviewed 50 CFR parts 14 and 17, as well as other related provisions, to evaluate whether conforming regulatory amendments are warranted in connection with this proposed revision to the definition of “shellfish” in § 10.12. Based on this review, the Service has determined that no conforming amendments are necessary. The proposed amendment clarifies an existing definition and parts 14 and 17 remain fully operative and consistent with this amendment without further regulatory modification.
This action is deregulatory because it eliminates ambiguity that can trigger unnecessary regulatory requirements. Under the existing definition, cephalopods may be incorrectly treated as non-shellfish wildlife, potentially subjecting regulated parties to additional declaration, permitting, or enforcement scrutiny not intended for commercially traded seafood products. By clarifying that cephalopods are included within the definition of shellfish, this rule reduces the likelihood that routine trade in squid, cuttlefish, octopus, and related products will be subject to inconsistent or duplicative regulatory treatment. The rule does not impose any new compliance obligations, reporting requirements, or restrictions on trade.
Clear and biologically accurate definitions reduce the need for case-by-case interpretation by both the regulated community and the Service. Removing the phrase “having a shell” avoids disputes over anatomical characteristics that are irrelevant to regulatory intent and enforcement, thereby promoting efficient use of agency resources and reducing unnecessary compliance costs.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Service hereby certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. This proposed rule clarifies a regulatory definition and reduces compliance obligations that should result in a cost savings for small businesses. This proposed rule does not establish new compliance requirements, reporting obligations, or performance standards for small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we have determined the following:
a. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. We are the lead agency for carrying out regulations that govern and monitor the importation and exportation of wildlife and for carrying out U.S. obligations under CITES. No small government assistance or impact is expected as a result of this proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed rule has no effect on small governments or their responsibilities.
b. This proposed rule will not produce a Federal requirement that may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This proposed rule will not result in any combined expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments.
Under E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. It will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. A takings implication assessment is not required. The purpose of this proposed rule is to clarify and streamline the requirements and processes related to the import and export of wildlife at U.S. ports and borders. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications.
Under E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (“Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments;” 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (“Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation;” 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with S.O. 3206 of June 5, 1997 (“American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act”), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule is being analyzed under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We are continuing to consider the extent to which our proposed regulation changes may have a significant effect on the human environment or fall within one of the categorical exclusions for actions that have no individual or cumulative significant effect on the quality of the human environment. We invite the public to comment on these or any other aspects of the NEPA analysis of these revisions. We will complete our analysis in accordance with NEPA and applicable regulations before finalizing this proposed rule.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O.13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Exports, Fish, Imports, Law enforcement, Plants, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend part 10, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 668a-d, 703-712, 742a-j-l, 1361-1384, 1401-1407, 1531-1543, 3371-3378; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202.
(1) Mollusca, including but not limited to an oysters, clams, squid, octopus, or cuttlefish; and
(2) Order Decapoda, including, but not limited to a lobsters, crabs, crayfish, shrimp or other crustaceans; and
(3) Any part, product, egg or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof (excluding fossils), of any species included in paragraphs (1)-(2) of this definition, whether or not included in a manufactured product or in a processed food product.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule to establish the 2026 Tribal allocation of Pacific whiting and set-aside of Pacific whiting for research and incidental mortality in non-groundfish fisheries. The proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, achieve optimum yield, ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available, and provide for the implementation of Tribal treaty fishing rights.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than March 23, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
Background information for this action and analytical documents for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website Pacific Whiting Treaty Rules and Notices at
NEPA documents for this and other West Coast groundfish actions are also available at
Additional background information for the Pacific Hake/Whiting Treaty can be found at
Colin Sayre, 206-526-4656,
Under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, and other applicable laws, NMFS proposes to implement a Tribal Pacific whiting allocation based on a percentage of the recommended U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific whiting and a set-aside for research and incidental mortality in non-groundfish fisheries. The non-Tribal commercial Pacific whiting fisheries open on May 1 of each year. The Tribal and non-Tribal commercial sector allocations for Pacific whiting, as well as the set-aside for research and incidental mortality in non-groundfish fisheries, would be effective until December 31, 2026.
The transboundary stock of Pacific whiting is managed through the Agreement Between the Government of
In addition to the JMC, the Agreement establishes several other bilateral management bodies to set whiting catch levels: the Joint Technical Committee (JTC), which conducts the Pacific whiting stock assessment; the Scientific Review Group (SRG), which reviews the stock assessment; and the Advisory Panel (AP), which provides stakeholder input to the JMC.
The Agreement establishes a default harvest policy of F-40 percent, which means a fishing mortality rate that would reduce the spawning biomass of Pacific whiting to 40 percent of the estimated unfished level. The Agreement also allocates 73.88 percent of the Pacific whiting TAC to the United States and 26.12 percent of the TAC to Canada. Based on recommendations from the JTC, SRG, and AP, the JMC determines the overall Pacific whiting TAC by March 25 of each year. NMFS, under the delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has the authority to accept or reject this recommendation. Under the MSA and consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, NMFS allocates the recommended U.S. TAC between the Tribal sector and non-Tribal commercial sectors.
Four Washington coastal treaty Indian Tribes—the Makah Indian Tribe, the Quileute Indian Tribe, the Quinault Indian Nation, and the Hoh Indian Tribe (collectively, the Treaty Tribes)—can participate in the Tribal Pacific whiting fishery. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d) identify the procedures for implementing the treaty rights that Pacific Coast Treaty Tribes have to harvest groundfish in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in U.S. waters, including the process by which Tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the FMP request allocations, set-asides, or regulations specific to the Treaty Tribes. 50 CFR 660.50(d) provides that the Secretary will develop Tribal allocations and regulations in consultation with the affected Treaty Tribes and, insofar as possible, with Tribal agreement.
NMFS allocates a portion of the U.S. TAC of Pacific whiting to the Tribal fishery following the process established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). The Tribal allocation is subtracted from the U.S. Pacific whiting TAC before allocation to the non-Tribal sectors.
Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting have been based on discussions with the Treaty Tribes regarding their intent to fish. The Hoh Tribe has not expressed an interest in participating in the Pacific whiting fishery to date. The Quileute Tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation have expressed interest in beginning to participate in the Pacific whiting fishery at a future date. To date, only the Makah Tribe has prosecuted a Tribal fishery for Pacific whiting and has harvested Pacific whiting since 1996 using midwater trawl gear. Table 1 below provides a recent history of U.S. TACs and annual Tribal allocation in metric tons (mt).
In 2009, NMFS, the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Treaty Tribes started a process to determine the long-term Tribal allocation for Pacific whiting. However, they have not yet determined a long-term allocation. This rule proposes the 2026 Tribal allocation of Pacific whiting. This allocation does not represent a long-term allocation and is not intended to set precedent for future allocations.
In exchanges between NMFS and the Treaty Tribes during in late 2025, the Makah Tribe indicated their intent to participate in the Tribal Pacific whiting fishery in 2026. The Quinault Indian Nation, the Quileute Indian Tribe and the Hoh Indian Tribe informed NMFS that they will not participate in the 2026 fishery. Only the Makah Indian Tribe indicated its intent to fish and requested 17.5 percent of the U.S. Pacific whiting TAC, which is identical to the Tribal allocation percentage implemented in previous years. NMFS proposes an allocation that accommodates the Tribal request for 17.5 percent of the 2026 U.S. TAC.
The JMC is anticipated to recommend the coastwide and corresponding United States/Canada TACs no later than March 25, 2026. The U.S. TAC is 73.88 percent of the coastwide TAC. Until this TAC is set, NMFS cannot propose a specific amount for the Tribal allocation. The Pacific whiting fishery begins on May 1, and we expect to publish the final rule to set Pacific whiting specifications for 2026 by early May. Therefore, to allow for public input on the Tribal allocation, NMFS is issuing this proposed rule without the final 2026 TAC. However, to provide a basis for public input, NMFS is describing a range of potential Tribal allocations in this proposed rule by applying the proposed Tribal allocation to a range of potential TACs derived from past harvest levels.
In order to project a range of potential Tribal allocations for 2026, we applied the proposed Tribal allocation of 17.5 percent to the range of U.S. TACs over the last 10 years, 2015 through 2025 (plus or minus 15 percent to capture variability in recommended TAC). The range of U.S. TACs in the past 10 years period was a minimum of 295,520 mt (2025) to a maximum of 461,750 mt (2023). The maximum change in U.S. TAC in the last 5 years was a 28 percent decrease between 2024 and 2025 (461,750 to 295,520 mt), and a 20 percent increase between the years 2016 and 2017 (402,646 to 461,750 mt). Despite this range, in 8 of the last 10 years the TAC varied by less than 15 percent. Applying a 15 percent variability results in a range of potential TACs between 251,192 and 531,012 mt for 2026. Using the proposed Tribal allocation of 17.5 percent, the potential range of the Tribal allocations for 2026 would be between 43,958 and 92,927 mt. NMFS proposes to implement this action pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 660.50.
The U.S. non-Tribal whiting fishery is managed under the FMP. Each year, the Council recommends a set-aside to accommodate research activities and incidental mortality in non-groundfish fisheries based on estimates of scientific research catch and estimated bycatch mortality in non-groundfish fisheries. Due to the lapse in government funding from October 1 to November 14, 2025, the Council was unable to provide a recommendation on a 2026 set-aside. NMFS would implement a research and incidental mortality set-aside of 750 mt of Pacific whiting for 2026, which is the same amount recommended by the
In addition to the Tribal allocation and research and incidental catch set-aside, each year NMFS establishes the U.S. TAC and non-Tribal fishery harvest guideline (HG) and distributes it to the non-Tribal sectors according to the commercial allocation structure in the FMP section 6.3.2.2 and regulations at 50 CFR 660.55(i)(2). To determine the 2026 non-Tribal fishery HG, the 2026 Tribal allocation and 2026 set-aside for research and incidental mortality are deducted from the total U.S. TAC. The HG is then allocated among the three non-Tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery: The Catcher/Processor (C/P) Co-op Program, the Mothership (MS) Co-op Program, and the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The TAC recommendation and resulting non-Tribal commercial sector allocations are based on the Treaty-based JMC recommendation and are non-discretionary. The HG is not included in this proposed rule because NMFS, under the delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce and with concurrence from the Department of State, must approve or disapprove the overall TAC recommended by the JMC at a mid-March meeting. As such, NMFS is issuing this proposed rule before setting the HG and non-Tribal allocations in order to provide for public comment during a compressed rulemaking schedule prior to the fishery's opening on May 1.
This proposed rule would be implemented under the statutory and regulatory authority of section 305(d) of the MSA, the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, the regulations governing the groundfish fishery at 50 CFR 660.5 through 660.360, and other applicable laws. NMFS is using section 305(d) of the MSA for the Tribal allocation and set-aside because in a previous action taken pursuant to section 304(b), the FMP and its implementing regulations authorize NMFS to take action pursuant to MSA section 305(d). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with sections 305(d) of the MSA, the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, the regulations governing the groundfish fishery at 50 CFR 660.5 through 660.360, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment. Additionally, pursuant to MSA section 305(d), this action is necessary to carry out Tribal allocations, set-asides, and regulations pursuant to FMP section 6.2.5 and 50 CFR 660.50(d)(1) because with this proposed rule, NMFS would ensure that the fishery is managed in a manner consistent with treaty rights of the four Treaty Tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-Tribal citizens (
NMFS notes that the public comment period for this proposed rule is 15 days. Finalizing the Pacific whiting harvest specifications close to the start of the Pacific whiting fishing season on May 1 provides the industry with more time to plan and execute the fishery and gives them earlier access to the finalized allocations of Pacific whiting. A 15-day comment period best balances the interest in allowing the public adequate time to comment on the proposed measures with the benefits of implementing the set-aside management measures and setting Pacific whiting allocations in a timely manner. Although the non-Tribal allocations are not included in this proposed rule, those allocations are non-discretionary pursuant to the regulations governing the groundfish fishery at 50 CFR 660.55(i)(2). Timely implementation of this action will ensure the Tribal and non-Tribal commercial fishery sectors receive their full Pacific whiting allocations with sufficient time to maximize catch attainment within their respective fisheries during the 2026 whiting season. In making its final determination, NMFS will take into account the complete record, including comments received during the comment period for this proposed rule.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian Tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, regulations implementing the FMP establish a procedure by which the Tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the FMP request allocations or regulations specific to the Tribes, in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d)(2) further state that the Secretary will develop Tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected Tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with Tribal consensus. The Tribal management measures in this proposed rule have been developed following these procedures.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
A range of potential total harvest levels for Pacific whiting has been considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods thereafter (2015/16 FEIS), and in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review included in the analytical document for Amendment 33 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and 2025-2026 Harvest Specifications and Management Measures. These documents are available from NMFS (see
NMFS prepared an FEIS for FMP Amendment 24; a notice of availability was published on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2414). The 2015/16 FEIS examined the harvest specifications and management measures for 2015-2016 and gave 10-year projections for routinely adjusted harvest specifications and management measures. The 10-year projections were produced to evaluate the impacts of the ongoing implementation of harvest specifications and management measures and to evaluate the impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main component of each biennial cycle. The environmental assessment for the 2025-2026 cycle builds on the 2015/16 FEIS and focuses on the harvest specifications and management measures that were not within the scope of the 10-year projections in the 2015/16 FEIS.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action is contained in the
Under the RFA, the term “small entities” includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of complying with the RFA, NMFS has established size criteria for entities involved in the fishing industry
This proposed rule affects how Pacific whiting is allocated to the following sectors/programs: Tribal, Shorebased IFQ Program Trawl Fishery, MS Co-op Program Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery, and C/P Co-op Program Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The amount of Pacific whiting allocated to these sectors is based on the U.S. TAC, which is developed and approved through the process set out in the Agreement and the Whiting Act.
We expect one Tribal entity, the Makah Tribe, to fish for Pacific whiting in 2026. Tribes are not considered small entities for the purposes of RFA. Impacts to Tribes are nevertheless considered in this analysis.
Although there are three non-Tribal sectors directly affected by this rule (the C/P Co-op Program, the Shorebased IFQ Program, and the MS Co-op Program), many companies participate in two sectors and some participate in all three sectors, as well as other non-whiting groundfish fisheries. For example, some companies may own permits in both the C/P and MS sectors, and own vessels capable of operating as either a C/P or an MS. Depending on the operational needs of the parent company in a given year, a C/P vessel may be assigned a permit to alternatively act as an MS. As part of the permit application processes for the non-Tribal fisheries, NMFS asks permit applicants if they considered themselves a small business based on a review of the Small Business Administration size criteria and asks each permit applicant to provide detailed ownership information. Data on employment worldwide, including affiliates, are not available for these companies, which generally operate in Alaska as well as on the West Coast in non-whiting groundfish fisheries and may have operations in other countries, as well. NMFS requests that limited entry permit holders self-report their size status. There is substantial, but not complete, overlap between permit ownership and vessel ownership, so there may be a small number of additional small entity vessel owners who will be impacted by this rule.
The C/P Co-op Program is composed of 10 C/P endorsed permits owned by 3 companies that have formed a single co-op. This co-op is considered a large entity both because it has participants that are large entities and because it has in total more than 750 employees worldwide including affiliates. For 2025, all 3 owners of the 10 C/P permits reported that they are not small businesses.
As of January 2026, the Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 158 Quota Share permits/accounts (120 of which were allocated whiting quota pounds) and 39 licensed first receiver sites, of which 7 companies receive whiting. Of these companies that receive whiting, 6 are not considered small entities.
The MS Co-op Program is the limited access program that applies to eligible harvesters and processors in the MS sector of the Pacific whiting at-sea trawl fishery. In 2026, this program consists of 6 MS processor permits and a catcher vessel fleet, currently composed of a single co-op with 33 Mothership/Catcher Vessel endorsed permits (with 3 permits each having 2 catch history assignments). For 2026, 8 permits in the MS Co-op reported that they are not small businesses.
After accounting for cross-fishery participation, multiple Quota Share account holders, and affiliation through ownership, NMFS estimates based on 2026 permit registration and quota share information that there are 100 non-Tribal entities directly affected by these proposed regulations, 86 of which are considered small entities.
This proposed rule, if adopted, will allocate Pacific whiting between Tribal and non-Tribal commercial harvesters (a mixture of small and large businesses). Tribal fisheries consist of a mixture of fishing activities that are similar to the activities that non-Tribal fisheries undertake. Tribal harvests may be delivered to both shoreside plants and motherships for processing. These processing facilities also process fish harvested by non-Tribal fisheries. The effect of the Tribal allocation on non-Tribal fisheries will depend on the level of Tribal harvests relative to their allocation and the reapportionment process as described in regulations at 50 CFR 660.131(h). If the Tribes do not harvest their entire allocation, there are opportunities during the year to reapportion unharvested Tribal amounts to the non-Tribal commercial fleets. For example, in 2025 NMFS reapportioned 41,716 mt of the original 51,716 mt Tribal allocation. This reapportionment was based on conversations with the Tribes and the best information available at the time, which indicated that this amount would not limit Tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. The reapportionment process allows unharvested Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting to be fished by the non-Tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small entities. The revised Pacific whiting allocations for 2025 following the reapportionment were: Tribal, 10,000.00 mt; C/P Co-op, 96,821.80 mt; MS Co-op, 68,344.80 mt; and Shorebased IFQ Program, 119,603.40 mt. The prices for Pacific whiting are largely determined by the world market because most of the Pacific whiting harvested in the United States is exported. The U.S. Pacific whiting TAC is highly variable, as are subsequent attainment of sector allocations and ex-vessel revenues.
Complete 2025 landing and revenue data for the commercial whiting sectors were unavailable at the time of publication of the IRFA. For the years 2014 to 2024, the U.S. non-Tribal commercial fishery sectors averaged harvests of approximately 265,192.73 mt, and revenues of $51.6 million annually. As of December 9, 2025, the 2025 U.S. non-Tribal commercial fishery sectors attained a Pacific whiting catch of approximately 237,595.3 mt out of a harvest guideline of 243,054 mt (97.75 percent attainment), resulting in a total revenue of $60.78 million. The Tribal fishery landed 1,082.6 mt out of the 2025 Tribal allocation of 51,716 mt. Impacts to Tribal catcher vessels who elect to participate in the Tribal fishery are measured with an estimate of ex-vessel revenue. In lieu of more complete information on Tribal deliveries, total ex-vessel revenue is estimated with the 2025 average ex-vessel price of Pacific whiting, which was $255.84 per mt. At
Shoreside processors are unlikely to be impacted by allocating U.S, pacific whiting TAC between Tribal and non-Tribal sectors because they can receive and process landings from both Tribal and non-Tribal catcher vessels.
Data used to inform this analysis come primarily from PacFIN, which includes data provided by the states of Oregon, California, and Washington on commercial whiting fishing trips and landings. Other data sources include the West Coast Economic Data Collection Program, the West Coast Region permit database, and the West Coast Region Individual Fishing Quota Account public database. The number of entities predicted to be impacted is generally based on the level of participation in the previous year (2025) and, as noted above, is in some cases likely to be an overestimate of the true number of entities likely to be impacted if current trends continue. However, it is possible that as environmental or management conditions change in other fisheries this will impact the level of participation in the groundfish fishery beyond what is predicted here.
For the Pacific whiting Tribal allocation, and set-aside for research and incidental mortality NMFS considered two alternatives: the “No Action” alternative and the “Proposed Action” alternative.
NMFS did not consider a broader range of alternatives to the proposed Tribal allocation because the Tribal allocation is a percentage of the U.S. TAC and is based primarily on the requests of the Tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow the Tribes to exercise their treaty right to fish for Pacific whiting which NMFS must legally allow them to harvest. Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS would set the Tribal allocation percentage at 17.5 percent, as requested by the Makah Tribe. Using the proposed Tribal allocation of 17.5 percent and the potential range of U.S. TACs for 2025 would yield a Tribal allocation of between 43,958 and 92,927 mt. Consideration of a percentage lower than the Tribal request of 17.5 percent is not appropriate in this instance. NMFS has historically supported the harvest levels requested by the Tribe. Based on the information available to NMFS, the Tribal request is within their Tribal treaty rights. A higher percentage would arguably also be within the scope of the treaty right. However, a higher percentage would unnecessarily limit the non-Tribal fishery, and the proposed percentage is consistent with the Tribe's request.
Under the No Action alternative, NMFS would not make an allocation to the Tribal sector. This alternative was considered, but the regulatory framework provides for a Tribal allocation on an annual basis only. Therefore, the No Action alternative would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the Tribal sector in 2026, which would be inconsistent with NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the Tribes' treaty rights. Given that there is a Tribal request for allocation in 2026, this No Action alternative for allocation to the Tribal sector received no further consideration.
For the set-aside for research and incidental mortality, the No Action alternative would mean that NMFS would not implement the set-aside amount of 750 mt recommended by the Council. Not implementing the set-aside of the U.S. whiting TAC would mean incidental mortality of the fish in research activities and non-groundfish fisheries would not be accommodated. This would be inconsistent with the Council's recommendation, the FMP, the regulations setting the framework governing the groundfish fishery, and NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery and prevent overfishing. Therefore, the No Action alternative for the set-aside received no further consideration.
There are no significant alternatives to the proposed action to accomplish the objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.
NMFS considers two criteria in determining the significance of adverse regulatory effects, disproportionality, and profitability.
This proposed rule is similar to previous rulemakings concerning Pacific whiting and concerns the amount of the U.S. TAC that should be allocated to the Tribal fishery and a set-aside for research and bycatch in non-groundfish fisheries for 2026. Following a coastwide TAC recommendation, Pacific whiting allocations to the non-Tribal sectors are expected provide additional economic opportunity to the entities considered in this analysis to prosecute a quota species within a multi-species groundfish catch share program. In addition, the reapportioning process allows unharvested Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting, fished by small entities, to be fished by the non-Tribal fleets, potentially providing economic benefits to both large and small entities. Based on the analysis above, this proposed rule, if finalized, would not adversely affect small entities and would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA and is requesting comments on this analysis.
NMFS has prepared the IRFA, as described above, and is requesting comments on this conclusion (see
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(f) * * *
(17)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a request to extend our determination of nonregulated status of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.'s (Pioneer's) DP23211 insect-resistant and glufosinate-ammonium-tolerant maize (corn) to DP51291 maize (corn). Similar to DP23211 corn, DP51291 corn was genetically engineered to express the IPD072Aa protein for control of certain susceptible corn rootworm pests, the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase protein as a selectable marker and for tolerance to glufosinate herbicide, and the phosphomannose isomerase protein as a selectable marker. We are making the extension request, our draft plant pest risk similarity assessment, and preliminary determination of nonregulated status available for public review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 6, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The extension request, draft plant pest risk similarity assessment, preliminary determination of nonregulated status, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Alan Pearson, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, AP100, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-3944; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
Section 340.6(e)(2) of the regulations provides that any person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request shall include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
On December 1, 2023, APHIS announced
Similar to DP23211 maize, DP51291 maize was genetically engineered to express the IPD072Aa protein for control of certain susceptible corn rootworm pests. Also similar to DP23211 maize, DP51291 maize was genetically engineered to express the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase protein as a selectable marker and for tolerance to glufosinate herbicide, and the phosphomannose isomerase protein as a selectable marker. Further, DP51291 maize was developed using site-specific integration similar to DP23211 maize.
APHIS has prepared a plant pest risk similarity assessment (PPRSA) to compare DP51291 maize to the antecedent DP23211 maize. APHIS has analyzed information submitted by Pioneer, references provided in the extension request, peer-reviewed publications, and supporting documentation prepared for the antecedent organism. Based on APHIS' analysis of this information and the similarity of DP51291 maize to the antecedent DP23211 maize, APHIS has determined that DP51291 maize is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a preliminary decision to approve the request to extend the determination of nonregulated status for DP51291 maize, whereby DP51291 maize would no longer be subject to our regulations in 7 CFR part 340 governing organisms developed using genetic engineering.
We are therefore publishing this notice to make available our evaluation and inform the public of our preliminary decision to extend the
APHIS will accept written comments on the request for extension, PPRSA, and our preliminary determination for DP51291 maize for 30 days. These documents are available for public review as indicated under
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the comments, if APHIS determines that no information has been received that would warrant APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination, our preliminary regulatory determination will become final and effective upon notification of the public through an announcement on our website at
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Claremore, Oklahoma within Subzone 53D. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 27, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: tubes for cable splice kits; stainless steel pipes; steel tubing; centrifugal pumps; electromechanical submersible pumps; filtering machinery; purifying machinery; electric motors; electric winches; electromechanical appliances; electromechanical appliance shafts; electromechanical appliance impellers; electromechanical appliance housings; electromechanical appliance diffusers; electrical generators; multi-phase AC electric motors; electric submersible pump motors; electric generating sets; static converters; data transmission devices; electrical switching; and, wire motor lead extensions (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 9%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: synthetic thrust chamber fluids (grease oils); desiccant bags; cable prep chemicals; chemical oil; paint kits; paint oil; sealant caulking; hydraulic bracket fluid; polyethylene sealants; polyurethane gland sealings; silicones; nylon monofilaments; plastic monofilaments; flexible vacuum hoses; foam protector; plastic reels; plastic coverings; flexible hoses with fittings; hydraulic hoses reinforced with metal with fittings; hydraulic hoses reinforced with textile material without fittings; hydraulic hoses reinforced with textile material with fittings; rod neoprene; cork gaskets; paper rolls; user manuals; decals; cast iron round bars; rectangular bars; support beams; flat rolled bars; cold formed bars; threaded pipes; tubing cold drawn; iron casings; shipping boxes; copper bars; nickel pump part fittings; aluminum bars; aluminum profiles; tubes for cable splice kits; titanium nuts; steel brackets; mounting brackets; oil colling systems; air compressors; oil coolers; oil filters; band tensioners; jack hoists; jack screw assemblies; staging clamps; wellhead crossovers; needle valves; ball valves; bearing rollers; housed bearings; gear boxes; vent plugs; electrical motors; electrical transformers; coin batteries; lithium-ion batteries; soft starter generators; soldering irons; electrical modem; capacitor variable; isolating electrical switches; electrical arrestor protectors; electrical switchboards; circuit assemblies for lights; fiber optic cables; part transport carts; directional adapters; level measuring devices; micrometer gages; electrical probes; transmitters; electrical meters; electrical sensors; voltmeters; megohmmeters; test measuring devices for balancing mechanical parts; measuring gauges; mechanical adapter components; thermostats for temperature readings; electrical switches for automatic voltage reduction; desiccants; (hygroscopic substance); dielectric solvents; rust preventatives; paint synthetic polymers; paint lacquer; cleaners; anti-seize lubes; lube treatments; sealants; loctites; pastes; inhibitors; thinners; epoxies; antifreezes; primers; lubricant oil polymers; epoxy resins; monofilament fiber strands; polytetrafluoroethylene tubing; vinyl chloride pipes; perfluoroalkoxy tubing; extruded polytetrafluoroethylene tubing; self-adhesive plastic tape; self-adhesive labels; ethylene shield sheeting; polycarbon shield sheeting; polyesters shield sheeting; nomex insulation; kapton insulation; plates and plastics; polytetrafluoroethylene insulation; shipping materials; plastic bags for parts; caps for plug protectors; binders; gaskets seals; rubber gaskets; electrical tape; rubber tubing; vulcanized rubber gaskets; rubber o-rings; gaskets sealing supports; rubber plugs; flange plywood protectors; wood pallet; insulation papers; corrugated paperboard boxes; packaging remote terminal units; warning labels; cardboard gaskets; printed manuals; nameplates; electrical labels; filtering cloth; asbestos gaskets; teflon gaskets; flexitallic gaskets; fiberglass insulation; cast iron bars; steel plates; iron round bars; cold formed finished bars; stainless steel bands; duplex bars; stainless steel bars; nickel alloy bars; iron bars; steel bars; hot rolled steel bars; stainless steel wires; heat treated bars; shafting round tool steel bars; nonalloy steel pipes; round seamless steel tubing; 304 grade cold rolled stainless steel tubing; stainless steel pipes; steel joints; abrasion resistant housing; high strength steel shafting; steel connectors; steel flange connectors; piping system steel fittings; steel flanges; fitting union steel elbows; steel pipe fittings; steel liquid reservoirs; stainless steel filtering screen; self-tapping screws; steel screws; steel bolts; steel studs; steel nuts; hex standoffs for eyebolts; lock washers; flat power washers; drive screw rivets; cotter pins for retainer rings; retainer rings; helical springs; springs; steel caps; steel cap castings; securing clamps; steel brackets; steel shims; steel caps; steel plugs; copper bars; copper
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that aluminum protectors are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from the People's Republic of China. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in PF status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that L-lysine (lysine) from People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable March 6, 2026.
Mira Warrier or Jerry Xiao, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8031 or (202) 482-2273, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On June 24, 2025, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is lysine from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy (NME), within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, with respect to the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
We have preliminarily granted a separate rate to certain companies that we did not select for individual examination.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. However, Commerce has not made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies; thus, Commerce has not offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin in this preliminary determination.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case
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, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On February 25, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), the Eppen Group and Zhengzhou Longgu requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The scope of this investigation covers animal feed grade L-lysine (lysine). Lysine is an essential amino acid added to animal feed that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. The scope covers lysine regardless of form, including lysine monohydrochloride, also referred to as lysine HCL, lysine sulfate, and liquid lysine. The scope includes lysine that has been coated or encapsulated for use with ruminants to ensure bioavailability.
Lysine HCL in the dry form has the molecular formula C
The scope includes animal feed grade lysine that is combined with other products, including for example, by mixing, blending, compounding, or granulating (
Subject merchandise also includes lysine that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, refining, converting from liquid to dry or dry to liquid form, coating or encapsulating, or performing any processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the subject country.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.41.0090. Lysine may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 2922.41.0010, 2922.49.4950, 2309.90.7000, and 2309.90.9500. Although the HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hulamin Operations (Pty) Ltd. (Hulamin Operations) did not make sales of common alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) from South Africa in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
Applicable March 6, 2026.
Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243 or (202) 482-5848, respectively.
On August 13, 2025, Commerce published the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days,
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The product covered by the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Commerce determines the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
Because the weighted-average dumping margin for by Hulamin Operations is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with the
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
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding the Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Algeria is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
Applicable March 6, 2026.
Anjali Mehindiratta, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9127.
On December 19, 2025, Commerce published in the
On January 20, 2026, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC or the petitioner) submitted a case brief urging Commerce to: (1) continue relying on adverse facts available (AFA) to determine the dumping margin of the non-responsive mandatory respondent, Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algeria SPA (Tosyali), (2) make no changes to the dumping margins determined in the
No other party submitted a case brief regarding the
The product covered by this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar from Algeria. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
Because the non-responsive respondent, Tosyali, did not participate in this investigation, Commerce did not conduct a verification.
In this final determination, consistent with the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period, April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to the mandatory respondent in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on information included in the Petition,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in the appendix to this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 19, 2025, the date of publication of the
To determine the cash deposit rates in a LTFV investigation, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation. Accordingly, where Commerce has made an affirmative determination of countervailable export subsides, Commerce offsets the estimated weighted average dumping margins in the companion LTFV investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rate. Here, Commerce normally would have adjusted the estimated weighted-average dumping margins that are listed in the table above by the appropriate export subsidy rate determined in the companion CVD investigation to
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of rebar from Algeria no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof.
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under subheadings 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS subheadings, including 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of South Africa (South Africa) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD orders.
Applicable March 3, 2026.
David de Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On January 28, 2003, Commerce published in the
On March 3, 2026, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The scope of the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye), during the period of review (POR) from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 6, 2026.
Michael Romani, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198.
On July 18, 2014, Commerce published in the
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative review by 90 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
We preliminarily find that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We intend to set a deadline for case briefs at a later point. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven 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, limited to issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends upon publication of the final results, to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the company listed 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 rate calculated in the final results is zero or
For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Diversification of Türkiye's Economy
V. Subsidies Valuation Information
VI. Analysis of Programs
VII. Recommendation
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were not made at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024. In addition, Commerce is rescinding the review, in part, with respect to 35 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 6, 2026.
Grant Fuller or Caroline Carroll, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6228 or (202) 482-4948, respectively.
On September 20, 2016, Commerce published in the
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days.
The merchandise subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
On January 17, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4), we notified interested parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II with no suspended entries during the POR in the CBP data, and we invited interested parties to comment.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be determined for companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when determining the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we preliminarily calculated dumping margins of zero for both Hyundai and POSCO. Therefore, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are preliminarily assigning the most recent above-
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the period of September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in 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 the 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, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the 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 time and date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject
For Ameri-Source, Hanawell, and KG Dongbu, the companies that were not selected for individual examination, we intend to assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate determined as noted in the “Rate for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP for the companies listed in Appendix II no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission in the
For the remaining companies under review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable. 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
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) will hold five Ecosystem Working Group meetings throughout the Gulf.
The meetings will take place from Monday, March 23 through Friday, April 17, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., CDT or EDT (local time).
These will be in-person meetings only, virtual listen-in options will not be available. See Supplementary Information for dates and locations. More information will be available on the Council's website by visiting
Dr. Verena Wang, Ecosystem Analyst, Gulf Council;
The purpose of the five in-person meetings is to provide Ecosystem Working Group members in each region with an opportunity to share their views on Fishery Ecosystem Issues of concern. Fishery Ecosystem Issues will shape the Gulf Fishery Ecosystem Plan, which is a non-regulatory document developed by the Council to explore ecosystem-informed management decisions. Working Group-identified Fishery Ecosystem Issues will undergo a Council prioritization process. The meetings will begin with an overview of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan and the goals and objectives of the Working Group meetings. Working Group members will participate in a facilitated discussion to map the system of key factors that affect Gulf fisheries, identify concerns relative to the fishery ecosystem and how they impact the fishery, businesses, and communities. Working Group members will also participate in sector- or issue-specific breakout sessions for in-depth discussions of ecosystem concerns.
Dates and locations are as follows:
• Monday, March 23, 2026, Courtyard by Marriott, 1600 East Beach Blvd., Gulfport, MS 36501, (228) 864-4310.
• Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Courtyard by Marriott, 142 Library Drive, Houma, LA 70360 (985) 223-8996.
• Friday, March 27, 2026, The Lodge, 21196 East Beach Blvd. Gulf Shores, AL 36542 (251) 540-4000.
• Monday, April 13, 2026, Hyatt Place at Forum, 2600 Champion Ring Road, Fort Myers, FL 33905 (239) 417-1844.
• Friday, April 17, 2026, Holiday Inn Resort 5002 Seawall Blvd., Galveston, TX 77551 (409) 744-1500.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Southeast Data Assessment and Review 105 Topical Working Groups Scoping Webinar for Gulf Gag Grouper.
The Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 105 assessment process of Gulf gag grouper will consist of a series of assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 105 Topical Working Groups Scoping webinar will be held March 19, 2026, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. EST.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366. Email:
The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process. SEDAR is a participatory process for developing, evaluating and reviewing information used for fisheries management advice. This multi-step process for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region may include (1) a Data stage, and (2) an Assessment stage, and (3) a Review stage. Each stage produces a report summarizing decisions made during that stage. A final stock assessment report is produced at the end of a SEDAR process documenting data sets used, model configurations and the opinions from the independent peer review. Participants for SEDAR projects are appointed by the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants may include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and Federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the SEDAR 105 Topical Working Groups Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will discuss the data and assessment topics and why they are being considered. The panel may request analyses needed to address the topic.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comments.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing, information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 5, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Cliff Hutt, Fisheries Management Specialist, NOAA Fisheries, (301) 427-8503,
This request is for renewal and extension without revision of a current information collection (ICR). This request is being submitted early in anticipation of a final rulemaking that will modify the reporting requirements but may not be finalized before the current ICR expiration date. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
NMFS collects information via vessel logbooks to monitor the United States (U.S.) catch of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, billfish, and tunas in relation to the quotas, thereby ensuring that the U.S. complies with its domestic and international obligations. The Highly Migratory Species (HMS) logbook program, OMB Control No. 0648-0371, was specifically designed to collect the vessel-level information needed for the management of Atlantic HMS, and includes set forms, trip forms, negative reports, and cost-earning requirements for both commercial and recreational vessels. The information supplied through the HMS logbook program provides the catch and effort data on a per-set or per-trip level of resolution for both directed and incidental species. In addition to HMS fisheries, the HMS logbook program is also used to report catches of dolphin and wahoo by commercial permit holders that do not hold any other federal permits. Additionally, the HMS logbook collects data on incidental species, such as sea turtles, which is necessary to evaluate the fisheries in terms of bycatch and encounters with protected species. While most HMS fishermen use the HMS logbook program, HMS can also be reported as part of several other logbook collections including the Northeast Region Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (0648-0212) and Southeast Region Coastal Logbook (0648-0016).
These data are necessary to assess the status of HMS, dolphins, and wahoo in each fishery. International stock assessments for tunas, swordfish, billfish, and some species of sharks are conducted through ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics periodically and provide, in part, the basis for ICCAT management recommendations, which become binding on member nations. Domestic stock assessments for most species of sharks and for dolphin and wahoo are used as the basis of managing these species.
Supplementary information on fishing costs and earnings has been collected via the HMS logbook program. This economic information enables NMFS to assess the economic impacts of regulatory programs on small businesses and fishing communities, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other domestic laws.
Paper logbooks have historically been the primary mode of reporting, but electronic logbooks, including mobile applications, will be offered on a voluntary basis for the HMS logbook in the near future.
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,
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.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting; opportunity to comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management will hold a virtual public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Coastal Management Program. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments.
NOAA will hold an in-person public meeting at 5 p.m. Chamorro Standard Time on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. NOAA may close the meeting 10 minutes after the conclusion of public testimony and after responding to any clarifying questions from meeting participants. NOAA will consider all relevant written comments received by Friday, May 1, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Susie Holst Rice, evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, by email at
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, considering public comments, and consulting with interested federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Act. When the evaluation is complete, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of its Groundfish Management Team (GMT) to discuss items on the Pacific Council's April 2026 meeting agenda. This meeting is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held March 24, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Time.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Todd Phillips, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the Pacific Council's April 2026 Council meeting. The GMT is expected to discuss items on the Pacific Council's groundfish management agenda,
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Hayden York (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 159th Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Program Planning Standing Committee (SC), Executive and Budget SC, and 206th Council meeting to take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held between March 17 and March 26, 2026. For specific times and agendas, see
The 159th SSC, Program Planning SC, Executive and Budget SC and 206th Council meetings will be held as a hybrid meeting for members and the public, with a remote participation option available via Webex. In-person attendance for the 159th SSC, Program Planning SC, and Executive and Budget SC meetings will be hosted at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. In-person attendance for the 206th Council meeting will be hosted at the Ala Moana Hotel, Hibiscus Ballroom, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, HI 96814.
Specific information on joining the meetings and connecting to the web conference will be posted on the Council website at
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The 159th SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) on March 17, 2026, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 18, 2026, and between 8:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. HST on March 19, 2026. The Program Planning SC meeting will be held between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. HST on March 23, 2026. The Executive and Budget SC meeting will be held between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. HST on March 23, 2026. The 206th Council meeting will be held between 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 24, 2026, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 25, 2026, and between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. HST on March 26, 2026. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items will be held between 4:30 p.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 24, 2026.
Background documents for the 206th Council meeting will be available at
Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions that may result in Council transmittal of a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council and its advisory bodies will hear recommendations from Council advisors. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
This meeting will be recorded (audio only) for the purposes of generating the minutes of the meeting. As public comments will be made publicly available, participants and public commenters are urged not to provide personally identifiable information (PII) at this meeting. Participation in the meeting by web conference, or by telephone, constitutes consent to the audio recording.
Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion during its 206th meeting. However, Council final decisions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP), Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC), Mariana Archipelago FEP Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) AP, Hawaii Archipelago and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) FEP AP, and Mariana Archipelago FEP Guam AP to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held between March 11, 2026, and March 14, 2025. For specific times and agendas, see
The Council will hold its American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP, FIAC, Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP, Mariana Archipelago FEP CNMI AP, and Mariana Archipelago FEP Guam AP meetings in a hybrid format with in-person and remote participation (Webex) options available for the members and the public. In person attendance (for members and public) for the Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP, and FIAC meetings will be hosted at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop St Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813. In-person attendance for the American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP and public will be hosted at the Tedi of Samoa Suite 208B, P8C6+V2F, Fagatogo Village, AS, 96799. In-person attendance for the Mariana Archipelago FEP CNMI AP and public will be hosted at BRI Building Suite 205, Kopa Di Oru St., Garapan, Saipan, 96950. In-person attendance for the Mariana Archipelago FEP Guam AP and public will be hosted at Cliff Pointe, 304 W. O'Brien Drive, Hagatña, GU, 96910. Instructions for connecting to the web conference and providing oral public comments will be posted on the Council website at
Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The American Samoa FEP AP will be held between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (Samoa Standard Time [SST]) on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. The Mariana Archipelago FEP CNMI AP will be held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. (Chamorro Standard Time [ChST]) on Thursday, March 12, 2026. The FIAC will be held between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time [HST]) on Thursday, March 12, 2026. The Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP will be held between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. (HST)
Public Comment periods will be provided in the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-54 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy equipment and services for the refurbishment of M109 self-propelled howitzers, technical assistance, training, publications, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States (U.S.) by improving the ability of Ukraine to provide for its own defense.
The proposed sale will improve Ukraine's ability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions. Ukraine has an urgent need to strengthen local sustainment capabilities to maintain high operational rates for U.S. provided vehicles and weapon systems. An improved maintenance, repair, and overhaul capability will directly contribute to battlefield effectiveness through a more resilient and rapid repair cycle that will increase overall operational rates with reduced logistics and financial burdens. Ukraine will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be BAE Systems, Daimler Truck North America, and Allison Transmission Inc., with all work occurring in Europe. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-93, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Egypt has requested to buy the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), that includes: four (4) AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar systems with associated support equipment; one hundred (100) Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)-Extended Range (ER); one hundred (100) Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-120C-8 AMRAAMs; two (2) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM guidance sections (spares); one (1) AMRAAM control section (spare); six hundred (600) AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II tactical missiles; one hundred fifty (150) AIM-9X Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); sixty-two (62) AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II tactical guidance units (GUs); and twenty (20) AIM-9X Sidewinder CATM GUs. The following non-MDE items will also be included: fire distribution centers (FDC); canister launcher systems; electrooptical/infrared systems; Tactical Control Center systems; NASAMS classroom trainer; communication node systems; IPS 250X High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptions (HAIPE); Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Model 5800 or TPX-61; KIV-77 IFF crypto appliqué; AN/PSN-13 Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receivers (DAGRs) with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM); AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKLs), code loaders, and cable sets; AMRAAM-ER Extended Load Trainers (ELTs); missile containers; weapon system support and test equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $4.67 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Egypt's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to detect various air threats. Egypt will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be RTX Corporation, located in Andover, MA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately twenty-six U.S. Government and thirty-four contractor representatives to travel to Egypt for an extended period for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout, training, and technical and logistics support.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) medium range air defense system (MRADS) is a system of systems (SOS) consisting of the Sentinel radar, the Fire Distribution Center (FDC), the Advanced Intercept Missile (AIM)-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), the AIM-120 AMRAAM Extended Range missile, and the AIM-9X missile. NASAMS can be deployed to engage fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial systems (UAS). NASAMS is not a Program of Record (POR) for the U.S. Department of Defense, but the SOS architecture does consist of several PORs: the U.S. Army's AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel radar, the U.S. Air Force's AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, and the U.S. Navy's AIM-9X missile. NASAMS is comprised of both U.S. and Norwegian-manufactured components. Norwegian components will be procured by the RTX Corporation. Norwegian involvement will be managed by RTX using export authorizations received from the U.S. Department of State.
2. The NASAMS fire unit (FU) consists of one fire distribution center (FDC), one AN/MPQ-64F1 surveillance, acquisition, and tracking radar, three truck-mounted canister launchers, and one high mobility launcher.
3. The FDC is the command & control entity and major operator interface in NASAMS. It provides all command-and-control functionality necessary to effectively conduct air defense missions, both in a stand-alone (autonomous) configuration and in a netted configuration integrated to other units. The FDC interfaces and controls the MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar, the electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor, and the canister launchers. The FDC also interfaces (via voice and data) to the national command and control structure.
4. The AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar is the organic mobile air defense acquisition and tracking sensor for the U.S. Army. Sentinel provides persistent air surveillance and fire control quality data through command-and-control systems to defeat UAS, cruise missiles, and fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft threats.
5. The canister launcher transports, aims, and fires the U.S. Air Force AMRAAM, AMRAAM-ER, and the U.S. Navy AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Under the remote control of the FDC, the launcher permits rapid launching of one or more missiles against single or multiple targets and can support six engagements simultaneously. The launcher provides 360-degree, all weather, and day and night missile launch capability.
6. The EO/IR sensor system offers a full day and night capability and includes an advanced high-performance television camera, a third generation infrared camera, and an eye-safe laser rangefinder. This system is remotely operated from the FDC after emplacement, and is utilized for raid assessment, kill assessment, verification of jammers, cueing of target data to the AN/MPQ-64F1 radar for priority detection, and general surveillance. The EO/IR system is mounted on a 4x4 truck.
7. The AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against
8. The AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM-Extended Range (ER) has the same capability as the AMRAAM, but with a larger rocket motor and control section to allow it to travel further.
9. The AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II and Block II+ missiles represent a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replace the AIM-9X Block I configuration. The missiles include a high off-boresight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe, and the ability to integrate the Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The most current AIM-9X Block II/II+ Operational Flight Software developed for all international partner countries, which is authorized for export by U.S. Government export policy, provides fifth-generation infrared capabilities such as lock-on-after-launch, weapons data link, and surface-launch. No software source code or algorithms will be released.
10. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
11. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
12. A determination has been made that Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
13. All defense articles and/or services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-0O.
(i)
(ii)
Date: September 20, 2023
Implementing Agency: Army
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal notifies an increase in non-MDE value by $100 million, due to recent cost increases. There are no additional MDE or non-MDE items being reported with this notification. The estimated non-MDE and total case values will increase by $100 million to a revised $250 million.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-48, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy sustainment related articles and services for the HAWK missile system, including: five-ton cargo trucks; HAWK system spare parts; refurbishment and system overhaul of HAWK air defense fire units; tool kits; test equipment; support equipment; technical documentation; training; U.S. Government and contractor technical and field office support; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; storage containers and equipment related to spare parts storage; MIM-23 HAWK missile spare parts and missile repair; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total program cost is $172 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the ability of Ukraine to provide for its own defense.
This proposed sale will improve Ukraine's capability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions with a more robust air defense capability. Ukraine will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Sielman Corporation, located in Volos, Greece; RTX Corporation, located in Andover, MA; and PROJECTXYZ, located in Huntsville, AL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require temporary duty travel of an estimated five U.S. Government and fifteen contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The HAWK Phase III missile system is a medium range air defense system. The system can be configured as a battery or fire unit, depending on the mission. The HAWK missile system consists of a high-powered illuminator (HPI) radar, continuous wave acquisition radar (CWAR), platoon command post (PCP) or battery command post (BCP), launcher-transporters or zero-length launchers, missile loaders, and MIM-23 missiles. The HAWK system is designed for mid-range air defense and can be deployed to engage fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, cruise missiles, and a limited number of tactical ballistic missiles when cued from an adequate 3D source. HAWK has been out of the U.S. inventory for more than 25 years (1996 for the U.S. Army and 1998 for the U.S. Marine Corps).
2. Each HAWK fire unit will consist of one PCP or BCP, one HPI, one CWAR, three analog or mobility launchers, two missile loaders, 60 kW power generation units, and a basic load of MIM-23 HAWK missiles.
3. Each HAWK battery will consist of one PCP or BCP, two HPI, one CWAR, six analog or mobility launchers, two missile loaders, 60 kW power generation units, and a basic load of MIM-23 HAWK missiles.
4. The PCP or BCP provides the central fire control support, data processing, and operational communication center to support HAWK surface-to-air engagements through automatic data processing equipment and communications equipment. The PCP or BCP provides automatic track detection, threat ordering, and engagement recommendations to provide the PCP or BCP operators with the correct level of information necessary to accomplish the objective air defense mission.
5. The AN/MPQ-61 HPI is the HAWK system's tracking radar. It uses radiofrequency energy and provides a rear reference signal to enable HAWK missile tracking, guidance to, and intercept of hostile targets.
6. The AN/MPQ-62 CWAR provides low to medium altitude target detection including in a clutter environment. It provides digital track reports containing target azimuth, radial velocity, approach or recede status, and range rate and Doppler audio. HAWK software improvements enhanced the CWAR's ability to detect and classify helicopters.
7. The launcher-transporter and zero-length launcher transport, aim, and fire HAWK missiles. Under the remote control of the PCP or BCP, either launcher permits rapid launching of one or more missiles against single or multiple targets and can support multiple engagements simultaneously. The launchers provide 360-degree, all weather, day and night missile launch capability.
8. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
9. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
10. A determination has been made that Ukraine can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
11. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Ukraine.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy equipment and services for the refurbishment of Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, technical assistance, training, publications, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States (U.S) by improving the ability of Ukraine to provide for its own defense.
The proposed sale will improve Ukraine's ability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be BAE Systems, Cummins Inc., Leonardo DRS Inc., and Renk Group AG, with all work occurring in Europe. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-42, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Bulgaria has requested to buy a Naval Strike Missile Coastal Defense System (NSM CDS), including three (3) Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System—Joint Tactical Radio Systems (MIDS-JTRS) and the following non-MDE items: tactical Naval Strike Missiles (NSM); inert NSM handling; telemetered NSM; operational, inert NSM; mobile fire control centers with associated communications equipment; mobile missile launch vehicles with associated communications equipment; NSM transport loading vehicles; NavStrike-M Global Positioning System receiver; operator trainer consoles; Simple Key Loaders (SKL); and associated support including but not limited to technical publications, training documentation, technical data packages, support equipment, software support spare parts, training, training simulators, integration services, and U.S. government and original equipment manufacturer technical assistance; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $620 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a NATO Ally that is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will enhance Bulgaria's capability to meet current and future threats by providing a credible force that is capable of deterring adversaries and participating in NATO operations. The proposed sale will support its goal of improving national and territorial defense as well as interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. Bulgaria will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS, located in Kongsberg, Norway. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary duty travel of three to five U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Bulgaria for a duration of up to five years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Multifunctional Information Distribution System—Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS) is a secure data and voice communication network using Link-16 architecture. MIDS-JTRS provides a high capacity, low latency Internet Protocol (IP) based waveform that can quickly transmit large amounts of data. Advanced algorithms allow cooperative detection and engagement of a wider array of targets, improving fused track accuracy and increasing lethality and survivability through situational awareness.
a. The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Coastal Defense System (CDS) provides a high performance, mobile ground based coastal defense capability. It has a net centric architecture which enables multiple simultaneous engagements and over the horizon targeting. The system can be closely integrated and adapted to a country's adjacent weapons and command and control systems. This expands the defended area and enhances the total fighting capability of the force.
b. The NavStrike-M Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver offers high-performance GPS for tightly coupled GPS/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) integrations and real-time accuracy enhancement. This embedded receiver module offers full Precise Positioning Service (PPS) accuracy.
c. The Simple Key Loader (SKL) is a vital tool for secure key management, especially in systems using the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS). It ensures secure cryptographic key transfer, maintaining communication confidentiality and integrity, and works seamlessly with MIDS JTRS, to provide a secure interface for key loading and management that ensures accurate key distribution and updates. Its compact, durable design ensures reliable performance in diverse operational environments.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of
4. A determination has been made that Bulgaria can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Bulgaria.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-57 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(4) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy equipment and services to support the training, sustainment, and refurbishment measures of existing U.S.-origin air defense systems. The following non-MDE items will be included: major modifications and maintenance support; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $180 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Ukraine's ability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions with a more robust air defense capability. Ukraine will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Sierra Nevada Corporation, located in Sparks, NV; V2X, Inc., located in McLean, VA; Radionix, located in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Systems Electronic Export, located in Kyiv, Ukraine. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Ukraine.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-0S.
(i)
(ii)
Date: November 16, 2018
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following additional MDE items: two hundred eighty-six (286) Munitions Adaptor Unit (MAU)-169L/B Computer Control Groups (CCGs) for GBU-12 500 lb Paveway II; two hundred eighty-six (286) MXU-650C/B Air Foil Groups (AFGs) for GBU-12 500 lb Paveway II; one hundred fifty-five (155) MAU-210F/B Enhanced CCGs (ECCGs) for GBU-49 500 lb Enhanced Paveway II (EPII); one hundred fifty-five (155) MXU-650M/B for GBU-49 500 lb EPII; one thousand twenty (1,020) KMU-572 F/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits for GBU-38 500 lb; five hundred six (506) KMU-556 F/B JDAM kits for GBU-31 2000 lb; and one hundred thirty-eight (138) KMU-557 F/B JDAM kits for GBU-31 2000 lb. The following non-MDE items will also be included: practice bombs; bomb components; United States (U.S.) Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items is $142 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $131 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $11 million to a revised $91 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $142 million to a revised $462.5 million. MDE will constitute $371.5 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Sensitivity of Technology statement contained in the original notification applies to items reported here.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-36, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Norway has requested to buy up to nine (9) HH-60W helicopters; twenty-two (22) T-700-GE-401 turboshaft engines; twenty-one (21) Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (GPS/INS) (EGI) (18 installed, 3 spares); ten (10) AN/APR-52 Radar Warning Receivers (RWR) (9 installed, 1 spare); and ten (10) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) (9 installed, 1 spare). The following non-MDE items will also be included: GAU-21 aircraft machine guns and other machine guns; IZLID 200P infrared lasers; AN/ALE-47 Airborne Countermeasures Dispenser Systems; Joint Mission Planning System with unique planning components and software; Computer Program Identification Numbers (CPINs); weapons and weapons support equipment; major and minor modifications and maintenance support; instruments and lab equipment; training aids, devices, and spare parts; consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; electronic warfare database support; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; aircraft ferry and transportation support; facilities and construction support; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $2.6 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Norway's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing its airborne combat and special operations capabilities. Norway will use these aircraft to defend other NATO members and its allies. Norway will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, located in Stratford, CT. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Norway.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The HH-60W is a dual-piloted, twin-engine rotary-wing aircraft powered by General Electric T-700-GE-401 turboshaft engines. The HH-60W can fly a combat radius of at least 195 nautical miles without aerial refueling. The aircraft includes survivability enhancements which consists of cockpit and cabin armor, self-sealing fuel cells that do not suffer catastrophic damage from high-explosive incendiary rounds, crew and passenger crashworthy seating, two external mount gun systems with forward and side-firing crew-served weapons, the AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System, the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System, and an upturned exhaust system that reduces its infrared signature.
2. The Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM)—or M-Code receiver when available—and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) is a self-contained navigation system that provides the following: acceleration, velocity, position, attitude, platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and coordinated universal time (UTC) synchronized time. SAASM or M-Code enables the GPS receiver access to the encrypted P (Y or M) signal, providing protection against active spoofing attacks.
3. The AN/APR-52 radar warning receiver detects radar threats to the aircraft such as radar ground sites and radar-guided missiles. The receiver is a fully digital system that provides 360-
4. The AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) is the detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by infrared guided missiles.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Norway can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Norway.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-38 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Lebanon has requested to buy support equipment and other related elements of logistics and program and support that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case, valued at $43.7 million ($0 in Major Defense Equipment), included Cartridge Actuated Devices and Propellent Actuated Devices (CAD/PADs); engine components, parts, and accessories; aircraft engine and ground handling equipment; major and minor modifications; aircraft components, spares, and accessories; spare parts, consumables, and accessories, and repair and return support; unclassified software delivery and support; unclassified publications and technical documentation; clothing, textiles, and individual equipment; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $100 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by improving the security of a partner country that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have deployed to southern Lebanon to implement the November 2024 cessation of hostilities. The sale of A-29 sustainment will support the LAF's implementation of the cessation of hostilities by providing maintenance to this critical aircraft which is used to conduct close air support as part of ground maneuver operations as well as manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Lebanon will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Sierra Nevada Corporation, located in Sparks, NV. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lebanon.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Diandrea Bailey, (202) 987-0126.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
To fulfill the requirements set forth in Section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act, grantees, scholars, and employers submit data to track scholars' service obligations. Grantees are required to track the education status of all scholars who receive financial support. Scholars submit data about their employment to fulfill their service obligation, then employers and grantees verify whether the scholar was employed and if the position was considered eligible for service obligation fulfillment. The Payback Information Management System (PIMS) is used to track this data as well as the funds owed if scholars do not fulfill their obligation through service. Furthermore, the PIMS provides performance data to assess program effectiveness and efficiency, and to meet the reporting requirements of Public Law 103-62 Sec. 4, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
The information collected within the PIMS enables RSA to meet its Congressional mandate by providing reliable data to assess program performance and effectiveness. Data collected are used to evaluate grantees' compliance with RLTT program requirements, report program performance on GPRA measures to Congress, and meet the purpose of the RLTT program, which is to ensure that skilled personnel are available to provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities through vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation programs.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Friday, March 27, 2026; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT).
Capital Hilton,1001 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Remote attendance of the SCAC meeting will be available via Zoom. Instructions will be posted on the SCAC website at
Katie Runkles, Office of the Deputy Director for Science Programs; SC-DDSP/Germantown Building; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone (301) 903-6529; email at
Agenda updates and presentations will be posted on the SCAC website prior to the meeting:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA invites public comment on the proposed extension of the collection of information for the EIA-860S: State Level Generator Air Permit Inventory Report, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The original collection was approved by the Office of Management and Budget on February 12, 2026, under the emergency approval provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than May 5, 2026. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by OMB control number 1905-0215, by email at
Kenneth Pick, Survey Methodologist, at (202) 586-5562 by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
On February 12, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted emergency approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for EIA to immediately commence annual data collection on the EIA-860S. The purpose of this urgent collection is to ensure the EIA-860 sampling frame comprehensively covers the power generator population. This emergency request is critically important for enhancing the completeness and accuracy of the EIA-860 sampling frame, particularly in relation to backup generators. While the EIA-860 typically includes backup generators exceeding the 1 MW threshold, many are inconsistently reported or omitted due to capacity limitations or intermittent operation, resulting in significant data gaps. The absence of thorough data on these generators creates a substantial void in our understanding of the total U.S. grid capacity and overall resilience. This deficiency could impede effective emergency response and potentially lead to widespread power outages, economic disruptions, and loss of life.
The reliable operation of the U.S. electrical grid is critically dependent on detailed information regarding its components, including backup generation facilities. EIA has observed unprecedented increases in electricity demand, with forecasts indicating sustained growth in 2026 and 2027, marking the strongest four-year growth period since the turn of the century. This escalating demand, coupled with existing capacity challenges, places significant strain on the national electric grid, posing risks to national and economic security.
These concerns are underscored by three Executive Orders issued by President Donald J. Trump: Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (January 20, 2025), which cites “precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid”; Executive Order 14262, “Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid” (April 8, 2025), which highlights the strain on the grid from increased demand and the risk of unreliability; and Executive Order 14365, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” (December 11, 2025), which notes an “unprecedented surge in electricity demand driven by rapid technological advancements, including the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers and increase in domestic manufacturing.”
Further emphasizing the urgency are the 36 emergency orders issued by DOE
Due to the unanticipated nature of these circumstances and the urgent need to improve the sampling frame of the EIA-860 survey, EIA was unable to allow for the time periods normally required for clearance under the PRA before collecting this information. The approval granted by OMB is through August 31, 2026. This approval allows EIA to conduct the EIA-860S for up to 6 months. EIA now seeks to extend clearance for the survey for an additional three years.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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 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:
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, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlements.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to enter into individual settlements with three parties concerning the Bennett Landfill Fire Site located in Chester, South Carolina. The proposed settlements address recovery of CERCLA costs incurred by EPA for a cleanup performed at the site.
The Agency will consider public comments on the proposed settlements until April 6, 2026. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlements if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the proposed settlements are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice.
Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
The individual proposed settlements are as follows:
City of Chester, South Carolina, 04-2024-7014(b); JW Demolition, LLC, 04-2025-7000(b); and Pickens Contracting, Inc., 04-2025-7002(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 5, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
First, to improve the NCE comparative process, the NCE LPFM Report and Order: (1) Eliminated the governing document requirements for established local applicants and applicants claiming diversity points; (2) established a uniform divestiture pledge policy; (3) expanded the tie-breaker criteria and revises the procedures for allocating time in mandatory time-sharing situations; and (4) clarified and modified the “holding period” rule.
Second, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopted the following changes to the LPFM comparative process: (1) Prohibited amendments that attempt to cure past unauthorized station violations; (2) authorized time-sharing discussions prior to tentative selectee designations; and (3) established procedures for remaining tentative selectees following dismissal of point aggregation time-share agreements.
Third, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopted the following general changes: (1) Defined which applicant board changes are major changes; (2) clarified the reasonable site assurance requirements; (3) streamlined construction deadline tolling procedures and notification requirements; (4) lengthened the LPFM construction period; and (5) eliminated restrictions on the assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.
Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and NCE and LPFM stations, the Commission removed the restrictive LPFM station three-year “holding period” certification from CDBS Forms 314 and 315, and revised the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.865 and 73.7005, the forms, and corresponding instructions, as follows:
(1) Changed all references to “holding period” to “maintenance of comparative qualifications,” and requiring NCE stations awarded by the point system to certify satisfying the four-year “maintenance of comparative qualifications” period;
(2) required LPFM applicants to certify that it has been at least 18 months since the station's initial construction permit was granted in accordance with 47 CFR 73.865(c);
(3) required LPFM applicants to certify that the assignment/transfer of the LPFM authorization satisfies the consideration restrictions of 47 CFR 73.865(a)(1);
(4) required LPFM authorizations awarded by the LPFM comparative point system, to indicate whether the LPFM station has operated on-air for at least four years since grant;
(5) required NCE applicants to certify that the proposed acquisition comports with 47 CFR 73.7005(c) diversity requirements, based on any “diversity of
Moreover, the NCE LPFM Report and Order will increase the number of applicants eligible to file Schedules 314 and 315 by eliminating both the absolute prohibition on the assignment/transfer of LPFM construction permits and the three-year holding period restriction on assigning LPFM licenses. The elimination of these restrictions will benefit the LPFM service by increasing the likelihood that LPFM permits will be constructed, provide new service to communities, and help make the LPFM stations more viable.
Upon adoption, the Commission, submitted to OMB for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (adopted May 12, 2020, rel. May 13, 2020) (2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including commercial stations filing assignment and transfer applications, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations, including those filing assignment and transfer applications, that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.
The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, did not necessitate changes to Schedules 314 or 315, nor did they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes did, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice of request for agency and public comments.
After publication of this second-round notice, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plans to submit a proposed modified OGE Form 201, Request an Individual's Ethics Documents (OGE Form 201) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OGE Form 201 is used by persons requesting access to executive branch public financial disclosure reports and other covered records.
Written comments by the public and agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received by April 6, 2026.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
McEvan Baum at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9287; TTY: 800-877-8339; Email:
OGE currently has OMB approval for six versions of the form: OGE's online application (English, Arabic, Chinese, French, and Spanish), and a PDF version in English.
A
• Modifying the language of the Privacy Act Statement for clarity.
• Modifying the Ethics in Government Act citation for accuracy.
• Adding language to the Supplemental Information section to (1) better capture the full scope of records available from OGE upon request and (2) inform requesters of general retention periods that may impact the availability of the documents they are requesting.
• Removing the following text from the “Should I use the online system or fill out the PDF Form?” portion of the Supplemental Information section because it is no longer relevant: “Note: Currently OGE is unable to fill any request using the PDF Form that does not provide an email address for the requestor.”
• Replacing sub-section numbering with standard numbering to improve user experience.
• Adding a parenthetical containing the word “optional” next to the “Your telephone number” section heading to clarify that providing such information is optional.
• Combining sections 1a and 6 into a single section with updated language (section 2 of proposed form) to reduce the number of responses needed to complete the form and explain why the requested information is sought.
• Relocating section 4 on page 3 of the current form down to section 8 of the proposed form and adding an explanatory parenthetical clarifying that a response is optional and informing that the requested information is for statistical purposes only.
• Combining sections 5 and 5a into a single section (section 7 of proposed form), updating the language of that section to better align it with the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, and adding language to inform that documents are generally retained for 6 to 7 years under Federal law such that older documents may not be available.
• Updating the language of the form's Continuation Page to align it with section 7 of the proposed form, discussed above.
• Modifying text, formatting and spacing in several places to improve accuracy, clarity, consistency, and/or alignment with plain language principles.
To view a draft of the pdf version with proposed changes, visit the download link at
Specifically, OGE seeks public comment on the following:
• What problems do you have using the form?
• Are there sections of the form or instructions that are unclear?
• Is there information provided that is confusing?
• What additional information would be helpful?
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for ENSACOVE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jack Dan, Office of Regulatory Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6200, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6940.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, ENSACOVE (ensartinib). ENSACOVE is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who have not previously received an ALK-inhibitor. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ENSACOVE (U.S. Patent No. 9,126,947) from Xcovery Holdings, Inc. and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 8, 2025, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ENSACOVE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.
Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ENSACOVE is 4,645 days. Of this time, 4,288 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 357 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,827 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the establishment of a docket to solicit public comment on what specifications for in-home disposal systems, if application holders are required to make them available under the Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, would be necessary to show that these systems may mitigate the serious risks of abuse or overdose involving these medications.
Submit either electronic or written comments by April 6, 2026.
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this notice. The docket number is FDA-2026-N-1001. The docket will close on April 6, 2026. Submit either electronic or written comments by April 6, 2026. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2026. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3137,
The Agency is currently considering exercising its authority to require, through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), that a drug be dispensed to certain patients with safe disposal packaging or a safe disposal system (21 U.S.C. 355-1(e)(4)). Specifically, the Agency is considering whether to further modify the Opioid Analgesic (OA) REMS to require application holders of opioid analgesics dispensed in outpatient settings to make in-home disposal systems available to pharmacies and other outpatient dispensers. The purpose of this notice is to seek public comment on what specifications would be necessary to show that in-home disposal systems may mitigate the serious risks of abuse or overdose involving these medications.
Despite latest trends indicating decreased prescribing of opioid analgesics, abuse, misuse, accidental exposure, and overdose associated with prescription opioid analgesics remain serious problems in the United States. In 2024, prescription pain relievers, such as opioid analgesics, remained the most common class of prescription drugs misused (
The Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act) (Pub. L. 115-271), signed into law on October 24, 2018, provided FDA several new authorities to address the opioid crisis. As enacted in 2018, section 505-1(e)(4)(B) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorized FDA to require through a REMS that safe disposal packaging or a safe disposal system for the purposes of rendering the drug non-retrievable
FDA previously exercised its SUPPORT Act authority to expand disposal options through the OA REMS. When deciding whether to take this action, FDA considered the opioid disposal options available at the time and the impact and benefits of FDA requiring application holders, through the OA REMS, to provide a safe disposal option when those drugs are dispensed. The Agency solicited input from stakeholders at multiple points during its evaluation, including through an April 21, 2022,
In April 2023, the FDA notified application holders of opioid analgesics dispensed in outpatient settings that the OA REMS would require them to make available prepaid mail-back envelopes to outpatient pharmacies and other dispensers as an additional disposal option for patients. FDA approved that REMS modification in October 2024. Beginning March 31, 2025, outpatient pharmacies and dispensers could order prepaid mail-back envelopes from opioid analgesic application holders, free of charge, which they then could provide to patients prescribed opioid analgesics.
In choosing to require prepaid mail-back envelopes, the Agency recognized that mail-back envelopes, in particular, are one disposal option that has “multiple favorable characteristics” (87 FR 23872, Apr. 21, 2022): First, mail-back envelopes are relatively simple to use; their use involves fewer steps than in-home disposal systems, and, unlike collection kiosks, many people can use them without leaving the home. Second, mail-back envelopes are subject to longstanding, existing federal regulation and oversight, administered by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and United States Postal Service (USPS), which requires that mail-back envelopes be nondescript, fit for purpose, and be able to safely and
The REMS modification also required OA REMS application holders to create a new written educational document for patients about the risks of unused opioid analgesics and the importance of their safe disposal that is provided to the patient with each mail-back envelope. FDA expects that any future modifications to the OA REMS to include additional safe disposal systems would be operationalized the same way: outpatient dispensers would have the ability to order mail-back envelopes and/or in-home disposal systems, and an educational document would accompany all disposal options.
FDA is now considering whether to further modify the OA REMS, using the same SUPPORT Act authority, to require that application holders also make commercially available in-home disposal systems available to outpatient pharmacies and other dispensers as an additional opioid analgesic disposal option for patients. That analysis, currently underway, includes consideration of the public health need for additional opioid disposal options in the context of the ongoing opioid crisis and any new data regarding the impact that provision of in-home disposal options has on patients' opioid analgesic disposal behaviors.
Should FDA decide to require that commercially available in-home disposal systems, in addition to mail-back envelopes, be made available under the OA REMS, the Agency plans to set out certain specifications for systems to meet REMS requirements. The opioid analgesic application holders would then be required, pursuant to the REMS, to identify a system or more than one system that meet those specifications and make them available to patients in outpatient settings. For mail-back envelopes, the OA REMS was modified to require application holders to make available mail-back envelopes that meet specifications set out in USPS and DEA regulations (as described above). In contrast, no federal agency currently regulates in-home disposal systems for purposes of disposing of opioid analgesics. Thus, FDA plans to identify appropriate specifications for these systems.
The purpose of this notice is to seek input from the public on what specifications of in-home disposal systems under the OA REMS would be appropriate to show that these systems may mitigate the serious risk of opioid analgesic abuse and/or overdose, considering all the relevant factors that may affect these risks.
FDA primarily recommends disposing of opioids using a take-back option (
FDA has undertaken multiple efforts to obtain information about in-home disposal systems' capabilities and usability to inform a potential further modification to the OA REMS.
First, in June 2021, FDA requested information from nine commercially available in-home disposal system manufacturers to gain a better understanding of how their systems work and what testing, including validation studies, they had undertaken. In response to these requests, FDA received some information from six of the manufacturers, and a subset of the information was evaluated by an independent lab. It remains challenging to validate data on in-home disposal systems because there are no industry-wide agreed upon tests to evaluate in-home disposal systems for their intended purpose of disposing of opioid analgesics. Further, these systems use varying mechanisms to render the opioid unavailable, adding another layer of complexity in evaluating the submitted data.
Second, on April 4, 2023 (88 FR 19959), FDA issued a request for public comment about in-home disposal systems and announced the June 2023 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines' (NASEM) Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation public workshop entitled “Defining and Evaluating In-Home Disposal Systems for Opioid Analgesics” (“In-Home Disposal Systems for Opioid Analgesics; Request for Information”) (Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0917). The workshop featured invited experts to discuss the types of in-home drug disposal options that could be used to remove unused opioid analgesics from the home. The workshop included, among other things, presentations about and a discussion of the scientific, behavioral, and policy considerations for assessing the safety, use, and effectiveness of in-home drug disposal systems (see
Third, FDA reviewed the limited information available on real-world use experiences with commercially available in-home disposal systems. As discussed above, neither FDA nor any other federal agency regulates these systems for purposes of disposing of opioid analgesics, and thus, there are no requirements that in-home disposal system manufacturers or any other party report adverse events or other problems associated with use of these systems to FDA or any other agency. Nonetheless, available information from U.S. poison center cases and social media posts reflects some instances of accidental pediatric exposure to in-home disposal systems (without mention of exposure to opioids or other medications), as well as other exposures associated with unclear or misunderstood directions or inadequate patient counseling (
Finally, FDA has commissioned a study by the University of Maryland-Baltimore (UMB) through the Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) to assess commercially available in-home drug disposal products (“The Assessment of Commercially Available In-Home Drug Disposal Products,” available at
Commercially available in-home disposal systems have differing characteristics that may impact their ability to mitigate the serious risks of opioid analgesic abuse and overdose. Although all in-home disposal systems are intended to render opioids or other medications safe for disposal in household trash, they vary in their mechanism of action (
The Agency is seeking public input on the specifications in-home disposal systems would need to meet in order for FDA to require OA application holders to make these systems available under the REMS. Please explain your rationale for your input.
1. What amount of an opioid product's active ingredient would an in-home disposal system need to render unavailable, when used according to the system's instructions? For example, should we require that the system render at least 95% of the opioid unavailable? If not, would a lower threshold, such as 80%, be acceptable?
• How does the variation in opioid product dosage strength, dosage form, and potency affect this consideration?
2. What should be the maximum time for an in-home disposal system to make the specified percentage of opioid product's active ingredient unavailable? For example, would the threshold percentage contemplated in Question 1 need to be achieved within 2 hours in order to minimize the time the opioid is available for abuse and/or overdose? 8 hours? 24 hours?
3. Should FDA consider the in-home disposal system's susceptibility to manipulation after it is used? If so, how should this be assessed? For example, should FDA require that the opioid product's active ingredient remain unavailable after manipulating the used in-home disposal system with commonly available household solvents (
• How does the variation in opioid product dosage strength, dosage form, and potency affect this consideration?
4. How should we consider the following characteristics in determining the specifications for any in-home disposal system?
• Whether, or the extent to which, it is apparent that the used disposal system may contain opioids.
• The potential risks associated with accidental exposure to the in-home disposal system (
• Use of child-resistant packaging.
• User interface of an in-home disposal system:
• Robustness in light of expected use error:
5. Are there any other specifications FDA should require or characteristics that FDA should consider? Discuss other actions FDA could take in addition to, or in support of, an in-home disposal system REMS requirement to increase safe disposal of unused opioid analgesics.
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to OMB. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 5, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
Information provided is utilized by the program staff to regularly assess overall progress of program requirements and analyze data in order to monitor award recipient compliance and track progress against proposed targets and goals. Information gathered allows an improved and more efficient method for identifying whether projects' goals are being advanced or achieved, as set forth in 2 CFR 200.329. Program staff also use information provided over the period of performance to see emerging trends and to assess whether an award recipient requires technical assistance to address challenges that the award recipient may be experiencing with the implementation of the project. Seeking OMB approval of this revision comports with the regulatory requirement imposed by 2 CFR 200.207(a) and 200.329(b).
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowship: K-Awards March 10, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to March 11, 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 3/10/2026. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Council of Councils.
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Council of Council's home page:
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on a new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves airport operator owned, managed, and operated Real-Time Wait-Time (RTWT) technology solutions deployed in TSA checkpoint environments. The technology solutions are provided by various vendors at different airports and measure the average time that a passenger spends in the checkpoint queue.
Send your comments by May 5, 2026.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, TSA intends to collect RTWT data voluntarily submitted by airport operators.
The purpose of the collection is to allow airport operators to provide TSA with real-time insight into the operational tempo of the checkpoint. This will allow TSA to quickly mitigate high wait-times and inform staffing allocation for recurring hot spots. TSA has designed an internal dashboard and Application Programming Interface to ingest and store the RTWT data in 60-second intervals. The data will be collected electronically, either from on-premises vendor/airport servers or
TSA estimates that annually 450 airport operators will provide the information and that it will take approximately 0.7305 annual hours. This results in an estimated annual time burden on respondents of 328.725 hours.
TSA and individual airports will use these results to improve the passenger's experience; eliminate the need for TSA officers to collect this data manually—yielding a cost avoidance; refocusing the uniformed workforce on screening passengers; enable TSA to quickly respond and mitigate high wait-times; and evaluate opportunities to provide additional staffing resources to frequent hot spots.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct scientific research to promote conservation or other activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite local, State and Federal agencies, Tribes, and the public to comment on these applications. Before issuing the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive any written comments on or before April 6, 2026.
Use one of the following methods to request documents or submit comments. Requests and comments should specify the applicant's name and application number (
•
•
Abby Goldstein, 413-253-8212 (phone), or
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite local, State and Federal agencies, Tribes, and the public to review and comment on applications we have received for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species, unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities constituting or resulting in take of endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
In accordance with the ESA, we invite local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to the applications in table 1.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 2, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of AX Wireless, LLC of Austin, Texas. Supplements to the complaint were filed on February 10, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain laptops, routers and gateways, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,079,707 (“the '707 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 (“the '272 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927 (“the '927 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776 (“the '776 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134 (“the '134 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claim 1 of the '707 patent; claims 1 and 11 of the '272 patent; claims 1 and 2 of the '927 patent; claims 1-6 of the '776 patent; and claims 1-7 of the '134 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “laptops, routers, and gateways, and components thereof compatible with the 802.11ax (`Wi-Fi 6') standard”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) 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 complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)-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
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The OWCP administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act which, through these collections, provides benefits to workers injured in maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States or in an adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. 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. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
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 Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, (OWCP/DLHWC) Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public
All comments must be received on or before May 5, 2026.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OWCP/DLHWC will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, OWCP/DLHWC, at
The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act requires covered employers to secure the payment of compensation under the Act and its extensions by purchasing insurance from a carrier authorized by the Secretary of Labor to write Longshore Act insurance, or by becoming an authorized self-insured employer (33 U.S.C. 901, 20 CFR 703.209, 20 CFR 703.210, 20 CFR 703.203, 20 CFR 703.303, 20 CFR 703.205, 20 CFR 703.204, 20 CFR 703.212, 20 CFR 703.304). Each authorized insurance carrier (or carrier seeking authorization) is required to establish annually that its Longshore Act obligations are fully secured either through an applicable state guaranty (or analogous) fund, a deposit of security with the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC), or a combination of both. Similarly, each authorized self-insurer (or employer seeking authorization) is required to fully secure its Longshore Act obligations by depositing security with DLHWC. These requirements are designed to assure the prompt and continued payment of compensation and other benefits by the responsible carrier or self-insurer to injured workers and their survivors.
OWCP/DLHWC is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Securing Financial Obligations under the LHWCA and its Extensions. OWCP/DLHWC is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of CEO's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns Securing Financial Obligations under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and its Extensions, LS-275(IC), LS-275 (SI), LS-276.
OWCP/DLHWC has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to renew this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by May 5, 2026 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, Randolph Building, 401 Dulaney Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct and indirect transfer of license; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received and is considering approval of an application filed by Illuminated Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, SHINE Technologies, LLC, on February 4, 2026. The application seeks NRC approval of the direct transfer of Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 for the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility, currently held by SHINE Technologies, LLC (the current licensee) to a newly formed company, SHINE Chrysalis, LLC, and issuance of a conforming license amendment. The application also seeks NRC approval of the indirect transfer of control of the construction permit as a result of the establishment of a new intermediate parent company, SHINE Chrysalis Holdings, LLC, which will be the direct corporate parent of SHINE Chrysalis, LLC. SHINE Chrysalis Holdings, LLC is a direct subsidiary of Illuminated Holdings, Inc. The application contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Submit comments by April 6, 2026. A request for a hearing must be filed by March 26, 2026. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Balazik, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2856; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0029 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the direct and indirect transfer of control of Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 for the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility, currently held by SHINE Technologies, LLC. The transfer of the construction permit would be to SHINE Chrysalis, LLC, under a new intermediate parent company, SHINE Chrysalis Holdings, LLC. Both entities will reside under SHINE Technologies, LLC's current parent company, Illuminated Holdings, Inc. The NRC is also considering amending the construction permit for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
No physical changes to the SHINE Medial Isotope Production Facility are being proposed in the application.
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for direct and indirect transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, that the proposed transaction will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility that does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action, involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website (
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website (
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available on the NRC's public website (
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated February 4, 2026 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML26035A418).
Any person who desires access to proprietary, confidential commercial information that has been redacted from the application should contact the applicant by telephoning Jeff Bartelme, Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs, at 608-210-1735 for the purpose of negotiating a confidentiality agreement or a proposed protective order with the applicant. If no agreement can be reached, persons who desire access to this information may file a motion with the Secretary and addressed to the Commission that requests the issuance of a protective order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of March 4, 2026.
NRC Headquarters; 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Closed.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application from Global Laser Enrichment, LLC (GLE) for a license to possess and use special nuclear material for the purpose of constructing and operating a uranium enrichment facility in McCracken County, Kentucky.
In July 2024, GLE requested that the NRC staff grant an exemption from timing requirements set forth in 10 CFR 51.60(a) to allow submittal of its environmental report in advance of the remainder of its application.
The NRC staff will perform a detailed technical review of the application and prepare a safety evaluation report (SER) that addresses the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and the NRC's regulations concerning the public health and safety and common defense and security. Additionally, in accordance with section 193 of the AEA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before the hearing on the issuance of the license is completed.
Interested persons may obtain publicly available documents relating to this application online in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Documents collection at
A. Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.23a and Section 193 of the AEA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2243), an uncontested mandatory hearing will be conducted following completion of the NRC staff's safety evaluation and environmental review of the license application. The NRC staff currently anticipates completing the SER in January 2027 and finalizing the EIS in September 2026.
B. The mandatory hearing will be conducted by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board), designated by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, under 10 CFR part 2, subparts A, C, G, and, to the extent that classified information becomes involved, Subpart I, subject to the following exceptions and supplemental procedures:
1. Unless a party requests an oral evidentiary hearing, all evidence will be presented in written form only;
2. Neither party will be required to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, although the parties will have the option to do so;
3. The NRC staff shall file initial written testimony on the docket for the proceeding within seven days after the NRC staff has issued both the final safety evaluation and final NEPA document.
4. The NRC staff's initial written testimony should, at a minimum:
a. Address each of the findings necessary for issuance of the license and provide an adequate basis for the Licensing Board to conclude whether each of these findings can be made. The testimony should not recap all matters in the safety or environmental review process, particularly routine aspects of the review where there was no actual complication or controversy. Rather, the testimony should be focused on non-routine matters. In focusing on non-routine matters, the areas of particular importance in supporting the safety and environmental findings include any unique features of the facility or novel issues that arose as part of the review process.
b. Include other aspects of the staff's review that are important for the Licensing Board to make its initial decision but are not necessarily tied to specific findings. For instance, if any exemption requests or rulemakings, including revisions to guidance documents (
c. Reference the following documents and include them as enclosures to be entered into the record of the mandatory hearing as exhibits:
i. The license application and all supplements;
ii. The Final Safety Evaluation Report and all supplements;
iii. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and all supplements; and
iv. The proposed license or permit.
5. Following receipt of the NRC staff's initial written testimony, the Licensing Board shall hold a prehearing conference that includes representatives of the NRC staff and the applicant to address the scheduling of subsequent mandatory hearing activities and any other administrative matters, including establishing timeframes for:
a. the Licensing Board to pose written questions, if any, to the parties,
b. the parties to provide written responses to any such questions,
c. the applicant to file any separate written testimony of its own, should the applicant choose to do so,
d. a party to request that the Licensing Board hold an oral evidentiary hearing,
e. the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, if the parties choose to do so, and
f. the parties, if they decide not to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, to notify the Board of that decision.
6. The resulting schedule of hearing activities will be publicly available in an Initial Scheduling Order issued by the Board and located in the Electronic Hearing Docket.
7. Interested States, local governmental bodies, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes may file written statements within fourteen days after the NRC staff files its initial written testimony.
a. Subject to the exception discussed in Subpart II.B.7.e, these written statements may address any issues or questions that the State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe wishes the Licensing Board to give particular attention to as part of the mandatory hearing process.
b. The statements may be accompanied by supporting documentation.
c. Any statements and supporting documentation, if received by the NRC using the agency's E-Filing system by the deadline indicated above, will be made part of the record of the proceeding.
d. The Licensing Board will use such statements and documents as appropriate to inform its written questions to the NRC staff and the applicant and its decision following the hearing.
e. States, local governmental bodies, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes should be aware that this mandatory hearing is separate and distinct from the NRC's contested hearing process. Issues within the scope of contentions that have been admitted in a contested proceeding for the application are outside the scope of the mandatory hearing. In addition, while States, local governmental bodies, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes participating as described above may take any position they wish, or no position at all, with respect to issues regarding the application or the NRC staff's associated environmental review that do fall within the scope of the mandatory hearing (
f. Participation in this mandatory hearing does not affect a State's, local governmental body's, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe's right to participate in the separate contested hearing process. Similarly, if an interested State's, local governmental body's, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe's request to participate in a contested hearing under 10 CFR 2.315(c) is denied or dismissed, that denial or dismissal does not affect the State's, local governmental body's, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe's opportunity to participate in the mandatory hearing by filing written statements as described above.
C. The matters of fact and law to be considered are whether the application satisfies the standards set forth in this Notice and Commission Order and the applicable standards in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70, and whether the requirements of NEPA and the NRC's implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51 have been met.
D. The Licensing Board will determine the following without conducting a
E. In the initial decision for the mandatory hearing the Licensing Board will, in accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51: determine whether the requirements of sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been complied with in the proceeding; independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; and determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against the environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether a license should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values.
F. If there is no contested portion of this licensing proceeding, the Board shall issue its initial decision in the mandatory hearing within three months after the date on which the staff filed its initial written testimony. If there is a contested portion of this licensing proceeding, the Board shall issue its initial decision within three months after the date on which the staff filed its initial written testimony in the mandatory hearing, or within one month after the completion of the contested portion of the proceeding, whichever is later.
G. Pursuant to 10 CFR part 2, subparts C and G, a contested hearing shall be conducted by a Licensing Board appointed by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Notice as to the membership of the Licensing Board will be published in the
H. If the proceeding becomes a contested proceeding, the Licensing Board shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on admitted contentions. With respect to matters set forth in paragraph C of this section, but not covered by admitted contentions, the Licensing Board will make the determinations set forth in paragraph D without conducting a
I. Regardless of whether the proceeding is contested or uncontested, the Licensing Board will, in the initial decision, in accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51: determine whether the requirements of sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been complied with in the proceeding; independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; and determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against the environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether a license should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
The Licensing Board shall issue a decision on the admissibility of contentions no later than [150 days from the date of publication of this
If rulings on petitions, contention admissibility, or admitted contentions, raise novel legal or policy questions, the Commission will provide early guidance and direction on the treatment and resolution of such issues. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Licensing Board to promptly certify to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 2.319(l) and 2.323(f) all novel legal or policy issues that would benefit from early Commission consideration should such issues arise in this proceeding.
(1) All parties, except the NRC staff, shall make the mandatory disclosures required by 10 CFR 2.704(a) and (b) within 45 days of the issuance of the Licensing Board order admitting contentions.
(2) The Licensing Board, consistent with fairness to all parties, should narrow the issues requiring discovery and limit discovery to no more than one round for admitted contentions.
(3) All discovery against the NRC staff shall be governed by 10 CFR 2.336(b) and 2.709. The NRC staff shall comply with 10 CFR 2.336(b) no later than 30 days after the Licensing Board order admitting contentions and shall update the information at the same time as the issuance of the SER or the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and, subsequent to the publication of the SER and FEIS, as otherwise required by the Commission's regulations. Discovery under 10 CFR 2.709 shall not commence until the issuance of the particular document,
(4) No later than 30 days before the commencement of the hearing at which an issue is to be presented, all parties other than the NRC staff shall make the pretrial disclosures required by 10 CFR 2.704(c).
In the interest of providing a fair hearing, avoiding unnecessary delays in NRC's review and hearing process, and producing an informed adjudicatory record that supports the licensing determination to be made in this proceeding, the Commission expects that both the Licensing Board and NRC staff, as well as the applicant and other parties to this proceeding, will follow the applicable requirements contained in 10 CFR part 2 and guidance in the
(1) The Commission directs the Licensing Board to set a schedule for the hearing in this proceeding consistent with this Order that provides for the issuance of a final Commission decision on the pending application within two-and-one-half years (30 months) from the date the staff formally accepted the application for review. Accordingly, the Licensing Board shall issue its decision on either the contested or mandatory hearing, or both, held in this matter no later than 28
(2) The evidentiary hearing with respect to contested issues shall commence promptly after completion of the final staff documents (SER or EIS) unless the Licensing Board, in its discretion, finds that starting the hearing with respect to one or more safety issues prior to issuance of the final SER
(3) The Commission also believes that issuing a decision on the pending application within about two-and-one-half years may be reasonably achieved under the rules of practice contained in 10 CFR part 2 and the enhancements directed by this Order. We do not expect the Licensing Board to sacrifice fairness and sound decision-making to expedite any hearing granted on this application. We do expect the Licensing Board to use the applicable techniques specified in: this Order; 10 CFR 2.332, 2.333, and 2.334; and the Commission's policy statement on the conduct of adjudicatory proceedings (CLI-98-12,
(4) If this is a contested proceeding, the Licensing Board shall adopt the following milestones, in developing a schedule, for conclusion of significant steps in the adjudicatory proceeding.
To avoid unnecessary delays in the proceeding, the Licensing Board shall not routinely grant requests for extensions of time and should manage the schedule such that the overall hearing process is completed within 28
(5) Parties are obligated to comply with applicable requirements in 10 CFR part 2, unless directed otherwise by this Order or the Licensing Board. They are also obligated in their filings before the Licensing Board and the Commission to ensure that their arguments and assertions are supported by appropriate and accurate references to legal authority and factual basis, including, as appropriate, citation to the record. Failure to do so may result in material being stricken from the record or, in extreme circumstances, a party being dismissed from the proceeding.
(6) The Commission directs the Licensing Board to inform the Commission promptly, in writing, if the Licensing Board determines that any single milestone could be missed by more than 30 days. The Licensing Board must include an explanation of why the milestone cannot be met and the measures the Licensing Board will take to mitigate the failure to achieve the milestone and restore the proceeding to the overall schedule.
As in any proceeding, the Commission retains its inherent supervisory authority over the proceeding to provide additional guidance to the Licensing Board and participants and to resolve any matter in controversy itself.
The Commission will license and regulate byproduct, source, and special nuclear material at the PLEF in accordance with the AEA. Section 274c.(1) of the AEA was amended by Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992) to require the Commission to retain authority and responsibility for the regulation of uranium enrichment facilities. Therefore, in compliance with law, the Commission will be the sole licensing and regulatory authority with respect to possession of equipment capable of enriching uranium, operation of a uranium enrichment facility, and possession and use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material for the PLEF in connection therewith.
Many rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I are applicable to the licensing of a person to receive, possess, use, transfer, deliver, or process byproduct, source or special nuclear material in the quantities that would be possessed at the PLEF. These include 10 CFR parts 19, 20, 21, 25, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71, 73, 74, 95, 140, 170, and 171 for the licensing and regulation of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material, including requirements for notices to workers, reporting of defects, radiation protection, waste disposal, decommissioning funding, and insurance. With respect to these regulations, the Commission notes that this is the sixth proceeding involving the licensing of an enrichment facility.
Consistent with the AEA, and the Commission's regulations, the Commission is providing the following direction for licensing uranium enrichment facilities:
a.
b.
Review of financial qualifications for enrichment facility license applications is governed by 10 CFR part 70. In CLI-97-15, the Commission held that the 10 CFR part 70 financial criteria, 10 CFR 70.22(a)(8) and 70.23(a)(5), could be met by conditioning the license to require funding commitments to be in place prior to construction and operation.
The GLE application is governed by sections 53 and 63 of the AEA, and, consequently, issues of foreign
Pursuant to section 184 of the AEA, the creditor regulations in 10 CFR 50.81 shall apply to the creation of creditor interests in equipment, devices, or important parts thereof, capable of separating the isotopes of uranium or enriching uranium in the isotope U-235. In addition, the creditor regulations in 10 CFR 70.44 shall apply to the creation of creditor interests in special nuclear material. These creditor regulations may be augmented by license conditions as necessary to allow ownership arrangements (such as sale and leaseback) not covered by 10 CFR 50.81, provided it can be found that such arrangements are not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States.
All matters of classification of information related to the design, construction, operation, and safeguarding of the GLE-PLEF shall be governed by classification guidance in “Joint DOE/NRC Classification Guide for Enrichment of Uranium by the SILEX Process in the United States,” Secret Restricted Data (RD), Change 1 (November 2016) (CG-US-SILEX-2) and “Classification Guide for Safeguards and Security Information Associated with Uranium Enrichment by the SILEX Process,” OUO, Change 1 (January 2024) (CG-NRC-SILEX-2A). All decisions on questions of classification or declassification of information shall be made by appropriate classification officials in the NRC and/or DOE and are not subject to
Portions of GLE's application for a license are classified RD or National Security Information. Persons needing access to those portions of the application will be required to have the appropriate security clearance for the level of classified information to which access is required. Access requirements apply equally to intervenors, their witnesses and counsel, employees of the applicant, its witnesses and counsel, NRC personnel, and others. Any person who believes that he or she will have a need for access to classified information for the purpose of this licensing proceeding, including the hearing, should immediately contact the NRC, Division of Fuel Management, Washington, DC 20555, for information on the clearance process. Telephone calls may be made to Matthew Bartlett, Senior Project Manager, Fuel Facility Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Telephone: (301) 415-7154.
Any entity requiring access to or possession of classified information in connection with the licensing proceeding must process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle such information exclusively at a location that has received facility security clearance approval from the NRC's Division of Security Operations, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone calls may be made to Mark MacDonald, Chief, Information Security Branch, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Telephone: (301) 415-7751.
The above guidance does not foreclose the applicant, any person admitted as a party to the hearing, or an entity participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) from litigating material factual issues necessary for resolution of contentions in this proceeding. Persons permitted to intervene and entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) as of the date of the order on intervention may also move the Commission to reconsider any portion of section VI of this Notice and Commission Order where there is no clear Commission precedent or unambiguously governing statutes or regulations. Any motion to reconsider must be filed within 10 days after the order on intervention. The motion must contain all technical or other arguments to support the motion. Other persons granted intervention and entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), including the applicant and the NRC staff, may respond to motions for reconsideration within 20 days of the order on intervention. Motions will be ruled upon by the Commission. A motion for reconsideration does not stay the schedule set out above in section V.d.4). However, if the Commission grants a motion for reconsideration, it will, as necessary, provide direction on adjusting the hearing schedule.
As noted above, a hearing on this application will be governed by 10 CFR part 2, subparts A, C, G, and to the extent classified material becomes involved, Subpart I. Subpart I requires in accordance with 10 CFR 2.907 that the NRC staff file a notice of intent if, at the time of publication of Notice of Hearing, it appears that it will be impracticable for the staff to avoid the introduction of Restricted Data or National Security Information into a proceeding. The applicant has submitted portions of its application that are classified and intends to submit additional portions of its application that will also be classified. The Commission notes that, since the entire application may become part of the record of the proceeding, the NRC staff has found it impracticable for it to avoid the introduction of RD or National Security Information into the proceeding.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information (including Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information (SGI)). Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI, SGI, or both to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain the following information:
(a) A statement that explains each individual's “need to know” the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of “need to know” as stated in 10 CFR 73.2, the statement must explain:
(i) Specifically, why the requestor believes that the information is necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a specific contention in this proceeding;
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” for each individual who would have access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the National Background Investigation Services e-App system, a secure website that is owned and operated by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710.
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 will be provided in the background check request package supplied by the Office of Administration for each individual for whom a background check is being requested. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for a Federal Bureau of Investigation identification and criminal history records check.
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $369.00
(e) If the requestor or any individual(s) who will have access to SGI believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, Personnel Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are still applicable.
Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) of this Order must be sent to the following address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Administration, ATTN: Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop: TWFN-07D04M, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
These documents and materials should
D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4), the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement
G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2), the Office of Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a draft Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection requirements.
I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
J. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) Before the Office of Administration makes a final adverse determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iii), must provide the proposed recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness and reliability determination, including those required to be provided under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an opportunity to correct or explain the record.
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within five days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(4) The requestor may challenge the Office of Administration's final adverse determination with respect to trustworthiness and reliability for access to SGI by filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iv).
(5) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within five days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the 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
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.
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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Texas Stock Exchange (the “LLC Agreement”) related to amending the LLC Agreement to the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Texas Stock Exchange LLC (the “Third LLC Agreement”). The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend and restate the LLC Agreement to eliminate the requirement for a Member Representative Director to be prohibited from owning, directly or indirectly, an ownership interest in the Exchange. The Exchange is proposing to make this change in anticipation of the election of the full board prior to launch and in recognition of other precedent. The Exchange is also proposing to make certain non-substantive changes including corresponding changes related to this update to the LLC Agreement, to eliminate unnecessary language, and to clean up errors in numbering.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange specifically believes that the proposed change to delete the restriction on a Member Representative
The Exchange will also make corresponding and clarifying changes to the LLC Agreement to conform to the above, as well as some minor corrections to the numbering of Article I, Definitions. The Exchange believes that the clarifying and clean-up changes are consistent with the Act because they are not substantive and only act to make the LLC Agreement clearer and easier to understand.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes this amendment would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with the provisions of the Act, including the fair representation provisions of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned with the administration of the Exchange.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the Exchange may amend its LLC Agreement and begin its Member Director Representative selection as soon as possible. The Exchange states that the proposed changes to the LLC Agreement do not materially alter the Exchange's existing governance framework or raise novel issues not previously considered by the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt IM-5101-4, which will provide Nasdaq with the authority to delist a security where the Commission has previously suspended trading and Nasdaq determines it appropriate and in the public interest to do so.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq listing standards include continuing financial and liquidity requirements designed to help ensure that listed companies maintain sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to promote fair and orderly markets, while also allowing companies of all sizes to raise capital. Notwithstanding these requirements, Nasdaq has recently observed problematic or unusual trading in certain listed companies, apparently effectuated through recommendations made to investors by unknown persons via social media to purchase, hold, and/or sell the securities. The Commission has expressed concern about this activity, and in some cases suspended trading in the securities, stating its belief that these recommendations appear to be designed to artificially inflate the price and volume of the securities and that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities.
Nasdaq does not currently have authority to delist the securities of a company based on this type of third-party misconduct
A Commission suspension under Section 12(k) will be a pre-requisite for applying this authority. However, even though a Commission suspension is a pre-requisite, Nasdaq will exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis in determining whether to delist a specific company. In applying that discretion, Nasdaq will consider whether the listed securities may be susceptible to manipulation based on factors related to concerns Nasdaq and other regulators have identified with companies that previously were the subject of problematic or unusual trading, including considerations related to the company's advisors (including auditors, underwriters, law firms, brokers, clearing firms, or other professional service providers that are currently or have in the past worked for the company). These factors, which are based on the factors in Nasdaq Listing Rule IM-5101-3, include the following:
• where the company is located, including the availability of legal remedies to U.S. shareholders in that jurisdiction, the existence of blocking statutes, data privacy laws and other laws in foreign jurisdictions that may present challenges to regulators seeking to enforce rules against the company, the ability of parties to conduct comprehensive due diligence in that jurisdiction, and the transparency of regulators in the jurisdiction;
• whether a person or entity exercises substantial influence over the company and, if so, where that person or entity is located, including the availability of legal remedies to U.S. shareholders in that jurisdiction, the existence of blocking statutes, data privacy laws and other laws in foreign jurisdictions that may present challenges to regulators seeking to enforce rules against the person or entity, the ability of parties to conduct comprehensive due diligence in that jurisdiction, and the transparency of regulators in the jurisdiction;
• whether the public float, share distribution and trading patterns in the company's security raise concerns about adequate liquidity and potential concentration, including consideration of other explanations of any observed volatility or significant price moves;
• evidence of third-party social media activity or similar schemes designed to influence price and demand in the security;
• disclosure of material news by the company, and whether such disclosures adequately explain the trading activity;
• whether the company has recently issued securities and the terms of any such issuances, including the size of any discounts; whether such shares are subject to resale; and whether the company obtained shareholder approval for the share issuance (without regard to whether an exemption to Nasdaq's shareholder approval for the issuance was available);
• whether there are issues concerning the company's advisors (including auditors, underwriters, law firms, brokers, clearing firms, or other professional service providers), based on factors including, but not limited to, whether the advisor has been reviewed by applicable regulators and, if so, what were the results of those reviews;
○ if the company's advisor is a new entity, whether the advisor's principals were involved with other firms with a regulatory history;
• whether any of the company's advisors were involved in prior transactions where the securities became subject to a pattern of concerning or volatile trading;
• whether the company's management and Board has experience or familiarity with U.S. public company requirements, including regulatory and reporting requirements under Nasdaq rules and federal securities laws;
• whether there are any FINRA, SEC or other regulatory referrals related to the company or its advisors, or the trading of the company's securities, which can be included in the record of the matter and, if applicable, the results of those referrals;
• whether the company currently has, or recently has had, a going concern audit opinion and, if so, what is the company's plan to continue as a going concern;
• whether there are other factors that raise concerns about the integrity of the company's board, management, significant shareholders, or advisors; and
• any other material information, whether mitigating or concerning, provided by the company or otherwise available in the record of the matter.
Nasdaq Staff may use this authority even where the problematic or unusual trading appears to be driven by third parties with no known connection to the company, and even where Nasdaq Staff cannot determine whether the company or any associated individual was involved, if Nasdaq determines it is appropriate and in the public interest to do so. When Nasdaq determines to delist a security pursuant to this authority, Nasdaq Staff will issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Rule 5810(c)(1). A company can seek review of such a Staff Delisting Determination pursuant to Rule 5815.
When determining whether to apply this discretion, Nasdaq may request additional information from a company. Such information request can form the basis for a trading halt under Nasdaq Rule 4120(a)(5)(B).
By having authority to exercise discretion in this manner, Nasdaq believes it can better address situations where a company satisfies Nasdaq's listing requirements, but there are nonetheless concerns about the trading in the company's securities, which Nasdaq believes indicates that the security is inappropriate for continued listing. Nasdaq may not have access to specific facts that would allow it to determine whether a company's securities are the subject of manipulation, including posts in private social media groups or information about problematic or unusual trading that takes place across other U.S. exchanges and off-exchange. However, these factors will help Nasdaq identify companies that exhibit characteristics that could make their securities susceptible to problematic or unusual trading and therefore inappropriate for continued listing due to the potential for investor harm if the company's securities were allowed to continue to trade and be listed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission has previously opined on the importance of meaningful listing standards for the protection of investors and the public interest.
The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards for an exchange is of critical importance to financial markets and the investing public. Among other things, such listing standards help ensure that exchange-listed companies will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets.
The proposed rule change will supplement Nasdaq's ability to respond quickly where the SEC has determined to implement a trading suspension under Section 12(k) and to initiate delisting proceedings where Nasdaq determines it is appropriate and in the public interest to do so. This authority would enhance Nasdaq's ability to maintain fair and orderly markets, protect investors from the risks associated with trading in securities that raise significant concerns, and ensure that Nasdaq's listing standards are applied in a manner consistent with investor protection and market integrity.
Further, while Nasdaq's use of this discretion may result in the delisting of some companies that otherwise meet the stated listing requirements from listing, such distinction between companies is not unfair because the affected companies will have exhibited trading patterns and other traits that demonstrate their increased susceptibility to manipulation. Therefore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) and the investor protection goals of the Act.
Nasdaq also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act because issuers will continue to be afforded applicable procedural protections in
Accordingly, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While Nasdaq's use of the proposed rule may result in the delisting of some companies that otherwise meet the stated listing requirements from listing, such distinction between companies is not unfair because the affected companies will have exhibited trading patterns and other traits that demonstrate their increased susceptibility to manipulation. Therefore, the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to protect investors, which is a central purpose of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules & Procedures (“NSCC Rules”) to allow NSCC to offer new transaction reporting capability for Members that maintain clearing relationships with another Member, as identified by their Market Participant Identifier (“MPID”).
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the NSCC Rules to allow NSCC to disclose the Clearing Data
The proposed rule change is discussed in detail below.
NSCC's full-service Members may engage in a variety of trade reporting and clearing activities through NSCC. For example, Members may (i) self-clear their own trading activity; (ii) submit trades for themselves and other Members in their capacity as a Special Representative
NSCC's Universal Trade Capture system (“UTC”) is a trade capture and reporting system that validates and reports equity transactions submitted to NSCC by an exchange or QSR that is an NSCC Member. UTC validates trade input and sends output to Members in near real-time. UTC trade input contains transaction information that includes, among other things: (i) a security identifier, such as CUSIP or ISIN; (ii) share quantity; (iii) price; (iv) trade date; (v) the buying and selling clearing brokers, designated by their NSCC participant numbers; and (vi) the buying and selling executing brokers, designated by their MPID.
Currently, Members receive UTC output only for their own clearing transactions. Pursuant to Rule 49, NSCC will only release Clearing Data relating to transactions of a particular participant to such participant upon his written request, subject to certain exceptions set forth in Rule 49.
NSCC proposes to modify the NSCC Rules to offer MPID Transaction Reporting, which would allow NSCC to provide ongoing transaction data reporting to Members who clear activity through another NSCC Member firm, as identified by their MPID, upon the authorization of the Disclosing Member. MPID Transaction Reporting is intended to facilitate comprehensive and timely reporting to Members for all of their cleared activity at NSCC, particularly in scenarios where a self-clearing Member may also choose to clear away through another NSCC Member.
In connection with the proposed rule change, UTC would be enhanced to offer trade capture reporting to allow Members that are introducing/executing broker/dealers clearing activity through another Member to receive UTC trade capture output for these transactions. This will be driven by the MPID data field and allow members to receive their trade data for their MPID. The message will be sent in near real-time, in the same format as current UTC messaging.
The proposed rule change is described in further detail below.
NSCC proposes to amend the NSCC Rules to enable NSCC to offer MPID Transaction Reporting for Members who clear activity through another NSCC Member firm. Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend Section (a) of Rule 49 concerning the Release of Clearing Data to provide that NSCC may release the Clearing Data of a participant to another participant if the participant has authorized NSCC to release certain Clearing Data to another participant with which it has a clearing relationship, as further described in newly proposed Addendum M. Section (a) of Rule 49 currently authorizes NSCC to disclose Clearing Data of a Sponsored Member to its Sponsoring Member in the NSCC Securities Financing Transaction Clearing service. The proposed rule change would add similar authority for NSCC to disclose Clearing Data for MPID Transaction Reporting, subject to the requirements of proposed Addendum M, discussed below.
NSCC would also adopt new Addendum M of the NSCC Rules to describe MPID Transaction Reporting. Specifically, Addendum M would provide that a Member (
Under the proposed rule change, Disclosing Members would be required to execute a standard form of authorization maintained by NSCC whereby the Member would request and authorize NSCC to disclose certain of its Clearing Data for MPID Transaction Reporting to designated Receiving Members pursuant to NSCC Rule 49 and Addendum M of the NSCC Rules.
Subject to approval by the Commission, NSCC would implement the proposed rule change on June 12, 2026.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed rule change would enable NSCC to provide MPID Transaction Reporting capability for Members that maintain clearing relationships with another Member, as identified by their MPID, subject to the authorization of the Disclosing Member. MPID Transaction Reporting is designed to facilitate comprehensive and timely reporting to Members for their cleared activity at NSCC, particularly in scenarios where a self-clearing Member chooses to clear some of their activity away through another NSCC Member. The proposed rule change would allow Members to authorize the disclosure of certain Clearing Data to other Members so that those Members can better monitor and analyze their trading activity that is ultimately cleared at NSCC. NSCC therefore believes the proposed rule change is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
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
Paragraph (g) of Rule 17f-1 requires that all reporting institutions (
Reporting institutions utilize these records and reports (a) to report missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to the database; (b) to confirm inquiry of the database; and (c) to demonstrate compliance with Rule 17f-1. The Commission and the reporting institutions' examining authorities utilize these records to monitor the incidence of thefts and losses incurred by reporting institutions and to determine compliance with Rule 17f-1. If such records were not retained by reporting institutions, compliance with Rule 17f-1 could not be monitored effectively.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 10,018 reporting institutions (respondents) and, on average, each respondent would need to retain 33 records annually, with each retention requiring approximately 1 minute (a total of 33 minutes or 0.5511 hours per respondent per year). Thus, the total estimated annual time burden for all respondents is 5,521 hours (10,018 × 0.5511 hours = 5,521). Assuming an average hourly cost for clerical work of $50.00, the average total yearly record retention internal cost of compliance for each respondent would be $31.35 ($57 × 0.55 hours). Based on these estimates, the total annual internal compliance cost for the estimated 10,018 reporting institutions would be approximately $314,064.3 (10,018 × $31.35).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15
The information that must be collected pursuant to Regulation Best Interest is intended to: (1) improve disclosure about the scope and terms of the broker-dealer's relationship with the retail customer, which would foster retail customers' understanding of their relationship with a broker-dealer; (2) enhance the quality of recommendations provided by establishing an express best interest obligation under the federal securities laws; (3) enhance the disclosure of a broker-dealer's conflicts of interest; and (4) establish obligations that require mitigation, and not just disclosure, of conflicts of interest arising from financial incentives associated with broker-dealer recommendations. The information will therefore help establish a framework that protects investors and promotes efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
There are approximately 2,183 respondents that must comply with Rule 15
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comment on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Thursday, March 12, 2026. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.
The meeting will be conducted in-person at 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 in the Multipurpose Room, and by remote means. Members of the public may attend in-person or watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission will post all statements on the Commission's website. Do not include personal information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright.
The agenda for the meeting includes: welcome and opening remarks; approval of previous meeting minutes; a panel discussion regarding public company disclosure reform; a panel discussion regarding fund proxy voting; a discussion of recommendations regarding the tokenization of equity securities; subcommittee reports; and a non-public administrative session.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX Options”) proposes to amend Rule 21.15(b) to introduce the Exchange's Clock Service. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.15(b), to provide for the new service called the Clock Service.
The U.S. Government's Global Positioning System(“GPS”) clock
The Exchange's primary clock
Time synchronization services are well established in the U.S. and utilized in many areas of the U.S. economy and infrastructure. Today, the Exchange understands many participants attempt to sync their primary clock devices to the U.S. Government provided GPS network. By getting the GPS signal through a GPS capable antenna, participants can synchronize their primary clock device to the GPS network time to within an accuracy of approximately 30 nanoseconds. From there, by using a PTP time synchronization protocol, participants can synchronize their internal devices to their primary clock devices.
Because the Exchange and participants independently access time signals from the U.S. government provided GPS network to synchronize their own primary clock devices, measurement times of market events by the Exchange and a participant may vary. This may, in turn, lead to incorrect latency measurements that may cause a participant's time calculations of how long it took for their order or message to leave their systems and reach the trading center to which it was sent to. This may impair the participant's ability to fully understand latencies within their own systems and whether they need to adjust their systems or trading models.
Under the proposed Clock Service, participants would be able to synchronize their own primary clock devices to the Exchange's primary clock device, by receiving White Rabbit time signals from the Exchange via a 1 gigabit per second (“Gbps”) Physical Port. The proposed Clock Service simply provides participants with the Exchange's time signal at a more granular level, and, as part of the Clock Service, participants will receive a 1 Gbps Physical Port offered by the Exchange in order to connect.
Some participants may currently have a White Rabbit clock synchronization
Participants may use the proposed Clock Service for numerous purposes. For one, the proposed Clock Service would allow participants to more precisely measure latency between their network and that of the Exchange. The proposed Clock Service would allow them to better understand the times at which their order or message reached certain points when traveling from their network to the Exchange.
Participants may use the proposed Clock Service to analyze the efficiency of their network and connections when not only routing orders to the Exchange, but also when receiving messages back from the Exchange. These messages include communications regarding whether their order was accepted, rejected, or executed. Participants may measure message traversal times by comparing their message's (
The proposed Clock Service would be described under proposed Rule 21.15(b), which would provide that:
Clock Service utilizes White Rabbit and Precision Time Protocol (“PTP”) for synchronizing device clocks by leveraging technology designed to maintain tightly aligned timing across systems. Clock Service enables subscribers to synchronize their internal devices to the same time as the Exchange devices with high precision.
The Exchange does not propose to provide a new connectivity option to receive time signals via the proposed Clock Service; rather, dedicated 1 Gbps Physical Ports available will be included as part of this Clock Service.
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.
Trading technology in the U.S. market is constantly evolving and providing market participants with tools to increase speed and reduced latency opportunities. Today, the Exchange provides participants timestamp information in microseconds.
The proposed Clock Service addresses this issue by enabling subscribers to synchronize their primary clock device with the Exchange's by utilizing technology that allows up to a sub-nanosecond level. For example, the proposed Clock Service would allow subscribers to timestamp a quote sent from their system to the very same quote timestamped by the Exchange and have confidence that the time delta between timestamps is attributable to latency and not due to a potential offset in their primary clocks as discussed above. The Exchange, therefore, believes the proposed Clock Service promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it would allow latency sensitive subscribers to measure latency in a manner consistent with their trading behavior and the evolving pace of trading and technology in today's markets. Time synchronization removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it would provide Members with a tool to assess and re-calibrate their systems at a more acute level that is in line with the increasing speeds at which today's markets operate.
The proposed Clock Service provides participants with the Exchange's time signal. The time signal provided by the proposed Service could be beneficial in multiple areas, one of which is enabling subscribers to more precisely measure latency between their network and that of the Exchange by utilizing technology that allows up to a sub-nanosecond level. The proposed Clock Service would allow them to better understand the times at which their order or message reached certain points when traveling from their network to the Exchange through more granular latency measurements. The proposed Clock Service is, therefore, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because a more granular latency measurement would enable latency sensitive subscribers to more precisely calculate and thus better understand and manage their own latency.
Subscribers may utilize these enhanced latency measurements to better analyze latencies within their own systems and use this analysis to optimize their network, models and trading patterns to potentially improve their interactions with the Exchange. The ability to more precisely measure network efficiency could provide subscribers with a set of metrics that allow them to better assess the health of their network and that their systems are working as intended. The Exchange anticipates that most, if not all, subscribers to the proposed Clock Service would be those whose trading models are latency sensitive; however, managed service providers may also subscribe in order to redistribute the Cboe Clock to their downstream clients.
The Exchange believes providing this optional clock synchronization service to interested subscribers is, therefore, consistent with facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
As noted above, MIAX Emerald currently offers a clock service that has been reviewed and approved by the Commission.
One key distinction between the Exchange's proposed Clock Service and MIAX Emerald's similar offering is that the Exchange includes a 1 Gbps Physical Port as part of its offering for this Clock Service.
Additionally, MIAX Emerald's offering also utilizes White Rabbit technology.
The proposed Clock Service also protects investors and the public interest because subscribers may use the Clock Service for determining compliance with trade surveillance and to assist them in evaluating compliance with certain clock synchronization requirements.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to the title of Rule 21.15(b) promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule changes will provide greater clarity to participants and the public regarding the Exchange's Rules. It is in the public interest for rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion
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. In this instance, the proposed rule change to offer the optional Clock Service is in response to participant interest and requests for tools that would enable them to better measure traversal times between their network and that of the Exchange at a more granular level.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed Clock Service will have an inappropriate burden on intra-market competition between participants that choose to subscribe to the Clock Service and those participants that do not. The proposed Clock Service would provide participants with the ability to synchronize their primary clock devices with the Exchange's primary clock device by utilizing technology that allows up to a sub-nanosecond level, which they may then use to measure their network's efficiency to determine whether their systems are performing as expected.
The Exchange notes that the proposed Clock Service would be an additional, optional tool for participants and some participants may not find it useful based on their business needs and trading activity. The proposed Clock Service may not provide utility to all participants based on their business model, use of existing time synchronization methods, or reliance on other methods to test their system's performance to ensure it is operating as intended.
Additionally, some participants may be able to enhance their own traversal time calculations without subscribing to the proposed Clock Service by using other time synchronization methods or utilize some other services that may assist them in time synchronization of their systems. Participants may also prefer to utilize or develop other methods that would enable them to determine whether their own primary clock device is recording time in close proximity to the primary clock devices of other market participants. Participants may view these alternatives as more in line with their business needs or choose an alternative that is more compatible with their existing technology.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed Clock Service will have an inappropriate burden on inter-market competition. The proposed Clock Service will further enhance inter-market competition between exchanges by allowing the Exchange to expand its product offerings. As previously noted, MIAX Emerald provides a clock service to its Members.
Lastly, if the proposed Clock Service is unattractive to participants, participants will opt not to subscribe to it. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of participants or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial market.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. 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
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 12, 2026, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and Texas Stock Exchange LLC (“TXSE”) (together with FINRA, the “Parties”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated January 12, 2026 (“17d-2 Plan” or the “Plan”). The Plan was published for comment on February 2, 2026.
Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of both TXSE and FINRA.
The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed Plan is an exhibit (the “Texas Stock Exchange Certification of Common Rules,” referred to herein as the “Certification”) that lists every TXSE rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to TXSE members that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith (“Dual Members”).
Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members with the rules of TXSE that are substantially similar to the applicable rules of FINRA,
Under the Plan, TXSE would retain full responsibility for surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving TXSE's own marketplace, including, without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Plan, TXSE and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those TXSE rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a common member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Plan, TXSE will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of TXSE or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add TXSE rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete TXSE rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be TXSE rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective a Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all TXSE rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for common members of TXSE and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to TXSE rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a TXSE rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a TXSE rule from the Certification that is
This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-880. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 13e-1 (17 CFR 240.13e-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78
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 control number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation SBSR consists of ten rules, Rules 900 to 909 under the Exchange Act. Regulation SBSR provides generally for the reporting of security-based swap information to a registered security-based swap data repository (“registered SDRs”) or to the Commission, and for the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by registered SDRs. Rule 901 specifies, with respect to each reportable event pertaining to covered transactions, who is required to report, what data must be reported, when it must be reported, where it must be reported, and how it must be reported. Rule 901(a)(1) of Regulation SBSR requires a platform to report to a registered SDR a security-based swap executed on such platform that will be submitted to clearing. Rule 901(a)(2)(i) of Regulation SBSR requires a registered clearing agency to report to a registered SDR any security-based swap to which it is a counterparty. Rules 902 to 909 of Regulation SBSR provide additional
The Commission estimates that a total of approximately 27,000 entities will be impacted by Regulation SBSR, including registered SDRs, registered security-based swap dealers, registered major securities-based swap participants, registered clearing agencies, platforms, and reporting sides and other market participants. The Commission estimates that the total annual hour burden for Regulation SBSR, for all respondents, is approximately 3,173,444 hours per year. In addition, the Commission estimates that the total annual cost burden for Regulation SBSR for all respondents is approximately $51,162,200 per year. A detailed break-down of the burdens applicable to each type of entity is provided in the supporting statement.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Notice of Department of State sanctions actions pursuant to the Executive Order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court.
The Department of State is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on the Department of the Treasury's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
See
Samuel Parker, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Division for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions, Bureau of Economic, Energy & Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: (202) 647-6981, email:
The SDN List and additional information concerning sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website,
On June 5, 2025, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under Executive Order (E.O.) 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”.
1. BOSSA, Solomy Balungi, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 14 Apr 1956; POB Kampala, Uganda; nationality Uganda; Gender Female; Passport DA023555 (Uganda) expires 09 Dec 2021.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203, for having directly engaged in any effort by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
2. IBANEZ CARRANZA, Luz Del Carmen, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 15 Jul 1955; POB Trujillo, Peru; nationality Peru; Gender Female; Passport D16005584 (Peru).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
3. ALAPINI GANSOU, Reine Adelaide Sophie, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 11 Aug 1956; POB Treichville, Cote D'Ivoire; nationality Benin; Gender Female.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
4. HOHLER, Beti, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 25 Jun 1981; nationality Slovenia; Gender Female; Passport PB1777160 (Slovenia) expires 30 May 2033.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
On July 9, 2025, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under E.O. 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”.
1. ALBANESE, Francesca Paola, Tunis, Tunisia; DOB 30 Mar 1977; POB Ariano Irpino, Italy; nationality Italy; Gender Female; Passport YA4652441 (Italy) expires 08 Jan 2024.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
On August 20, 2025, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under E.O. 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”.
1. NIANG, Mame Mandiaye, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 20 Sep 1960; POB Dakar, Senegal; nationality Senegal; Gender Male; Passport A02027828 (Senegal) expires 22 Nov 2022.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
2. KHAN, Nazhat Shameem, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 16 Nov 1960; POB Suva, Fiji; nationality Fiji; Gender Female; Passport 002258 (Fiji) expires 17 Apr 2024.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
3. GUILLOU, Nicolas Yann, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 13 Aug 1975; POB Vannes, France; nationality France; Gender Male.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
4. PROST, Kimberly, The Hague, Netherlands; DOB 04 June 1958; POB Winnipeg, Canada; nationality Canada; Gender Female.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
On September 4, 2025, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under E.O. 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”.
1. AL HAQ—LAW IN THE SERVICE OF MANKIND, 54 Main Street 2nd Fl., Protestant Hall Bldg., Ramallah, West Bank; Organization Established Date 1979; Target Type Charity or Nonprofit Organization.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
2. AL MEZAN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Al Mena, Omar El Mukhtar Street, Gaza City, Gaza; Organization Established Date 1999; Target Type Charity or Nonprofit Organization.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
3. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Gaza City, Gaza; Organization Established Date 1995; Target Type Charity or Nonprofit Organization.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
On December 18, 2025, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under E.O. 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”.
1. DAMDIN, Erdenebalsuren, Netherlands; DOB 07 Aug 1967; POB Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; nationality Mongolia; Gender Male; Diplomatic Passport D00004977 (Mongolia) expires 25 Dec 2027.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
2. LORDKIPANIDZE, Gocha, Netherlands; DOB 03 Feb 1964; POB Poti, Georgia; nationality Georgia; Gender Male; Diplomatic Passport 10DP04141 (Georgia) expires 18 Feb 2026.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203 for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person's country of nationality.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including 22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4), I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to administer those portions of the Department of State's Rewards Program currently managed by INL under 22 U.S.C. 2708.
The Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretaries of State may exercise any authority delegated herein.
Any reference in this delegation of authority to any act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure shall be deemed to be a reference to such act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.
This Delegation of Authority shall be published in the
Pursuant to section 404 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (22 U.S.C. 2370c-1) (CSPA) and Presidential Delegation of Authority dated August 4, 2025, I hereby:
Determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive, in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to the DRC to allow for the provision of IMET and PKO assistance; to waive, in full, the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Ethiopia; to waive, in full, the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Libya; to waive, in part, the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Somalia to allow for the provision of PKO assistance and support provided pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 331 and 10 U.S.C. 333; to waive, in part, the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Yemen to allow for the provision of IMET, support provided pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 331 and 10 U.S.C. 333, and the issuance of EDA licenses to the extent that the CSPA would restrict such assistance; to waive, in part, the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Syria to allow for IMET and PKO assistance, support provided pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 331 and 10 U.S.C. 333, and the issuance of DCS and EDA licenses; and to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA to allow for the issuance of DCS licenses related to other U.S. Government assistance for the above countries and, with respect to the Russian Federation, solely for the issuance of DCS licenses in connection with the International Space Station.
Certify that the governments of the above countries are taking effective and continuing steps to address the problem of child soldiers.
Accordingly, I hereby waive such applications of section 404(a) of the CSPA.
This determination and certification shall be published in the
Wichita, Tillman & Jackson Railway Company (WTJR) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(4) for the renewal of its lease from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) of approximately 16.55 miles of rail line located between milepost 0.99 in Wichita Falls, Tex., and milepost 17.54 at the Texas-Oklahoma State line near Burkburnett, Tex. (the Line).
According to the verified notice, WTJR has been leasing the Line from UP since 1991.
WTJR states that it and UP have agreed to amend the lease to renew it for an additional ten years. WTJR represents that the transaction involves a renewal of a lease that the Board previously authorized, and only an extension in time is involved. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees affected by this transaction will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This transaction may be consummated on or after March 20, 2026, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 13, 2026 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings referring to Docket No. FD 36903 must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on WTJR's representative, Karl Morell, 440 1st Street NW, Suite 440, Washington, DC 20001.
According to WTJR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments; correction.
FMCSA corrects its February 23, 2026, notice requesting comments for 20 individuals to renew exemptions from the Agency's requirement interstate the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV. One individual's name is misspelled, and another individual's age and licensing state are incorrect. This notice corrects those errors.
This correction is effective March 6, 2026.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
On February 23, 2026, (91 FR 8571), FMCSA published a notice of renewal of exemption in which the Agency announced its decision to renew exemptions for 20 individuals from the requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce, provided certain conditions are satisfied. The name of one individual listed in the notice is misspelled, and another individual's age and licensing state are incorrect. Through this notice, FMCSA corrects those errors.
In FR Doc. 2026-03462 appearing on page 8573 in the
1. On page 8573, in the third column, the individual's name, “Camille Pointdexter” is corrected to read “Camille Poindexter.”
2. On page 8573, in the third column, Joel Tapper's age and state of licensure, “72” and “Iowa,” is corrected to read “56” and “Wisconsin.”
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that, on February 24, 2026, the Northeast Illinois Regional Corporation (NIRC) submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC) system seeking FRA's approval for two planned PTC system outages to support required network maintenance and firewall hardware upgrades. FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on NIRC's RFA to its PTC system.
FRA will consider comments received by March 26, 2026. FRA may consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
In general, title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will publish a notice in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on NIRC's RFA by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of NIRC's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a new information collection.
NHTSA invites public comments about the Agency's intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval on a new information collection consisting of a single, one-time experimental research study titled, Distraction: Portable electronic device interfaces.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0058 through any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Jeffrey Dressel Office of Vehicle Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-310, West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The research consists of two parts. Part I consists of an evaluation method called an “occlusion study” at Westat facilities in the Washington DC area. In this part, 24 participants per system (across up to 3 vehicles, for a total of up to 56 participants) will perform 6-9 standardized tasks while wearing special electronic goggles. These goggles automatically switch between clear and blocked views every 1.5 seconds, simulating how drivers normally shift their gaze between looking at the road and looking at the vehicle's displays. Before testing, participants will receive thorough training on each task. They will then perform each task five times while wearing the goggles per the testing procedures outlined in the NTHSA visual-manual distraction guidelines. Researchers will measure how long participants need to see the display to complete each task (called “Total Shutter Open Time” or TSOT), document any mistakes made during the tasks, record how participants recover from these mistakes, and gather feedback about whether the tasks are reasonable to perform while driving. Participants will be provided a $120 honorarium upon completion of Part I.
Part II consists of a closed-course track (CCT) evaluation conducted at Utah Motorsports Campus near Salt Lake City with 72 participants. Due to the cost of missing a study session, participants will be overbooked for each study session, meaning that two participants will be invited to the same study session but only one participant will complete the study. Both will be compensated the same rate ($120). The reason for using the overbooking strategy is because the cost of recruiting more participants is much less expensive than the cost of missing one session on the closed course track. This part will examine a subset of the tasks from Part I in actual driving conditions on a 0.84-mile stretch on a closed course tack (CCT). Participants will drive specially equipped vehicles while performing the interface tasks.
For both parts, participants will complete questionnaires about their background, driving experience, and familiarity with these interfaces. The collected data will be analyzed to evaluate whether these interfaces meet NHTSA's guidelines for minimizing driver distraction and to assess their effects on driving safety. The findings will help inform future safety guidelines and policy decisions regarding in-vehicle portable device interfaces.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
a.
b.
c.
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(6)
(7)
(8)
a.
b.
c.
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(10)
a.
b.
c.
(11)
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announces a public meeting of the United States Department of Transportation Advisory Board (U.S. DOT Advisory Board) on Wednesday, March 18, 2026. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the meeting, which will be open to the public virtually. The purpose of the U.S. DOT Advisory Board is to provide strategic vision and high-level guidance to modernize and enhance the United States transportation systems.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, beginning at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET). The exact start time is subject to change; please monitor
The U.S. DOT Advisory Board members will be meeting in-person at U.S. DOT Headquarters in Washington, DC The public may attend the meeting virtually, with information and registration details available on the U.S. DOT Advisory Board website (
U.S. DOT Advisory Board Designated Federal Officer, c/o Juli Huynh—Director, Office of Policy Coordination and Development, Office of the Secretary,
The U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) established the U.S. DOT Advisory Board as a Federal Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10) to provide strategic vision and high-level guidance to modernize and enhance the United States transportation systems.
The U.S. DOT Advisory Board will be dedicated to: (1) developing strategic recommendations for infrastructure modernization and expansion; (2) identifying key investment opportunities in transportation technology and innovation; (3) providing insights into regulatory and policy improvements to enhance efficiency and reduce bureaucratic obstacles; and (4) advising on public-private partnerships to maximize funding and impact.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
The meeting will be open to the public via livestream with advance meeting registration required. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the livestream by registering at the link provided on the following website:
Meeting materials will also be made available at this same link. Members of the public may also submit written materials, questions, and comments to the Committee in advance, as well as any requests for an electronic meeting accommodation consistent with the relevant sections of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, by contacting the individual listed in the
All advance submissions will be reviewed by the Designated Federal Officer. If approved, advance submissions shall be circulated to the U.S. DOT Advisory Board members for review prior to the meeting. All advance submissions will become part of the official record of the meeting.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and Federal and State agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Opportunity Zone (OZ) Nomination Tool. The OZ Nomination Tool contains online forms submitted through the CDFI Fund's Awards Management Information System (AMIS).
Written comments must be received on or before May 5, 2026, to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments concerning the OZ Nomination Tool via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Shafron Hawkins, Senior Advisor, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20220, 202-653-0300, or
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of renewal of the charter of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee.
The Treasury Department has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the charter for the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC). The charter has been prepared and will be filed no earlier than seven (7) days following the date of publication of this notice.
Anna Millikan at (202) 317-6564 or send an email to
This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014.
The purpose of the ETAAC is to provide continuing advice regarding the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. ETAAC is an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund fraud. It supports the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns.
ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs, and procedures, and suggest improvements.