Farm Service Agency
Food Safety and Inspection Service
The U.S. Codex Office
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule; technical amendment; request for comments.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is making a technical amendment to its Private Transfer Fee Covenants (PTFC) Regulation. The PTFC Regulation restricts FHFA's regulated entities—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises), and the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks)—from purchasing, investing in, accepting as collateral, or otherwise dealing in mortgages on properties encumbered by certain types of PTFCs, or related securities, subject to certain exceptions. The technical amendment reinstates timing and transitional applicability (“grandfather”) exceptions that were removed by FHFA's 2024 amendments to the PTFC Regulation. The reinstated “grandfather” exceptions are applicable
Sara L. Todd, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC), (202) 649-3527,
The PTFC Regulation was originally published on March 16, 2012 and became effective on July 16, 2012 (the 2012 Final Rule),
On September 26, 2023, FHFA published a proposed rule (the 2023 Proposed Rule) to amend the PTFC Regulation to add an exception to the restrictions for loans and related securities on properties with PTFCs if the loans meet the shared equity loan program requirements for Resale Restriction Programs (other than the 100 percent of area median income (AMI) limit), in § 1282.34(d)(4)(i)(A) and (d)(4)(ii) of FHFA's Duty to Serve Regulation.
The 2023 Proposed Rule also proposed removing the prospective application and effective date provisions from § 1228.3 of the PTFC Regulation, which included “grandfather” exceptions. The “grandfather” exceptions were for mortgages on properties encumbered by PTFCs if those PTFCs were created before February 8, 2011, or if those PTFCs were created on or after February 8, 2011 pursuant to an agreement entered into before February 8, 2011 applicable to land identified in the agreement, if the agreement was in settlement of litigation or approved by a government agency or body. The 2023 Proposed Rule also proposed omitting the provisions stating that the PTFC Regulation also applies to securities backed by mortgages to which the PTFC Regulation applies, and to securities issued after February 8, 2011 backed by revenue from private transfer fees, regardless of when the covenants were created. In addition, the 2023 Proposed Rule proposed omitting the statement expressly requiring the regulated entities to comply with the 2012 Final Rule not later than July 16, 2012. FHFA proposed these changes in the mistaken belief that the transitional “grandfather” exceptions were no longer necessary because the Enterprises and the Banks had been operating under the provisions of the PTFC Regulation since July 16, 2012, and the Enterprises subsequently had been operating under the terms of a regulatory waiver (the Enterprise Regulatory Waiver) since July 1, 2023.
The 2023 Proposed Rule preamble solicited public comments on the proposed amendments, and FHFA received no specific comments on the proposed removal of the “grandfather” exceptions provision. Accordingly, FHFA did not include the provision in the 2024 Final Rule.
The 2024 Final Rule also revised § 1228.3 to include the retrospective component of the Enterprise Regulatory Waiver by allowing the Enterprises to retain in their portfolios shared equity loans on properties with private transfer fees that were purchased or securitized by the Enterprises with promissory note dates prior to the effective date of the Enterprise Regulatory Waiver (July 1, 2023), regardless of whether the loans met the Duty to Serve shared equity loan program criteria for Resale Restriction Programs in 12 CFR 1282.34(d)(4)(i)(A) and (d)(4)(ii).
After the 2024 Final Rule was adopted, FHFA received informal communications regarding stakeholders who had relied upon the “grandfather” exceptions provision when they entered into an agreement during the transitional period contemplated by the 2012 Final Rule. The concerns indicated that, as a result of removal of the “grandfather” exceptions provision, any covenants, agreements, statutes, or other documents that were entered into or adopted while the 2012 Final Rule was
FHFA agrees that the stakeholders' concerns warrant addressing. While the new version of § 1228.3 adopted in the 2024 Final Rule—which codified the retrospective component of the Enterprise Regulatory Waiver—is correct as written, the “grandfather” exceptions were deleted without thorough consideration of potential unintended consequences. Accordingly, this final rule makes a technical amendment to reinstate the deleted “grandfather” exceptions as § 1228.3(a), applicable
The current heading for § 1228.3—“Limitation on applicability”—was changed in the 2024 Final Rule from the former heading—“Prospective application and effective date,” because the passage of time has altered the nature of the provision from prospective to identification of several limitations based upon dates that occurred in the past. The final rule revises the word “Limitation” in the heading to the plural “Limitations” to reflect that the timing aspects of the Enterprise Regulatory Waiver that were codified in the 2024 Final Rule, combined with the “grandfather” exceptions, establish multiple limitations.
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
FHFA finds for good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that the notice and comment procedure required by the APA is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest for this final rule because: (i) the “grandfather” exceptions provision that is being reinstated is unchanged from the version that was subjected to notice and public comment previously; (ii) the technical amendment is technical in nature, so no further comment should be necessary; and (iii) expeditious correction of the omission is merited for the members of the public who relied on the deleted exceptions provision.
When promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended, requires the Director of FHFA to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to: the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members and housing associates; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. In developing the 2012 Final Rule, FHFA considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they related to the above factors and determined that the 2012 Final Rule was appropriate to the structure, operations, and execution of the mission of the Banks with respect to the five factors, and would not result in any inappropriate treatment of the Banks as compared to the Enterprises.
In the preamble to the 2023 Proposed Rule, FHFA requested comments on whether differences related to the section 1313(f) factors should result in any additional or other revisions to that Proposed Rule. No commenter on the 2023 Proposed Rule recommended amending the PTFC Regulation to apply different criteria to the Banks or the Enterprises regarding removal of the “grandfather” exceptions or any other provisions in that Proposed Rule. In adopting the 2024 Final Rule, FHFA determined that the Rule was appropriate as it would have no impact on four of the five factors and could have a modest, positive impact on the fifth factor—the mission of providing liquidity to Bank members and housing associates.
FHFA believes that this final rule is appropriate because it would have no effects that were not considered by FHFA in developing the 2012 Final Rule and the 2024 Final Rule. Accordingly, FHFA's section 1313(f) analyses for those Rules apply to this interim final rule as well, and, therefore, it is not necessary to conduct a new section 1313(f) analysis for this final rule.
This final rule does not contain any information collection requirement. Thus, it does not require approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. FHFA has determined the final rule not to be a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866. OMB has
Executive Order 13563 directs 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. FHFA has developed this final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 14192 requires that for each new regulation issued, at least 10 existing regulations be identified for elimination. Executive Order 14192 also directs 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. FHFA's implementation of these requirements will be informed by M-25-20, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (March 26, 2025). This final rule is not subject to offset requirements under Executive Order 14192 because it is “not significant” and therefore does not meet the Executive Order's definition of a “regulatory action” subject to the Executive Order's requirements.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801
Banks, Banking, Condominiums, Cooperatives, Federal Home Loan Banks, Government-sponsored enterprises, Investments, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgages, Nonprofit organizations, Real property acquisition, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the Preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, FHFA is amending part 1228 of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, 4526, 4565, 4616, 4617, 4631.
(a) Beginning July 16, 2012, this part shall apply only to mortgages on properties encumbered by private transfer fee covenants if those covenants were created on or after February 8, 2011, except that this part shall not apply to mortgages on properties encumbered by private transfer fee covenants if those covenants were created pursuant to an agreement entered into before February 8, 2011 applicable to land that is identified in the agreement and the agreement was in settlement of litigation or approved by a government agency or body. This part also applies to securities backed by mortgages to which this part applies, and to securities issued after February 8, 2011 backed by revenue from private transfer fees, regardless of when the covenants were created.
(b) This part does not apply to shared equity loans, or related securities, with promissory note dates prior to July 1, 2023, regardless of whether the loans met the Duty to Serve shared equity loan program criteria for resale restriction programs in § 1282.34(d)(4)(i)(A) and (d)(4)(ii) of this chapter.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (Department).
Final rule.
By this rule, EDA amends its regulations establishing general terms and conditions for investment assistance by removing three unnecessary sections. This action is intended to streamline the described body of regulations, eliminate redundant and otherwise unwarranted regulatory text, and to promote administrative efficiency without diminishing any substantive obligations or entitlements related to EDA's investment assistance.
The rule is effective March 17, 2026.
Jeffrey Roberson, Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administration, at (202) 779-0563.
By this rule, the Department amends the regulations at 13 CFR part 302, which establish the general terms and conditions for EDA's investment assistance. The Department amends those regulations in the following ways.
First, the Department is removing § 302.6, which reiterates that recipients of EDA's investment assistance are “subject to all Federal laws and to Federal, Department, and EDA policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards,” including the government-wide requirements at 2 CFR part 200. 13 CFR 302.6. Upon review, the Department has determined that § 302.6 is appropriate for removal, as the application of part 200 is sufficiently established by the
Second, the Department is removing § 302.12, which states that “EDA shall approve Investment Assistance awards only if, as determined in EDA's sole discretion, the Project for which such Investment Assistance is awarded will be properly and efficiently administered, operated and maintained.” 13 CFR 302.12. But this requirement of efficiency is already sufficiently established by section 504 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3194); the government-wide regulations at 2 CFR part 200,
Third, the Department is removing § 302.15, which states that “EDA will accept an Eligible Applicant's certifications, accompanied by evidence satisfactory to EDA, that the Eligible Applicant meets the requirements for receiving Investment Assistance.” 13 CFR 302.15. No statutory provision requires the promulgation and maintenance of such regulatory language, and the Department finds it to be of little, if any, value; the rest of part 302 sufficiently addresses the requirements for receiving assistance and contemplates the presentation of evidence. Based on the other sections of part 302, the Department is satisfied that § 302.15 does not serve any meaningful independent purpose and thus is appropriate for removal under the Department's deregulatory policies.
Overall, the Department has determined that these amendments to part 302 are warranted, as they will remove unnecessary regulatory language of little to no value and generally streamline part 302, thereby promoting simplicity and efficiency without diminishing any substantive rights or obligations related to EDA's investment assistance.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes regulatory language that is unnecessary and does not serve any meaningful significant function; none of the language being removed by this rule is statutorily required, and public participation could not justify the continued maintenance of any of the language at issue under the Department's broader regulatory policies. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule adds complexity and clutter to part 302; the removal of this language will immediately streamline part 302, thereby promoting administrative efficiency and benefiting the public, at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal policy and procedures, Pre-approval requirements, Reporting and audit requirements, Project administration, Post-approval requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EDA amends 13 CFR part 302 as follows:
19 U.S.C. 2341
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (Department).
Final rule.
By this rule, EDA amends its regulations governing planning investments and comprehensive economic development strategies by removing certain redundant language. Specifically, this rule removes a section pertaining to eligible administrative expenses on the basis that it is redundant with the government-wide
The rule is effective March 17, 2026.
Jeffrey Roberson, Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administration, at (202) 779-0563.
By this rule, the Department amends the regulations at 13 CFR part 303, which govern planning investments and comprehensive economic development strategies. Specifically, this rule removes § 303.5, which addresses eligible administrative expenses and states that, “[i]n accordance with applicable Federal cost principles, Planning Investments may be used to pay the direct and indirect costs incurred by a Planning Organization in the development, implementation, revision or replacement of a CEDS and for related short-term planning activities.” 13 CFR 303.5. The eligibility of the expenses described in § 303.5, however, is already adequately established by the government-wide, uniform cost principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200. Section 303.5 is thus redundant and appropriate for removal. The Department has determined that the removal of § 303.5 will streamline part 303 without diminishing any substantive obligation or entitlement related to planning investments and comprehensive economic development strategies.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes redundant regulatory language and does not affect any substantive obligation or entitlement. Indeed, because the section being removed by this rule is redundant and not required by statute, public participation could not justify its continued maintenance under the Department's broader deregulatory policies. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The section being removed by this rule adds unnecessary length and complexity to part 303; its removal will immediately streamline part 303, thereby promoting administrative efficiency and benefiting the public, at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Planning, Award and application requirements, Comprehensive economic development strategy, State plans, Short-term planning investments.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EDA amends 13 CFR part 303 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3143; 42 U.S.C. 3162; 42 U.S.C. 3174; 42 U.S.C. 3211; Department of Commerce Organization Order 10-4.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (Department).
Final rule.
By this rule, EDA amends its regulations governing public works and economic development investments by removing certain unnecessary language. Specifically, this action removes unnecessary language related to bid overrun, project signs, and occupancy prior to final acceptance. This action is intended to streamline EDA's regulations without diminishing any substantive rights or obligations in connection with public works and economic development investments.
The rule is effective March 17, 2026.
Jeffrey Roberson, Chief Counsel, Economic Development Administration, at (202) 779-0563.
By this rule, the Department amends the regulations at 13 CFR part 305, subpart B, which establish the requirements for approved projects for EDA's public works and economic development investments. The Department amends those regulations in the following ways.
First, the Department is removing unnecessary language from the regulatory section governing bid overrun. Specifically, § 305.10(b)(2) establishes that, in the event of bid overrun, recipients may request additional funding, and it expressly states that “[t]he award of additional Investment Assistance is at EDA's sole discretion and will be considered in accord with EDA's competitive process requirements.” 13 CFR 305.10(b)(2). Section 305.10(b)(2) goes on to also state that “EDA's consideration of a request for additional Investment Assistance does not indicate approval.”
Second, the Department is removing § 305.12, the section pertaining to project signs. That section states that recipients are responsible for the construction, erection, and maintenance of signs indicating that the Federal government is participating in the project, in accordance with EDA's specifications. 13 CFR 305.12. As this section alludes to, EDA provides recipients with clear signage specifications and requirements through its regional offices and award documents, as appropriate. Accordingly, EDA has determined that this general reference to those signage specifications is unwarranted and appropriate for removal, for the sake of simplifying and streamlining part 305.
Third, the Department is removing § 305.14, the section pertaining to occupancy prior to final acceptance. Specifically, § 305.14 states that “[o]ccupancy of any part of the Project prior to final acceptance is entirely at the Recipient's risk and must follow the requirements of local and State law.” 13 CFR 305.14. The Department is satisfied, however, that both of these basic points are sufficiently well-established independent of § 305.14; risk and liability allocation is adequately established by both the government-wide regulations at 2 CFR part 200 and common law principles, and the default understanding that State and local laws apply independent of Federal law is adequately established under our constitutional structure and system of laws. The Department has therefore determined that the removal of § 305.14 is warranted to simplify and streamline part 305.
Overall, the Department has determined that these amendments to part 305 will reduce the unnecessary complexity of part 305 and promote administrative efficiency, without diminishing any substantive rights or obligations related to EDA's public works and economic development investments.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unwarranted, because this rule only removes language that provides unnecessary clarification, reiteration, and/or elaboration. None of the language being removed by this rule is statutorily required, and public participation could not justify the continued maintenance of any of the language at issue under the Department's broader regulatory policies. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule adds complexity and clutter to part 305, poses some risk of confusion and distraction, and impedes administrative efficiency; the removal of this language will immediately streamline part 305 and benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Public works, Economic development, Award and application requirements, Requirements for approved projects.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EDA amends 13 CFR part 305 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3211; 42 U.S.C. 3141; Department of Commerce Organization Order 10-4.
(b) * * *
(2) If the Recipient demonstrates to EDA's satisfaction that the options listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are not feasible and the Project cannot be completed otherwise, the Recipient may submit a written request to EDA for additional funding in accordance with applicable EDA guidance. The award of additional Investment Assistance is at EDA's sole discretion and will be considered in accord with EDA's competitive process requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Gulfstream) Model G300 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of a therapeutic oxygen distribution system that provides a shared source of oxygen between the flightcrew and passengers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Gulfstream on March 17, 2026. Send comments on or before May 1, 2026.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2025-5235 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Robert Hettman, Mechanical Systems, AIR-623, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3171; email
The substance of these special conditions has been published in 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
Confidential Business Information (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 these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the For Further Information Contact section above. Comments the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for these special conditions.
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On January 23, 2025, Gulfstream applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A61NM to include the new Model G300 airplane. The Gulfstream Model G300 airplane, which is a derivative of the Model G280 currently approved under Type Certificate No. A61NM, is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane. It has a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers and two crew, with a maximum takeoff weight of 39,600 pounds.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the Model G300 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A61NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model G300 airplane must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The Gulfstream Model G300 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
An oxygen distribution system that provides a shared source of oxygen
No specific regulations address the design and installation of required passenger or crew oxygen systems that share a supply source with an optional oxygen system used specifically for therapeutic applications. Therapeutic oxygen systems have been previously certified, and were generally considered an extension of the passenger oxygen system for the purpose of defining the applicable regulations. As a result, existing requirements, such as §§ 25.1309, 25.1441(b) and (c), 25.1451, and 25.1453, in the Gulfstream G300 airplanes' certification basis applicable to this Amended TC project, provide some design standards appropriate for oxygen system installations. In addition, § 25.1445 includes standards for oxygen distribution systems when oxygen is supplied to flightcrew and passengers. If a common source of supply is used, § 25.1445(a)(2) requires a means to separately reserve the minimum supply required by the flightcrew.
Section 25.1445 is intended to protect the flightcrew by ensuring that an adequate supply of oxygen is available to complete a descent and landing following a loss of cabin pressure. When the regulation was written, the only passenger oxygen system designs were supplemental oxygen systems intended to protect passengers from hypoxia in the event of a decompression. Existing passenger oxygen systems did not include design features that would allow the flightcrew to control oxygen to passengers during flight. There are no similar requirements in § 25.1445 when oxygen is supplied from the same source to passengers for use during a decompression, and for discretionary or first-aid use any time during the flight. In the design, the crew, passenger, and therapeutic oxygen systems use the same source of oxygen. These special conditions contain additional design requirements for the equipment involved in this dual therapeutic oxygen plus supplemental gaseous oxygen installation.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model G300 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model G300 airplanes.
The distribution system for the passenger therapeutic oxygen system must be designed and installed to meet requirements as follows:
(1) When oxygen is supplied to passengers for both supplemental and therapeutic purposes, the distribution system must be designed for either—
(a) A source of supplemental oxygen for protection following a loss of cabin pressure, and a separate source for therapeutic purposes; or
(b) A common source of supply with means to separately reserve the minimum supply required by the passengers for supplemental use following a loss of cabin pressure.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model EC175B helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category helicopters. This design feature is associated with the installation of an optional search and rescue (SAR) automatic flight control system (AFCS). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Airbus on March 17, 2026. Send comments on or before May 1, 2026.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2025-2038 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Gregory Thumann, Performance and Environment Unit, AIR-621A, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, FAA AIR Office—Wichita, 1801 S Airport Rd., Wichita, Kansas 67209-2190; telephone and fax 405-666-1052; email
The substance of these special conditions has been published in the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in § 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to
Confidential Business Information (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 these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the For Further Information Contact section above. Comments the FAA receive, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for these special conditions.
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On September 14, 2022, Airbus requested FAA type certificate validation for the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter, identified by project Type Certificate No. TC14123SE-R. The Model EC175B helicopter is a large-passenger Transport Category, 14 CFR part 29, twin-engine conventional helicopter certificated for Category A operations and also for instrument flight under the requirements of Appendix B of Part 29. This model is powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67E engines with a dual channel Full Authority Digital Engine Control system, has five main rotor blades, a maximum gross weight of 17,196 pounds, and a velocity not exceeding 175 knots. The Model EC175B helicopter features an integrated modular avionics suite with four 6x8-inch multi-function displays called Common Integrated Global Avionics for Light Helicopters. This rotorcraft is capable of carrying 18 passengers and two crew members. Its initial customer base included offshore oil and search and rescue operations.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model EC175B helicopter meets the applicable provisions of Part 29, as amended by Amendments 29-1 through 29-52. The Airbus Model EC175B certification basis date is March 1, 2009.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under 14 CFR 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Airbus Model EC175B helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The SAR system is composed of a navigation computer with SAR modes, an AFCS that provides coupled SAR functions, hoist operator control, a hover speed reference system, and two radio altimeters. The AFCS coupled SAR functions include:
(a) Hover hold at selected height above the surface.
(b) Ground speed hold.
(c) Transition down and hover to a waypoint under guidance from the navigation computer.
(d) SAR pattern, transition down, and hover near a target over which the helicopter has flown.
(e) Transition up, climb, and capture a cruise height.
(f) Capture and track SAR search patterns generated by the navigation computer.
(g) Monitor the preselected hover height with an automatic increase in collective if the aircraft height drops below the safe minimum height.
These SAR modes are intended to be used over large bodies of water in areas clear of obstructions. Further, the use of the modes that transition down from cruise to hover will include operation at airspeeds below V
The SAR system only entails navigation, flight control, and coupled AFCS operation of the helicopter. The system does not include the additional equipment that may be required for over water flight or external loads to meet other operational requirements.
Airbus Model EC175B will include the installation of an optional SAR AFCS.
The use of dedicated AFCS upper modes, in which a fully coupled autopilot provides operational SAR profiles, is necessary for SAR operations
Flight operations conducted over water at night may have an extremely limited visual horizon, with little visual reference to the surface, even when conducted under visual meteorological conditions. Consequently, the certification requirements for SAR modes must meet the requirements outlined in Appendix B to Part 29. While Appendix B to Part 29 prescribes airworthiness criteria for instrument flight, it does not consider operations below the instrument flight minimum speed (VMINI), whereas the SAR modes allow for coupled operations at low speed, all-azimuth flight to zero airspeed (hover).
Since SAR operations have traditionally been a public-use mission, the use of SAR modes in civil operations requires special airworthiness standards (special conditions) to ensure a level of safety consistent with Category A and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) certification in accordance with Appendix B to Part 29. In this regard, Part 29 lacks adequate airworthiness standards for AFCS SAR mode certification, including flight characteristics, performance, and installed equipment and systems.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus Helicopters Model EC175B helicopter.
In addition to the Part 29 certification requirements for Category A and helicopter instrument flight (Appendix B to Part 29), the following additional requirements must be met for certification of the optional search and rescue (SAR) automatic flight control system (AFCS):
(a)
(1) Safe and controlled flight in the three axes at all airspeeds (lateral position and speed, longitudinal position and speed, and height and vertical speed) from the previous instrument flight minimum speed (VMINI) to a hover (within the maximum demonstrated wind envelope).
(2) Automatic transition to the helicopter instrument flight (Appendix B to Part 29) envelope as part of the normal SAR mode sequencing.
(3) A pilot-selectable “Go-Around” mode that safely interrupts any other coupled mode and automatically transitions the helicopter to the instrument flight (Appendix B to Part 29) envelope.
(4) A means to prevent unintended flight below a safe minimum height. Pilot-commanded descent below the safe minimum height is acceptable, provided the alerting requirements in paragraph (b)(8)(i) of these special conditions alert the pilot of this descent below safe minimum height.
(b)
(1) Ground mapping radar function that presents real-time information to the pilots.
(2) A system for limiting the engine power demanded by the AFCS when any of the automatic piloting modes are engaged so that full authority digital engine control power limitations, such as torque and temperature, are not exceeded.
(3) A system providing the aircraft height above the surface and the final pilot-selected height at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that will make it plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(4) A system providing the aircraft heading and the pilot-selected heading at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that will make it plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(5) A system providing the aircraft longitudinal and lateral ground speeds and the pilot-selected longitudinal and lateral ground speeds when used by the AFCS in the flight envelope where airspeed indications become unreliable. This information must be presented at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that is plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(6) A system providing wind speed and wind direction when automatic piloting modes are engaged or while transitioning from one mode to another.
(7) A system that monitors flight guidance deviations and failures and contains an alerting function that provides the flight crew with enough information to take appropriate corrective action.
(8) An alerting system that provides visual or aural alerts, or both, to the flight crew under any of the following conditions:
(i) When the stored or pilot-selected safe minimum height is reached.
(ii) When a SAR mode system malfunction occurs.
(iii) When the AFCS changes modes automatically from one SAR mode to another. For normal transitions between SAR modes, a single visual or aural alert may suffice. For a SAR mode malfunction or a mode having a time-critical component, the flight crew alerting system must activate early enough to allow the flight crew to take timely and appropriate action. The alerting system means must be designed to alert the flight crew in order to minimize crew errors that could create an additional hazard.
(9) The SAR system hoist operator control is considered a flight control with limited authority and must comply with the following:
(i) The hoist operator control must be designed and located to provide for convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent operation.
(ii) The helicopter must be safely controllable by the hoist operator control throughout the range of that control.
(iii) The hoist operator control may not interfere with the safe operation of the helicopter.
(iv) Pilot and copilot flight controls must be able to smoothly override the limited control authority of the hoist operator control, without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without the danger of exceeding any other limitation because of the override.
(10) The reliability of the AFCS must be related to the effects of its failure. The occurrence of any failure condition that would prevent continued safe flight and landing must be extremely improbable. For any failure condition of the AFCS that is not shown to be extremely improbable:
(i) The helicopter must be safely controllable and capable of continued safe flight without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength. Additional unrelated probable failures affecting the control system must be evaluated.
(ii) The AFCS must be designed so that it cannot create a hazardous deviation in the flight path or produce hazardous loads on the helicopter during normal operation or in the event of a malfunction or failure, assuming corrective action begins within an appropriate period of time. Where multiple systems are installed, subsequent malfunction conditions must be evaluated in sequence unless their occurrence is shown to be improbable.
(11) A functional hazard assessment and a system safety assessment must address the failure conditions associated with SAR operations:
(i) For SAR catastrophic failure conditions, changes may be required to the following:
(A) System architecture.
(B) Software and complex electronic hardware design assurance levels.
(C) High intensity radiated field (HIRF) test levels.
(D) Instructions for continued airworthiness.
(ii) The assessments must consider all the systems required for SAR operations, including the AFCS, all associated AFCS sensors (for example, radio altimeter), and primary flight displays. Electrical and electronic systems with SAR catastrophic failure conditions (for example, AFCS) must comply with the § 29.1317(a)(4) High Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF) requirements.
(1) The SAR modes must be demonstrated for the requested flight envelope, including the following minimum sea state and wind conditions:
(i)
(ii)
(2) The selected hover height and hover velocity must be captured (including the transition from one captured mode to another captured mode) accurately and smoothly and not exhibit any significant overshoot or oscillation.
(3) The minimum use height (MUH) for the SAR modes must be no more than the maximum loss of height following any single failure or any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable, plus an additional margin of 15 feet above the surface. MUH is the minimum height at which any SAR AFCS mode may be engaged.
(4) The SAR mode system must be usable up to the maximum certified gross weight of the aircraft or to the lower of the following weights:
(i) Maximum emergency flotation weight.
(ii) Maximum hover out-of-ground effect (OGE) weight.
(iii) Maximum demonstrated weight.
(1) The basic aircraft must meet all of the Part 29 airworthiness criteria for helicopter instrument flight (Appendix B to Part 29).
(2) For SAR mode coupled flight below VMINI, at the maximum demonstrated winds, the helicopter must be able to maintain any required flight condition and make a smooth transition from any flight condition to any other flight condition without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without exceeding the limit load factor. This requirement also includes aircraft control through the hoist operator's control.
(3) For coupled flight below the previously established VMINI, the following stability requirements replace the stability requirements of paragraphs IV, V, and VI of Appendix B to Part 29:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Any oscillation must be damped, and any aperiodic response must not double in amplitude in less than 10 seconds. This requirement must also be met with degraded upper modes of the AFCS. An “upper mode” is a mode that utilizes a fully coupled autopilot to provide an operational SAR profile.
(B) After any upset, the AFCS must return the aircraft to the last commanded position within 10 seconds or less.
(4) With any of the upper modes of the AFCS engaged, the pilot must be able to manually recover the aircraft and transition to the normal (Appendix B to Part 29) IFR flight profile envelope without exceptional skill, alertness, or strength.
(1) The following performance information must be provided in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement (RFMS):
(i) OEI performance information and emergency procedures, providing the maximum weight that will provide a minimum clearance of 15 feet above the surface, following failure of the critical engine in a hover. The maximum weight must be presented as a function of the hover height for the temperature and pressure altitude range requested for certification. The effects of wind must be reflected in the hover performance information.
(ii) Hover OGE performance with the critical engine inoperative for OEI continuous and time-limited power ratings for those weights, altitudes, and temperatures for which certification is requested.
These OEI performance requirements do not replace performance requirements that may be needed to comply with the airworthiness or operational standards (14 CFR 29.865 or 14 CFR part 133) for external loads or human external cargo.
(2) [Reserved]
(1) Limitations necessary for the safe operation of the SAR system to include:
(i) Minimum crew requirements. No fewer than two pilots, except for approved external load operations, which will also require a hoist operator.
(ii) Maximum SAR weight as determined by the lower of the SAR mode performance requirement of paragraph (c)(4) of these special conditions or the aircraft performance information provided by paragraph (e) of these special conditions.
(iii) Maximum demonstrated sea state conditions for ditching compliance.
(iv) Engagement criteria for each of the SAR modes to include MUH (as determined in subparagraph (c)(3)) of these special conditions.
(v) Normal and emergency procedures for operation of the SAR system
(2) Performance information:
(i) OEI performance and height-loss.
(ii) Hover OGE performance information, utilizing OEI continuous and time-limited power ratings.
(iii) The maximum wind envelope demonstrated in the flight test.
(iv) Information and advisory information concerning operations in a heavy salt spray environment, including any airframe or power effects as a result of salt encrustation.
(1) Before approval of the SAR system, an acceptable flight demonstration of all the coupled SAR modes is required.
(2) The AFCS must provide fail-safe operations during coupled maneuvers. The demonstration of fail-safe operations must include a pilot workload assessment associated with manually flying the aircraft to an altitude greater than 200 feet above the surface and an airspeed of at least the best rate of climb airspeed (Vy).
(3) For any failure condition of the SAR system not shown to be extremely improbable, the pilot must be able to make a smooth transition from one flight mode to another without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
(4) Failure conditions that are not shown to be extremely improbable must be demonstrated by analysis, ground testing, or flight testing. For failures demonstrated in flight, the following normal pilot recovery times are acceptable:
(i) Transition modes (Cruise-to-Hover/Hover-to-Cruise) and hover modes: Normal pilot recognition plus 1 second.
(ii)
(5) All AFCS malfunctions must include evaluation of the low-speed and high-power flight conditions typical of SAR operations. Additionally, AFCS hard-over, slow-over, and oscillatory malfunctions, particularly in yaw, require evaluation. AFCS malfunction testing must include a single or a combination of failures (such as erroneous data from and loss of the radio altimeter, attitude, heading, and altitude sensors) that are not shown to be extremely improbable.
(6) The flight demonstration must include the following environmental conditions:
(i) Swell into wind.
(ii) Swell and wind from different directions.
(iii) Cross swell.
(iv) Swell of different lengths (short and long swell).
(7) The flight demonstration must also evaluate OEI procedures from hover while hoisting an external load.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Extra Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH (Extra) Model EXTRA NG airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the canopy opening or detaching in flight because of a partially or improperly locked canopy. This AD requires replacing the canopy placards and revising the Limitations Section of the Pilot Operating Handbook/Airplane Flight Manual (POH/AFM). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 21, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 21, 2026.
• For EXTRA Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH material identified in this AD, contact Extra, Schwarze Heide 21, 46569 Hünxe, Germany; phone: +49 2858 9137 0; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; 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 Extra Model EXTRA NG airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the canopy placards and revising the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM. 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 no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed EXTRA Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH Service Bulletin No. SB-NG-1-24, Issue A, dated December 19, 2024. This material specifies procedures for revising the Limitations Section of the POH/AFM to include the newly mandated placard. Compliance shall be accomplished by incorporating Revision 16 or later approved revisions of the POH/AFM. 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 30 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 21, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Extra Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH Model EXTRA NG airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 1100, Placards and Markings.
This AD was prompted by reports of the canopy opening or detaching in flight because of a partially or improperly locked canopy. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address placards/design that did not provide adequate positive canopy locking or confirmation. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in canopy separation, possibly leading to damage to the airplane structure, loss of control of the airplane, or injuries to people on the ground.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes without canopy placard part number (P/N) EX-01106.01-Canopy installed, within 3 months or 25 hours time-in-service, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace the affected canopy placards at the front and rear canopy handles in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS, steps 1 and 2, in EXTRA Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH Service Bulletin No. SB-NG-1-24, Issue A, dated December 19, 2024 (EXTRA SB-NG-1-24).
(2) Before next flight, after the replacement of the affected canopy placards required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the existing pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual (POH/AFM) to include canopy placard P/N EX-01106.01-Canopy in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS, step 3, in EXTRA SB-NG-1-24. The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing POH/AFM for the airplane and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of this AD into the airplane maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v).
(3) Amending the existing POH/AFM by incorporating a later POH/AFM revision that includes information identical to that required by paragraph (g)(2) is an acceptable
As of the effective date of this AD, do not replace any canopy placard with a placard that is not P/N EX-01106.01-Canopy.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; 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) EXTRA Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH Service Bulletin No. SB-NG-1-24, Issue A, dated December 19, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EXTRA Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH material identified in this AD, contact Extra Aerobatic Aircraft GmbH, Schwarze Heide 21, 46569 Hünxe, Germany; phone: +49 2858 9137 0; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Class E airspace at Zuni, NM. This action supports the closure of Black Rock Airport at Zuni Pueblo, NM.
Effective 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
Raul Garza Jr., Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5874.
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 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 revokes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Black Rock Airport, Zuni, NM, because the airport closed.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-0628 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document 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 modifies 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Black Rock Airport, Zuni, NM. This action is being taken because, as the result of the airport closure, Class E airspace is no longer required. This final rule coincides with the final rule establishing Class E airspace at Andrew Othole Memorial Airport in Zuni Pueblo, NM.
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)
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,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 17, 2026. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 17, 2026.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Rune Duke, Manager (Acting), Standards Section, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters in San Pedro Channel and San Pedro Bay, CA. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the presence and removal of damaged containers and cargo onboard the vessel OOCL SUNFLOWER. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles—Long Beach, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from March 17, 2026, through April 30, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from March 12, 2026, through March 17, 2026.
To view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact LCDR Kevin Kinsella, Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 310-521-3860, email
The Coast Guard received notification that the container vessel OOCL SUNFLOWER would be transiting through San Pedro Channel and arriving in San Pedro Bay, CA on or about March 12, 2026, with damaged and potentially unsecured containers onboard. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that the presence of damaged containers, some of which may contain hazardous materials, and operations to secure or remove these containers, may pose a safety risk to persons, vessels, and the marine environment within 500 yards. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of the risks associated with these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of the damaged containers on March 4, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by March 12, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on March 12, 2026, through April 30, 2026. The date and time of actual enforcement will depend on the vessel's transit progress and arrival and will be announced to the public in advance. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in San Pedro Channel and San Pedro Bay, encompassing a 500 yard radius around the vessel OOCL SUNFLOWER, IMO # 9949728. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (310) 521-3801. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Final rule.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with SLSMC, GLS is amending the joint regulations by updating the regulations and rules in various categories. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations.
This rule is effective on March 17, 2026.
Donna O'Berry, Chief Counsel, Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-6136.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with SLSMC, GLS is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels, Seaway Navigation, Dangerous Cargo, Toll Assessment and Payment, and Information and Reports. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations.
The joint regulations will become effective in Canada in 2026 prior to the opening of the Seaway. For consistency, because these are joint regulations under international agreement, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, GLS finds that there is good cause to make the U.S. version of the amendments effective upon the date of publication to ensure an effective date prior to the Seaway opening.
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
GLS has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
GLS has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is amending 33 CFR part 401 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.101, unless otherwise noted.
(a) Self-propelled vessels, other than pleasure craft of less than 20.0 m in overall length, shall be equipped with two VHF (very high frequency) radios.
(c) Any vessel will be permitted to load at an increased draught of not more than 7 cm above the maximum permissible draught in effect (also known as DIS draught) as prescribed under paragraph (b) of this section if it is equipped with a Draught Information System (DIS) and meets the following:
(4) A vessel already approved to use DIS to transit the Seaway and intending to use it must email a completed DIS Confirmation Checklist (found at
(c) Every vessel in tow must be adequately manned for transit in the Seaway.
(b) * * *
(2) For vessels equipped with the ability to shift upward the main engine limitation from the engine control station (
The revision reads as follows:
(c) Should the situation arise where a tie up at an approach wall is provided by Seaway personnel at the Canadian
The addition reads as follows:
(d) Vessel Self Spotting (VSS) displays at the Canadian Locks are meant to assist vessels to spot positions of the vessel's stem in the lock. The VSS display does not relive the Master of the responsibility of ensuring that the vessel's stem does not pass the stop symbol marked on the Lock wall as required in paragraph (a) of this section by using its own spotting method such as visual sport by vessel's crew.
The revision reads as follows:
Except in an emergency, no vessel shall drop anchor in any canal or tie-up to any canal bank unless authorized to do so by the traffic controller. If the anchor is dropped, the Master of the vessel shall immediately report it to the nearest seaway station. Every anchor shall be suitably rigged for immediate release, holding and efficient retrieval.
(b)
(1) The SLSMC Traffic Control Centre will accept the request to perform hot work under the following conditions:
(a) A Seaway e-business Transit Declaration (Cargo) shall be completed and submitted to the Manager by the representative of a vessel for each vessel that has an approved preclearance, except non-cargo vessels, within fourteen (14) days after the vessel enters the Seaway on any upbound ordown bound transit. The e-business Transit Declaration must be filed directly on the St. Lawrence Seaway website
(b) The loaded or manifest weight of cargo shall be shown on the Seaway e-business Transit Declaration, except in the case of petroleum products where gallonage meters are not available at the point of loading, in which case offloaded weights may be shown on the e-business Transit Declaration.
(c) Where a vessel carried cargo to or from an overseas port, an electronic copy of the cargo manifest, duly certified, shall be submitted with the Seaway e-business Transit Declaration.
(d) A Weight-Scale Certificate or similar document issued in the place of a cargo manifest or a bill of lading may be accepted in lieu thereof.
(e) Where a submitted Seaway e-business Transit Declaration is found to be inaccurate concerning the destination or cargo, the representative shall immediately forward to the Manager a revision of the submitted Declaration.
(f) Submitted Seaway e-business Transit Declarations shall be used in assessing fees in accordance with the St. Lawrence Seaway Schedule of Tolls, and fees invoices shall be forwarded to the representative or its designated agent.
(g) Where government aid cargo is declared, appropriate Canadian or U.S. customs form or a stamped and signed certification letter from the U.S. or Canada Customs must accompany the e-business Transit Declaration or notification must be made to the Manager.
(b) For the Vessel Inspection Program:
(1) Foreign flagged vessels are subject to an Enhanced Ship Inspections (ESI)—physical ship inspection once every two navigation seasons. Agents must provide the Seaway Ship Inspectors via email an initial 120 hours' notice of inspection (ESI or self-inspection) prior to the vessel's arrival at CIP2. An
(2) Foreign flagged vessels may be permitted a Self-Inspection in the interim season subject to satisfactory performance. As such, vessels must complete and submit the “Seaway Ship Inspection Report” electronically to
(4) Inland domestic vessels which are approved by the Seaway for the “Self-Inspection Program” and are ISM certified and have a company quality management system, must submit the “Seaway Ship Inspection Report” every 2 navigation seasons and not later than 30 days after “fit out”. A “Seaway Ship Inspection Report” must be submitted electronically to
(5) Inland domestic vessels not participating in the “Self-Inspection Program” are subject to a Seaway inspection every 2 navigation seasons.
(7) A tall vessel, passenger vessel, or vessel of an unusual design is subject to Seaway yearly ESI.
(8) The ESI or self-inspection is required on the first transit of the navigation season.
Issued at Washington, DC under authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.101.
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Final rule.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls in their respective jurisdictions. The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by GLS and SLSMC. GLS is revising its regulations to reflect the fees and charges levied by SLSMC in Canada starting in the 2026 navigation season, which are effective only in Canada.
This rule is effective March 17, 2026.
Donna O'Berry, Chief Counsel, Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-6136.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls (Schedule of Fees and Charges in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions.
The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by GLS and SLSMC. GLS is revising 33 CFR 402.12, “Schedule of tolls”, to reflect the fees and charges levied by SLSMC in Canada beginning in the 2026 navigation season.
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
GLS has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
GLS has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is amending 33 CFR part 402 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a), 984(a)(4), and 988, as amended; 49 CFR 1.101.
Issued at Washington, DC, under authority delegated at 49 CFR part 1.101.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 1, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Isabel Saltzman, 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 proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Isabel Saltzman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26, dated May 6, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed. The manufacturer introduced changes to four airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) and added four new ALIs to Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) CSP B-053, Part 2, Section 2, “Structural Inspections,” and Section 3, “Safe Life Components,” Revision 28,
The FAA is proposing this AD to address new or more restrictive structural inspections and safe life limits. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA issued AD 2025-25-03, Amendment 39-23211 (90 FR 57680, December 12, 2025) (AD 2025-25-03), which applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model 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 2025-25-03 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Accomplishing the actions in this proposed AD would terminate the corresponding requirements of AD 2025-25-03 for the tasks identified in the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 only.
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26, which specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 589 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
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
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by May 1, 2026.
This AD affects AD 2025-25-03, Amendment 39-23211 (90 FR 57680, December 12, 2025) (AD 2025-25-03).
This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes.
(2) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
(3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
(4) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address new or more restrictive structural inspections and safe life limits. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Comply with all required actions specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26, dated May 6, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26), except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Where the “Corrective Actions” section of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 specifies to “Within the thresholds and repeat intervals identified within the tasks, or discard time, as applicable, complete the new or more restrictive limitations contained in the ALI sections of the MHIRJ MRM Part 2 publication identified in Table 1 below, as applicable to the aeroplane model and configuration.”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the new and revised ALI tasks identified in Table 1 of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26.”
(2) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in Table 1 of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 is at the applicable threshold and discard time as specified in the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2025-25-03 for the tasks identified in the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-26 only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Isabel Saltzman, 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-2025-26, dated May 6, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fractured lower attachment studs on certain galleys. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of all affected lower attachment studs on affected galleys installed forward of door 4 and applicable corrective actions, replacement of all affected lower attachment studs on all affected galleys, and reidentification of affected galleys. This proposed AD would also prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 1, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Andrew Younglove, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3644; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrew Younglove, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3644; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0089, dated April 24, 2025; corrected June 2, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0089) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states that occurrences have been reported of fractured lower attachment studs on certain galleys installed forward of door 4. Further investigation results indicated that the fractured lower attachment studs resulted from a hydrogen-induced failure. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to galley module detachment, with consequent injury to airplane occupants, and could possibly result in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane in case of an emergency.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0089 specifies a detailed inspection for fractures of certain lower attachment studs on affected galleys installed forward of door 4 and replacement of fractured lower attachment studs, as applicable. EASA AD 2025-0089 also specifies replacement of all affected lower attachment studs on all affected galleys and reidentification of affected galleys
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0089 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0089 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0089 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0089 does not mean that operators need to comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0089. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0089 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by May 1, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of fractured lower attachment studs on certain galleys installed forward of door 4. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fractured lower attachment studs on galleys installed forward of door 4. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to galley module detachment, with consequent injury to airplane occupants, and could possibly result in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane in case of an emergency.
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, EASA AD 2025-0089.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0089 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of EASA AD 2025-0089 specify “in accordance with approved instructions issued by Airbus DOA”, this AD requires replacing that text with “in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature”.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0089.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Andrew Younglove, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3644; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0089, dated April 24, 2025; corrected June 2, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reconsideration of final rule.
On April 5, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review (2024 Final Rule). The 2024 Final Rule revised the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP based on a residual risk and technology review (RTR) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections. On March 12, 2025, the EPA announced that it was reconsidering the 2024 Final Rule. Based on its reconsideration of the RTR in the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA is proposing to amend the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP. The amendments would rescind the risk based standards, revise the standard for new aeration room vents that resulted from the technology review, revise the compliance demonstration requirements, and rescind a requirement related to permanent total enclosure (PTE). This proposal also includes technical corrections and clarifications to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP and Performance Specification 19 to address erroneous cross-references, omissions of text, and typographical errors in the regulatory text that the EPA has identified after publication of the 2024 Final Rule.
Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2026. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before April 16, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this proposed action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Brian Langloss, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0675; and email address:
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available at
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as written comments electronically to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
If you require the services of a translator or special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by March 24, 2026. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
The
Throughout this proposal, the EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an identifier (
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
In this reconsideration action, the EPA is proposing, after consultation with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to rescind or revise certain amendments made to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP in the 2024 Final Rule to adhere to the best reading of the statute. The Agency first promulgated standards for this source category in 1994. Under CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA was required to review the standards within eight years to identify and address residual risk to human health and the environment. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is also required to review and revise the standards “as necessary” at least every eight years to address developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. In 2006, the Agency discharged these obligations by completing the RTR for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities source category, finding that the existing standards adequately protected public health with an ample margin of safety and, separately, concluding that no further revisions were “necessary” at that time given the minimal emission reductions and high costs associated with available control strategies.
In 2024, however, the EPA for the first time implemented an interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) that authorizes the Agency to conduct additional discretionary residual risk reviews (after completing the mandatory residual risk review within eight years of promulgating MACT standards) and impose risk-based standards pursuant to a second risk review. We reasoned in the 2024 Final Rule and related actions that the Agency possesses this authority because nothing in the statute expressly precludes discretionary residual risk reviews. Upon reconsideration, the EPA proposes that the interpretation as finalized in the 2024 Final Rule is inconsistent with the best reading of the statute. We “possess only the authority that Congress has provided,”
The EPA is also proposing relatively minor adjustments to the revised standards finalized in the 2024 Final Rule under CAA section 112(d)(6). We propose to reduce the emission standard for new ARVs at facilities with EtO use of at least 10 tpy, which would result in a single standard for both new and existing ARVs. This has the benefit of allowing facilities to share infrastructure, streamline facility operations, and reflect common practices at facilities. Finally, we are proposing several technical corrections and clarifications to the regulatory text identified after publication of the 2024 Final Rule, including erroneous cross-references, omissions, and typographical errors.
Table 1 of this preamble lists industrial categories potentially affected by this action. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will directly apply to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the EPA website. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart O proposed in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of this document to
The statutory authority for this action is provided by CAA section 112, as amended.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard-setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. The requirements for major sources are the relevant requirements for the present rulemaking. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
The proposed amendments in this action result from the EPA's reconsideration of certain aspects of the 2024 Final Rule, including the interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2)
Agencies have authority to reconsider prior policy and to revise, replace, or repeal prior actions to the extent permitted by the governing statute and supported by a reasoned explanation.
In doing so, the EPA acknowledges that this proposed action would, if finalized, change the position taken in the 2024 Final Rule with respect to CAA section 112(f)(2) and, at a more granular level, change several of the Agency's conclusions with respect to standards adopted in the 2024 Final Rule under CAA section 112(d)(6). The rationale for each of these changes is described in the relevant section of this document. We do not believe that the standards or supporting interpretations adopted in the 2024 Final Rule have generated significant and cognizable reliance interests, including because the standards have not yet gone fully into effect. With respect to questions of statutory interpretation, we do not believe any such reliance interests could support retaining an action that is inconsistent with the best reading of the statute. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether the 2024 Final Rule and underlying interpretations have generated such reliance interests and, if so, how the EPA should consider them in any final action (Question 1).
On March 12, 2025, the EPA announced that it is reconsidering the 2024 Final Rule.
In this action, based on the EPA's reconsideration of the 2024 Final Rule, we are proposing amendments to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to rescind the standards that were established under CAA section 112(f)(2), to amend the standard promulgated under section 112(d)(6) for new aeration room vents (ARVs) where EtO use is at least 10 tons per year (tpy), to amend the compliance demonstration requirements to allow facilities to choose between annual performance testing and parametric monitoring or operation of a CEMS, and to rescind the requirement that PTE be used to ensure complete capture of EtO. This proposal also includes technical corrections and clarifications to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP and Performance Specification 19 (PS 19). Any other issues or any other provisions of the 2024 Final Rule not specifically addressed in this proposed rulemaking are not within the scope of this proposal, and the EPA reserves the right to respond to such comments as out of scope.
The Commercial Sterilization Facilities source category consists of major and area sources that use EtO to sterilize or fumigate materials, including medical equipment and supplies, certain spices, and other miscellaneous products and items. Generally speaking, these facilities use chambers or sealed pouches to disinfect materials through exposure to EtO gas at predetermined concentrations (including materials not amenable to other sterilization techniques, such as high temperatures), which is then evacuated from the chamber or pouch prior to retrieving the sterilized materials.
The EPA promulgated the initial Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP on December 6, 1994.
In 2006, the EPA finalized the RTR for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP under CAA section 112(f)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(6), respectively.
In 2022, several environmental groups filed a mandatory duty suit against the EPA under CAA section 304(a)(2).
In April 2023, the EPA proposed “decisions concerning” the completed RTR, including certain amendments resulting from a second residual risk review for EtO and additional amendments resulting from a technology review.
The 2024 Final Rule amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart O pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), 112(d)(5), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2).
Table 2 shows a summary of the 2024 emission standards for commercial sterilizers facilities in 40 CFR part 63, subpart O. Footnote 1 of Table 2 shows the standards subject to reconsideration.
For more information on the commercial sterilization industry and the 2024 standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart O see the 2024 Final Rule preamble.
The EPA used data collected during the rulemaking for the 2024 Final Rule for this reconsideration. The EPA began with the facility list used during the 2024 Final Rule. For details on the data collected for the 2024 Final Rule, see section II.C of the 2023 proposal preamble.
In addition to the information obtained during the investigation for the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA held meetings with industry and trade association representatives to discuss the 2024 Final Rule and the implementation issues, unintended impacts, and challenges that have resulted from the rule. Summaries of these meetings can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178).
On June 5, 2024, the Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Association (EOSA) and various environmental and community groups, including California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Power Lake County, Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Rio Grande International Study Center, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, brought separate judicial challenges to the 2024 Final Rule. The cases were consolidated and are currently being held in abeyance pending the EPA's reconsideration of the rule.
On July 17, 2025, President Trump signed the Proclamation, “Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Security With Respect to Sterile Medical Equipment”
The EPA is proposing amendments to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to rescind standards promulgated under CAA section 112(f)(2), to revise the standard promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(6) for new ARVs at facilities using at least 10 tpy of EtO, to amend the compliance demonstration requirements to allow facilities to choose between parametric monitoring or CEMS, and to rescind the requirement that PTE be used to ensure complete capture of EtO. The EPA is also proposing technical corrections and clarifications to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP and PS 19. The subsequent sections of this preamble describe these changes in detail as well as provide the EPA's reasoning for the proposed changes. Table 3 summarizes the proposed changes to emission limits that would result from this reconsideration. Specifically, the table shows the proposed rescission of CAA section 112(f)(2) standards and the resulting changes in applicable standards affected by this rescission. It also shows the proposed revised standard for new ARVs at facilities using at least 10 tpy of EtO (
The EPA is proposing to rescind the risk-based standards promulgated in 2024 pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) for the reasons explained below.
In 2006, the EPA finalized the RTR for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities source category pursuant to CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), consisting of both the eight-year residual risk review under section 112(f)(2) and the first technology review of the NESHAP for this source category pursuant to section 112(d)(6).
In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA for the first time implemented an interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) that allowed the Agency to conduct another residual risk review for this source category and promulgate additional risk-based standards. In doing so, we acknowledged that “CAA section 112(f)(2) requires only a one-time risk review, which is to be conducted within eight years of the date the initial standards are promulgated.”
First, in 2024, the EPA concluded that the CAA authorizes additional, discretionary risk reviews because the statute “does not
Second, the EPA's prior interpretation did not fully consider the overall statutory framework of CAA section 112. “It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”
Third, the EPA did not appropriately grapple with relevant regulatory history. The 2024 Final Rule, together with a handful of actions issued several months later, marked the first time that the Agency had completed a second, “discretionary” residual risk review and imposed corresponding standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). The novelty of this approach presents an additional reason to proceed with caution. In prior actions, including the Benzene NESHAP incorporated by reference into the statute in CAA section 112(f)(2)(B), the EPA had acknowledged that residual risk reviews entail significant uncertainty accounted for, in part, by providing an ample margin of safety, and had not taken the position that follow-on risk reviews under CAA section 112(f)(2) were the appropriate mechanism to address new information. Rather, the EPA has reviewed and revised “as necessary” under CAA section 112(d)(6), including by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of potential developments by reference to the nature of the risk posed by the particular HAP at issue (
Lastly, the EPA cited CAA section 307(d)(1)(C) as supporting the EPA's authority to conduct a discretionary risk review. The EPA concluded that this provision “assumes the EPA might review standards set under 112(f)(2) and imposes CAA section 307(d) rulemaking processes on such revisions, when conducted.”
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that the CAA does not authorize the discretionary second risk review that the Agency conducted for this source category in 2024. The EPA is therefore proposing to rescind the risk
After the proposed removal of these risk-based standards, affected sources would be required to comply with their section 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(d)(5) standards; if such standards have been revised pursuant to section 112(d)(6), affected sources would comply with their section 112(d)(6) standards. Additionally, the EPA proposes that for existing source Group 2 room air emissions, facilities may choose to comply with either the existing source standard (lower EtO concentration to 1 ppm before opening the aeration chamber) or the new source standard (80 percent reduction of EtO). The EPA is proposing this change to address concerns that the existing source standard may impact the supply chain of medical equipment. Table 3 above identifies the applicable standards for these affected sources with the removal of the section 112(f)(2) standards.
The proposed amendments would remove the EtO-usage based subcategories that resulted from the section 112(f)(2) standards, and facilities that would have been subject to those standards would instead be subject to the appropriate subcategories as promulgated by the 2024 Final Rule under section 112(d)(2), (3), (5), or (6). For instance, for both new and existing SCVs, EtO use categories for facilities where EtO use is at least 30 tpy, and for facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy but less than 30 tpy under CAA section 112(f)(2), would also be removed in conjunction with the proposed rescission of section 112(f)(2) standards. As a result, these facilities will all be in the subcategory of facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy. Similarly, for new and existing ARVs, with the removal of subcategories established under section 112(f)(2) for facilities where EtO use is at least 30 tpy and facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy but less than 30 tpy, these facilities would all comprise a single subcategory of facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy.
Additionally, area sources of CEVs, Group 1 room air emissions, existing Group 2 room air emissions, and new Group 2 room air emissions would each have a single standard rather than different risk-based standards due to subcategorization based on a facility's EtO use under section 112(f)(2). The EPA is proposing amendments to the applicable standards in tables 1 to 5 to subpart O of part 63 to address these changes. The EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed removal of the CAA section 112(f)(2) emission standards and all related questions of statutory interpretation, including any additional regulatory history or case law bearing on the best reading of CAA section 112 and the Agency's rationale for changing the position taken in the 2024 Final Rule and related actions (Question 2).
Separate from the EPA's position on the Agency's authority to conduct a second CAA section 112(f)(2) risk review described above, we are proposing that significant uncertainties regarding the magnitude of EtO's carcinogenic potency, particularly at low concentrations, would be an additional reason for rescinding the EtO standards in the 2024 Rule and seeking detailed comment on this issue from interested stakeholders. Specifically, we propose that it would not be appropriate to rely on the 2016 EtO IRIS value in setting standards. If this position is finalized, the EPA would evaluate as necessary and appropriate in future regulatory actions other EtO risk values, ranges, or additional means to assess risk when relevant to the statutory scheme.
Because such comment submissions will be essential to informing whether this proposed rationale is an appropriate basis for taking final action, we request that interested stakeholders provide relevant data, studies, and analyses to support any claims made about the adequacy or inadequacy of the 2016 EtO IRIS value and any alternative values the commenter believes would be more appropriate and consistent with the statutory framework. If commenters believe a range or multiple potential values would be appropriate or wish to opine on the breadth of the Agency's discretion to select among values, we ask that the commenter support such assertions with appropriate citations. Although the EPA will respond to all significant comments received, we view such information as critical to ensuring that the record reflects all perspectives and relevant information given the highly technical nature of issue and the breadth of potentially relevant scientific and other literature.
The EPA previously acknowledged that uncertainties regarding the magnitude of EtO's carcinogenic potency could materially affect risk estimates, thereby substantially informing the risk evaluation as a whole and any resulting standards. As discussed in a 2019 technical memorandum,
The EPA recognizes that the Agency defended its use of the 2016 EtO IRIS value in
While the EPA defended its use of the 2016 EtO IRIS value in the 2020 MON rule and subsequent reconsideration action, the Agency acknowledged at the time it issued the rule that significant uncertainties remained regarding the magnitude of EtO's carcinogenic potency, as discussed above. It is known that EtO can be produced within the body (endogenously) via normal metabolic processes and that tobacco smoke is a source of EtO exposure. However, the EPA recognized that uncertainties remained regarding the quantity and relative contribution of endogenous, tobacco smoke, and background EtO levels from non-industrial sources. Furthermore, the EPA recognizes that new empirical data may trigger a need to reevaluate toxicity values. For example, prior to 2016, the EPA used a toxicity value derived in 1985 to estimate the cancer risk from EtO and, in rulemakings including the 2006 RTR for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP, used assessments that were informed by and built upon that value (including an analysis issued by the California EPA). Such values reflected the best evidence available at that time, but newer epidemiological studies later prompted both the EPA and TCEQ to produce updated assessments.
Specifically, the EPA is soliciting comment on any new information related to the underlying cancer data, such as epidemiological studies of cancer in humans exposed to EtO or advancements relevant to analyzing the relationship between occupational human exposure to EtO and the development of cancer not yet considered by the Agency (Question 3). Given the acknowledged impact of model selection, the EPA is also soliciting comment on any new or updated information relevant to dose-response model selection such as consideration of statistical analyses, visual model fit, or biological plausibility (Question 4). Further, the EPA is soliciting comment on any new or updated studies on human exposure to EtO, including information on occupational, smoking, background, or endogenous exposures not yet considered by the Agency (Question 5). The EPA anticipates that such information would be useful for updating the Agency's understanding of EtO exposure and toxicity and determining whether the 2016 EtO IRIS value remains suitable for estimating risk to inform regulatory decision-making. Finally, acknowledging that the EPA has received additional comments on the 2016 EtO IRIS value in the context of other rulemaking proposals issued after the 2024 Commercial Sterilizers final rule, the EPA is soliciting comment on the information provided in those comments; this includes information provided by commenters in the context of the more recent proposed Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources NESHAP (January 22, 2025) (see Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0303, comment numbers 0060, 0061, 0068, 0076, and 0079) (Question 6). As noted previously, we ask that commenters support claims with respect to the 2016 EtO IRIS value, any alternative value, or any alternative range or approach to determining risk with relevant data, studies, analyses, and other citations that the commenter believes should be considered in tandem with, or instead of, the previously recognized uncertainties in the IRIS methodology.
The 2024 Final Rule also included a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities source category that resulted in revisions to certain standards. Among these revisions were emission standards for both new and existing ARVs at facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy. The standard for new ARVs at facilities using at least 10 tpy of EtO was 99.9 percent reduction, and the standard for existing ARVs at facilities using at least 10 tpy of EtO was 99.6 percent reduction. The EPA established the new source standard based on the conclusion that it achieved greater reduction and was more cost-effective than the two options considered (the other option being 99.6 percent reduction). The EPA set the existing source standard at a level that the Agency determined to be achievable by all sources.
The EPA continues to believe that the standard for existing ARVs at facilities using at least 10 tpy of EtO is reasonable. The data provided by industry when developing the 2024 Final Rule demonstrates that 75 percent of facilities already achieve 99.6 percent reduction, and 50 percent already achieve 99.9 percent reduction of EtO from ARVs, demonstrating for purposes
During the development of the 2024 Final Rule, for new ARVs at facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy, the EPA evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two options: 99.6 percent EtO reduction and 99.9 percent reduction.
For the reasons explained above, the EPA is proposing to change from 99.9 to 99.6 percent reduction for new ARVs at facilities with EtO use of at least 10 tpy, resulting in a single uniform standard for both new and existing ARVs at these facilities. This standard reflects the level already achieved by 75 percent of ARVs for which the EPA has data. The EPA is soliciting comment on this proposed emission standard, the approach by which the EPA arrived at this decision, and data regarding the costs of installing ARVs at existing facilities versus new facilities (Question 7).
Additionally, some industry representatives have suggested that the ARV standards be based on manufacturer guaranteed levels for emission reductions. This issue was also raised during the rulemaking that led up to the 2024 Final Rule.
The 2024 Final Rule requires compliance demonstration using EtO CEMS for all facilities except those using less than 100 lb/year “because risk remains at acceptable levels for these facilities even when considering uncontrolled emissions.”
Under the 2024 Final Rule, whether EtO CEMS is required is based on facility risks, which were derived from a second residual risk assessment the EPA conducted for this source category under CAA section 112(f)(2). However, for the reasons explained in section III.A of this preamble, the EPA is proposing that CAA section 112(f)(2) does not authorize the EPA to conduct a second residual risk review and promulgate associated risk-based standards when the RTR has already been completed and the ongoing review-and-revise obligation and authority arises only under CAA section 112(d)(6). Because the EtO CEMS requirement was based on the results of an unauthorized second residual risk assessment and risk-based standards-setting for this source category, the EPA is proposing to amend the 2024 Final Rule to remove EtO CEMS as a requirement for facilities using at least 100 lb/yr of EtO and instead allow all facilities, regardless of the amount of EtO used, the option to choose between parametric monitoring or CEMS for demonstrating compliance. As proposed, both demonstration options would be available for all facilities. The EPA thus proposes revisions to 40 CFR 63.363(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f)(2) and to 63.365(a), (b), (c), and (d) to allow initial and continuous compliance with annual performance testing and parameter monitoring, and to allow EtO CEMS as an alternative compliance option. The EPA is soliciting comment on allowing all facilities the option to choose between parametric monitoring or CEMS for demonstrating compliance (Question 9).
In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to the parametric monitoring provisions in the 2024 Final Rule. In reconsidering the compliance demonstration requirements in the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA noticed that the parametric monitoring provisions, which were promulgated in the original Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP in 1994, with technical corrections in the 2001 amendments, do not reflect the current understanding of air pollution control devices (APCDs) or the sterilization process(es). The EPA is
For those facilities that use acid-water scrubbers, thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, gas-solid reactors, or other control devices, the EPA is proposing they demonstrate compliance with the emission reduction standard through initial and annual performance testing and establish parametric operating limits. The EPA is also proposing to allow continuous compliance through parametric monitoring using a continuous parametric monitoring system. The EPA is proposing that facilities must determine compliance with the operating limits continuously on a 1-hour block basis instead of the current 3-hour block. Sterilization is an irregular process where the EtO emissions may fluctuate greatly with different steps in the process, some of which are less than three hours. Longer averaging times could mask how the emission controls operate and achieve the required control efficiency during operational periods immediately before or after higher EtO loading to the control devices (
For facilities that use an acid-water scrubber, the current monitoring parameters are ethylene glycol concentration, scrubber liquid tank level, and scrubber liquid pH. Based on EPA's current understanding of acid-water scrubbers, the EPA believes that scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio and scrubber liquid temperature are more accurate indicators of compliance than ethylene glycol concentration and scrubber liquor tank level. The EPA believes this because they are direct indicators that EtO will be captured in the scrubbing columns and the parameters can be monitored in real-time to ensure continuous operation. The EPA is therefore proposing to require continuous monitoring of scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio, scrubber liquid temperature, and scrubber liquid pH. The Agency is proposing that during each annual performance test, the owner or operator determines the average scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio, average inlet scrubber temperature, and average scrubber liquid pH. The EPA is proposing these parameter test averages would be the operating limit for the minimum scrubber liquid-to-gas ratio, maximum temperature of the scrubber liquid, and the maximum scrubber liquid pH.
For facilities that use thermal oxidizers, the current monitoring parameter in the rule is the temperature in or immediately downstream of the firebox. The EPA is proposing to require continuous monitoring of the combustion chamber temperature and flue gas flow rate. First, the Agency is proposing to replace the term “firebox” with “combustion chamber” as the latter is a more commonly used term in the industry. Second, the EPA is proposing monitoring the combustion chamber temperature (instead of allowing the option of monitoring immediately downstream) at a location designated by pollution control manufacturers to ensure proper control and operation. Third, the Agency is also proposing to monitor flue gas flow rate. The flue gas flow rate provides an indication of the thermal oxidizer residence time, which is a critical operating parameter because it will ensure proper flow rate through the thermal oxidizer is being maintained to ensure the continued removal efficiency of any EtO in the sample stream sent to the oxidizer. The EPA is proposing that during each annual performance test facilities determine the average combustion chamber temperature and average flue gas flow rate. The EPA is proposing these parameter test averages would be the operating limit for the minimum combustion temperature and maximum flue gas flow rate.
For facilities that use a catalytic oxidizer, the current parameters are the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, which requires monitoring the inlet temperature to the catalyst bed and the outlet temperature to the catalyst bed. The EPA is proposing to also require continuous monitoring of flue gas flow rate. The flue gas flow rate parameter would provide an indication of the catalytic oxidizer residence time, which is a critical operating parameter because it will ensure that proper flow rate through the catalytic oxidizer is being maintained to ensure the continued removal efficiency of any EtO in the sample stream sent to the oxidizer. Thus, the Agency is proposing to require continuous monitoring of the inlet and outlet temperatures and flue gas flow rate. The EPA is proposing that during each annual performance test, facilities determine the average inlet temperature to the catalyst bed, the average temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet of the catalyst bed, and average flue gas flow rate. The EPA is proposing these parameter test averages would be the operating limit for the minimum temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed, the minimum temperature difference across the catalyst bed, and the maximum flue gas flow rate.
For facilities that use a gas-solid reactor, the current parameters include bed media analysis (
To maximize flexibility in conducting parametric monitoring, the 2024 Final Rule allows facilities to apply to the EPA Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring requirements for the typical APCDs. The EPA is proposing to provide the requirements to be included in the application for alternative monitoring parameters in 40 CFR 63.365(e)(6).
For those facilities using performance testing and a control device other than acid-water scrubbers, catalytic or thermal oxidizers, or gas-solid reactors, the 2024 Final Rule requires that facilities must establish operating limits and appropriate monitoring parameters that are approved by the EPA Administrator for that specific control device. In this action, the EPA is proposing that facilities must develop a
The EPA is proposing to update the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.366 and 63.367 to reflect the revised parametric monitoring discussed above. As required by the 2024 Final Rule, if there are deviations from the established operating parameter limits, facilities must report the deviation in the quarterly compliance report. Facilities must take corrective actions to minimize emissions and return the unit to normal operations. If the established operating parameters cannot be met after the corrective action, the facility must reset the operating parameters with a performance test.
The EPA is soliciting comment on these proposed changes to the performance testing, parametric monitoring, and reporting requirements (Question 10).
The EPA is proposing to rescind the requirement to use PTE to ensure capture of EtO to comply with the emission reduction standards. In the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA finalized requirements to operate PTE in accordance with the requirements of Method 204 as a compliance assurance measure. In the proposal to the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA noted that these requirements were “consistent with what has been applied to many of the commercial sterilizers that have installed PTEs, through permit conditions.”
The EPA is proposing in the alternative to rescind the requirement for PTE on the following bases. First, we propose that the EPA did not account for the impacts of facilities shutting down due to this variation. If the facility is unable to establish a PTE and meet the other requirements, then the facility would be required to shut down thus significantly raising the costs and making it not cost-effective to establish PTE. The feasibility of PTE has been raised by stakeholders over time with respect to this NESHAP, and we seek comment on this potential alternative basis (Question 11).
Second, the EPA is proposing in the alternative that the PTE requirement is not compelled by the D.C. Circuit's decision in
In light of the above, we propose to rescind the requirement to use PTE as a compliance assurance measure. The proposed change would not affect the permitting process for any state, which could continue to decide on a case-by-case basis, deferring to States to make the determination as States are in better positioned to determine whether PTE is required for any given sterilization facility. We solicit comment on this approach (Question 13).
After the publication of the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA discovered, through internal reassessment of the regulatory text and through communications with stakeholders, erroneous cross-references and typographical errors within the regulatory text. Through those same processes, the EPA also identified erroneous language in the regulatory text (or in some cases, erroneous omissions) requiring minor wording changes to conform with the 2024 Final Rule preamble and other parts of the regulatory text. The technical corrections and amendments identified here in subsection III.E.1 of this preamble are separate from the proposed substantive changes that resulted from reconsideration; the proposed technical changes and amendments address unintended errors in the 2024 Final Rule. The EPA is proposing these corrections and clarifications to the regulatory text so that the regulated community can rely on regulatory text that is accurate and complete and avoid confusion about how to comply with the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP. This action addresses the technical errors in the 2024 Final Rule identified to date by stakeholders and the EPA.
Following promulgation of the 2024 Final Rule, both the EPA and stakeholders identified inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP, including cross-reference and typographical errors. Table 4 includes the section and paragraph of each identified error, the corrections being proposed in this action, and the reasoning for the corrections. The EPA is not soliciting comment on these corrections.
This action proposes technical corrections to clarify language in the regulatory text of the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP that was erroneously included (or in some cases, erroneously omitted) in the 2024 Final Rule. Table 5 includes the sections and paragraphs of the identified errors, the corrections being proposed, and the reasoning for the corrections.
A redline strike-out version of the proposed corrected regulatory language for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
In addition to the technical corrections discussed above, the EPA is proposing additional amendments to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP that are more substantive in nature.
Currently, 40 CFR 63.361 defines an “
The EPA is proposing to modify the definition of operating day so that it applies to when an affected source is engaged in a sterilization operation, as opposed to the entire facility, and the EPA solicits comment on this proposed modification to the definition (Question 14).
The EPA reviewed the use of the terms “container,” “EtO non-cartridge storage media,” and “pouch” within five definitions in 40 CFR 63.361 and is proposing to modify two of the definitions for consistency.
The definition of “Sterilization operation” uses the term “container” to refer to EtO storage vessels. However, in other definitions, the different term “non-cartridge storage media (
The definition for “Single-item sterilization” uses the term “pouch” to refer to the containers used to hold the single items to be sterilized; however, other definitions use the different term “container (
In the 2024 Final Rule, Group 1 room air emissions, which include indoor EtO storage, are subject to either 112(f)(2) or section 112(d) standards, both of which require operation in accordance with PTE requirements to assure compliance.
40 CFR 63.363(e)(1) states that facilities may time-share their EtO CEMS provided that, among other things, the measurement points are equidistant. Some facilities have provided input that this requirement is impractical for systems with many measurement points (particularly inlet measurement systems). Similarly, facilities have noted that it may be impractical to retrofit these systems to comply with the equidistance requirement at 40 CFR 63.363(e)(1)(A). This requirement ensured similar response times between sources sharing
The 2024 Final Rule requires the use of a flow rate monitor to demonstrate compliance with the use of EtO CEMS. Flow rate monitoring is an essential component of EtO CEMS. However, in the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA incorporated two different sets of requirements for flow rate monitors as an oversight. At 40 CFR 63.364(g)(3), the EPA provided the requirements for flow rate monitors that are used to verify the performance of PTEs; these requirements are the correct requirements. Appendix A to subpart O provides a different and incorrect set of flow rate monitoring requirements. The requirements included in Appendix A to subpart O were modelled after and referenced those found in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU, which includes requirements relating to the monitoring of hydrochloric acid. Sterilization facilities do not use hydrochloric acid and as such, these requirements are not applicable to the subpart O NESHAP. Because the EPA is proposing to rescind the PTE requirements, we propose to update 40 CFR 63.364(g) to remove references to PTE while retaining the appropriate flow rate monitoring requirements, which would be needed should a facility choose to utilize CEMS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing revisions to Appendix A to replace any reference to the incorrect flow rate requirements with references to the updated 40 CFR 63.364(g)(2) to ensure that the flow rate monitoring requirements in Appendix A to subpart O are appropriate for sterilization facilities. The EPA is also proposing to remove additional unnecessary references found in Appendix A as a result of this oversight.
In conjunction with this proposed change, there are several sections of the regulatory text within Appendix A to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP that would change because they would become irrelevant. Table 6 includes the sections of each correction, the correction that would need to be made should the change discussed above be finalized, and the reasoning for the correction
The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to remove all references to 40 CFR part 75 for flow rate monitors within Appendix A to the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP, with references to 40 CFR 63.364(g)(2), as well as the corrections described in table 6 that would result from this change (Question 18).
In addition to the proposed amendments described above, the EPA is also proposing, and solicits comment on, the following correction to add text regarding the timing requirements for RATA testing consistent with other performance specifications that was inadvertently omitted from the 2024 Final Rule:
• In section 2.2.4.3 of Appendix A to subpart O, add “RATA test runs must be at least 21 minutes in length” at the end (Question 19).
A redline strike-out version of the proposed regulatory language for the Commercial Sterilization Facilities NESHAP is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
The 2024 Final Rule introduced a new performance specification for EtO CEMS (PS 19) and an associated quality assurance procedure that are applicable not just to Commercial Sterilization Facilities but for any facility that chooses to continuously monitor its EtO
The EPA has identified inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of PS 19, including cross-reference and typographical errors. Table 7 includes the sections of each identified error, the corrections being made by this action, and the reasoning for the corrections.
This action proposes technical corrections to clarify language in the regulatory text that was erroneously included (or in some cases, erroneously omitted). First, in section 3.1, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of “Calibration drift” to delete everything from “Calibration Span” to the end of section 3.1. Then, the Agency is proposing to add section 3.2 to define “Calibration Span”, which includes all the text that was deleted from section 3.1. Second, in section 3.18, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of “Standard addition” by adding “to the actual measurement path or” between “dynamically)” and “measured” to clarify that the term applies to both the measurement path and the measured sample gas stream. Also, through this correction, the definition of “Standard addition” will be consistent with how that term is defined in PS 18, which was the model for PS 19. A redline strike-out version of the proposed corrected regulatory language for PS 19 is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
Following signature of the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA identified inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of PS 19 Appendix A, including cross-reference and table designation errors. In section 8.1.4, the Agency is proposing to replace “section 8.2 or 8.3” with “section 8.2” to correct an inadvertent cross-reference error. In section 13.0, the Agency is proposing to redesignate “Table A13—1” to “Table A1”. A redline strike-out version of the proposed corrected regulatory language for PS 19 Appendix A is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
Following signature of the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA identified inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of PS 19 Appendix B, including cross-reference and typographical errors. Table 8 includes the sections of each identified error, the proposed corrections being made by this action, and the reasoning for the proposed corrections.
A redline strike-out version of the proposed corrected regulatory language for PS 19 Appendix B is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
Following signature of the 2024 Final Rule, the EPA identified inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of Procedure 7 of 40 CFR 60 Appendix F, including cross-reference, section designation, and typographical errors. Table 9 includes the section of each identified error, the corrections being proposed in this action, and the reasoning for the corrections.
This action also proposes technical corrections to clarify language in the regulatory text that was erroneously included. First, in section 5.1.3.2, the EPA is proposing to delete “5.2.3.3 Calculate results as described in section 6.3.” and add a new section 5.1.3.3 which will read “Calculate results as described in section 6.3”. This language was clearly meant to be its own section, but due to an inadvertent typographical error, it was made part of section 5.1.3.2. Second, in section 7.1.1, the EPA is proposing to delete ” 7.1.2 If the accuracy audit results show the CEMS to be out-of-control, you must report both the audit results showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the results of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to be operating within specifications.”, as this language is already present in section 7.1.2.
A redline strike-out version of the proposed corrected regulatory language for Procedure 7 is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.
The 2024 Final Rule includes standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), (d)(5), and (d)(6), and existing sources must comply within three years, the maximum time allowed under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A).
As discussed in section III.A of this document, the EPA is proposing to remove the CAA section 112(f)(2) standards. As a result, existing sources that currently are subject to both section 112(d) standards and section 112(f)(2) standards promulgated in the 2024 Final Rule would only be subject to the applicable section 112(d) standards. As mentioned above, the compliance deadline for section 112(d) standards for existing sources is April 5, 2027.
In addition to proposing removal of the CAA section 112(f)(2) standards, the EPA is proposing to amend the section 112(d)(6) standard for new ARVs at facilities where EtO usage is at least 10 tpy. For the reasons explained in section III.B, the EPA is proposing to change this standard from 99.9 percent reduction to 99.6 percent reduction. Because new ARVs (as defined in the 2024 Final Rule) that already started up are currently operating under the more stringent 99.9 percent reduction standard in the 2024 Final Rule, they are already meeting the less stringent proposed standard of 99.6 percent reduction. The EPA does not foresee problems with new ARVs (as defined by the 2024 Final Rule) at facilities where EtO usage is at least 10 tpy complying with the proposed revised standard by the current deadlines in the 2024 Final Rule (
The EPA considered whether the proposed changes to the methods for demonstrating compliance could impact facilities' ability to demonstrate compliance with existing source standards under the current deadline. This reconsideration proposes to remove the requirement that CEMS be used for demonstrating compliance; thus, industry will not need time to comply with this requirement. However, this change represents a return to the compliance demonstration practice currently used by industry. While the EPA is proposing to amend the specific requirements and details of the parametric monitoring and performance testing approach, these changes do not represent a substantial change in methods and should not present a substantial burden to industry. As such, the EPA does not anticipate these changes to need more time than provided by the compliance deadline already in place.
For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to retain the compliance dates for existing and new sources in 40 CFR 63.360 and in tables 1 to 5 to subpart O of part 63. The EPA is soliciting comment on compliance deadlines (Question 20).
This proposed rule contains several discrete components, which the EPA views as severable as a practical matter—
There are 89 facilities in the Commercial Sterilization Facilities source category that are currently operating. A complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the NESHAP is available in the document “2024 Facility List,” which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
For the standards that the EPA is proposing, there is an estimated EtO emissions increase of 7.8 tpy for the total source category because of the removal of CAA section 112(f)(2) standards and revision of the section 112(d)(6) standards for new ARVs at facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy. See the memorandum titled
The nationwide costs of the proposed amendments are presented in table 10 of this preamble. As described in this preamble, the EPA is removing the CAA section 112(f)(2) standards and revising the section 112(d)(6) standards for new ARVs at facilities where EtO use is at least 10 tpy. As a result, industry will see overall cost savings in comparison to the 2024 Final Rule. The total savings for capital investment for the proposal is estimated to be about $280 million in 2024 dollars. The Agency estimates the total annual compliance cost savings of the proposal, compared to the estimated costs associated with the 2024 Final Rule, to be approximately $50 million.
The present value (PV) of the estimated compliance cost savings from 2026 to 2045 for the proposed reconsideration is $630 million in 2024 dollars, discounted at a 3 percent rate. The equivalent annualized value (EAV) of the estimated cost savings is $43 million, using a 3 percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the PV and EAV of the cost savings are estimated to be $510 million and $48 million, respectively. This proposed reconsideration is estimated to result in net compliance cost savings for the impacted source category.
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as detailed in the memorandum titled
There are 89 facilities, owned by 49 ultimate parent companies, affected by the proposed amendments. Of these 89 facilities, 23 facilities (26 percent), are owned by a total 19 ultimate parent companies that are small entities. The Agency calculated the CSRs for all affected parent companies to assess the magnitude of the costs of the proposed amendments and determine whether there is potential for significant impacts on small entities. As shown in table 10, this proposed reconsideration does incur cost increases related to one-time costs for cycle revalidations and recordkeeping and reporting costs. However, these cost increases are less than the net cost savings for 16 of the affected 19 small entities. The 16 small entities estimated to experience net cost savings under this proposed reconsideration are expected to have lower CSRs relative to the 2024 Final Rule. Of the 3 small entities projected to incur additional requirement costs relative to 2024 Final Rule, one has an estimated CSR above 3 percent. The average annualized cost savings for small entities is about $0.68 million and about $0.35 million for the remaining entities. The average annual sales for the 19 small entities is $38 million, while the remaining 30 entities have average annual sales of $15 billion. Relative to the 2024 Final Rule, the average CSR for all firms decreased by 4.3 percent, down to approximately 3.8 percent. Similarly, the CSRs for large and small firms decreased by 0.26 percent (down to approximately 0.11 percent) and by 10.6 percent (down to approximately 10 percent), respectively. Large firms incur most of the total costs estimated for the proposed rule and they incur higher total annual costs per firm on average than small firms. However, when estimated costs are examined relative to revenues, large firms are less affected by the proposed rule than small firms.
EtO sterilization services are a critical input in the provision of safe medical devices. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), more than 20 billion medical devices used in the U.S. every year are sterilized with EtO, accounting for approximately 50 percent of medical devices that require sterilization. In the 2024 Final Rule regulatory impact analysis (RIA), the industry profile in section 2 discusses the role of EtO in providing a significant number of healthcare products to the
Being unable to adequately supply sterilized medical equipment to our medical personnel to safely treat patients in hospitals, operating rooms, and other medical facilities would undermine our national security. This rule, if finalized, would help ensure a secure medical supply chain as it would decrease the probability of commercial sterilizers shuttering and the United States having to rely on other countries to sterilize medical devices. While the EPA acknowledges significant national security benefits if this rule is finalized, the Agency is unable to monetize these national security benefits Consistent with longstanding practice, the EPA did not monetize the foregone benefits from the estimated emission changes in HAP associated with this proposed reconsideration. The EPA currently does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with HAP. This does not imply that there are no impacts associated with the EtO emission increases estimated for this proposed rule. Non-monetized health disbenefits are expected under this proposed reconsideration from estimated increases of 7.8 tons of EtO annually relative to the 2024 Final Rule. A qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with EtO exposure is provided in the memorandum titled
We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the analyses.
Throughout this proposal, the EPA is soliciting comment on numerous aspects of the proposed rule. The EPA has indexed each comment solicitation with an identifier (
This action is a significant regulatory action and therefore, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Any changes made in response to E.O 12866 review have been documented in the docket. The EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1666.12. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rulemaking, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing amendments that change the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for several emission sources at commercial sterilization facilities (
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at
The EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed action would lead to reduction in EAV of costs over the 2026 to 2046 timeframe of about $43 and $48 million per year at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The average annualized cost savings for small entities is about $0.68 million and about $0.35 million for the remaining entities. For a more detailed analysis, please see the document
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal government.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. None of the commercial sterilization facilities that have been identified as being affected by this action are owned or operated by Tribal governments or located within Tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health and safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. The environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children due to EtO being mutagenic (
The EPA did not conduct a new analysis of children's environmental health for this action. For details on children's health and the impact of the CAA section 112(d) standards, please see the Executive Order 13045 discussion and tables 17 and 18 in the 2024 Final Rule (89 FR 24090).
This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed because, while it removes the CAA 112(f)(2) standards to better comply with the text and structure of the applicable statutory language (see section III.A), it retains the first-time standards promulgated in the 2024 Final Rule under CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3) and (5) for emission sources that were unregulated prior to the 2024 Final Rule. These standards will continue to apply and protect children's health.
Furthermore, the EPA's
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The overall energy impact of this rule should be minimal for commercial sterilization facilities and their parent companies.
The NTTAA requires the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in addition to EPA methods in regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical documents, such as test methods, that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies using procedures that ensure that the standards development process is open to all interested parties. VCS bodies are generally private sector, not-for-profit entities such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
The EPA searched the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for VCS that could be used in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities. The EPA also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. While the EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS, the findings do not necessarily represent all potential alternative standards which may exist.
Searches were conducted for: EPA Methods 204 and 205 of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M; EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A; and, EPA Methods 301 and 320 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. The EPA found no VCS are acceptable alternatives for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 4, 204, 205, and 301. The EPA found no acceptable alternative VCS for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 4, 204, 205, and 301.
The proposed rule continues to include one VCS as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for the purposes of this rule. The manual methods in ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses” (2010 version) are acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 3B to analyze oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in the stack gas. The instrumental methods in the voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses” (2010 version) are not acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 3B.
The proposed rule continues to include one VCS as an alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of this rule. The VCS ASTM D6348-12 (2020), “Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy” is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12(2020), the following conditions must be met:
(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
(2) In ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (equation A5.5). For the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% ≤ R ≤ 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (
According to 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the general provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to modernize its telecommunications relay services (TRS) rules and seeks comment on the use of automatic speech recognition (ASR) for speech-to-text conversion and advanced text-to-speech technologies for Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service; the need for metrics for IP Relay quality; the compatibility of IP Relay with Real-Time Text (RTT) technology; adding captioning functionality to Video Relay Service (VRS) platforms; amending VRS calling rules for calls to U.S. embassies and consulates by U.S. residents while traveling abroad; adjusting VRS call center requirements; streamlining TRS provider certification and user registration processes; updating or eliminating obsolete rules; and closing outdated dockets. With these proposals, the Commission presents targeted reforms that align internet-based TRS with twenty-first century technological advancements in relay services that can better serve the needs of persons with disabilities while securing the viability and enhancing the effectiveness and functional equivalency of internet-based TRS.
Comments are due April 16, 2026. Reply comments are due May 18, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 03-123, by the following method:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
Joshua Mendelsohn, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-559-7304, or
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments. Comments may be filed using ECFS.
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
The
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), codified at section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), established the foundation for the nationwide TRS program. 47 U.S.C. 225. Section 225 of the Act directs the Commission to ensure that TRS are available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner to people with hearing and speech disabilities in the United States.
The Commission must ensure that its TRS rules encourage the use of existing technology and do not discourage the development of improved technology. With the emergence of ASR technology and text-to-speech functionalities in IP Relay, the Commission seeks to leverage this technological progress while understanding and addressing its systemic impact. The Commission invites comment regarding the deployment, performance, potential benefits, or challenges of ASR and automated text-to-speech technologies in the IP Relay context. How can further advancements in text-to-speech technologies enhance the functional equivalency and user experience of IP Relay services?
This distinction is critical because of the current differential between IP Relay and IP CTS compensation rates, which may create a risk of waste, fraud, and abuse when these services are delivered on the same platforms. For the current Fund Year, IP Relay providers are compensated at a per-minute rate of $2.1970. By contrast, CA-assisted IP CTS is compensated at $1.40 a minute (plus a potential supplement), while ASR-only IP CTS is compensated at $1.05 per minute. The substantial difference in compensation rates appears to create a financial incentive for providers offering both services to potentially misclassify minutes, or to design their platforms to drive users to IP Relay, to secure the higher rate.
Recently certified providers offering fully automatic IP Relay utilize ASR to convert the hearing party's speech to text (for the IP Relay user to read) and text-to-speech engines to convey the user's typed message to the hearing party. This fully automated functionality shares significant technical characteristics with ASR-only IP CTS, which consists solely of automated voice-to-text transcription. In granting certification for these services, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) cautioned that providers utilizing shared platforms must take care not to bill the TRS Fund at the higher IP Relay rate for minutes that involve only transcription of a caller's speech, without the necessary conversion of the user's communication from text to speech.
How should the Commission address the issues arising from the differences in compensation between fully automated IP Relay and ASR-based IP CTS? Should the Commission resolve the difference through changes to the compensation plan for IP Relay or consider technology-based solutions or solutions based on user registration or call reporting requirements? For example, should the Commission establish a rule stating that a call is compensable only at the ASR-only IP CTS rate unless verifiable records demonstrate that the user actively utilized the text-to-speech output necessary for the full IP Relay conversion process? Are there technical mechanisms (
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should take steps to ensure that CA-assisted IP Relay does not disappear entirely. Does the availability of a human CA provide essential assistance for specific customer segments? Conversely, have ASR and text-to-speech technologies advanced sufficiently to provide comparable service quality even in specialized or challenging contexts? The Commission seeks comment on whether a rule requiring a human-assistance option to be included in every IP Relay offering would help maintain IP Relay service quality, or if the current IP Relay environment, which allows consumers to choose between fully automated and CA-assisted forms of IP Relay (which may be offered by the same or different providers), sufficiently protects service quality.
Fully automated IP Relay service, which uses automated technology for both speech-to-text and text-to-speech conversions, eliminates the need to connect to a human CA intermediary at a call center and allows IP Relay users to make calls directly to the recipient using an app-based VoIP connection. Therefore, providers of fully automated service may no longer need to put an IP Relay user's telephone number in the TRS Numbering Directory. Further, in relying on existing number assignment processes for VoIP providers, these IP Relay providers would be subject to the Commission's porting and numbering rules applicable to VoIP providers and would no longer need to be identified as default providers, subject to TRS numbering and porting requirements.
The Commission seeks comment on the continuing need to require all IP Relay providers to add a designated NANP telephone number and associated Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for each IP Relay user. Are IP Relay providers utilizing ASR and automated text-to-speech able to achieve full connectivity between IP Relay users and voice communication users without utilizing the TRS Numbering Directory? Are such providers able to ensure IP Relay users can call emergency services, including 911 and 988? Is the Commission able to relieve IP Relay providers of the obligation to provision information in the Numbering Directory, or do some IP Relay providers still require a mechanism that maps telephone numbers to a user name, domain name, or IP address? Should the Commission allow the provision of IP Relay without assigning the user a designated internet-based TRS phone number, if a user has the ability to place and receive IP Relay calls using the number associated with their telephone service? Are there other impacts to call routing if some, but not all IP Relay numbers are in the TRS numbering directory? Will it change or affect how some IP Relay users reach emergency services? If a provider requires the use of the Directory, would it impede the provision of calls between IP Relay users if some or all IP Relay users' telephone numbers are not in the Directory? Do providers have another mechanism to identify IP Relay calls
The Commission seeks comment on the compatibility and interoperability of RTT and IP Relay in an IP calling environment. What standards do IP Relay providers use to carry text conversations across an IP network? Is the text transmission able to synchronize with voice or video transmission to allow for multimedia conversation? How does the connection to a CA in a call center affect the transmission of the text? How does the use of text-to-speech and ASR technologies affect the transmission of the text?
The Commission also seeks comment on specific rule changes that would facilitate improved compatibility between IP Relay and RTT, including any technical standards or interoperability requirements that should be adopted or modified. What specific modifications or standards are necessary for IP Relay access technology (
What are the estimated capital and operational costs required for IP Relay providers to implement RTT compatibility, including necessary changes to access technology, call handling infrastructure, and training for CAs or ASR and text-to-speech engines? Which costs are one-time start-up costs and which are recurring costs? Will integrating RTT into IP Relay create opportunities for long term cost savings?
If the Commission mandates RTT integration into IP Relay, what is an appropriate transition period for providers to implement this change? Should this period be a fixed time (
The Commission also seeks comment on whether to consider measures and metrics for the text-to-speech functionality in IP Relay, beyond the current qualitative standard requiring CAs to possess clear and articulate voice communication skills. What process should the Commission pursue to develop measures and metrics for text-to-speech? Should the Commission also consider developing measures for CA-assisted text-to-voice IP Relay? What quantitative measures could effectively assess text-to-speech accuracy, clarity, and naturalness? How should the concept of automated text-to-speech “clarity” be quantified—for example, by measuring synthetic voice recognition rates by external testing panels, or by adopting metrics derived from industry standards for audio quality, independent of the ASR transcription process? Should the Commission establish a quantitative standard for the latency or delay of the text-to-speech component? What would be the appropriate measures to consider for such conversational latency or delay in IP Relay?
If the Commission develops metrics and measures for the provision of IP Relay, how should the Commission perform service quality tests? Should the Commission require IP Relay providers offering a hybrid service (ASR and text-to speech alongside human CAs) to report automated performance metrics separate from CA-assisted performance metrics? What level of quality is acceptable and what statistical methods are appropriate for assessing provider performance? How, and how often, should the information be collected? To ensure the accuracy and impartiality of data, should the measurement of IP Relay ASR and text-to-speech quality rely predominantly on testing conducted by an independent entity chosen and overseen by the Commission, or should providers also be required to perform and submit self-testing results? Does the extent to which performance data are self-reported or collected through a third party affect how the Commission should analyze or
Should the Commission adopt specific consequences or remediation practices for IP Relay providers whose measured performance falls below the minimum qualitative standards for ASR accuracy or automated text-to-speech quality? For example, should providers that fail to meet these metrics be required to develop and submit for Commission approval a corrective compliance plan detailing steps and timelines for service improvement? If testing reveals performance disparities (
In addition to captioning the CA's voiced interpretation, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require VRS providers to build in captioning functionality for what the hearing caller is saying. Such options align with communications services currently available to hearing users in the communications services marketplace. This would provide the VRS user with direct text of the hearing party's speech, complementing the CA's signed interpretation. This integration would provide greater flexibility for the user, allowing them to choose how they receive and process information during a VRS call, depending on their individual preferences, communication mode (
The Commission also seeks comment on whether users should be able to adjust the display of captions on VRS software. The Commission previously adopted performance objectives for IVCS providers to provide user interface controls, which permit users to activate and adjust the display of captions. The Commission seeks comment on adopting a similar requirement that users be able to activate and adjust the display of captions, allowing them to alter the size, font, and on-screen location of captions, and adjust the color and opacity of both the captions and the caption background. The Commission assumes that this measure aligns with the Commission's broader goal of empowering individuals with disabilities through independent user control over accessibility-related settings, which is essential for managing individual preferences and needs across various communication platforms. Additionally, the Commission assumes independent user control of the display of captions would enhance access for people who use ASL and have limited vision. By enabling VRS users to optimize caption readability and have effective communication, such controls would appear to advance the statutory mandate for functionally equivalent TRS to be made available in the most efficient manner. The Commission seeks comment on these assumptions. Are there potential unintended consequences with allowing simultaneous captioning and signing? For example, given that there are grammatical differences between written English and ASL, could the simultaneous display of ASL and text cause confusion or impede the flow of conversation, if VRS users seek to verify the ongoing accuracy of CA signing? Are there captioning settings or best practices available that could help mitigate any unintended consequences?
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of implementing built-in captioning and customizable display settings. Is it technically feasible for VRS providers to implement built-in captioning with customizable display settings? Are there potential cost savings associated with the enhance comprehension that captions may provide? What are the one-time and ongoing costs that VRS providers would incur to develop and maintain built-in captioning and customizable display settings? How should the TRS Fund administrator categorize those costs? Are there alternative ways VRS providers could make captioning available, such as, through integration of third-party applications? The Commission asks that commenters discuss the costs and benefits of any alternative proposals.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether any captioning requirements adopted should be applicable to dedicated VRS devices (
To facilitate the safety and security of VRS users traveling abroad, the Commission proposes to require VRS providers to complete VRS calls to a designated list of international numbers for U.S. embassies and consulates. The Commission seeks comment on the technical feasibility, estimated costs, and potential benefits of mandating VRS providers to facilitate these types of calls to a pre-approved list of diplomatic facilities. How would such a requirement impact VRS provider operations, the TRS Fund, and the functional equivalence of VRS for users seeking to connect with U.S. government services while abroad? What safeguards are necessary to ensure appropriate use and prevent misuse of this service? What technical modifications would be necessary to be able to facilitate connections between VRS users and U.S. government services using non-NANP numbers?
The Commission declines to broaden the scope of our international calling rules beyond the specific requirement proposed today regarding calls placed to U.S. embassies and consulates. It does not seek to revisit, the Commission's prior determination that, in general, calls that originate and terminate outside of the United States are non-compensable. The Commission limits its proposal to an exception for calls to U.S. embassies and consulates that we believe are permissible under section 225 of the Act.
The Commission also seeks comment on its legal authority to allow TRS Fund support for U.S. residents' use of TRS for calls to U.S. embassies and consulates. CGB previously determined that VRS calls that both originate and terminate outside the United States are not compensable. This determination was based on the text of section 225 of the Act, which directs the Commission to ensure that TRS are available to “hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United States.” However, in so directing the Commission, section 225 of the Act expressly references section 1 of the Act, which establishes the Commission, “for the purpose of regulating interstate and
Further, the Commission has previously interpreted section 225 of the Act as allowing U.S. residents to make calls to the United States while temporarily located abroad for periods of up to one year. The Commission believes that supporting VRS calls to U.S. embassies and consulates by U.S. residents traveling abroad, even where the dialed number is a foreign end point, is similarly permissible under section 225 of the Act, notwithstanding CGB's prior determination regarding international calling in general. U.S. embassies and consulates are the primary way for a U.S. citizen traveling abroad to contact the United States government for support and assistance. While the U.S government has chosen to utilize calling numbers assigned to the country where the U.S. embassy or consulate is located, that does not change the intent of the VRS caller to reach the United States government. The Commission notes that, as a strictly legal matter, U.S. embassies and consulates may not constitute the territory of the United States. However, international law regards the premises of a foreign mission as “inviolable,” such that “the agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.” In addition, “[t]he receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity,” and “[t]he premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.” Conversely, embassy and consular staff are subject to the laws of their home country. Thus, it appears that for many legal purposes, a U.S. embassy or consulate is treated
In what specific respects are embassies or consulates treated (or not treated) as if they were part of the United States? In construing section 225 of the Act in this context, how should the Commission resolve the seeming incongruity between the Commission's authority under section 225 of the Act “to carry out the purposes established under section 151 of the Act, to make available to individuals
What is the impact of the current 20% minimum physical presence requirement on VRS providers' ability to recruit and retain qualified CAs? Are there any quantitative data on call quality, speed-of-answer compliance, and consumer complaint rates for minutes handled in physical call centers versus at-home workstations since the 80% cap took effect, including any metrics related to CA productivity or turnover? How has the 20% minimum physical presence requirement impacted the service experience of VRS users? Is there any empirical evidence demonstrating a quantifiable degradation of service quality directly attributable to increased reliance on at-home CAs? Conversely, absent such evidence, should the minimum physical presence requirement be removed entirely? If the Commission were to remove the 20% minimum minute requirement, should it mandate that VRS providers continue to maintain a minimum number of physical call centers (not related to minute volume) to ensure infrastructure redundancy and sufficient resources for staff supervision and technical support?
Should the Commission remove the 20% minimum requirement for monthly VRS minutes to be handled within physical call centers, then it may be possible that a VRS provider will no longer have any call centers. In light of that possibility, the Commission seeks comment on making conforming changes to several requirements for VRS providers to provide services at home workstations equivalent to or to the same extent as those provided at call centers. The Commission seeks comment on how removing the 20% minimum call center requirement would affect the current requirements for VRS providers to provide at-home CAs equivalent support to that provided to CAs working from call centers, ensure that each home workstation enables the provision of confidential and uninterrupted service to the same extent as the provider's call centers, and ensure that off-site supervision approximates the level of supervision at the provider's call center. Would it be sufficient to require VRS providers to provide support and supervision to CAs and require all home workstations to enable the provision of confidential and uninterrupted service even without a physical call center to serve as a point of comparison for these standards?
The Commission seeks comment on unifying and streamlining the existing user registration and verification requirements, particularly those currently organized within § 64.611 of its rules, which are presently grouped by VRS, IP CTS, and IP Relay. The objective of this streamlining is to create a more coherent and consistent regulatory framework, while retaining specific provisions where necessary to address inherent differences between particular forms of TRS, such as technological capabilities or service delivery models.
Currently, § 64.611 of the Commission's rules delineates distinct registration requirements for each internet-based form of TRS. As the Commission moves towards extending user registration and verification requirements to all forms of TRS, including analog services and future IP-based services, the need for a unified and streamlined regulatory framework becomes even more apparent. The Commission believes such an approach would enhance clarity, reduce complexity for providers, and ensure consistent application of anti-fraud measures across the entire TRS program. Are there considerations that cut against this belief? The Commission seeks comment on how to best achieve this unification and streamlining within § 64.611 of its rules. Are there specific rule consolidations the Commission should consider? Are any distinctions between user registration and verification requirements for specific forms of internet-based TRS necessary? What impact, if any, would there be on compliance and administration as a result of this consolidation and streamlining of existing user registration and verification requirements?
Building on these considerations, the Commission seeks comment on the optimal allocation of responsibilities within the user registration process. Under Commission rules, VRS and IP CTS providers collect user information and transmit it to the User Database administrator, who then conducts the identity verification check. Is this division of labor the most efficient and effective model, or are changes warranted? Should the User Database Administrator remain the primary entity for identity verification, or is there a more efficient option? For example, the Commission seeks comment on the feasibility and desirability of the administrator establishing a direct user registration portal. This alternative model would allow users to submit their registration information directly to the User Database, rather than through their chosen provider, potentially streamlining the initial collection process and enhancing neutrality. In addition, this approach would eliminate
The Commission seeks comment on how the overall provider certification process could be streamlined to reduce the amount of detail the applicant must provide to demonstrate it will meet all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. To what extent are detailed descriptions essential for determining whether to certify a provider? How can an applicant provide a detailed description of how the applicant will meet all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards in a way that demonstrates the applicant's eventual ability to actually comply with these standards? To what extent are detailed descriptions essential for determining whether to certify a provider? Is there information the Commission collects unnecessarily, or require providers to retain beyond its useful period? For example, should the Commission limit the required listing of employees to those who are CAs, executives, or officers? Should the Commission reduce the retention period for employment agreements for employees other than CAs, executives, or officers? Should the Commission eliminate the requirement to include in certification applications detailed descriptions and copies of certain deeds or leases (
What are the potential benefits, drawbacks, and feasibility of streamlining the certification process in this manner, particularly concerning its impact on administrative efficiency, regulatory oversight, and the continued assurance of functional equivalence for TRS users while preventing waste, fraud, or abuse of the TRS Fund? Is there any aspect of the certification process, including other relevant rules, that the Commission should consider as it works to streamline the certification process for internet-based TRS providers? Are there other certification processes that the Commission should evaluate as useful models?
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how the recertification process could be streamlined to reduce the amount of detail the applicant must provide to demonstrate it continues to meet all applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. How can the Commission leverage information collected with the initial application and during the certification period, while maintaining a robust recertification process? Would requiring details only when a change has been made since the initial application meet the goal of ensuring the Commission has complete and accurate information to consider applications for recertification? Should the Commission allow internet-based TRS providers to refer to information previously filed with the Commission in lieu of including detailed descriptions of how they will meet the mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS in their recertification applications? If the Commission retains requirements to include detailed descriptions and copies of certain deeds or leases (
The Commission also seeks comment on several additional targeted revisions to the TRS provider certification rule in an effort to enhance administrative efficiency, remove redundant obligations, and ensure the accuracy of its regulatory text. The Commission proposes to correct a cross-reference to ensure that the required certification documentation, which describes measures taken by IP CTS providers to prevent seeking compensation for ineligible users, accurately points to the proper IP CTS registration and certification rules codified under § 64.611(j) of its rules. To provide greater administrative flexibility, the Commission proposes deleting unnecessary constraints regarding the format used by the Commission to issue certification, recognizing that while these rules may have previously specified a letter or order, the Commission currently uses various administrative documents to grant conditional certification, provided the provider is determined to meet all applicable mandatory minimum TRS standards and compliance requirements.
Finally, to reduce paperwork burden now that the relevant programs have matured, the Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement for internet-based TRS providers to submit an annual compliance report demonstrating that they are in compliance with § 64.604 of its rules. The Commission also proposes to eliminate a parallel requirement that applicants promise to file an annual compliance report. Through this proposal, the Commission would also eliminate the additional obligation on VRS providers to submit a compliance plan describing the provider's policies, procedures, and practices for complying with § 64.604(c)(13) of its rules and submit specific statistics related to at-home call handling. The Commission believes that annual compliance reports impose an unnecessary administrative burden on TRS providers.
While the Commission believes that comprehensive annual reporting on compliance creates unnecessary and burdensome paperwork, the Commission also maintains a strong commitment to the prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program. The Commission believes all TRS providers must have in place, and train their staff to carry out, clearcut, detailed procedures for compliance with applicable Commission rules. Therefore, instead of the annual compliance reporting currently required, the Commission proposes to require that, upon request by the Commission, a TRS provider must submit a detailed description of its current practice and future plans for complying with each rule specified in such request. The Commission proposes that a provider should be able to complete and submit such a compliance report and plan within 60 days of receiving a request from the Commission. The new requirement and timeframe are similar to the Commission's current rule, under which the Commission may notify a VRS provider if the Commission determines its compliance plan currently on file is inadequate to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund and giving the provider up to 60 days to submit an amended compliance plan. The current requirement is limited to VRS providers, while the proposed rule would apply to providers of all forms of TRS. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and beliefs.
Section 64.606(f)(2) of the Commission's rules requires VRS and IP Relay providers to notify the Commission of substantive changes in
In recognition of this inconsistent policy and to ensure clarity and uniformity across all internet-based relay services, the Commission proposes to amend § 64.606(f)(2) of its rules to replace the specific references to “VRS and IP Relay providers” with the broader term “internet-based TRS providers.” This proposed modification would ensure that a uniform notification requirement is applicable to each internet-based TRS provider. Furthermore, this amendment would accommodate the emergence of new internet-based relay services, such as the recently proposed internet Protocol Speech-to-Speech Relay Service (IP STS), avoiding the need for further rule modifications for each new service. This approach promotes efficiency and minimizes administrative burdens for both providers and the Commission by establishing a clear, overarching requirement for all internet-based TRS offerings. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
The Commission also proposes to adjust the text of the rule to eliminate any possible doubt regarding the timing of the required notification. The rule currently requires that “[s]tates must notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days of when they occur” and providers “must notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs, services, and features within 60 days of when such changes occur.” The Commission proposes to replace “of when” with “after” to emphasize that this notification does not have to be given in advance of a substantive change. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
The Commission's rules currently prohibit IP CTS and VRS providers from offering direct or indirect incentives, financial or otherwise, to encourage registration for or use of these services. These prohibitions were established to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the TRS program, in which, due to the per-minute compensation system, providers may be motivated to encourage unnecessary use of relay services solely for the purpose of generating additional revenue. Such practices result in increased costs that are borne by all providers and users of communication services, impeding the statutory goal of making functionally equivalent services available in the most efficient manner.
To protect the long-term sustainability and integrity of the TRS Fund as new technologies arise, the Commission proposes to amend § 64.604(c)(8) of its rules so that the prohibition on incentives and inducements applies broadly to all internet-based TRS, including IP Relay and prospective services such as IP STS, Video-Assisted STS, and RTT-based relay service. This expansion is intended to strengthen the integrity and safeguard the TRS Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse program-wide. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
Section 64.604(b)(6) of the Commission's rules currently requires that when a TRS facility is capable of transmitting calling party identifying information, it must pass through, to the called party, at least one of three options: the number of the TRS facility, 711, or the 10-digit number of the calling party. This requirement was initially established to ensure that a called party subscribing to Caller ID could, at a minimum, identify the incoming call as being from a TRS facility, which helped prevent the rejection of calls that might otherwise display as blocked or unavailable. The Commission proposes to amend this rule by eliminating the phrase, “the number of the TRS facility,” as this option has become superfluous. For TRS providers that route calls as a part of providing their service the functional equivalency mandate is best met by transmitting to the called party the caller's specific 10-digit number, if one is assigned, or (if no number is assigned to the caller) by providing the universal 711 code. For call recipients, 711 is easily identified as the number for TRS call centers, while the telephone number assigned to a TRS facility is often unadvertised and not readily distinguishable from other 8XX toll-free telephone numbers. The Commission believes the continued inclusion of the generic TRS facility number option appears unnecessary and inconsistent with modern TRS numbering standards, and its removal will clarify the emphasis on providing the most accurate identification information possible. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and belief.
As part of the Commission's efforts to modernize the TRS program, the Commission proposes to update the TRS rules by deleting or modifying regulations that are obsolete; create burdensome and unnecessary record retention, reporting obligations, or disclosures; govern a time period that has passed; or contain duplicative or superfluous language. The Commission also proposes to make technical corrections to correct cross cites to other rules. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and the questions, beliefs, and assumptions stated below.
The Commission recognizes that since its inception, the TRS Advisory Council has served an informative role in advising the TRS Fund administrator, and the Commission benefits from direct consultation with TRS stakeholders and accessibility community representatives. The Commission questions, however, whether the same benefits can be proffered by a less regulated mechanism. Is a direct regulatory requirement, which is not statutorily mandated and which limits both the scope of and makeup of the TRS Advisory Council, the appropriate mechanism for facilitating advisory input by stakeholders? Further, the process for how the Commission monitors TRS and establishes compensation has evolved substantially in the 33 years since the TRS Advisory Council was established. The Commission now selects the Fund administrator through a competitive procurement process. Furthermore, the Council's narrow focus on TRS cost recovery, as written in the rule, is less critical today, given the Commission's assumption of a more active role in setting TRS compensation and the various oversight, monitoring, and auditing tools used by the Commission and the Fund administrator. In using the rulemaking process, the Commission affords the opportunity for individuals with disabilities and organizations representing such groups to actively participate and provide feedback on TRS compensation and how to structure and change the TRS program to ensure the Commission is meeting its statutory obligations. The Commission also uses the statutory Federal Advisory Committee process to procure recommendations on TRS and other accessibility issues while ensuring transparency, public involvement, and accountability. The Commission also has included within the scope of work, for entities working at the Commission's direction, the ability or requirement to form working groups or otherwise involve a diverse group of stakeholders to inform and provide guidance without imposing a specific structure on such processes. As such, the Commission believes the cost and administrative burden of maintaining the TRS Advisory Council outweighs its benefits. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and beliefs. Are there benefits to retaining the TRS Advisory Council? The Commission seeks comment on how the TRS Advisory Council has benefitted the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission. Are those benefits distinguishable from the benefits received from established Federal Advisory Committees or the Commission rulemaking process? What has been the impact of explicitly identifying certain groups for membership on the Council? Has the stated purpose of monitoring “TRS cost recovery matters” limited the guidance the Council has been able to provide? Would allowing or requiring the TRS Fund administrator to maintain an advisory council within its scope of work, without a separate rule, sufficiently maintain any identified benefits of the Council?
The Commission seeks comment on closing CG Docket Nos. 10-51, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service; and 12-38, Misuse of internet Protocol Relay Service. The Commission previously conducted proceedings in these dockets in parallel with CG Docket No. 03-123. In seeking to develop a fresh record on VRS and IP Relay, the Commission does not see a need to maintain a separate duplicative record, and the Commission believe closing these dockets eliminates a duplicative filing requirement that unnecessarily burden commenters, and could lead to unnecessary confusion. The Commission seeks comment on this belief.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the
The
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) A VRS provider leasing or licensing an automatic call distribution (ACD) platform must have a written lease or license agreement. Such lease or license agreement may not include any revenue sharing agreement or compensation based upon minutes of use.
(6)
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3) [Reserved]
(5) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(A) * * *
(
(
(E) * * *
(
(
(H)
(I)
(6) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(B) * * *
(
(C)
(7)
(8)
(i) [Reserved]
(v) An internet-based TRS provider shall not offer or provide to any person or entity any form of direct or indirect incentives, financial or otherwise, for the purpose of encouraging individuals to register for or use the internet-based TRS provider's service.
(vi) Any internet-based TRS provider that does not comply with this paragraph (c)(8) shall be ineligible for
(10) * * *
(ii) Any volume control or other amplification feature can be adjusted separately and independently of the caption feature.
(11) * * *
(ii) No person shall use IP CTS equipment or software with the captioning on, unless such person is registered to use IP CTS pursuant to 47 CFR 64.611(j).
(A) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) IP CTS providers shall ensure that any distributed IP CTS equipment has a label on its face in a conspicuous location with the following language in a clearly legible font: “FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS ANYONE BUT REGISTERED USERS WITH HEARING LOSS FROM USING THIS DEVICE WITH THE CAPTIONS ON.” For software applications on mobile phones, laptops, tablets, computers or other similar devices, IP CTS providers shall ensure that, each time the consumer logs into the application, the notification language required by this paragraph appears in a conspicuous location on the device screen immediately after log-in.
(iv) [Removed]
(v) [Removed]
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) VRS service must be offered under the name by which the eligible VRS provider offering such service became certified and in a manner that clearly identifies that provider of the service. Where a TRS provider also utilizes sub-brands to identify its VRS, each sub-brand must clearly identify the eligible VRS provider.
(2) [Reserved]
(7) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(iii) * * *
(B) [Reserved]
(C) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(f) * * *
(1) States must notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days after they occur, and must certify that the state TRS program continues to meet federal minimum standards after implementing the substantive change.
(2) Internet-based TRS providers certified under this section must notify the Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs, services, and features within 60 days after such changes occur, and must certify that the interstate TRS provider continues to meet Federal minimum standards after implementing the substantive change. Substantive changes shall include, but not be limited to:
(g) An internet-based TRS provider, certified under this section, must within 60 days of receiving a request from the Commission, submit a report with a detailed description of its current practice and future plans for complying with each rule specified in such request.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Any user for which a VRS or IP CTS provider makes a request under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section
(b) * * *
(1) VRS providers shall ensure that their provision of VRS and video communications, including their access technology, meets the requirements of the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile.
(2) VRS providers shall provide a standard xCard export interface to enable users to import their lists of contacts in xCard XML format, in accordance with IETF RFC 6351.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term “Administrator” shall refer to the TRS Numbering administrator and the administrator of the TRS User Registration Database. A single entity may serve in one or more of these capacities.
(b) * * *
(4) Neither the administrator of the TRS User Registration Database nor any affiliates thereof shall be unduly influenced, as determined by the Commission, by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of TRS-related activities.
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on March 19, 2026. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. position to be discussed at the 37th Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP37) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). CCFFP37 will be held via correspondence, from April 7 to May 8, 2026. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 37th Session of the CCFFP and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for March 19, 2026, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. ET.
The public meeting will take place via video teleconference only. Documents related to the 37th Session of the CCFFP will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Ms. Melissa Abbott, U.S. Delegate to the 37th Session of the CCFFP, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For further information about the 37th Session of the CCFFP, contact the U.S. Delegate, Ms. Melissa Abbott, by email at:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) is to elaborate worldwide standards for fresh, frozen (including quick frozen) or otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
The CCFFP is hosted by Norway. The United States attends the CCFFP as a member country of Codex.
The following items from the Provisional Agenda for the 37th Session of the CCFFP will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the March 19, 2026, public meeting, agenda items and draft U.S. positions will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Ms. Melissa Abbott, U.S. Delegate to the 37th Session of CCFFP, at
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act requirement, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of a currently approved information collection associated with the Power of Attorney form. This information collection is used to support the FSA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) and Risk Management Agency (RMA) in conducting business and accepting signatures on certain documents from individuals acting on behalf of other individuals or entities.
We will consider comments that we receive by May 18, 2026.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FSA-2026-0034 in the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Jody Kenworthy.
Jody Kenworthy; by email:
The FSA-211, Power of Attorney form and its instructions and the FSA-211A, Power of Attorney Signature Continuation Sheet and its instructions have been updated to better describe the FSA and NRCS actions that the Grantee may be allowed to perform on behalf of the Grantor. By signing the updated FSA-211, the Grantor certifies to reading and understanding a list of policies.
The burden hours in this collection remained the same at 7,750 hours since the last OMB approval.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per responses multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.
FSA is requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, FSIS is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding its Public Health Information System (PHIS). The approval for this information collection will expire on November 30, 2026. FSIS is making no changes to the information collection.
Submit comments on or before May 18, 2026.
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and
FSIS is announcing its intention to request a renewal of the approved information collection regarding its Public Health Information System (PHIS). The approval for this information collection will expire on November 30, 2026. FSIS is making no changes to the information collection.
FSIS uses a Web-based system for inspection operations that facilitates industry members' applications for inspection, export, and import of meat, poultry, and egg products. Industry members submit forms through a series of on-line screens in PHIS.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose will be to discuss and potentially vote on their draft Project Proposal on the topic of Occupational Licensing. If time permits, they will also begin the Implementation Stage.
Friday, April 10, 2026, from 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
AuroraTe LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Houston, Texas within FTZ 84. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 11, 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 product is galvanized steel pipes (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is galvanized steel coils (duty-free).
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).
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.
On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable March 14, 2026.
Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.
On April 26, 2019, Commerce published its
In its August 29, 2022, opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) remanded the
In its second remand redetermination, issued in October 2024, pursuant to the remand order, Commerce reexamined the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and determined that the correct order of selection for a second mandatory respondent at the time of respondent selection during the first remand proceeding was: (1) Wanda Boto; (2) Hengyu; (3) Mayrun; (4) Winrun; (5) Linglong, and (6) Kenda. Thus, on remand, Commerce selected Linglong as an additional mandatory respondent; however, because Linglong refused to participate, Commerce continued to rely on Kenda as the second mandatory respondent. In addition, Commerce found that: (1) Wanda Boto, Mayrun, Hengyu, Winrun, and Linglong failed to establish their entitlement to a separate rate and thus were part of the China-wide entity; and (2) that it is inappropriate to accept the untimely review withdrawal requests filed by Mayrun, Hengyu, Winrun, and Linglong. Finally, Commerce recalculated the cash deposit rate applicable to the China-wide entity to account for combined export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through of 11.13 percent.
In its third remand redetermination, issued in August 2025, pursuant to the remand order, Commerce utilized Kenda's aggregated CBP import data obtained during the first remand proceeding and determined that Linglong should not have been selected as a mandatory respondent prior to Kenda.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment regarding the dumping margin calculation for Linglong and the separate-rate status of Wanda Boto, Hengyu, Mayrun, and Winrun, Commerce is amending its
Because Linglong has a superseding cash deposit rate,
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that: were produced and exported by Linglong, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Linglong in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 18, 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 Michael T. Williams, Pribilof Islands Program Manager, 222 W 7th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99513, (907) 271-5117,
This request is for extension of a currently approved collection. The subsistence use of northern fur seals is cooperatively managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands under § 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1388 (MMPA) and governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216 subpart F, Taking for Subsistence Purposes under the Fur Seal Act (16 U.S.C. 1155).
This information collection is for the annual subsistence use of male northern fur seals by Alaska Natives (Pribilovians) residing in the communities of St. Paul and St. George, Alaska (Pribilof Islands) under 50 CFR 216 part 216 subpart F. NMFS established regulations regarding the maximum levels for the annual subsistence needs of the Pribilovians after direct consultation with the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands in Alaska and their respective local Native corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq). NMFS regulations create independent northern fur seal subsistence seasons on St. Paul and St. George islands to include male fur seals less than 7 years old, limits on accidental mortality of female northern fur seals, monitoring and reporting through co-management processes established under their respective cooperative agreements. The regulations at 50 CFR 216.72 state that Pribilovians are responsible for reporting their subsistence needs and actual level of subsistence take. NMFS receives electronic copies of the northern fur seal subsistence use reports from the tribal governments of St. Paul and St. George annually. NMFS subsequently posts these reports online (
NMFS receives electronic copies of the northern fur seal subsistence use reports from the tribal governments of St. Paul and St. George annually via email.
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 (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, will hold a virtual and in-person public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the Washington Coastal Management Program. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments.
NOAA will hold a hybrid virtual and in-person public meeting at 5 p.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, April 29, 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 8, 2026.
Comments may be submitted:
•
•
•
NOAA will accept anonymous comments. However, the written comments NOAA receives are part of the public record, and the entirety of the comment, including the name of the commenter, email address, attachments, and other supporting materials, will be publicly accessible. Sensitive personally identifiable information, such as account numbers and Social Security numbers, should not be included with the comment. Comments that are not related to the performance evaluation of the Washington Coastal Management Program or that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.
Michael Migliori, 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 State of Washington 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; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the University of Alaska Museum of the North, 907 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775 (Responsible Party: Link Olson, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and export marine mammal parts for scientific research.
Written comments must be received on or before April 16, 2026.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Jennifer Skidmore or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The University of Alaska Museum functions as an archive for scientific parts and provides these to the global scientific community through their loan program for research. The museum is requesting authority to receive, import, and export parts from up to 200 individual cetaceans and 1,000 individual pinnipeds, excluding walrus, annually. The requested duration of the permit is 10 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application; request for comments and information.
Notice is hereby given that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has applied for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application is for the incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles associated with otherwise lawful fishery-independent gill net surveys within Texas bays and estuaries. NMFS is publishing this notice to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the application and Conservation Plan. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 16, 2026.
The application is available for download and review at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2026-0958, by Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8453,
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
Applicants seeking ITPs must submit an application and Conservation Plan that includes the requirements specified in Section 10(a)(2)(A) (see Conservation Plan section for details of what is required to be included in a Conservation Plan). If, following opportunity for public comment and evaluation of the application and Conservation Plan, NMFS finds that: (i) the taking will be incidental; (ii) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (iii) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (iv) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (v) the applicant will implement any other measures NMFS may require as being necessary and appropriate, NMFS shall issue the ITP.
The following species are included in the permit application and Conservation Plan: green (
On July 24, 2024, TPWD submitted an initial full draft application and Conservation Plan requesting take of ESA-listed species of sea turtles associated with their otherwise lawful
The purpose and objectives of TPWD's proposed activity are to monitor trends in finfish, shark, and macroinvertebrate communities throughout the estuarine waters of Texas to inform fisheries management. The data collected from TPWD fisheries-independent gill net surveys are used to inform stock status, inform listing status, manage Gulf of America-wide fisheries, create management plans, and generate scientific research. The existing gill net data spans nearly 50 years and TPWD relies on its continuity for management decisions.
TPWD is requesting take of each sea turtle species on a 3-year rolling time period (
Section 10 of the ESA specifies that no permit may be issued by NMFS unless an applicant submits a Conservation Plan that specifies: (1) the impact which will likely result from such taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; (3) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; (4) such other measures that NMFS may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.
TPWD's Conservation Plan addresses each of the required elements of Section 10(a)(2)(A) and 50 CFR 222.307(b). In particular, TPWD has included measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the take of ESA-listed sea turtles incidental to fishery-independent gill net surveying. To avoid and minimize take of green, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles, TPWD will constrain the sampling season to two 10-week seasons (fall and spring); identify hot spot grids (1-minute latitude by 1-minute latitude square grids where gill nets can be set and sampled in Texas bays and estuaries) to implement additional species protections such as the “last in/first out” strategy to reduce gill net soak times; sampling grid removal from future surveys after one endangered species entanglement in that grid; net configurations, such as reducing net slack, and marker buoy attachment to improve visibility for monitoring entanglements and reducing the potential for entanglements; extended pre-deployment observation period; following Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network protocols and appropriate release and resuscitation protocols upon discovery of an entangled sea turtle; conducting surveys on “best” available weather days for gill net deployment; and continuous net repair to eliminate holes larger than 6 inch (in; 15.24 cm) stretched mesh.
TPWD also provided NMFS with assurances that adequate funding will be provided to support its Conservation Plan, including funds to support cold stunning recovery activities, shrimp fishery management and law enforcement, and habitat protection within Texas state bays and estuaries throughout the duration of the permit. The Conservation Plan also includes outreach, education, and a debris removal program, funded through state appropriations and supplemented by other sources such as Natural Resource Disaster Assessment and Sport Fish Restoration, as funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with regular reporting requirements.
TPWD considered and rejected the following alternatives: (1) no-Action; (2) no setting of gill nets; (3) shifting from overnight setting of gill nets to daytime only sampling; (4) significantly shortening the duration gill nets are deployed; (5) reducing the number of gill nets set each season; (6) continuously monitoring (tending) gill nets while they are deployed; and (7) removing gill net mesh panels with mesh size greater than 5 in (12.7 cm) stretch mesh in size.
Please refer to TPWD's ITP application and Conservation Plan, which can be found at
Issuing an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit constitutes a Federal action requiring NMFS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments received during the comment period to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. If NMFS determines that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed sea turtles. NMFS will publish a notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Groundfish Committee and Advisory Panel meeting via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 at 9 a.m. EST Webinar registration URL information:
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Groundfish Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to receive a final report on the Redfish Sector Exemption Review. They will also discuss updates on other Council groundfish priorities for 2026 (if available). Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Commission publishes in the
Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by April 1, 2026.
Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to Comment 26-C0002, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7479 (office); email:
Liana G.T. Wolf, Senior Trial Attorney, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;
The text of the Settlement Agreement and Order appear below.
In the Matter of:
CPSC Docket No.: 26-C0002
SHIMANO, INC. AND SHIMANO
NORTH AMERICA HOLDING, INC.
1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089 (“CPSA”), and 16 CFR 1118.20, Shimano, Inc. and Shimano North America Holding, Inc. (collectively, “Shimano” or “the Firm”), and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve staff's charges set forth below.
2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for, the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR § 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.
3. Shimano, Inc. is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of
4. Shimano North America Holding, Inc. is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Shimano North America Holding, Inc. is a subsidiary of Shimano, Inc.
5. Between 2012 and 2023, approximately 680,000 11-Speed Bonded Hollowtech II Bicycle Cranksets, Models Ultegra FC-6800 and FC-R8000 and Dura-Ace FC-9000, FC-R9100, and FC-R9100P (collectively, the “Subject Products”) were imported and distributed in the United States.
6. The Subject Products are “consumer products” that were “manufactured” and “import[ed]” and “distribut[ed] in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (7), (9), and (10) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7), (9), and (10). Shimano, Inc. is the “manufacturer” of the Subject Products, and Shimano North America Holding, Inc. is a “distributor” of the Subject Products, as such terms are defined in sections 3(a)(8) and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(8) and (11).
7. The Subject Products contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death because the recalled bonded crank parts can separate and break, posing a crash hazard to consumers.
8. Between 2013 and 2022, Shimano received thousands of warranty claims relating to the Subject Products and dozens of reports of consumers globally sustaining personal injuries while using the Subject Products, including bone fractures, joint displacement, and lacerations, due to falls from bicycles, contact with the broken Subject Products, and impact with the ground.
9. During this time, Shimano, Inc. made nine overall manufacturing and design changes that resulted in over twenty-five individual changes to the Subject Products to mitigate the potential for the Subject Products to separate and break.
10. Despite possessing information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Shimano did not immediately report to the Commission.
11. The Commission and Shimano North America Bicycle, Inc. jointly announced a recall of the Subject Products on September 21, 2023. The press release announcing the recall stated that the Firm had received at least 4,519 incidents of cranksets separating, and six reported injuries, including bone fractures, joint displacement, and lacerations.
12. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Shimano did not notify the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3), (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
13. Because the information in Shimano's possession about the Subject Products constituted actual and presumed knowledge, Shimano knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
14. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Shimano is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).
15. Shimano has a longstanding history of proactively working with the CPSC and remains committed to doing so. This Agreement does not constitute an admission by Shimano to the staff's charges as set forth in Paragraphs 5 through 14 above, including, without limitation, that the Subject Products contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death; or, that Shimano failed to notify the Commission in a timely manner in accordance with section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b); or, that Shimano knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
16. As part of the corrective action, Shimano voluntarily agreed to start an inspection and replacement program whereby Shimano agreed to replace any Subject Products if they failed the inspection free of charge. Since the start of the inspection and replacement program, there have been no reported injuries by consumers.
17. Shimano enters into this Agreement to settle this matter and to avoid the distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings. Shimano does not admit that it violated the CPSA or any other law, and Shimano's willingness to enter into this Agreement and Order does not constitute, nor is it evidence of, an admission by Shimano of liability, or violation of any law.
18. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Subject Products and over Shimano.
19. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Shimano or a determination by the Commission that Shimano violated the CPSA.
20. In settlement of staff's charges, Shimano shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of eleven million, five hundred thousand dollars ($11,500,000). The $11,500,000 Payment shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. All payments to be made under the Agreement shall constitute debts owing to the United States and shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the United States via
21. The Commission or the United States may seek enforcement for any breach of, or any failure to comply with, any provision of this Agreement and Order in United States District Court, to seek relief including, but not limited to, collecting amounts due.
22. All unpaid amounts, if any, due and owing under the Agreement, shall constitute a debt due and immediately owing by Shimano to the United States, and interest shall accrue and be paid by Shimano at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b) from the date of Default, until all amounts due have been paid in full (hereinafter “Default Payment Amount” and “Default Interest Balance”). Shimano shall consent to a Consent Judgment in the amount of the Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, and the United States, at its sole option, may collect the entire Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, or exercise any other rights granted by law or in equity, including, but not limited to, referring such matters for private collection, and Shimano agrees not to contest, and
23. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of Shimano, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the
24. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) the Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Shimano, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and shall be binding upon the parties.
25. Effective upon the later of: (1) the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Shimano, and (2) the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, Shimano hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement:
(i) an administrative or judicial hearing;
(ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions;
(iii) a determination by the Commission of whether Shimano failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations;
(iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
(v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
26. Shimano shall maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any Shimano consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed or sold in the United States, which shall contain the following elements:
(i) written standards, policies, and procedures, including those designed to ensure that information that may relate to or impact CPSA compliance is conveyed effectively to personnel responsible for CPSA compliance, whether or not an injury has been reported;
(ii) procedures and systems for tracking and reviewing claims, including warranty claims, and reports for safety concerns reported by consumers, whether inside or outside the United States, and for implementing corrective and preventive actions when compliance deficiencies or violations are identified;
(iii) procedures requiring that information required to be disclosed by Shimano to the Commission is recorded, processed, and reported in accordance with applicable law;
(iv) procedures requiring that all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate, and in accordance with applicable law;
(v) procedures requiring that prompt disclosure is made to Shimano management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, Shimano's ability to record, process and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law;
(vi) mechanisms to effectively communicate to all applicable Shimano employees, through training programs or other means, compliance-related company policies and procedures to prevent violations of the CPSA;
(vii) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary;
(viii) Shimano's senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, CPSA compliance, including the implementation of steps to ensure that incident and injury data is reviewed and analyzed for purposes of CPSA Section 15(b) reporting;
(ix) an annual internal audit of the effectiveness of policies, procedures, systems, and training related to CPSA compliance that evaluates opportunities for improvement, deficiencies or weaknesses, and the Firm's overall culture of compliance; and
(x) retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to CPSC staff upon request.
27. Shimano shall submit a report under CPSA Section 16(b), sworn to under penalty of perjury:
(i) describing in detail its compliance program and internal controls and the actions Shimano has taken to comply with each subparagraph of paragraph 26;
(ii) affirming that during the reporting period, Shimano has reviewed its compliance program and internal controls, including the actions referenced in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, for effectiveness, and that it complies with each subparagraph of paragraph 26, or describing in detail any non-compliance with any such subparagraph; and
(iii) identifying the results of the annual internal audit referenced in paragraph 26(ix) and any changes or modifications made during the reporting period to Shimano's compliance program or internal controls to ensure compliance with the terms of the CPSA and, in particular, the requirements of CPSA Section 15 related to timely reporting.
Such reports shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, for a period of three (3) years. The first report shall be submitted 30 days after the close of the first 12-month reporting period, which begins on the date of the Commission's Final Order of Acceptance of the Agreement, and successive reports shall be due annually on the same date thereafter. Without limitation, Shimano acknowledges and agrees that failure to make such timely and accurate reports, as required by this Agreement and Order, may constitute a violation of Section 19(a)(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(3), and may subject Shimano to enforcement under Section 22 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2071.
28. Notwithstanding and in addition to the above, Shimano shall promptly provide written documentation of any changes or modifications to its compliance program or internal controls and procedures, including the effective dates of the changes or modifications thereto. Shimano shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate Shimano's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.
29. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.
30. Shimano represents that the Agreement:
(i) is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever;
(ii) has been duly authorized; and
(iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Shimano, enforceable against Shimano in accordance with its terms. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of Shimano represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by Shimano to execute the Agreement.
31. The signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.
32. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.
33. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Shimano and each of its parents, successors, transferees, and assigns; and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject Shimano, and each of its parents, successors, transferees, and assigns, to appropriate legal action.
34. The Agreement, any attachments, and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.
35. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party, for that reason, in any subsequent dispute.
36. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
37. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Shimano agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.
Dated: March 2, 2026.
Dated: March 3, 2026.
Dated: March 2, 2026.
Dated: March 2, 2026.
Dated: March 4, 2026.
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Shimano, Inc. and Shimano North America Holding, Inc. (collectively, “Shimano” or “the Firm”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Shimano, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, the Settlement Agreement is incorporated by reference and it is:
Provisionally accepted and Order issued on the 12 day of March, 2026.
By Order of the Commission:
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 25-37 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Peru has requested to buy equipment and services to support the procurement of maritime and onshore facilities at the Callao Naval Base. The following non-Major Defense Equipment items will be included: lifecycle design; construction; project management; engineering studies; engineering services; technical support; facility and infrastructure assessments; surveys; planning; programming; design; acquisition; contract administration; construction management; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.5 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy objectives of the U.S.
The proposed sale will improve Peru's port infrastructure to accommodate current and future naval and logistical operations and requirements. This sale will also provide a safer, more efficient platform for naval operations by reducing civilian‐military interactions at the existing facility. Peru will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this construction and support will not alter the regional military balance in the region.
The principal contractor or contractors will be determined later from a list of approved vendors, likely through a competitive process. 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 or contractors.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of up to twenty U.S. Government or U.S. contractor representatives to Peru for a duration of up to ten years to provide construction management and oversight.
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 25-86 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 Israel has requested to buy Namer Armored Personnel Carrier (APC-MT883) Power Packs Less Transmissions (NPPLTs) in full and lite configurations. Also included is an integrated logistics support package that includes special tools for C-Level maintenance and transmission parts; control and diagnostic systems; preservation and packaging; containers; configuration management; technical manuals, spare parts catalogs, other documentation, and publications; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and contractor non-recurring engineering (NRE); and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $740 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend its borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers. These power packs will be used on Namer Armored Personnel Carriers (APC-MT883) that were fielded in 2008. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Rolls-Royce Solutions America, Inc., located in Novi, MI. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Israel.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 26-03, 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 Australia has requested to buy up to four hundred fifty (450) AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missiles (JATM); up to five (5) AIM-260 JATM Integration Test Vehicles (ITV); and up to thirty (30) AIM-260 JATM Guided Test Vehicles (GTV). The following non-MDE items will also be included: ammunition containers; shoe jettison assemblies; KGV-135A embedded communications security devices; spare parts, consumables, and accessories; repair and return support; component parts and spare equipment; training aids, devices, and spare parts; weapon system support and test equipment; classified and unclassified software delivery and
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S.. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the Western Pacific. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring Australia has modern, capable air-to-air munitions that improve interoperability between the U.S. and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these articles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, located in Orlando, FL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) is a GPS-aided air superiority missile with increased range and effectiveness over existing air-to-air weapons with Precise Positioning Services provided by Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module or M-Code. Anti-tampering security measures have been incorporated into the AIM-260 to prevent exploitation of the software.
2. The AIM-260 Guided Test Vehicle (GTV) is an instrumented version of the missile where the warhead is replaced with a telemetry unit to capture missile data parameters during live-fire flight testing.
3. The AIM-260 Integration Test Vehicle (ITV) is a modified AIM-260 missile used for captive test purposes.
4. The KGV-135A is a high-speed, general purpose encryptor/decryptor module used for wideband data encryption.
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 Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-121 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Iraq has requested to buy additional Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT); VSAT modems; VSAT hubs; L-band tactical satellite service manpacks; spare parts; personnel training; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services and
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner.
The proposed sale will improve Iraq's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its satellite communication capability across the Ministry of Defense's communication infrastructure. This investment in the Government of Iraq's command and control capabilities is crucial to protecting its borders, energy infrastructure, and residents. Iraq 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 Network Innovations, located in Frederick, MD. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of two additional U.S. Government and five U.S. contractor representatives to Iraq for a duration of five years to support quarterly program management reviews, provide engineering consulting and technical assessments for equipment upgrades and evolutions to the VSAT hubs and modems, and to conduct in-country training.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-87, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing and National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Israel has requested to buy three thousand two hundred fifty (3,250) Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs), including JLTV Utility M1279A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-UTL), JLTV Heavy Guns Carrier M1278A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-HGC), JLTV Close Combat Weapons Carrier M1281A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-CCWC), and JLTV General
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing the mobility of its ground forces during operations. These JLTVs will be used to securely move personnel and logistics to extend lines of communication. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and systems 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 AM General LLC, located in Auburn Hills, MI and Mishawaka, IN. 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 multiple assignments of 15 additional U.S. Government and 20 contractor representatives to Israel for a duration of up to six years to provide total package fielding, training, and logistics support for the program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is a cost effective lightweight tactical vehicle designed to improve the payload, performance, network mobility, and protection of forces during multi-domain operations. It has extensive defensive capabilities, firepower, maneuverability, noise reducing solutions, and command and control systems. The JLTV variations are the JLTV Utility M1279A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-UTL), JLTV Heavy Guns Carrier M1278A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-HGC), JLTV Close Combat Weapons Carrier M1281A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-CCWC), and JLTV General Purpose M1280A1/A2/A3 (JLTV-GP). The JLTV-UTL carries a 2-man crew for cargo and payload delivery of up to 5,100 pounds. The JTLV-HGC carries a 4-man crew when equipped with a remote weapon system or a 5-man crew when fitted with an open-top turret. Non-kinetic weapons can be integrated into this variant to defend against unmanned aerial vehicles. The JLTV-CCWV carries a 5-man crew and has the capacity to deliver anti-armor heavy weapons. The JLTV-GP is the base vehicle that can carry a 4-man crew and support a payload of up to 3,500 pounds. The JLTV A2 upgrades include enhanced performance, reliability, cost efficiency, and additional cargo space. The JLTV cargo trailers (M1289) are designed to be compatible with JLTVs, sharing an equal level of protection, maneuverability, and performance.
2. The JLTV has inherent armor built into the base vehicle called the A-kit, which provides 360-degree protection from kinetic energy and small arms threats. It also includes a B-kit, which mitigates threats against direct fire, artillery, and explosives with an underbody deflector plate and energy absorbent seat mechanisms.
3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. 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.
5. A determination has been made that Israel 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.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Israel.
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 26-12, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Singapore has requested to buy up to four (4) P-8A patrol aircraft; seven (7) Guardian laser transmitter assemblies for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N system; seven (7) system processors for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N system with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules; and eight (8) MK 54 MOD 0 lightweight torpedoes all up rounds. The following non-Major Defense Equipment items will also be included: tactical open mission software; electro-optical and infrared MX-20HD systems; missile warning sensors for the AN/AAQ-24(V)N; AN/AQQ-2(V) acoustic systems; AN/APY-10 radar systems (with Global Positioning System); ALQ-213 early warning management systems; KIV-78 cryptographic appliques; A/N APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe transmitters; AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser system programmers; AN/PYQ-10 simple key loaders; aircraft spares; spare engines; support equipment; training devices; engineering support; training; classified and unclassified publications; classified and unclassified software; mission systems and other Government-furnished equipment; classified and unclassified torpedo spare parts for the all up round and exercise torpedo configured MK 54 lightweight torpedoes; torpedo support equipment, including equipment and tools; classified software for test equipment; torpedo containers; recoverable exercise torpedoes; air launch accessories; torpedo support, including facility stand-up and test equipment support; classified and unclassified publications; other technical assistance, including technical support, technical program management, infrastructure support, test equipment sustainment, exercise firing assistance, and contract management; in-country training; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $2.316 billion.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States (U.S.) by improving the security of a strategic partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Asia.
The proposed sale will improve Singapore's capability to meet current and future threats by providing a credible maritime force capable of deterring adversaries and participating in U.S allied operations. The proposed sale will support Singapore's goal of improving national and territorial defense as well as increasing interoperability with U.S. and allied forces. Singapore will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA. The majority of MK 54 lightweight torpedo hardware will be purchased directly from U.S. Navy stock. There are a significant number of other companies under contract with the U.S. Navy that will provide components, systems, and engineering services during the execution of this effort. 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 up to fourteen U.S. Government and contractor representatives to travel to Singapore for a duration of up to two years to support aircraft fielding and maintenance, mission systems, training, and logistics and engineering technical assistance.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The P-8A aircraft is a militarized version of the Boeing 737-800 Next Generation commercial aircraft. The P-8A is replacing the Government of Singapore's Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft and adds long-range antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare capabilities to Singapore's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft.
The AN/AAQ-24 Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system is a directional, active infrared (IR) jammer that protects the host aircraft from surface launched IR-guided missiles. The system includes Missile Warning System (MWS), LAIRCM system processor replacement, and Guardian laser transmitter assembly with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) capability.
The MK 54 MOD 0 torpedo is a conventional torpedo that can be launched from surface ships, rotary, and fixed wing aircraft. The MK 54 MOD 0 is an upgrade from the MK 46 torpedo created by combining the guidance section of the MK 50 torpedo with the warhead and propulsion sections of the MK 46 torpedo.
Non-MDE included within the P-8A configuration for the initial sale of four (4) P-8As to the Government of Singapore:
Tactical Open Mission Software (TOMS). Functions include environment planning, tactical aids, weapons planning aids, and data correlation. TOMS includes an algorithm for track fusion which automatically correlates tracks produced by on board and off board sensors.
Electro-Optical (E.O.) and IR MX-20HD. The E.O./IR system processes visible E.O. and IR spectrum (IR focal plane array and turret stabilization) to detect and image objects.
AN/AQQ-2(V)1 acoustic system. The acoustic sensor system is integrated within the mission system as the primary sensor for ASW missions.
AN/APY-10 radar with Global Positioning System (GPS). Radar capabilities include Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)/Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) resolution, geolocation, periscope detection mode, track generation, track while scan, color weather radar, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) interface, and SAR/ISAR imagery resolutions. The radar includes a GPS 524D Precise Positioning System with SAASM Mode III hardware.
ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measures. This system provides real time capability for the automatic detection, location, measurement, and analysis of radio frequency signals and modes. Real time results are compared with a library of known emitters to perform emitter classification.
Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP). The P-8A EWSP suite consists of the ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management System (EWMS), ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System (CMDS), AN/AAQ-24 LAIRCM and the NexGEN MWS. EWSP includes threat information.
AN/ALQ-213 EWMS. The AN/ALQ-213 system provides the primary interface for control and monitoring of the EWSP suite.
AN/ALE-47 CMDS. The AN/ALE-47 system dispenses flares that act as decoys to deflect incoming IR-guided missiles away from the aircraft. This system acts as a backup for the AN/AAQ-24 LAIRCM system.
KIV-78 IFF system. The KIV-78 IFF system deployed to identify cooperative, friendly systems.
AN/APX-123A(C) IFF Digital Transponder. The AN/APX-123A is capable of both Mode 5 and Mode S secure modes and provides own ship positional information.
Networked communications radio. Networked communications airborne radio delivers mission-critical capabilities through multiple waveforms, high-speed ability and beyond-line-of-sight connectivity for data, voice, and imagery.
Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) system antenna electronics and ADAP Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna. ADAP contains a multi-element antenna, digital anti-jam processing, and provides protected GPS.
KIV-7M communications security device. The KIV-7M device provides encryption for high frequency beyond line-of-sight communications.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Singapore 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 Singapore.
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 25-104, 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 Spain has requested to buy five (5) Shipsets AEGIS Weapon System; six (6) Shipsets Digital Signal Processor; five (5) Shipsets MK 41 Baseline VIII Vertical Launching System; five (5) Shipsets of Next Generation Surface Search Radar. The following non-major defense equipment articles (MDE) will also be included: ultra high frequency satellite communications radio terminal systems; Global Positioning System Miniature Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver Engines with M-Code; AN/SRQ-4 Ku-band hardware; material required to support the upgrade of NIXIE SLQ-25A to a SLQ-25E; MK 331 Torpedo Setting Panels; MK 32 surface vessel torpedo tube upgrades; U.S. Government support for the MK 45 Mod 2 and Mod 2B Gun Weapon System; modernization efforts, integration, and test support and equipment; munitions support and support equipment; spare parts; consumables and accessories; repair and return support; classified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications; technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; studies and surveys; Contractor Logistics 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 $1.7 billion.
The proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Spain's capability to meet current and future threats by affording more flexibility and capability to counter regional threats and continue to enhance stability in the region. The purchaser will use the articles and services to modernize five AEGIS-equipped frigates within its fleet, enhancing its ability to conduct defense missions and interoperate with the U.S. and NATO Allies for theater ballistic missile defense. Spain will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support 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 Lockheed Martin, located in Moorestown, NJ, and Manassas, VA; RTX Corporation, located in Arlington, VA; Ultra Maritime Naval Systems and Sensors, located in Braintree, MA; and General Dynamics, located in Williston, VT. 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 the proposed sale will require U.S. Government and contractor personnel to visit Spain on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews, as well as to provide training and maintenance support in country.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) is a multi-mission combat system providing integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) for surface ships. This sale involves a subset of the AWS Baseline 9 anti-air warfare (AAW) capability called the International AEGIS Fire Control Loop integrated with ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability.
The Multi-Mission Signal Processor is a critical component supporting the operation of the SPY-1D and SPY-1D (V) radars present on Spain's Alvaro-de-Bazan-class frigates. The system provides those sensors with the resourcing to simultaneously operate AAW and BMD equipment for a complete IAMD capability.
The MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) is a fixed, vertical, multi-missile launching system. The MK 41 VLS provides the capability to store and launch multiple missile variants depending on the mission, including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missiles.
The Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) is the U.S. Navy's multi-mission navigation, surface search, and periscope detection radar. The NGSSR replaces multiple legacy surface radar systems.
The ultra-high frequency satellite communications (SATCOM) RT-1829 terminal is a commercially available SATCOM terminal. This provides ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore communications via voice or data connectivity.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) Miniature Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR) Engine (MPE) with M-Code is a GPS receiver that utilizes the military M-Code for enhanced security and anti-jamming capabilities. The GPS MPE M-Code provides highly accurate positioning, navigation, and timing data in environments where GPS signals may be contested or denied.
The Common Data Link Hawklink AN/SRQ-4 radio terminal set provides the shipboard element of a situation awareness system that links airborne terminals with surface warships. The system provides real-time use of aircraft sensors to extend situational awareness over the horizon by enabling surveillance helicopters to data-link radar, video, networking, and acoustic data to various surface ships. It provides the command and control, sensor data transfer, data link operations, and built-in test functionality. It supports anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-ship surveillance and targeting missions.
The Torpedo Countermeasure Transmitting Set AN/SLQ-25 (Nixie) is a passive, electro-acoustic decoy system used to provide deceptive countermeasures against acoustic homing torpedoes. The AN/SLQ-25 employs an underwater acoustic projector housed in a streamlined body which is towed astern on a combination tow/signal-transfer coaxial cable. An onboard generated signal is used by the towed body to produce an acoustic signal to decoy the hostile torpedo away from the ship.
The MK 331 Torpedo Setting Panel (TSP) is a device used to program and configure torpedoes prior to launch. The MK 331 TSP provides the capability to set parameters such as depth, speed, and target selection for torpedoes.
The MK 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tube (SVTT) is a trainable, lightweight torpedo launching system. The MK 32 SVTT provides surface combatants with an ASW capability to launch lightweight torpedoes against underwater threats.
The MK 45 Mod 2 Gun Weapon System (GWS) is a lightweight, rapid-fire, automatic gun system designed for use against surface, air, and shore targets. The MK 45 Mod 2 GWS provides naval vessels with effective firepower for various mission requirements, including naval surface fire support, anti-ship engagement, and limited air defense.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Spain can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the 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 Spain.
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 26-08 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 Israel has requested to buy additional AW119Kx light utility helicopters; Aviation Ground Support Equipment (AGSE); supplemental type certificate (STC) tools; engineering; spare and repair parts; support equipment; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of program and logistical support that will be added to a previously implemented case whose value was under the congressional notification threshold. The original Foreign Military Sales case, valued at $78.2 million, included the following non-MDE items: AW119Kx light utility helicopters, spares, and support. The estimated total cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the U.S. by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend its borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers. This proposed sale will increase the interoperability with U.S. forces and conveys U.S. commitment to Israel's security and armed forces modernization. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Leonardo Helicopters USA, AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, located in Philadelphia, PA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require temporary duty travel of three to five U.S. Government representatives to Israel for a duration of up to five years. Implementation of this proposed sale will require contractor representatives for equipment operation and training.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-65 and Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy equipment and services related to sustainment and follow-on technical support for its PATRIOT program. The following non-Major Defense Equipment items will be included: spare and repair parts; storage and aging; surveillance firing; stockpile reliability; shared and country-unique PATRIOT PAC-3 Missile Support Center support; operator and maintenance support; test program set development process support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; studies and surveys; transportation; and other
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 Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats by assisting it in maintaining higher levels of operational readiness while meeting its modernization and professionalization goals. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be RTX Corporation, located in Waltham, MA, and Huntsville, AL; Lockheed Martin, located in Bethesda, MA, and Huntsville, AL; LEIDOS, Inc., located in Reston, VA, and Huntsville, AL; and KBR, located in Houston, TX, and 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 the assignment of six U.S. Government and four contractor representatives to provide technical support and equipment familiarization.
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 25-94, 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 Israel has requested to buy thirty (30) AH-64E Apache attack helicopters; seventy (70) T700-GE 701D engines (60 installed, 10 spares); thirty (30) AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/AN/AAR-11 Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors (M-TADS/PNVS); one (1) M-TADS/PNVS in support of Special Repair Activity (SRA); thirty (30) AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radars (FCR) Mast Mounted Assembly (MMA); one (1) FCR MMA in support of SRA; thirty (30) Longbow Fire Control Radar (FCR) Radar Electronic Units (REU); one (1) Longbow FCR REU in support of SRA; thirty (30) AN/APR-48B Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometers (MRFI); six (6) MRFI maintenance floats; thirty (30) AN/AAR-57 with 5th Sensor Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS); four (4) AN/AAR-57 with 5th Sensor CMWS maintenance floats; thirty(30) AN/ARC-231A (RT-1987) Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) radios; six (6) AN/ARC-231A (RT-1987) Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) radios maintenance floats; sixty (60) M36E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); seventy-two (72) Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System with M-code (EAGLE-M) and Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR); thirty-six (36) Common Infrared Countermeasure Systems. The following non-Major Defense Equipment items will also be included: Enhanced Image Intensifier (EI2) cameras; Radar Signal Detecting Sets; Laser Detecting Sets; AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders; AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver Signal Detecting Set Improved Data Modems; AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Set; M299 Missile Launcher; M261 2.75 Inch Rocket Launcher; Small Tactical Terminals; improved countermeasures dispensing systems (ICMD); automatic direction finders; Doppler radar velocity sensors; radar altimeters common core (RACC); tactical air navigation system (TACAN); Global Positioning System receivers; simple key loader; Advanced Weapon System Automatic Machine Guns; rocket launchers; missile launchers; Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUMT) Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) receiver; MUMT air-air-ground kits; air to ground network radios; transponder test sets; KIV-77 assets; Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD); Small Tactical Terminal KOR-24A for Link-16; Longbow Crew Trainer (LCT); tactical engagement simulation (TESS); Maintenance Training Device (MTD); training devices; communication systems; helmets; simulators; generators; aircrew survivability equipment; transportation and organization equipment; spare and repair parts; support equipment; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of program and logistical support. The estimated total cost is $3.8 billion.
The U.S. is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The proposed sale will enhance Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend Israel's borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers. This proposed sale will increase the interoperability with U.S. forces and conveys U.S. commitment to Israel's security and armed forces modernization. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA; and Lockheed Martin, located in Orlando, FL. 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 five to eight U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Israel for a duration of up to five years to support equipment fielding and training.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AH-64E Apache attack helicopter is the Army's advanced 2-man crew Apache equipped with lethal firepower to perform close air support, anti-armor, and armed reconnaissance missions. It has a network-centric, fully integrated weapon system specifically built to dominate in highly contested and complex combat engagements. The AH-64E is a modern attack helicopter with improved situational awareness, flight performance, and joint operability abilities. It contains sensitive communications and target identification equipment, integrated sensors, and advanced navigation capabilities:
a. The Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency AN/ARC-231A (VHF/UHF) radio is a multi-mode software radio providing line of sight and secure/non-secure voice and data communications. The Satellite Communications (SATCOM) provides beyond line of sight secure/non-secure voice and data capabilities on manned and unmanned aviation platforms.
b. The AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) provides critical information in response to an IFF interrogator, helping prevent friendly fire. The transponder operation provides
c. The Link 16 Datalink is a military tactical data link network providing aircrews with enhanced situational awareness and the ability to exchange target information to Command and Control (C2) assets via Tactical Digital Information Link-Joint. It can provide a range of combat information in real time to both U.S. and allies' combat aircraft and C2 centers.
d. The AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver Signal Detecting Set is a system that provides warning of a radar directed air defense threat and allows appropriate countermeasures.
e. The AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Set is a passive laser warning system that receives, processes and displays threat information resulting from aircraft illumination by lasers on the aircraft's multi-functional display.
f. The AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) detects energy emitted by threat missile in-flight, evaluates potential false alarm emitters in the environment, declares validity of threat, and selects appropriate countermeasures for defeat.
g. The AH-64E uses two EAGLE-M +MMR embedded GPS navigation systems with a Multi-Mode Receiver. The EAGLE-M +MMR is a self-contained navigation system with an embedded GPS receiver, providing output navigation and GPS timing data. EAGLE's EGI unit houses a 24-channel GPS receiver which is capable of operating in either non-encrypted or encrypted modes.
h. The AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/AN/AAQ-11 Pilot Night Vision Sensor (MTADS/PNVS) provides day and night vision, adverse weather target information, and night navigation capabilities. The PNVS provides thermal imaging that permits nap-of-the-earth flight to, from, and within the battle area. MTADS provides the co-pilot gunner with search, detection, recognition, and designation by means of Direct View Optics (DVO) and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sighting systems.
i. The AN/APR-48B Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometer (MRFI) utilizes a detachable User Data Module (UDM) on the M-RFI processor, which contains the Radar Frequency (RF) threat library.
j. The AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar (FCR) with Radar Electronics Unit (REU) is an active, low-probability of intercept, millimeter wave radar. The active radar is combined with a passive Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) mounted on top of the helicopter mast. The FCR Ground Targeting Mode detects, locates, classifies, and prioritizes armored and aerial vehicles.
k. The Manned-Unmanned Teaming X (MUM-Tx) data link system provides cross-platform communication and teaming between Apache, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and other interoperable aircraft and ground platforms. It provides the ability to display real-time UAS sensor information and MTADS full motion video feeds.
l. The M299 Missile Launcher is a four-rail launcher designed to carry the complete family of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.
m. The Hellfire M36E8 Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) is a flight-training missile that consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus. It functions like a tactical missile during captive carry on an aircraft and has absent launch capability, making it suitable for training the aircrew in simulated Hellfire missile target acquisition and lock.
n. The M261 2.75 Inch Rocket Launcher is a three-zone rocket launcher utilized on heavy attack aircraft. It is used to fire the Hydra 70 rocket, an unguided, fin-stabilized air-to-ground rocket that utilizes a variety of warheads to achieve a range of effects.
o. Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM) incorporates defensive infrared countermeasures capabilities into current generation aircraft. It is part of a suite of infrared countermeasures that include a Missile Warning System (MWS) and an Improved Countermeasure Dispenser (ICMD) for flares and chaff.
2. The highest level of information that may be transferred in support of this proposed sale is classified SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Israel can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Israel.
On January 13, 2026, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a
In an effort to gather public comments that may have been received at the cancelled scoping session, this notice invites you to attend a virtual public scoping session Commission staff will conduct by telephone for the proposed Southeast Virginia Energy Storage Project (Project). With this notice the Commission is also reopening the scoping period for the project, which will now close on April 3, 2026. This virtual scoping session will be held as follows:
The scoping session will begin at 6:00 p.m. EDT and will end once all participants wishing to comment have had the opportunity to do so, or at 8:00 p.m. EDT, whichever comes first. The primary goal of this scoping session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental assessment. Individual
There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session begins. You may call at any time after the session begins, at which time you will be placed on hold. Calls will be answered in the order they are received. Once answered, you will have the opportunity to provide your comment directly to a court reporter with FERC staff present on the line. A time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Please note that your hold times may vary based on the number of callers at any given time.
Your comments will be recorded by the court reporter and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts of all comments received during the scoping session will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system. It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a virtual scoping session.
As a reminder, the Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is also on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-20-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additional information about the project is available from the FERC website at
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project. Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
On October 3, 2024, and supplemented on February 13, 2025, Blackstone Hydro Associates (licensee), filed a Downstream Fishway Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the Central Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 3063.
No motion in opposition to the request for withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on proposed revisions of the currently approved information collection, FERC-725N, (Mandatory Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability Standards). The 60-day notice for RD25-4 comment period ended on March 2, 2026 with no comments received.
Comments on the collection of information are due April 16, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-725N to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The FERC-725N information collection requirements are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Commission solicits comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the additional paperwork burden presented by the proposed new Reliability Standard TPL-008-1. The new defined term “extreme temperature assessment” is not expected to generate any new burden as it is a definition used within the body of Reliability Standards. Reliability Standards are objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best tailored to their systems. Additionally, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-008-1, Requirement R1 identifies each responsible entity that shall complete its responsibilities such that the extreme temperature assessment is completed at least once every five calendar years. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of November 20, 2024, identifies unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory compliance with proposed Reliability Standard TPL-008-1, as 62 planning coordinators (PC) and 204 transmission planners (TP). Based on these assumptions, we estimate the following reporting burden:
The annual
Take notice that on March 3, 2026, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.203, 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Transco's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000, for authorization to construct their Wharton West Expansion Project. Specifically, the project includes valving and piping modifications at Transco's existing Compressor Station 30 in Wharton County, Texas; installation of a new 12-inch tap (Goliad Delivery Interconnect) on Transco's existing McMullen Lateral in Goliad County, Texas; installation of a new receipt interconnect (White Creek Interconnect) in Live Oak County, Texas; and piping modifications at the existing Meider Valve Site in Live Oak County, Texas. The project will allow Transco to deliver 170,000 Dth/d of incremental firm transportation service to Luminant for the conversion of the Coleto Creek Power Plant from coal-fired to natural gas-fired electric generation. The estimated cost for the project is $7.8 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Greg Williams, Regulatory Analyst Lead, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396 by phone at (801) 209-6764 or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-133-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-133-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Greg Williams, Regulatory Analyst Lead, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396 or by email (with a link to the document) at
Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
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.
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
On September 30, 2024, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC (GLHA) filed applications for new major licenses for the 37.5-megawatt (MW) Ripogenus Hydroelectric Project No. 2572 and the 67.9-MW Penobscot Mills Hydroelectric Project No. 2458 (herein referred to as the Projects). On October 15, 2024, Commission staff issued notices of application tendered for filing with the Commission and establishing procedural schedule for relicensing the Projects. The notices included an anticipated schedule for issuing a Notice of Acceptance/Ready for Environmental Analysis by November 2025.
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule, as follows. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Allan Creamer at (202) 502-8365, or by email at
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
March 19, 2026, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Open to the public.
Open.
Agenda.
*
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed online at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters but will not be telecast.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On November 21, 2024, Blackstone Hydro Associates (licensee), filed an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan for the Central Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 3063.
No motion in opposition to the request for withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Take notice that on February 27, 2026, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed an application under sections 7(c) and 7(e) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting authorization for its Petal Cavern Expansion Project (Project). Gulf South requests authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain a new natural gas storage salt dome cavern, two brine disposal wells, brine and freshwater lines, natural gas pipeline connecting the new cavern to existing headers, and an intercompany check meter at Gulf South's existing Petal Gas Storage Field (Petal) in Forrest County, Mississippi. The Project would add an incremental working storage capacity of 10 billion cubic feet (Bcf) and base gas capacity of approximately 6 Bcf. Gulf South also requests reaffirmation of its market-based rate authority, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Juan Eligio Jr., Director, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by phone at (713)-479-8158, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2026.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-127-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-127-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-127-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-127-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Juan Eligio Jr., Director, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on February 26, 2026, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed an application under section(s) 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Petal Storage Capacity Amendment Project (Project). The Project involves amending the storage capacities of Caverns 6 and 12A and the certificated injection and withdrawal capability at Gulf South's existing Petal Gas Storage Field (Petal Storage Complex) located in Forrest County, Mississippi. The purpose of the Project is that the certificated capacity parameters align with the actual physical capabilities of the Petal Storage Complex. Specifically, Gulf South is proposing to amend the total certificated capacity of the Petal Storage Complex from 46.008 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 41.774 Bcf, and to update its certificated capacity for Cavern 6 from 6.5 Bcf to 3.636 Bcf and for Cavern 12A from 9.75 Bcf to 8.38 Bcf. Also, Gulf South is requesting to reduce the certificated injection capability from 1,738 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscf/d) to approximately 1,661 MMscf/d, and the withdrawal capability from 2,495 MMscf/d to approximately 2,130 MMscf/d. Gulf South requests the Commission to reaffirm its determination that Gulf South is authorized to charge market-based rates, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Juan Eligio Jr., Director, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by phone at (713) 479-8158, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2026.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-117-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-117-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-117-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-117-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Juan Eligio Jr., Director, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 15, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (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 comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before April 16, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
This information collection also addresses the requirements of a location adjustment process that the Commission adopted for Revised A-CAM I and A-CAM II carriers. The Commission proposes to add information collection requirements for this process. Specifically, the Commission decided that A-CAM support recipients that discover there is a widely divergent number of locations in their funded census blocks as compared to the model-estimated number of locations should have the opportunity to seek an adjustment to modify their deployment obligations. The Commission delegated to the WCB the authority to adjust the number of funded locations downward and reduce associated funding levels.
In the
Moreover, the Commission proposes to add information collection requirements for a process to permit certain RDOF carriers to demonstrate that locations within their supported service area are unreasonable to serve. To account for disparities between locations on the ground and those estimated by the Connect America Cost Model and to acknowledge its confidence that the Commission would have access to more accurate location data in the next few years, the Commission directed WCB to seek comment on updated location data and publish revised location counts no later than the end of service milestone year six for RDOF carriers. The Commission also adopted a framework for how service milestones would be revised in various circumstances after WCB had published more accurate location counts. In areas where there are more locations than locations estimated by the CAM, a RDOF carrier has until the end of the eighth calendar year to offer service to the additional locations. Such a RDOF carrier may seek to have its new location count adjusted to exclude additional locations, beyond the number identified by the CAM, that are ineligible, unreasonable to deploy to, or are part of a development that is newly built after the sixth year of support for which the cost and/or time to deploy before the end of the support term would be unreasonable.
In the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 18, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Section 90.176 requires each Private Land Mobile frequency coordinator to provide, within one business day, a listing of their frequency recommendations to all other frequency coordinators in their respective pool, and if requested, an engineering analysis.
Any method can be used to ensure this compliance with the “one business day requirement” and must provide, at a minimum, the name of the applicant; frequency or frequencies recommended; antenna locations and heights; and effective radiated power; the type(s) of emissions; the description of the service area; and the date and time of the recommendation. If a conflict in recommendations arises, the effected coordinators are jointly responsible for taking action to resolve the conflict, up to and including notifying the Commission that an application may have to be returned.
This requirement seeks to avoid situations where harmful interference is created because two or more coordinators recommend the same frequency in the same area at approximately the same time to different applicants.
10:00 a.m. on March 19, 2026.
This Board meeting will be open to public observation by webcast. Visit
Observers requiring auxiliary aids should email
Open to public observation via webcast.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Board of Directors will meet to consider the following matters:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulatory Capital Rule: Category I and II Banking Organizations, Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity, and Optional Adoption for Other Banking Organizations.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital and Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets.
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. The Board of Directors will resolve these matters with a single vote unless a member of the Board requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Rescission of Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.
Minutes of Board of Directors' Meeting Previously Distributed.
For further information, please contact Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary, FDIC, at
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 16, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (CFPB G; OMB No. 7100-0328).
Comments must be submitted on or before May 18, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by CFPB G, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 1, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Notice of Branch Closure (FR 4031; OMB No. 7100-0264).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is given that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) proposes to modify an existing system of records, entitled BGFRS-14, “FRB—General File of Reserve Bank and Branch Directors.” BGFRS-14 is a system of records that enables Board staff to develop, implement, and communicate the Board's program regarding Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors including the appointment of Class C directors and Board-appointed Branch directors; the eligibility, conduct, and service of all directors; the composition of Reserve Bank and Branch boards; and the interactions among the Board and the Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2026. This new system of records will become effective April 16, 2026, without further notice, unless comments dictate otherwise. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy Act, requires a 30-day period prior to publication in the
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
Alye Foster, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-5289, or
The Board is modifying BGFRS-14 to update the system to expand the system's purpose, the category of individuals and records covered by the system, the records source categories, and to amend the system-specific routine use. The Board is also taking the opportunity to update the system manager contact information, add a link to the Board's routine uses, and update the policies and practices for storage of Board records.
BGFRS-14 outlines in its purpose and scope the broad purpose of the system, which is that the system facilitates the Board's oversight of the conduct and service of Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors (“directors”). Upon reviewing the system, staff determined that while “oversight” is a broad term, the purpose and use of the system could be revised to more directly identify matters encompassed by the term “oversight.” Specifically, staff's oversight of the directors encompasses matters pertaining to the eligibility, conduct, and service related to all directors. It also includes the Board's appointment of Class C directors and Board-appointed Branch directors. This oversight also includes using the data to analyze the composition of Reserve Bank and Branch boards, for example, to track the Board's progress on ensuring that these boards include a variety of perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. The data is also used to facilitate interactions between the Board and the directors, including through a variety of director conferences throughout the year. The Board is modifying the purpose of the system to clarify what the system encompasses.
The Board has also determined that its oversight of the directors requires the collection of additional information. Specifically, the Board will collect information from additional record sources to include candidates for director positions in addition to both past and present directors. Therefore, the Board is modifying the category of records and category of individuals in the system to encompass biographical and background information for directors and candidates. The Board is also modifying the record sources categories to reflect the collection of contact information for director/candidate staff assistants and demographic information either on a voluntary basis from directors or candidates or from publicly available information.
The Board is amending the existing system-specific routine use because the routine use was incorrectly drafted. Specifically, using the records as background information for determining qualifications for appointment and recording correspondence concerning such persons would not usually involve the disclosure of information outside of the Board. The Board is therefore modifying the use to cover only disclosures outside of the Board to provide information for news releases and other publications and is also
The Board is further modifying the system to indicate that the Board stores records in electronic form and that remaining paper records are now historical records, which the Board will maintain for the appropriate retention period. The Board is also updating the contact information for the system manager.
The Board is also making technical changes to BGFRS-14 consistent with the template laid out in OMB Circular No. A-108. Accordingly, the Board has made technical corrections and non-substantive language revisions to the following categories: “Policies and Practices for Storage of Records,” “Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records,” “Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records,” “Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards,” “Record Access Procedures,” “Contesting Record Procedures,” and “Notification Procedures.” The Board has also created the following new fields: “Security Classification” and “History.”
BGFRS-14 “FRB—General File of Federal Reserve Bank and Branch Directors”
Unclassified.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Lila Stitely, Manager, Corporate Governance Oversight, Office of the Secretary, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551, 202-973-7486, or
Sections 3, 4, 11 and 21 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248, 302, 485, and 521).
These records are collected and maintained to facilitate the Board in its oversight of the eligibility, conduct, and service of all Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors; the appointment of Class C directors and Board-appointed Branch directors; the analysis of the composition of Reserve Bank and Branch boards of directors; and interactions among the Board and the Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors.
Candidates for, and past and present directors of, the Federal Reserve Banks and their respective Branches, as well as their assistants.
Biographical, background, and contact information for Federal Reserve Bank and Branch directors and candidates and other miscellaneous documentation (
Information is provided by the candidate or director to whom the record pertains, Federal Reserve Bank staff, candidate and director assistants, and publicly available information obtained by Board staff. Information is also provided by certain third parties, such as news and other information databases, on director candidates.
General routine uses A, C, D, G, I, and J apply to this system. These general routine uses are located at
Historical paper records in this system are stored in file folders with access limited to staff with a need-to-know. Electronic records are stored on a secure server with access limited to staff with a need-to-know.
Records can be retrieved by name.
Records pertaining to past and present directors, including potential directors who are recommended for Board consideration, are retained for at least five years after the annual cutoff, and may be retained longer, if necessary for administrative or reference purposes. Records pertaining to candidates who are not recommended for Board consideration may be destroyed when no longer needed.
Access to records is limited to those whose official duties require it. Paper records in this system are stored in file folders with access limited to staff with a need-to-know. The system has the ability to track individual user actions. The audit and accountability controls are based on National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Board standards, which, in turn, are based on applicable laws and regulations. The controls assist in detecting security violations and performance or other issues in the system. Access to the system is restricted to authorized users within the Board and Federal Reserve System who require access for official business purposes. Users are classified into different roles and common access and usage rights are established for each role. User roles are used to delineate between the different types of access requirements such that users are restricted to data that is required in the performance of their duties. Periodic assessments and reviews are conducted to determine whether users still require access, have the appropriate role, and whether there have been any unauthorized changes.
The Privacy Act allows individuals the right to access records maintained about them in a Board system of records. Your request for access must: (1) contain a statement that the request is made pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974; (2) provide either the name of the Board system of records expected to contain the record requested or a concise description of the system of records; (3) provide the information necessary to verify your identity; and (4) provide any other information that may assist in the rapid identification of the record you seek.
Current or former Board employees may make a request for access by contacting the Board office that maintains the record. The Board handles all Privacy Act requests as both a Privacy Act request and as a Freedom of Information Act request. The Board does not charge fees to a requestor seeking to access or amend his/her Privacy Act records.
You may submit your Privacy Act request to the—Secretary of the Board,
You may also submit your Privacy Act request electronically by filling out the required information at:
The Privacy Act allows individuals to seek amendment of information that is erroneous, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete and is maintained in a system of records that pertains to them. To request an amendment to your record, you should clearly mark the request as a “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” You have the burden of proof for demonstrating the appropriateness of the requested amendment and you must provide relevant and convincing evidence in support of your request.
Your request for amendment must: (1) provide the name of the specific Board system of records containing the record you seek to amend; (2) identify the specific portion of the record you seek to amend; (3) describe the nature of and reasons for each requested amendment; (4) explain why you believe the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete; and (5) unless you have already done so in a related Privacy Act request for access or amendment, provide the necessary information to verify your identity.
Same as “Access procedures” above. You may also follow this procedure in order to request an accounting of previous disclosures of records pertaining to you as provided for by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c).
Certain portions of this system of records may be exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
This SORN was previously published in the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces that it is soliciting nominations of substances to be evaluated for an upcoming set of toxicological profiles. ATSDR is opening a docket for the public to submit nominations and provide comments on which toxicological profiles are developed next. Members of the public, government agencies, or private organizations may comment on which substances they are concerned about so that ATSDR may take this information into consideration when developing future toxicological profiles.
Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2026-0001 by either of the methods listed below. Do not submit comments by email. ATSDR does not accept comments by email.
•
•
Farhana Rahman, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop S106-5, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717; Email:
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
Each year, ATSDR develops a list of substances to be considered for toxicological profile development. The nomination process includes consideration of all substances on ATSDR's SPL, as well as other substances nominated by the public.
This notice invites public nominations of substances for toxicological profile development. If nominating a substance that is not on the SPL, please include the rationale for the nomination and any supporting data. ATSDR will evaluate data and information associated with nominated substances and will determine the final list of substances to be chosen for toxicological profile development.
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting nominations for substances. These submissions may include written views and data to support the nomination. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Land travel-related Public Health Activities” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on January 13, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Land travel-related Public Health Activities (OMB Control No. 0920-0134, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The goal of this information collection is to ensure that, consistent with the authorities in the Public Health Service Act and CFR parts 70 and 71, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is able to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.
This information collection focuses on collecting necessary information needed for CDC to conduct public health response and follow up in the event an individual with a confirmed or suspected communicable disease is known to have traveled via land conveyance (
This information collection includes collection of conveyance, passenger and crew contact information from land conveyance operators (for example, via manifests) for contact investigations. Additionally, this information collection includes forms to obtain information on the outcomes of the contact investigations carried out by international, state, local, or territorial public health professionals to assess the impacts of CDC public health activities. With this current submission, CDC is requesting a Revision that will consolidate all land travel activity-related information collections under one OMB Control Number, thereby improving efficiency of CDC's land travel activities PRA submission process. In this Revision, CDC plans to keep one form in the previously approved version of 0920-0134, and add two that are currently approved under other OMB Control Numbers. CDC is also requesting to add four new information collection tools related to land travel that are based on similar tools for air travel. All other information collection tools currently approved in 0920-0134 are undergoing other requests to be moved into other approved OMB packages. With the aggregation of these land activity tools to simplify the PRA process, CDC is recommending revising the previous title from “
CDC requests OMB approval for a total estimated 154 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Aviation-related Public Health Activities” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on January 13, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Aviation-related Public Health Activities (OMB Control No. 0920-0488, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The goal of this information collection is to ensure that, consistent with the authorities in the Public Health Service Act and CFR parts 70 and 71, CDC is able to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States or from one state or possession into any other state or possession.
This information collection focuses on gathering information needed for CDC to conduct public health response and follow up in the event an individual is known to have traveled on an inbound international or interstate flight while infectious (confirmed case) or potentially infectious (suspected case), presenting a risk of disease spread to others. The information collection includes obtaining conveyance, passenger and crew contact information from airlines (aka manifests) for contact investigations. Additionally, this information collection includes forms to obtain information on the outcomes of the contact investigations carried out by state, local, or territorial public health
Historically, these aviation-related information collection activities were approved under this and other OMB Control Numbers as outlined below. With this current submission, CDC is requesting a Revision that will consolidate all aviation-related information collections under one OMB Control Number. The purpose of aggregating these tools is to simplify the PRA process, creating efficiency when revisions are needed for aviation information collections. As such, CDC is recommending revising the previous title from “Report of Illness or Death: Interstate Travel of Persons (42 CFR part 70),” to “Aviation-related Public Health Activities.”
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,583 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is seeking nominations for membership on the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW). The ACBCYW consists of 15 experts in fields associated with breast cancer, disease prevention, early detection, diagnosis, public health, social marketing, genetic screening and counseling, treatment, rehabilitation, palliative care, and survivorship in young women, or in related disciplines with a specific focus on young women.
Nominations for membership on the ACBCYW must be received no later than April 20, 2026. Packages received
All nominations should be mailed to Kimberly E. Smith, M.B.A., M.H.A. c/o ACBCYW Secretariat, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3719 North Peachtree Road, Building 100, Chamblee, Georgia 30341 or emailed (recommended) to
Kimberly E. Smith, M.B.A., M.H.A., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S107-4, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Telephone: (404) 498-0073;
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the objectives of the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW). Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of breast health, breast cancer, disease prevention and risk reduction, survivorship (including metastatic breast cancer), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), or in related disciplines with a specific focus on young women. Persons with personal experience with early onset breast cancer are also eligible to apply. This includes but may not be limited to breast cancer survivors 45 years of age and younger and caregivers of said persons. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of ACBCYW objectives (
Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made free from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on Federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a Federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviews potential candidates for ACBCYW membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in December 2026, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address)
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by HHS. Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
A biographical sketch of the nominee (150 words or less)
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate or by the person/organization recommending the candidate. CDC will collect and retain nominations received for up to two years to create a pool of potential ACBCYW nominees. When a vacancy occurs, CDC will review nominations and may contact nominees at that time.
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Maritime Illness Database and Reporting System (MIDRS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 21, 2025 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received 2 related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maritime Illness Database and Reporting System (MIDRS) (OMB Control No. 0920-1260, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Extension—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The purpose of this Extension Information Collection Request (ICR) is to request a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Clearance for CDC's Maritime Illness Database and Reporting System (MIDRS) surveillance system. Operationally, CDC has divided the responsibilities for enforcing foreign quarantine regulations between the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) and the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ). VSP takes the lead on overseeing acute gastroenteritis (AGE) illness surveillance and outbreak investigation activities on passenger ships using MIDRS, while DGMQ monitors all non-AGE illnesses and deaths on passenger vessels as well as all diseases of public health concern on all other conveyances with international itineraries bound for the U.S. under “Foreign Quarantine Regulations (42 CFR part 71)” (OMB Control No. 0920-0134, Exp. 03/31/2026).
The MIDRS data collection system consists of a surveillance system that receives information electronically through a web portal or email receiver; data can also be submitted by phone or email and entered in MIDRS by VSP. AGE cases reported in MIDRS are cumulative totals for the entire voyage and do not represent the number of active AGE cases at any given port of call or at disembarkation. The AGE log, 72-hour food/activity history questionnaires and other required documentation are completed and maintained on the ship. Data collected will allow VSP to quickly detect AGE outbreaks, provide epidemiologic and sanitation guidance to stop the outbreak, craft public health recommendations to prevent future outbreaks, and monitor AGE illness trends to identify important changes over time.
There are two types of respondents for this data collection: (1) Cruise ship medical staff or other designated personnel who report AGE cases; and (2) AGE cases who provide information for the 72-hour food/activity history questionnaires. Of note, VSP will not receive any information from or about the AGE cases; this information is collected and owned by the cruise line and maintained on the ship as part of the AGE case's medical record. VSP reviews these records during operational inspections to confirm they are available if needed, and if there is an AGE outbreak or report of unusual AGE illness for a particular voyage.
VSP has amended the burden table to better reflect submission patterns, while still accounting for potential increases in counts due to the addition of new ships to fleets and increases in shore-side AGE cases, which leads to increases in cruise ship AGE case counts.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 5,769,350 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 18, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Section 3708 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act permits nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists (CNSs), and physician assistants (PAs) to certify the need for home health services and to order services in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. As such, under CMS-5531-IFC, CMS amended 42 CFR 440.70 to remove the requirement that the NPPs have to communicate the clinical finding of the face-to-face encounter to the ordering physician. With expanding authority to order home health services, the CARES Act also provided that such practitioners are now capable of independently performing the face-to-face encounter for the patient for whom they are the ordering practitioner, in accordance with state law.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
For this submission, HRSA proposes extending the following report forms in their current status:
This collection is considered a revision package because there is an estimated decline of 268 burden hours due to RWHAP recipients' increased familiarity with reporting requirements introduced in the currently approved collection.
A 60-day notice was published in the
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, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The meeting will be partially open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend as well as those who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, must notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The intramural programs and projects as well as the grant applications and/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, 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.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of an organization may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, 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.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution and scheduling of an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2254(d)).
Pursuant to section 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”), the Commission has instituted investigation No. TA-201-075, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic (“CSPV”) Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) (“CSPV products”), for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by the President on imports of CSPV products under section 203 of the Act, which terminated on February 6, 2026.
February 6, 2026.
Celia Feldpausch (202-205-2387), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On March 6, 2020, the Commission issued a report pursuant to a request from the United States Trade Representative under section 204(a)(4) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2254(a)(4)), regarding the probable economic effect on the domestic CSPV cell and module manufacturing industry of modifying the safeguard measure (see Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products: Advice on the Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the Safeguard Measure, No. TA-201-075 (Modification), USITC Publication 5032, March 2020). Subsequently, the President issued Proclamation 10101, determining that the domestic industry had begun to make a positive adjustment to import competition and modifying in part the action applicable to imports covered by the safeguard measure (85 FR 65639, October 16, 2020).
On December 8, 2021, in response to a petition seeking extension of the safeguard measure filed on behalf of Auxin Solar Inc. and Suniva and a petition filed on behalf of Hanwha Q CELLS USA, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and Mission Solar Energy LLC, the Commission issued its determination and report pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2254(c)), finding that the safeguard measure continued to be necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry, and that there was evidence that the domestic industry was making a positive adjustment to import competition (see Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products): Extension of Action, Investigation No. TA-201-075 (Extension), USITC Publication 5266, December 2021). On February 4, 2022, the President issued Proclamation 10339 (87 FR 7357, February 9, 2022), pursuant to section 203(e)(1)(B) of the Act (19.U.S.C. 2253(e)(1)(B)), extending the safeguard measure on CSPV and parts thereof for an additional period of four years, or through February 6, 2026.
Section 204(d) of the Act requires the Commission, following termination of a relief action, to evaluate the effectiveness of the action in facilitating positive adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition, consistent with the reasons set out by the President in the report submitted to the Congress under section 203(b) of the Act. The Commission is required to submit a report on the evaluation to the President and the Congress no later than 180 days after the day on which the relief action was terminated. Section 204(d)(2) requires the Commission to hold a hearing in the course of conducting its evaluation.
For further information concerning the conduct of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 206, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 206).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 10, 2026. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on June 11, 2026. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2) and 201.13(f) of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 206.8 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the public service list) and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation by respondents Hezeyunjiangjixieshebeiyouxiangongsi (d/b/a Maomaohouse) (“Maomaohouse”) of Shenzhen, China; Guangzhou Lesenyu Dianzishangwu Youxiangongsi (d/b/a Le Sengyu) (“Le Sengyu”) of Guangzhou, China; Hefeiweifengshidaishidaimaoyiyouxiangongsi (d/b/a HealthSTEC) (“HealthSTEC”) of Hefei City, China; ShenzhenShi Julonghui Trading Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Edermurs) (“Edermurs”) of Shenzhen, China; and Shenzhenshi Lishian Keji Youxiangongsi (d/b/a Lishian) (“Lishian”) of Shenzhen, China (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”). The Commission has determined to issue: (1) a general exclusion order (“GEO”); and (2) cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against Maomaohouse, Le Sengyu, HealthSTEC, and Lishian. The investigation is terminated.
Houda Morad, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 13, 2025, based on a complaint filed by Kids By Parents, Inc. (“Complainant”) of Potomac, Maryland. 90 FR 2745-46 (Jan. 13, 2025). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain urine splash guards and components thereof by reason of the infringement of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,619 (“the '619 patent”) and claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,901 (“the '901 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to the Settling Respondents based on settlement.
On May 28, 2025, the Commission found the Defaulting Respondents in default for failure to respond to the complaint, notice of investigation, and order to show cause.
On June 30, 2025, Complainant filed a motion for summary determination of a violation of section 337 against the Defaulting Respondents. Complainant also requested that the Commission issue a GEO and CDOs, and set a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of infringing articles imported during the period of Presidential review. On July 10, 2025, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed.
On September 17, 2025, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting in part Complainant's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. Specifically, the ALJ granted Complainant's motion with respect to claims 1 and 2 of the '619 patent and claims 1 and 2 of the '901 patent, but not with respect to claim 3 of the '901 patent. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination (“RD”) recommending that the Commission issue a GEO and CDOs against Maomaohouse, Le Sengyu, HealthSTEC, and Lishian, but not Edermurs. The ALJ further recommended that the Commission set a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of infringing articles during the period of Presidential review.
On December 8, 2025, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to claim 3 of the '901 patent, thereby terminating the investigation before the ALJ.
On September 22, 2025, the Commission issued a notice seeking public interest submissions from the public and interested government agencies by October 22, 2025.
On December 3, 2025, the Commission issued a notice determining to review the ID (Order No. 16) in part. Comm'n Notice (Dec. 3, 2025), 90 FR 56799-800 (Dec. 8, 2025) (“Remedy Notice”). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the ID's findings relating to the domestic industry requirement.
On December 19, 2025, Complainant and OUII filed written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On January 5, 2026, OUII filed a reply to Complainant's written submission. No other written submissions were received in response to the Remedy Notice.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the ID, the RD, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to affirm the ID's finding that the domestic industry requirement is met. Consequently, the Commission affirms the ID's finding of a violation of section 337 against the Defaulting Respondents.
As explained in the Commission Opinion issued concurrently herewith, the Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is: (1) a GEO; and (2) CDOs against Maomaohouse, Le Sengyu, HealthSTEC, and Lishian. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) and (g) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (g)) do not preclude issuance of the above referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined to set a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review pursuant to section 337(j) (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The investigation is terminated.
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission's vote for this determination took place on March 12, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed amendment of PTE 2014-06.
This document contains a notice of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of a proposed amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2014-06.
All written comments and requests for a hearing should be submitted to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Attention: Application No. D-11981:
• via email to
• online through
Any such comments or requests should be sent before the end of the scheduled comment period. The application for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1515, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. See
Ms. Anna Vaughan of the Department at (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Additionally, the
The Department is considering granting the amendment to PTE 2014-06
As discussed in further detail below, following the Trust's acquisition of the Preferred Interests, AT&T Inc. negotiated with the Independent Fiduciary of the Plan to modify certain terms and provisions relevant to the Plan's continued holding of the Preferred Interests, to enhance the transferability of the Preferred Interests. These modifications occurred on October 15, 2018 (the Modifications). The Independent Fiduciary approved the Modifications as being beneficial to the Plan, after requesting that AT&T Inc. make an additional $80 million contribution to the Plan, which AT&T Inc. did. The Applicant requested this amendment so that the exemptive relief and conditions of PTE 2014-06 would be consistent with the Modifications.
As described in more detail below, following the Modifications, the Independent Fiduciary disposed of the Preferred Interests. It is the Department's understanding that the Trust has not held the Preferred Interests since April 5, 2023. Therefore, the relief in this exemption ends on that date.
As initially granted, PTE 2014-06 had three sections (Sections I, II and III). Those sections remain effective from September 9, 2013, through October 14,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. According to AT&T, the Contribution enhanced the Plan's funding by providing substantially in excess of the amount of contributions required to be made by AT&T by applicable pension rules. At the time of the Contribution, the Plan was underfunded by approximately $9.32 billion. The Contribution added approximately $9.21 billion in assets, which included the value of the Preferred Interests and other cash payments.
6. The Contribution significantly enhanced the Plan's cash flow. Among other things, the Preferred Interests have accrued cumulative distributions of $1.75 per Preferred Interest per year. At the time of the Contribution, these distributions provided $560 million in annual cash flow to the Trust, which represented approximately 11% of the Trust's annual cash flow requirements to pay benefits. As a condition of PTE 2014-06, the Department required AT&T to make a lump-sum cash contribution of $700 million in addition to the contribution of the Preferred Interests. Further, to ensure that AT&T would not solely rely on the value of the Preferred Interests to meet its funding obligations, the Department required AT&T to make an additional lump sum cash contribution to the Plan no later than September 19, 2019, in an amount equal to AT&T's minimum required contribution obligation to the Plan for the period from 2013-2017. In determining the amount required to satisfy the minimum contribution obligation, AT&T could not count the value of the Preferred Interests to the extent the value exceeded 10% of the Plan's assets on January 1, 2018, and AT&T could not consider any contributions that it had paid over those years (if any).
7. The rights and obligations of the parties in connection with the transactions covered by PTE 2014-06 were primarily governed by these three agreements:
(a)
(b)
(c)
8.
9.
Specifically, the Modifications:
(a) provided that the Preferred Interests are transferable by the Trust and all subsequent holders of the Preferred Interests without the Issuer's (
(b) provided that the Put Option may be exercised by any holder of the Preferred Interests;
(c) gave the Issuer (
(d) preserved all of the Trust's rights with respect to the Preferred Interests, except for the following: (i) the Put Option was modified so that during each calendar quarter, it may be exercised by the Trust (and any subsequent transferee) only during specific periods that alternate with the periods during which the Redemption Option may be exercised, and (ii) the Registration Rights Agreement was modified to change the consequences to AT&T if it were to fail to register AT&T Inc. common stock received by the Trust as a result of the exercise of the Put Option or the Redemption Option (the Failure to Register Modification).
10. Before the Failure to Register Modification, under PTE 2014-06, if the Trust exercised the Put Option and AT&T delivered unregistered AT&T Shares to the Plan in exchange for the Preferred Interests, and AT&T failed to register such AT&T Shares, then AT&T was obligated to repurchase those unregistered AT&T Shares at their fair market value (as determined by the Independent Fiduciary). Following the Failure to Register Modification, if AT&T failed to register the AT&T Shares delivered to the Plan in exchange for the Preferred Interests, AT&T was prohibited from declaring any dividends on its outstanding common stock and from making any “Restricted Share Repurchases” as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement. Further, the obligation of AT&T to purchase back the unregistered AT&T Shares from the Trust was removed from the Registration Rights Agreement.
11.
12. In addition, the Independent Fiduciary has not entered into and will not enter into any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the Independent Fiduciary by the Plan or other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the Independent Fiduciary's work; or waives any rights, claims, or remedies of the Plan under ERISA, state, or Federal law against the Independent Fiduciary with respect to the transactions that are the subject of this exemption.
Finally, the Applicant represents that the selection of Brock as the Independent Fiduciary was based solely on Brock's qualifications to serve as a qualified independent fiduciary and was made after a prudent process that included a determination that Brock did not have any interests in any party in interest involved in the covered transactions or in the covered transactions themselves which may affect the exercise of Brock's best judgment as a fiduciary.
13.
a.
According to the Independent Fiduciary, given that the Preferred Interests accounted for approximately 17% of the Plan's assets,
b.
c.
The Independent Fiduciary also notes that it negotiated for a Put Option to be added to the LLC Agreement to be exercisable by subsequent holders of the Preferred Interests.
d.
14.
15.
a.
b.
c.
16.
17. The Department notes that the Independent Fiduciary exercised the Put Option to cause AT&T to buy back all the remaining Preferred Interests held by the Trust on April 5, 2023, in exchange for cash. Because the Trust did not hold the Preferred Interests or any AT&T Shares received in respect of any Preferred Interests after the Independent Fiduciary's exercise of the Put Option, exemptive relief is only provided to AT&T and the Plan under this exemption until April 5, 2023.
18. The modifications described above are reflected in the following revisions to PTE 2014-06 (which include new conditions required by the Department):
a.
• A new definition of “Modifications” was added, to describe the modifications negotiated and approved by the Independent Fiduciary that became effective on October 15, 2018.
• A new definition of “LLC Agreement” was added and would mean: the Fourth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of AT&T Mobility II LLC, effective October 15, 2018.
• The definition of “Call Option” would reflect the right of AT&T under the Contribution Agreement to purchase the Preferred Interests from the Trust, from September 1, 2013, until October 14, 2018, at which point the Call Option was replaced by the Redemption Option effective October 15, 2018.
• The definition of “Put Option” reflects that, after September 9, 2020, any holder of the Preferred Interests (including the Trust) can exercise the Put Option during the first and last 15 business days of each fiscal quarter instead of at any time of the holder's choosing.
• A new definition of “Redemption Option” was added to reflect the right of the Issuer under the LLC Agreement to redeem the Preferred Interests in whole or in part (i) upon a Change of Control or (ii) on or after September 9, 2022, during the “Exercise Period.”
• The definition of “Exercise Period” was added to reflect the alternating periods of time within which the Preferred Interests can be redeemed by the Issuer pursuant to the Redemption Option and/or put to AT&T or the Issuer by any holder of the Preferred Interests (including the Independent Fiduciary on behalf of the Trust) pursuant to the Put Option.
• The definition of “Option Price” reflects revisions to the Contribution Agreement and the LLC Agreement that removed the Call Option from the Contribution Agreement and added a Redemption Option and Put Option to the LLC Agreement, and to better reflect the understanding of the term by the parties. Further, references to “the occurrence of prior events” are no longer included in the definition of Option Price but are instead included in a new definition.
• Definitions of “Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interest” and “Contingent Event” have been added, to better clarify and confirm the parties' understanding of these terms and to reflect the removal of the Call Option from the Contribution Agreement and addition of the Redemption Option and Put Option to the LLC Agreement, each effective October 15, 2018.
• The definition of “Change of Control” differs in that clause (ii), specifying an event involving the transfer of fifty percent or more of the Plan liabilities and Trust assets to an entity not under common control with AT&T, now only applies for purposes of the Contribution Agreement.
• The definition of “Distributions” was added for clarification and refers to the distribution rights carried by the Preferred Interests of $1.75 per Preferred Interest.
b.
• No relief is being provided for the contribution of the Preferred Interests by AT&T to the SBC Master Pension Trust, since that contribution was a one-time transaction covered by PTE 2014-06, as initially granted.
• The section provides other non-substantive changes to streamline and/or clarify the covered transactions.
c.
• Requires that the Independent Fiduciary have discretion regarding the disposition of AT&T Shares in accordance with the Investment Management Agreement (which was amended as of October 15, 2018) and the Registration Rights Agreement.
• Requires that any modification of the Plan's rights and obligations under any term, definition or condition of the amendment, including any Modification, must be negotiated and approved in advance on behalf of the Plan by the Independent Fiduciary.
• Includes a new requirement that the selection of the Independent Fiduciary is based solely on the Independent Fiduciary's qualifications pursuant to a prudent process and with the understanding that the Independent Fiduciary has no interest in the transaction that could affect the best exercise of its duties as a fiduciary.
• New conditions requiring that neither the Plan nor any third party may indemnify the Independent Fiduciary or the Independent Appraiser, for (or limit in any way) any liability that is attributable to negligence or violations of ERISA, state or Federal law (as applicable), and no contract or
• A new condition requiring that the terms of any transactions between the Plan and a purchaser of Preferred Interests or any AT&T Shares be no less favorable to the Plan than arms' length terms between unrelated parties.
• A new condition requiring that the Preferred Interests must be transferable by the Trust and by all subsequent holders of the Preferred Interests at the holder's sole discretion.
• A new condition requiring that AT&T must have made the additional cash payment to the Plan of $80 million no later than October 15, 2018, in connection with the Modifications.
• A new condition prohibiting AT&T from declaring any dividends on, or making any repurchases of, any AT&T Shares, in the event that the Trust held any unregistered AT&T Shares that were received in exchange for the Preferred Interests.
• A new condition requiring that all the material facts and representations set forth in the Summary of Facts and Representation be true and accurate and that the Applicant will promptly inform the Department in the event any material fact or representation ceases to be true and accurate.
• A requirement that the records necessary to prove adherence to the conditions of the exemption are maintained for 6 years from the later of the date that exemptive relief under the exemption is needed, or the date of publication of the final exemption.
• A new condition requiring that AT&T make available to the Department all records necessary to ensure that each condition of this exemption has been met within 30 days of request by the Department.
d.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided to all interested persons in the manner approved by the Department and will contain the documents described therein and a supplemental statement required by 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform interested persons of their right to comment on and to request a hearing with respect to the pending exemption. All written comments and/or requests for a hearing must be received by the Department by June 17, 2026. All comments will be made available to the public.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 404, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge their duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries and in a prudent manner in accordance with ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B); nor does it affect the requirement of Code section 401(a) that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2), the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemption, if granted, would be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is, in fact, a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemption, if granted, would be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application are true and complete at all times and that the application accurately describes all material terms of the transactions which are the subject of the exemption.
Based on the foregoing facts and representations submitted by AT&T, Inc. (together with AT&T Inc.'s affiliates, AT&T or the Applicant), the Department is considering amending PTE 2014-06 (79 FR 43072, July 24, 2014), an individual exemption previously granted by the Department under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011), as follows:
For purposes of Sections V and VI:
(a) The term “Affiliate” means:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person;
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.
For the purposes of clause (a)(1) above, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.
(b) The term “AT&T Mobility” means AT&T Mobility II LLC.
(c) The term “AT&T Shares” means shares of AT&T Inc. common stock.
(d) The term “Call Option” means the right of AT&T under the Contribution Agreement to purchase all or any portion of the Preferred Interests from the Trust, from September 1, 2013, until October 14, 2018. Effective October 15, 2018, the Call Option was replaced by the Redemption Option, described below.
(e) The term “Change of Control” means: (i) the occurrence of any merger, reorganization or other transaction that results in AT&T Inc., directly or indirectly, owning less than fifty percent of the capital or profits interests (where AT&T Mobility remains taxable as a partnership), or equity (if AT&T Mobility becomes taxable as a corporation), of AT&T Mobility exclusive of the Preferred Interests and/or (ii) solely for purposes of the Contribution Agreement, a transfer of fifty percent or more of the Plan liabilities and Trust assets to an entity not under common control with AT&T Inc.
(f) The term “Committee” means the AT&T Inc. Benefit Plan Investment Committee, which has been delegated the power and authority to appoint and remove trustees and investment managers, and to enter into and amend trust agreements and other agreements relating to the management of Plan assets and, in respect of such power and authority, has been designated by AT&T Services, Inc. as a “named fiduciary” of the Plan.
(g) The term “Contingent Event” means (1) the first date that the Issuer's “debt-to-total-capitalization ratio” (as defined in the Contribution Agreement and the LLC Agreement, as applicable) exceeds that of AT&T, (2) the date on which AT&T is rated below investment grade for two consecutive calendar quarters by at least two of the following rating agencies: (x) S&P Global Ratings, (y) Moody's, or (z) Fitch Group, or (3) a Change of Control.
(h) The term “Contribution Agreement” means the Amended and Restated Contribution Agreement between Brock Fiduciary Services LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Directed Trustee of the Trust, AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility II LLC, dated October 15, 2018.
(i) The term “Distributions” means distribution rights carried by the Preferred Interests of $1.75 per Preferred Interest, for a total of $560 million per year in cash payable to the Trust as measured on the date of the Contribution, in accordance with the terms of the Contribution Agreement.
(j) The term “Exercise Period” means, with respect to the Put Option, the period comprised of the first 15 business days and the last 15 business days of any fiscal quarter of AT&T; and with respect to the Redemption Option, the period beginning on the 26th business day of any fiscal quarter of AT&T and ending on the 35th business day of such quarter.
(k) The term “Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interest” means (1) in cases of the exercise of the Put Option on or after September 9, 2020 (other than an exercise prior to September 9, 2022 as the result of a Contingent Event) OR upon the exercise of the Redemption Option on or after September 9, 2022, an amount determined based upon $25.00 per Preferred Interest plus any accrued and unpaid Distributions and market conditions at the time; and (2) in cases of the exercise of the Put Option prior to September 9, 2022 as the result of a Contingent Event OR upon the exercise of the Redemption Option prior to September 9, 2022, an amount determined based upon the sum of: (x) $25.00 per Preferred Interest plus any accrued and unpaid Distributions, and (y) the present value of future Distributions through and ending on September 9, 2022 (excluding accrued and unpaid Distributions accounted for in (x) immediately above).
(l) The term “Investment Management Agreement” means the Investment Management Agreement by and between AT&T Services, Inc., the AT&T Benefit Plan Investment Committee, AT&T Inc. and Brock Fiduciary Services LLC, amended as of October 15, 2018.
(m) The term “Independent Appraiser” means an individual or entity meeting the definition of a “Qualified Independent Appraiser” under 29 CFR 2570.31(i) retained to determine, on behalf of the Plan, the Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interests as of the date of the Contribution and while the Preferred Interests are held on behalf of the Plan. For avoidance of doubt, the Independent Appraiser may be the Independent Fiduciary, provided it qualifies as a Qualified Independent Appraiser.
(n) The term “Independent Fiduciary” means Brock Fiduciary Services LLC and any other fiduciary who: (1) is independent or unrelated to AT&T Inc. and its Affiliates and has the appropriate training, experience, and facilities to act on behalf of the Plan regarding the covered transactions in accordance with the fiduciary duties and responsibilities prescribed by ERISA (including, if necessary, the responsibility to seek the counsel of knowledgeable advisors to assist in its compliance with ERISA); and (2) if relevant, succeeds Brock Fiduciary Services LLC pursuant to the terms of the Investment Management Agreement, Independent Fiduciary Agreement, or other relevant agreement. The Independent Fiduciary will not be deemed to be independent of and unrelated to AT&T Inc. and its Affiliates if: (i) such fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with AT&T and its Affiliates; (ii) such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration in connection with any transaction described in this proposed amendment other than for acting as an Independent Fiduciary in connection with the transactions described herein, provided that the
(o) The term “Independent Fiduciary Agreement” means the Independent Fiduciary Agreement dated May 1, 2012, as amended, by and among AT&T Services, AT&T Inc. and Brock Fiduciary Services LLC.
(p) The term “Issuer” means AT&T Mobility II LLC.
(q) The term “LLC Agreement” means the Fourth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of AT&T Mobility II LLC, effective October 15, 2018.
(r) The term “Modifications” means the modifications negotiated and approved by the Independent Fiduciary that became effective on October 15, 2018, that, in general: (1) provide that the Preferred Interests are transferable by the Trust and all subsequent holders of the Preferred Interests without the Issuer's prior approval; (2) provide that the Put Option may be exercised by any holder of the Preferred Interests; (3) remove the Call Option from the Contribution Agreement, and add the Redemption Option to the LLC Agreement, whereby AT&T Mobility has the right to redeem the Preferred Interests; and (4) preserve all of the Trust's rights with respect to the Preferred Interests, except for the following: (i) the Put Option was modified so that during each calendar quarter, it may be exercised only during specific periods that alternate with the periods during which the Redemption Option may be exercised, and (ii) the Registration Rights Agreement was modified to change the consequences to AT&T if it were to fail to register AT&T Inc. common stock received by the Trust as a result of the exercise of the Put Option or the Redemption Option.
(s) The term “Option Price” means an amount equal to the greater of: (1) the Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interest, determined by the Independent Fiduciary as of the last date of the calendar quarter preceding the date of exercise of the Redemption Option or the Put Option, as the case may be, or for the portion of Preferred Interests that are not immediately purchased by AT&T or the Issuer pursuant to the Redemption Option or the Put Option because of the limitation on AT&T's obligation to purchase the Preferred Interests pursuant to the Put Option to no more than 106,666,667 Preferred Interests in any twelve month period, (except in the event of a Change of Control) the Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interest, determined by the Independent Fiduciary as of the last date of the calendar quarter immediately preceding the date such portion of the Preferred Interest is actually purchased by AT&T Inc.; and (2) the sum of $25.00 (
(t) The term “Plan” means the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan.
(u) The term “Preferred Interests” means the Series A Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Membership Interests in AT&T Mobility, an indirect wholly owned limited liability company subsidiary of AT&T Inc., as such Preferred Interests were modified effective October 15, 2018, pursuant to the Contribution Agreement, the LLC Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement.
(v) The term “Put Option” means the right of the Independent Fiduciary on behalf of the Trust to require AT&T to purchase the Preferred Interests pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Contribution Agreement; or the right of any holder of the Preferred Interests (including the Independent Fiduciary on behalf of the Trust) to require the Issuer to purchase the Preferred Interests pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the LLC Agreement, as applicable, at the Option Price per Preferred Interest, at any time and from time to time on or after the earliest of: (1) the first date that the Issuer's debt-to-total-capitalization ratio exceeds that of AT&T; (2) the date on which AT&T Inc. is rated below investment grade for two consecutive calendar quarters by at least two of the following rating agencies: (x) S&P Global Ratings, (y) Moody's, or (z) Fitch Group; (3) a Change of Control; or (4) on or after September 9, 2020, as long as the exercise is within the Exercise Period.
(w) The term “Redemption Option” means the right of the Issuer to redeem the Preferred Interests in whole or in part pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the LLC Agreement, at the Option Price per Preferred Interest at any time and from time to time on or after the earliest of: (1) a Change of Control; or (2) September 9, 2022, the ninth anniversary of the date on which the Preferred Interests were contributed to the Trust, as long as such redemption is within the Exercise Period.
(x) The term “Registration Rights Agreement” means the Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement by and among AT&T Inc., the SBC Master Pension Trust and Brock Fiduciary Services LLC, as Independent Fiduciary and investment manager with respect to the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, a participating plan in the SBC Master Pension Trust, dated October 15, 2018.
(y) The term “Trust” means the SBC Master Pension Trust, established and maintained pursuant to an agreement between AT&T Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as amended and restated effective as of February 1, 2012.
Effective October 15, 2018, the restrictions of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(B), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a) and the sanctions resulting from the application of Code section 4975 (a) and (b), by reason of Code section 4975(c)(1)(A), 4975(c)(1)(B), 4975(c)(1)(D) and 4975(c)(1)(E), shall not apply to AT&T and the Plan with respect to the following transactions, provided that the conditions described in Section VI are satisfied:
(a) The holding of the Preferred Interests by the Trust on behalf of the Plan;
(b) The granting by the Trust to the Issuer of the Redemption Option, and the disposition of the Preferred Interests in connection with the exercise of the Redemption Option; and
(c) The holding by the Trust of the Put Option, and the disposition by the Trust of the Preferred Interests in connection with the Trust's exercise of the Put Option.
Relief for the transactions described in Section V of this proposed amendment is conditioned upon the parties' adherence to the following requirements, in accordance with the Definitions provided in Section IV:
(a) The Preferred Interests had a liquidation value of $25 per Preferred Interest and carry distribution rights of $1.75 per Preferred Interest (
(b) The Plan did not incur fees, costs or other charges in connection with the transactions described in Section V, other than fees and expenses of the
(c) For the duration of the Investment Management Agreement, an Independent Fiduciary acted solely on behalf of the Plan and the Trust, represented the Plan's interests for all purposes with respect to the Preferred Interests, and determined, prior to entering into any of the transactions described in Section V, that each such transaction was in the interest of the Plan;
(d) The selection of the Independent Fiduciary was based solely on the Independent Fiduciary's qualifications to serve as a qualified independent fiduciary and was made after a prudent process that included a determination that the Independent Fiduciary is qualified to perform the work required in connection with this exemption, and that the Independent Fiduciary does not have any interests in any party in interest involved in the covered transactions or in the covered transactions themselves which may affect the exercise of such fiduciary's best judgment as a fiduciary;
(e) For the duration of the Investment Management Agreement, the Independent Fiduciary had complete discretion regarding the disposition of any AT&T Shares received in exchange for Preferred Interests, in accordance with the Investment Management Agreement, as further defined below, and the Registration Rights Agreement;
(f) The Independent Fiduciary negotiated and approved, on behalf of the Plan and the Trust, the terms and conditions of the Contribution Agreement, including the terms of the Preferred Interests and the Call Option set forth in the Contribution Agreement, as well as the terms of the Redemption Option and the Put Option set forth in the LLC Agreement, and terms of the Investment Management Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement, and any modification of the Plan's rights and obligations under any term, definition or condition of the amendment, including the Modifications, in advance of such term, condition or modification;
(g) The Independent Fiduciary managed the holding and disposition of the Preferred Interests and took whatever action it deemed necessary to protect the rights of the Plan with respect to the Preferred Interests or the AT&T Shares received in connection with the exercise of the Redemption Option or the Put Option;
(h) The Independent Fiduciary monitored AT&T and the Issuer to determine whether a Change of Control, or a different Contingent Event, had occurred that permits the Trust to dispose of the Preferred Interests;
(i) The Independent Fiduciary: did not enter into any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the Independent Fiduciary by the Plan or other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the Independent Fiduciary's work; or waive any rights, claims, or remedies of the Plan under ERISA, state, or Federal law against the Independent Fiduciary with respect to the transactions that are the subject of this exemption;
(j) An Independent Appraiser, acting on behalf of the Plan, determined the Fair Market Value of the Preferred Interests contributed to the Trust on behalf of the Plan as of the date of the Contribution and while the Preferred Interests were held on behalf of the Plan, and for all purposes under this exemption, consistent with sound principles of valuation. The Independent Appraiser: did not enter into, any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that included any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the Independent Appraiser by the Plan or any other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the Independent Appraiser's work; or waive any rights, claims or remedies of the Plan or its participants and beneficiaries under ERISA, the Code, or other Federal and state laws against the Independent Appraiser with respect to the transactions that are the subject of this exemption;
(k) The terms of any transactions between the Plan and a purchaser of Preferred Interests or any AT&T Shares received in connection with the Preferred Interests were no less favorable to the Plan than terms negotiated at arm's length under similar circumstances between unrelated third parties determined by the Independent Fiduciary at the time the contractual terms with respect to such transactions, including without limitation, the Put Option and the Redemption Option, were entered into;
(l) The Preferred Interests ranked senior to any other equity holders of the Issuer in respect of: the right to receive Distributions; and the right to receive Distributions or payments out of the assets of the Issuer upon liquidation of the Issuer, in accordance with the terms of the Contribution Agreement;
(m) In the event that the Distributions were in arrears, AT&T was restricted from making certain transfers of cash out of the Issuer or declaring dividends on and repurchasing AT&T Shares, in accordance with the terms of the Contribution Agreement;
(n) AT&T was not permitted to declare any dividends on, or make any repurchases of, AT&T Shares during any time there remained any unregistered AT&T Shares held by the Trust that were received in exchange for the Preferred Interests;
(o) The Committee and the Independent Fiduciary maintain for a period of six (6) years from the later of (1) the latest date that exemptive relief under this exemption, as amended, is necessary to avoid engaging in a non-exempt prohibited transaction, or (2) the date of publication of this amendment, in a manner that is convenient and accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (p)(1) below to determine whether conditions of this exemption have been met, except that (1) a prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Committee and/or the Independent Fiduciary, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (2) no party in interest other than the Committee or the Independent Fiduciary shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under ERISA section 502(i) if the records are not maintained, or are not available for examination as required by paragraph (p) below; and
(p)(1) Except as provided in section (2) of this paragraph and not withstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of ERISA section 504, the records referred to in paragraph (o) above shall be unconditionally available at their customary location during normal business hours to:
(i) any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service;
(ii) AT&T or any duly authorized representative of AT&T;
(iii) the Independent Fiduciary or any duly authorized representative of the Independent Fiduciary;
(iv) the Committee or any duly authorized representative of the Committee; and
(v) any participant or beneficiary of the Plan, or any duly authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary;
(2) None of the persons described above in paragraph (p)(1) (iii) or (v) shall be authorized to examine the trade
(q) Notwithstanding any provision in this exemption, as amended, to the contrary, the Preferred Interests were transferable by the Trust and all subsequent holders of the Preferred Interests at the holder's sole discretion in accordance with the terms of the LLC Agreement;
(r) AT&T made an additional cash payment to the Trust of $80 million dollars no later than October 15, 2018, solely in connection with the Modifications described herein;
(s) All the material facts and representations set forth in the Summary of Facts and Representation must be true and accurate and the Applicant will promptly inform the Department in the event that it becomes aware that any material fact or representation is no longer true and accurate; and
(t) AT&T must provide to the Department the records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption, as amended, have been met, within 30 days from the date the Department requests such records.
(a) Sections I, II and III of PTE 2014-06 are in effect between September 9, 2013, to October 14, 2018.
(b) Sections IV, V and VI of PTE 2014-06, which are added by this amendment, are in effect October 15, 2018, to April 5, 2023.
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision to the information collection request (ICR) titled “H-2B Foreign Labor Certification Program,” and related information collection and retention requirements (OMB Control Number 1205-0509), which covers Forms ETA-9142B, Appendices A, B, C, and D, ETA-9142B, Final Determination, H-2B Seafood Industry Attestation, and related form instructions. This action seeks to renew these forms. The Department also proposes to eliminate the Form ETA-9155, H-2B Registration and pertinent instructions, as employers are not required to complete and submit this form. This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by May 18, 2026.
To submit written comments and/or request a copy of this ICR (
Brian Pasternak, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, by email at
DOL, in its continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program ensures the public provides all necessary data in the desired format, the reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
This information collection is required by Sections 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1011(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 1184(c)), as well as 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6), 20 CFR 655, Subpart A, and 29 CFR 503. The H-2B program enables employers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the United States to perform non-agricultural work of a temporary nature.
ETA is seeking comments on the proposed renewal of the Form ETA-9142B,
Additionally, ETA is seeking comments on a proposed three-year renewal without change for the Form ETA-9142B,
Finally, ETA is additionally seeking comments on its proposal to eliminate the Form ETA-9155,
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 it is approved by OMB under the PRA 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 Control Number.
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 OMB, under the PRA, approves it and the collection tool 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 Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, Randolph Building, 401 Dulaney Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The second is facilitation of the proposal review process. Since peer review is a key component of NSF's grant-making process, it is imperative that proposals are reviewed by scientists with appropriate expertise. The information collected helps ensure that the proposals are evaluated by specialists who are well versed in appropriate subject matter. This helps maintain a fair and equitable review process.
The third use of the information is program evaluation. The Directorate is committed to investing in a range of substantive areas. With data from this collection, the Directorate can calculate submission rates and funding rates in specific areas of research. Similarly, the information can be used to identify emerging areas of research, evaluate changing infrastructure needs in the research community, and track the amount of international research. As the National Science Foundation is committed to funding cutting-edge science, these factors all have implications for program management.
The Directorate of Biological Sciences has a continuing commitment to monitor its information collection in order to preserve its applicability and necessity. Through periodic updates and revisions, the Directorate ensures that only useful, non-redundant information is collected. These efforts will reduce excessive reporting burdens.
There is one version of the Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology recommendation form. The estimated, aggregated, annual hour burden for the form is 1,757 hours. The Directorate anticipates a total of 620 respondents to the program announcement, each giving one response. The estimated time per response is 170 minutes.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an order approving the direct transfer of control for Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant (BRP) and the general license for the BRP Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) from the current holder, Holtec Palisades, LLC (Holtec Palisades), to Holtec Big Rock Point, LLC, (Holtec Big Rock). Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, will remain the licensed operator of BRP and the BRP ISFSI. The NRC is also amending the facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the license transfer from Holtec Palisades to Holtec Big Rock. The NRC determined that Holtec Big Rock is qualified to be the holder of the license and that the transfer of the license is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
The Order was issued on March 11, 2026, and is effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0496 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Marlayna V. Doell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178; email:
The text of the order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Holtec Palisades, LLC, is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 and the general license for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for the Big Rock Point Plant (BRP). Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) is the licensed operator of BRP and has authorization to conduct licensed activities under the defueled facility licensing basis. BRP is located in Charlevoix County, Michigan, approximately 11 miles west of Petoskey, on the northern shore of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
By application dated September 5, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML25248A301), as supplemented by letter dated January 30, 2026 (ML26030A036), HDI, on behalf of itself, Holtec Palisades, LLC (Holtec Palisades), and Holtec Big Rock Point, LLC (Holtec Big Rock) (collectively, the Applicants), requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) consent to the direct transfer of control of Facility Operating License (FOL) No. DPR-6 for BRP and the general license for the BRP ISFSI, from Holtec Palisades to Holtec Big Rock. The Applicants also requested that the NRC approve a conforming administrative amendment to the facility license to reflect the proposed direct transfer of the license from Holtec Palisades to Holtec Big Rock. The Applicants submitted these requests to the NRC for approval under Section 184, “Inalienability of Licenses,” of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA); Title 10 of the
Upon NRC approval of the license transfer application and the consummation of the proposed transfer transaction, Holtec Big Rock would become the licensed owner of BRP under FOL No. DPR-6 and the general license for the BRP ISFSI, as well as the holder of the BRP decommissioning trust fund (DTF) established under 10 CFR 50.75, “Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning,” and the party to the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel with the U.S. Department of Energy. HDI is, and would remain, the licensed operator of BRP post-transfer.
On February 3, 2026, the NRC published in the
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.80, no license for a production or utilization facility, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the license transfer application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that Holtec Big Rock and HDI are qualified to hold the licenses to the extent proposed in the application, and that the transfer of the licenses is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto.
Upon review of the application for a conforming administrative amendment to the license to reflect the direct transfer, the NRC staff determined the following:
(1) The application for the proposed license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the AEA and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;
(2) The facilities will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the AEA and the rules and regulations of the Commission;
(3) There is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations;
(4) The issuance of the proposed license amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
(5) The issuance of the proposed amendment will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC safety evaluation dated March 11, 2026, which is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML26057A192.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, 10 CFR 72.50, and 10 CFR 50.90,
Prior to the closing of the license transfer from Holtec Palisades to Holtec Big Rock, Holtec Big Rock shall provide satisfactory documentary evidence to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) at the NRC that it has obtained or continues to possess the appropriate amount of insurance required of a licensee under 10 CFR 140.12 and 10 CFR 50.54(w) of the Commission's regulations, consistent with the exemptions previously issued to BRP, and that coverage will be in place on the effective date of the transfer.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of March 2026.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
/RA/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monthly notice.
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
Comments must be filed by April 16, 2026. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by May 18, 2026.
This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from January 30, 2026, to February 26, 2026. The last monthly notice was published on February 17, 2026.
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
Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8209; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-1189, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the license amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website (
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website (
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available on the NRC's public website (
The following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, were published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the
Since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent circumstances or emergency situation associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level (an emergency situation), the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its NSHC determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment prior to issuance. Nonetheless, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that NSHC is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendments involve NSHC. The basis for this determination is contained in the NRC staff safety evaluation related to each action. Accordingly, the amendment has been issued and made effective as indicated.
For those amendments that have not been previously noticed in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that the amendment satisfies the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for this amendment. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to these actions, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession number for the application for amendment and the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a single notice to announce the issuance of two exemptions in response to requests as detailed in the available documents.
This notice contains two exemptions that the NRC granted during the period from October 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025, in response to requests submitted by two licensees.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0694 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert Kuntz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3733, email:
During the period from October 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the NRC granted the included two exemptions in response to requests submitted by the following licensees: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, and Tennessee Valley Authority.
The details of the exemptions that have been issued are provided in the available documents.
The tables in this notice provide transparency regarding the number and type of exemptions the NRC has issued and provide the licensee name, facility name, docket number, document description, document date, and ADAMS accession number for each exemption issued. Additional details on each exemption issued, including the exemption request submitted by the respective licensee and the NRC's decision, are provided in each exemption approval listed in the following tables. For additional directions on accessing information in ADAMS, see the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing requests with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add certain Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contracts to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: March 17, 2026.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt the initial fees and rebates applicable to retail orders
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Below is a description of the fees and rebates that the Exchange intends to impose on retail orders, which will be applicable in all trading sessions. Under the proposed amended fee schedule (“Fee Schedule”), the Exchange will continue to operate a “Maker-Taker” model whereby it provides rebates to RMOs that provide liquidity and charges fees to those that remove liquidity, as further described below. The Exchange does not initially propose to charge different fees or provide different rebates depending on the number of retail orders submitted to, or executed on or through, the Exchange. Accordingly, all fees and rebates described below are applicable to all RMOs, regardless of the overall volume of an RMO's trading activities on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to charge a standard fee of $0.00295 per share for executions of retail orders that remove liquidity from the 24X Book
The Exchange proposes to provide a standard rebate of $0.0038 per share in all securities traded on the Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share for executions of retail orders that are displayed on the 24X Book and add liquidity to the Exchange (“Added Displayed Volume”).
The Exchange proposes to provide a standard rebate of $0.0025 per share for executions of retail orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, are not displayed on the 24X Book, and do not include a Midpoint Peg instruction (“Added Non-Displayed Volume”), in all securities traded on the Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share.
The Exchange proposes to provide a higher rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume retail transactions than for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume retail transactions to incentivize displayed liquidity over non-displayed liquidity on the Exchange, including retail orders with a
The Exchange proposes to charge a standard fee of $0.0030 per share for all retail orders routed to another market that are executed on an away market and remove liquidity from the market to which they were routed (“Routed Removed Volume”), in all securities traded on the Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share.
The Exchange proposes to charge a standard fee of 0.15% of the total dollar value of any retail transaction in securities priced below $1.00 per share (“Sub-Dollar Securities”) that removes liquidity from the Exchange (“Removed Sub-Dollar Volume”).
The proposed rebate for executions of Added Sub-Dollar Volume is intended to promote retail order flow in Sub-Dollar Securities to the Exchange by incentivizing RMOs to increase the liquidity-providing retail orders in Sub-Dollar Securities they submit to the Exchange, which would support price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders.
The proposed rule change does not include different fees or rebates for retail transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities that depend on the number of orders submitted to, or transactions executed on or through, the Exchange. Accordingly, all fees and rebates described above are applicable to all RMOs, regardless of the overall volume of an RMO's trading activities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that the proposed amended Fee Schedule reflects a simple and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to add aggressively priced displayed liquidity and direct their retail order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and price formation and deepen liquidity that is subject to the Exchange's transparency, regulation, and oversight as an exchange, thereby enhancing market quality to the benefit of all Members and investors.
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act to charge a standard fee of $0.00295 per share for Removed Volume retail transactions, and a standard fee of 0.15% of the total dollar value for Removed Sub-Dollar Volume retail transactions, because they are comparable to the retail transaction fees charged by other exchanges for removing liquidity.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act to provide a standard rebate of $0.0038 per share for Added Displayed Volume retail transactions, and a standard rebate of 0.15% of the total dollar value for Added Sub-Dollar Volume retail transactions, because these rebates are comparable to retail transaction rebates provided by other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that charging a fee to the liquidity remover, and providing a rebate to the liquidity adder, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it incentivizes liquidity provision on the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that several other exchanges charge fees for removing liquidity and provide rebates for adding liquidity, and that this aspect of the Exchange's proposed amended Fee Schedule does not raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been considered by the Commission in connection with the fees and rebates of other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act to provide a standard rebate of $0.0025 per share for Added Non-Displayed Volume and Added Midpoint Volume retail transactions, and a standard rebate of 0.065% of the total dollar value for Added Non-Displayed Sub-Dollar Volume and Added Midpoint Sub-Dollar Volume retail transactions, because they are comparable to the rebates provided by other exchanges for similar transactions.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to provide a higher rebate for Added Displayed Volume retail transactions than for Added Non-Displayed Volume retail transactions, as this rebate structure is designed to incentivize RMOs to send the Exchange displayable retail orders, thereby contributing to price discovery and price formation, consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. Moreover, the Exchange notes that there are precedents for exchanges to provide rebates that distinguish between displayed and non-displayed volume to incentivize displayed orders and facilitate price discovery.
The Exchange notes that under the proposed amended Fee Schedule it will pay a higher rebate for Added Displayed Volume retail transactions than the fee it charges for removing such volume for transactions priced at or above $1.00 per share, and as such the Exchange will have negative net capture with respect to such transactions. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, and the Exchange believes this pricing structure will enable it to effectively compete with other exchanges by attracting RMOs and retail order flow to the Exchange, which will help the Exchange to gain market share for executions. The Exchange may determine to modify its pricing structure after it has gained sufficient participation from market participants to instead be profitable with respect to such transactions. The Exchange believes the initial retail pricing structure, including the negative net capture for Added Displayed Volume retail transactions priced at or above $1.00 per share, is designed to incentivize market participants to add aggressively priced displayed liquidity and direct their retail order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and price formation and deepen liquidity that is subject to the Exchange's transparency, regulation, and oversight as an exchange, thereby enhancing market quality to the benefit of all Members and investors. The Exchange does not believe that the negative net capture with respect to Added Displayed Volume retail transactions priced at or above $1.00 per share will materially impact the capitalization of the Exchange or otherwise impair the Exchange's ability to operate or regulate itself. The Exchange is well-capitalized and the Exchange's parent company, 24X US Holdings LLC, has agreed to provide adequate funding for the Exchange's operations, including the regulation of the Exchange.
With respect to orders routed to other markets, the Exchange also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act to charge a standard fee of $0.0030 for Routed Removed Volume retail transactions and 0.30% of the total dollar value for Routed Removed Sub-Dollar Volume retail transactions because these fees are similar to the fees charged by other exchanges for routed orders that remove liquidity from the destination market.
In conclusion, the Exchange submits that its proposed retail fee structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act for the reasons discussed above in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities, does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and in general to protect investors and the public interest, particularly as the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, and that its proposed fee and rebate structure is an appropriate effort to address such forces.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional retail order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives, and enhanced
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing structure will increase competition and is intended to draw volume to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or reduce use of certain categories of products in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As a new exchange, the Exchange faces intense competition from other exchanges and non-exchange venues that provide markets for equities trading. With respect to the Exchange's initial pricing whereby it will operate with negative net capture with respect to retail transactions involving Added Displayed Volume priced at or above $1.00 per share, the Exchange is proposing this pricing in an effort to encourage market participants to join, connect to, and participate on the Exchange. The Exchange expects to modify its pricing structure after it has gained sufficient participation from market participants to eliminate the negative net capture and instead be profitable with respect to such transactions.
Although this pricing incentive is intended to attract liquidity to the Exchange, most other exchanges in operation today already offer multiple incentives to their participants, including tiered pricing that provides higher rebates or discounted executions, and other exchanges will be able to modify such incentives in order to compete with the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange's proposed retail fees and rebates are comparable to those offered by other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees and rebates apply equally to all RMOs. The proposed pricing structure is intended to encourage market participants to add displayed and non-displayed retail liquidity to the Exchange by providing rebates that are comparable to those offered by other exchanges as well as to provide a competitive rate charged for removing retail liquidity, which the Exchange believes will help to encourage RMOs to send retail orders to the Exchange to the benefit of all Exchange participants. As the proposed rates are equally applicable to all market participants, the Exchange does not believe there is any burden on intramarket competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee for Limited Underwriting Members as defined in recently adopted Article 3, Rule 20. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective March 6, 2025. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee for Limited Underwriting Members as defined in recently adopted Article 3, Rule 20 (Limited Underwriting Members and Associated Persons). As proposed, registered brokers or dealers that become Limited Underwriting Members pursuant to Article 3, Rule 20 would be eligible for a $250 per month fee from the month an application is approved.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective March 6, 2025.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes.
Moreover, in the current competitive market environment, market participants also have a choice of where to become members.
The Exchange proposes to introduce a $250 per month fee for registered brokers or dealers that qualify to become Limited Underwriting Members pursuant to Article 3, Rule 20.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market where market participants have, among other things, a choice of where to become members. Considering the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the Exchange believes that there is value in attracting additional brokers or dealers to act as principal underwriters of an underwritten public offering on the Exchange and that the proposed fee is reasonable. As noted above, the proposed fee is less than that of the other national securities exchange that offers a limited underwriter membership.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee equitably allocates fees and credits among market participants because all market participants that participate on the Exchange as Limited Underwriting Members would qualify for the same proposed fee on an equal basis. Similarly, the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all Participants that are Limited Underwriting Members, and all similarly situated Participants will be subject to the same fee. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is reasonable and equitable because Limited Underwriting Members would not be subject to any other Exchange fees.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to amend Section II. (Regulatory Fees) of the Fee Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) to adopt a new methodology for assessment and collection of ORF for transactions that occur on the Exchange (“On-Exchange ORF”).
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its current methodology for assessment and collection of ORF until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement On-Exchange ORF effective July 1, 2026, if by April 1, 2026, all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed to modify their current methodologies for assessment of ORF to limit the fee to transactions occurring on their respective exchange.
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 its current methodology for assessment and collection of a regulatory fee to assess On-Exchange ORF only for options transactions that occur on the Exchange that would clear in the “customer”
The ORF is designed to cover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Participant's
The Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each Participant for all options transactions cleared or ultimately cleared by the Participant, which are cleared by the OCC in the “customer” range,
To illustrate how the ORF is assessed and collected, the Exchange provides the following set of examples. If the transaction is executed on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no
The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Participant's activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Participant. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Participant enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to cover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Participant's customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Unlike other options exchanges, all of the Exchange's expenses support the regulatory function as the Exchange is a fully separate legal entity from BOX Options Market LLC, the equity options facility of the Exchange. The Exchange fulfills the regulatory functions and responsibilities as a national securities exchange registered with the SEC under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and oversees the BOX Options Market. Exchange expenses are solely regulatory in nature because, due to the unique structure between the Exchange and the BOX Options Market facility, the Exchange expenses are separate from the BOX Options Market facility expenses and there can be no commingling of the funds. Put another way, all of the Exchange's expenses support the regulatory function of BOX Exchange because the Exchange expenses are completely separate from the BOX Options Market facility expenses. The ORF is designed to cover a material portion of these regulatory costs to the Exchange, including the supervision and regulation of its Participant's customer options business, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
The Exchange appreciates the evolving changes in the market and regulatory environment and has been evaluating its current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF while considering industry and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) feedback. As a result of this review, the Exchange proposes to modify its current ORF to continue to assess ORF for options transactions cleared by OCC in the “customer” range, however ORF would be assessed on each side of an options transaction cleared by the OCC in the “customer” range for executions that occur on the Exchange. Specifically, the ORF would continue to be collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from Participants and non-Participants for all “customer” transactions executed on the Exchange. ORF would be assessed and collected on all ultimately cleared “customer” contracts, taking into account adjustments for CMTA that were provided to the Exchange the same day as the trade.
Further, the Exchange would bill ORF according to the clearing instructions provided on the execution. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess ORF based on the clearing instruction provided on the execution on trade date and would not take into consideration CMTA changes or transfers that occur at OCC.
With this proposal, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its current methodology for assessment and collection of ORF until at least June 30,
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.
The Exchange will monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify Participants of adjustments to the On Exchange ORF via a Regulatory Notice in advance of any change.
Lastly, the Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive technical changes within Section II.C. of the Fee Schedule to add numbering within subsection C and relocate Endnote 14.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to assess and collect an On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Exchange transactions that clear in the “customer” range at the OCC. Similar to ORF today, the Exchange believes On-Exchange ORF ensures fairness by assessing a specific fee to those Participants that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Over recent years, options trading volume has increased with a growing percentage of the volume applicable to customer transactions. Customers trading on the Exchange (through a Participant) benefit from the protections of a robust regulatory program including the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protections against fraud and other manipulation. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a regulatory fee to transactions that clear in the “customer” range to cover regulatory costs, but not to transactions clearing in the “firm” or “market maker” range because Clearing Participants and Market Makers
In addition to the overall increase in “customer” range volume generally, regulating customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unduly discriminatory to modify the method of collecting the fee such that On-Exchange ORF will not consider CMTAs reported directly to OCC as is done in today's method of ORF. CMTA transfers are considered today under the current collection methodology for ORF as a convenience to industry members in administering a pass through of the fee to their customers. Limiting the On-Exchange
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to the method for assessment and collection of the fee is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would cover a material portion of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at least a semiannual basis the amount of revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, even as amended, to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, would cover a material portion of the Exchange's regulatory costs and not exceed it.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed changes within Section II.C. of the Fee Schedule to add numbering within subsection C and relocate Endnote 14 are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as these non-substantive technical amendments will bring greater clarity to the Fee Schedule.
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. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because On-Exchange ORF applies to all customer activity on the Exchange, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition, the Exchange will not implement the On-Exchange ORF until all other options exchanges are prepared to adopt a similar model to avoid overlapping ORFs.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed changes within Section II.C. of the Fee Schedule to add numbering within subsection C and relocate Endnote 14 do not impose an undue burden on competition, as these non-substantive technical amendments will bring greater clarity to the Fee Schedule.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee Schedule to: (i) make certain additions and amendments related to Step-Up tiers in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, both in general and in light of Regulation NMS Rule 610(d), and (ii) modify the required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 2, each as further described below.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 18 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
On September 18, 2024, the Commission adopted several amendments to Regulation NMS in order to increase the transparency of exchange fees and rebates.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise the definitions of the terms “Step-Up ADAV”,
In addition, in order to provide additional clarity as to how the Exchange calculates whether a Member may meet criteria under a Step-Up Tier when that Member's ADAV
The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.0015 per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (such orders, “Added Displayed Volume”).
The Exchange currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.20% of the TCV and an ADV
The proposed change to Liquidity Provision Tier 2 is designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including in the form of orders that add liquidity on the Exchange in order to qualify for the enhanced Liquidity Provision Tier 2 rebate, which may contribute to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes the addition of the definition of Step-Up Add TCV and the amendments to the step-up related definitions on the Fee Schedule provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members because it allows the Exchange to preserve its current pricing incentives while also complying with Regulation NMS 610(d). Additionally, the Exchange's new and modified definitions section of the Fee Schedule is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees and rebates to all similarly situated Members.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding orders to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange notes that volume and quoting-based incentives (such as tiers) have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. The Exchange believes that Liquidity Provision Tier 2, as modified by the proposed changes to alternative criteria (3) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as such tier will continue to provide Members with an incremental incentive to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange, is available to all Members on an equal basis, and, as described above, is designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed, liquidity-adding orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper, more liquid and well balanced market
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding orders to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes to the definitions on the Fee Schedule or the modification of the required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 2 would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the Exchange's proposal will apply equally in that all members are subject to Regulation NMS Rule 610(d) and will be able to determine their applicable transaction fees and rebates based on tiers by utilizing the previous month's trading and quoting activity. As it relates to Liquidity Provision Tier 2, such change to the required criteria will apply to all Members uniformly in that the opportunity to qualify for the enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under such tier would be available to all Members that meet the associated volume requirements in any month. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including 17 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to Added Displayed Volume, and market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to generate additional revenue with respect to its transaction pricing and to encourage the submission of additional order flow to the Exchange through volume and quoting-based tiers, which have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that offer similar pricing incentives to market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to add a new definition to the Fee Schedule and amend certain existing definitions to bring the Exchange's methods for calculating fees and rebates into compliance with new Regulation NMS Rule 610(d) will not result in any burden on competition due to the fact that such changes are being made solely to add clarity and comply with Regulation NMS 610(d), and not for competitive purposes.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend Rule 11.22 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 11.22, to provide for the new service called the Clock Service.
The U.S. Government's Global Positioning Satellite (“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.
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 11.22(m), which would provide that:
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 11.22(m) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Sections 5 and 9B.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on March 2, 2026.
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.
Phlx proposes to modify its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4 to add:
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 4, Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed) (Excludes SPY). Today, the Exchange assesses Options Transaction Charges in Multiply Listed options, including options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes and excluding options in SPY.
The Exchange proposes a new note 9 which would assess a surcharge to Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers of $0.20 per contract on Options Transaction Charges in Penny and non-Penny Symbols when the Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker is the counterparty to a Customer complex floor transaction executed by a Floor Broker.
Although the proposed surcharge would increase certain complex fees for Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers for open outcry transactions, the Exchange believes these participants will continue to quote actively to participate in floor transactions as they do today, thereby promoting trading opportunities and competition on the trading floor to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebate would continue to incentivize Floor Brokers to participate on the trading floor, including when the counterparty to such trading is a Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker.
In 2025, Phlx underwent a technology migration
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . . ”
The Exchange's proposal to assess a surcharge to Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers of $0.20 per contract on Options Transaction Charges in multiply-listed Penny or non-Penny Symbols when the Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker is the counterparty to a Customer complex floor transaction executed by a Floor Broker in open outcry is reasonable. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate of $0.20 per contract to be paid to Floor Brokers would incentivize Floor Brokers to direct additional Customer complex floor transactions to the Exchange, thereby creating more trading opportunities on the trading floor for all market participants, including Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers. The Exchange thus believes that, despite the proposed surcharge on Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers, Customer floor transactions that are counterparty to such Floor Broker orders, would not be discouraged from continuing to quote and trade actively on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonably designed to incent Floor Brokers (and other participants on the trading floor) to increase the number of open outcry complex orders sent to the Exchange. Any increase in trading volume would create more trading opportunities for all market participants and would in turn attract additional order flow to the Exchange, further contributing to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rebate is similar in structure to incentive programs for Floor Brokers offered by competing options exchanges.
The Exchange further believes the surcharge is reasonable because it is designed to offset costs associated with the proposed rebate payable to Floor Brokers when they interact with Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers on the trading floor. To the extent this purpose is achieved, the Exchange believes that the proposed surcharge would not disincentivize market making activity on the trading floor because increased order flow from Floor Brokers seeking to earn the proposed rebate would result in more opportunities to trade for all market participants.
To the extent the proposed rule change continues to attract greater volume and liquidity by encouraging Floor Brokers to increase their options volume on the Exchange in an effort to earn the proposed rebate, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. Against the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes it is equitable to apply the rebate only to Floor Brokers and not to Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers. Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers only represent their own interest on the trading floor and therefore do not need a similar incentive. Unlike Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers, Floor Brokers act as agents in representing orders on the Exchange's trading floor. Participants who desire to have a Customer order executed on Phlx's trading floor would provide that order to a Floor Broker to be represented. Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers may interact with orders represented by the Floor Broker in open outcry on the trading floor. Finally, Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers may choose to conduct their business on a trading floor or in an electronic market, unlike Floor Brokers, who have a business model that is naturally tied to the physical trading space.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable because the proposed rebate is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Floor Brokers may elect to earn the proposed rebate if they choose. The Exchange also believes that the proposed surcharge is equitable because it is designed to balance costs associated with encouraging increased execution opportunities on the trading floor, and an increase in such orders would in turn enhance trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebate to Floor Brokers is equitable because it is intended to support Floor Brokers' role in facilitating the execution of open outcry orders, which function benefits all market participants on the trading floor.
Moreover, the proposal is designed to incent participation on the trading floor in an effort to make the Exchange a primary execution venue and to attract more open outcry transactions to the
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to impose a surcharge on Floor Lead Market Maker and Floor Market Maker orders on the trading floor that are a counterparty to a Customer complex floor transaction executed by a Floor Broker because the proposed change would apply to all Floor Lead Market Maker and Floor Market Maker orders equally, and as discussed above, the Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to incent order flow to the Exchange, which would enhance liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebate payable to Floor Brokers for a Customer complex floor transactions that trade with a Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker is not unfairly discriminatory because it would be available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rebate available to Floor Brokers is not unfairly discriminatory to other market participants because it is intended to encourage the role performed by Floor Brokers in facilitating the execution of orders via open outcry, a function which the Exchange wishes to support for the benefit of all market participants. In addition, although the proposed change would apply a surcharge to Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker orders that trade with Floor Broker Customer complex floor transactions, the Exchange believes that Floor Lead Market Makers and Floor Market Makers would not be discouraged from continuing to participate actively on the trading floor and would benefit from increased Floor Broker order flow as a result of the proposed change. To the extent that this increased order flow attracts order flow from other market participants to the trading floor, the proposed rule change would improve market quality and promote additional trading opportunities for all market participants on the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
The Exchange's proposal to exclude index options, singly listed options, strategy transactions, Floor Qualified Contingent Cross Orders and Customer Cross Orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that index options and singly listed options have their own separate pricing in Options 7, Section 5. These types of options are not multi-list options. The Exchange notes that strategy transactions are not assessed Options Transactions Charges in Options 7, Section 4 for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols and have their own pricing model. Floor Qualified Contingent Cross Orders and Customer Cross Orders are not transacted in open outcry. The Exchange would apply the exclusions to note 9 in a uniform manner to all Phlx member organizations.
The Exchange's proposal to remove rule text in Options 7, Section 9B related to a prior migration is reasonable because the migration is complete and the Exchange has sunset all FIX legacy ports as of February 27, 2026. Further, the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because no Phlx member organization has access to a FIX legacy port.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner designed to continue to incent participants on the trading floor to direct trading interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract additional order flow. To the extent that Floor Brokers are encouraged to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for all transactions, all Exchange market participants stand to benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing
The proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed surcharge on Floor Lead Market Maker and Floor Market Maker orders on the trading floor that are a counterparty to open outcry Customer complex floor transactions executed by a Floor Broker, and the proposed rebate payable to the Floor Broker side of such trades would encourage Floor Broker open outcry order flow and would not disincentivize Floor Lead Market Maker and Floor Market Maker activity on the trading floor. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange and increased order flow would increase opportunities for execution of other trading interest. The proposed modifications would apply and be available to all similarly-situated market participants that execute open outcry on the trading floor, and, accordingly, the proposed changes would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants on the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange would apply the exclusions to note 9 in a uniform manner to all Phlx member organizations.
The Exchange's proposal to remove rule text in Options 7, Section 9B related to a prior migration does not impose an undue burden on competition because no Phlx member organization has access to a FIX legacy port.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-Phlx-2026-08 and should be submitted on or before April 7, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 16, 2026, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2026-001, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
ETFs (referred to as “index receipts” in the NSCC Rules) are marketable securities that track stock indices, commodities, bonds, or baskets of assets. Shares of ETFs are created and redeemed in the primary market and are traded on listed exchanges in the secondary market. Each share of an ETF represents an undivided interest in the underlying assets of the ETF.
NSCC facilitates central counterparty (“CCP”) clearing and settlement of the
In general, APs create and redeem ETF shares from the ETF Sponsors in blocks called “creation units.” An AP that purchases a creation unit of ETF shares delivers a “basket” of securities and other assets to the ETF Agent and then receives the creation unit of ETF shares in return for those assets. The redemption process is the reverse of the creation process: the AP redeems a creation unit of ETF shares in exchange for a basket of securities and other assets. These creation and redemption baskets are referred to as “trading baskets.”
NSCC supports the creation and redemption of ETFs on both a “cash-only” and “in-kind” basis.
NSCC facilitates “in-kind” creation and redemption of ETFs with trading baskets comprised of underlying securities that are cleared by NSCC and settled by its affiliate clearing agency, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”).
NSCC states that APs and ETF Agents have raised concerns regarding the existing processes for clearing ETFs that have option components in their trading baskets.
NSCC states that, conversely, the entire redemption process is generally managed ex-clearing, requiring multiple manual steps to ensure completion, including the tracking, pricing, validation and ultimate execution of options positions transfers at OCC by the APs, ETF Agents and prime brokers, which are required in connection with the redemption process.
NSCC states that it has closely collaborated with OCC and key industry stakeholders to design a new industry messaging interface between NSCC, OCC, and ETF market participants to facilitate the “in-kind” creation and redemption of ETFs with option components at NSCC, mitigating the aforementioned current challenges.
The proposed rule change would amend the NSCC Rules to facilitate clearing for the primary market creation and redemption of ETFs with options as underlying components, and particularly the “in-kind” redemption of such ETFs. Under the proposal, NSCC would process the intake of ETF creation/redemption orders and any underlying securities that are cleared by NSCC and settled by DTC. For underlying option components that are ineligible for clearance through NSCC, such as FLEX options and covered call options, NSCC would route instructions to OCC for the processing of any option position transfers or adjustments associated with the creation/redemption order. NSCC states that it is working with OCC and other stakeholders to develop a messaging interface that would operate similar to the existing messaging interface between NSCC and OCC used for NSCC's Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACATS”) in transmitting such instructions to OCC.
NSCC would adopt new rules in Section F of Procedure II, including new sub-section 3 of Section F, to describe additional requirements related to the creation and redemption of ETFs with option components. The proposed rule change would provide that ETF component securities that are options (“Index Receipt Option Components”) that are not eligible for settlement or processing through the facilities of
In addition, the proposed rule change would provide that NSCC would not be responsible for the completeness or accuracy of any instruction received from an Index Receipt Agent and transmitted to an Options Clearing Organization with respect to Index Receipt Option Components and would not be responsible for any action taken, or any delay or failure to take any action by the Options Clearing Organization, in connection with the transfer or adjustment of such Index Receipt Option Components. The proposed rule change would also clarify that NSCC's guaranty would not apply to position transfers, position adjustments or any associated settlements for Index Receipt Option Components and that NSCC would not be liable for any obligations of any Options Clearing Organization transferring such Index Receipt Option Components nor shall the Clearing Fund or other assets of NSCC be available to such Options Clearing Organization. As noted above, NSCC would only guarantee the settlement of ETFs and underlying components that are eligible for clearing at NSCC.
The proposed rule change would also allow NSCC to automatically process payment orders between APs and ETF Agents to offset CNS
Accordingly, NSCC proposes to add new rules to provide that, with respect to the redemption of index receipts containing Index Receipt Option Components, Authorized Participants may be required to make a cash payment to the Index Receipt Agents, which will be facilitated by NSCC, equal to the value of the Index Receipt Option Components. Alternatively, for the creation of index receipts containing Index Receipt Option Components, Index Receipt Agents may be required to make a cash payment to the Authorized Participant, which will be facilitated by NSCC, equal to the value of the Index Receipt Option Components. These cash payments are intended to offset corresponding debits in CNS for the value of the Index Receipt Option Components transferred through an Options Clearing Organization.
Finally, NSCC would amend existing Section F.1. of Procedure II to incorporate the inclusion of certain information regarding Index Receipt Option Components in the submission and reporting of the composition of ETFs for creations and redemptions. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require that Index Receipt Agents include in portfolio composition files information concerning any component securities that are Index Receipt Option Components to be transferred through an Options Clearing Organization (
NSCC states that the proposed rule change would address industry concerns and reduce operational burdens by allowing NSCC to function as the central hub for creation and redemption order processing for ETFs with option components.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency, such as DTC, be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As described in Sections II and III above, the proposed rule change will expand NSCC's ETF clearing services to facilitate the “in-kind” creation and redemption of ETFs with options as underlying components by establishing new messaging connectivity between NSCC and OCC and allowing NSCC to submit instructions to OCC on behalf of their participants. Market participants primarily manage this process outside of NSCC today (
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 29, 2025, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
LCH SA is a clearing agency registered with the Commission. Through its CDSClear business unit, LCH SA provides central counterparty services for security-based swaps, including credit default swaps (“CDS”)
LCH SA's Risk Policies formally enact the specific risk management requirements that govern its operations as a clearing agency. The policies and procedures set forth therein clarify the roles and responsibilities within LCH SA for compliance with the Risk Policies. LCH SA's Risk Policies must ensure consistency with all relevant laws and regulations, including the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”) and, relevant here, Section 17A of the Act
The Default Management Policy (“DMP”) sets forth the minimum standards that LCH SA must meet in managing clearing member defaults. Clearing member defaults, if not properly managed, could lead to losses for LCH SA and its clearing members. The DMP sets out general standards related to calling a default, managing a default, and communicating the occurrence of a default. The DMP also sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel and the review cycle of the policy.
The default management process begins with placing a clearing member in default, also known as calling a default. The DMP requires that the authority for placing a clearing member in default belong to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of LCH SA. The DMP further requires that the CEO's grounds for default be clear and agreed to by LCH SA's legal team.
With respect to managing a default, LCH SA has stated that the DMP requires that LCH SA establish Default Management Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and Default Management Procedures (“Procedures”).
The DMP also requires that the LCH SA CEO (or their authorized delegate) convene a Default Crisis Management Team (“DCMT”) and a Default Management Group (“DMG”). As required by the DMP, DCMT is responsible for the overall management of a default at LCH SA, while the DMG can execute actions to manage a default, such as liquidating positions and implanting hedging strategies. The DMP sets certain standards the DCMT and DMG must satisfy. For example, if the DMG includes external representation, such as other clearing member traders, then the DMG is required to enter into a contractual agreement with those parties to ensure their independence and outline their duty to provide impartial advice to LCH SA. The DMG also is responsible for documenting critical actions and decisions, and maintaining records of all relevant documents, including emails.
The DMP sets out other requirements related to LCH SA's management of the default of a clearing member. For example, the DMP requires that LCH SA have a defined exit methodology for each defaulting clearing member's portfolio. The DMP also requires that LCH SA have adequate resources to manage a member default. LCH SA may borrow personnel from support and operations groups to manage a default, but staffing must be sufficient to maintain ordinary business processes. Finally, the DMP sets out requirements regarding testing the default management process, which LCH SA refers to as fire drills.
The DMP sets out the roles and responsibilities within LCH SA for managing a default, including who can initiate a default, draft the appropriate documents, inform regulators, and make certain public disclosures. For example, LCH SA compliance must notify regulators when a decision is made to place a clearing member in default, while LCH SA finance is responsible for producing the financial statement at the end of the default management process. LCH SA legal, in conjunction with other LCH SA personnel, is responsible for ensuring that key aspects of the default procedures are publicly disclosed in the LCH SA CDSClear Rulebook (“the Rulebook”). Finally, in addition to establishing the DMG and the other responsibilities noted above, the CEO is the executive responsible for, and the owner of, the DMP.
The DMP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by LCH SA's Executive Risk Committee (“ERCo”) and Risk Committee, with any non-compliance reported to the ERCo. Moreover, the Risk Committee must recommend the DMP to the LCH SA Board of Directors (“Board”) for approval. The LCH SA CEO and Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”), or their authorized delegates, can jointly decide to override the DMP if the application leads to results which are not in line with the intent of the policy, such as by delaying action or increasing risk.
The Investment Risk Policy (“IRP”) sets forth standards that LCH SA must follow for the management of investment risk. The IRP defines investment risk as the risk of a loss arising from the investment of cash funds to manage daily liquidity needs, either through outright investments, cash deposits or the repo markets. The IRP applies to investment risk from certain cash funds obtained by LCH SA in respect to its business functions. Specifically, those funds include cash that LCH SA receives from clearing members to satisfy margin and default funds requirements, cash arising from settlement failures, and LCH SA's own funds, such as capital and retained earnings. Because LCH SA invests these funds, it is inherently exposed to investment-related risks.
The IRP includes standards related to counterparties and issuers with which LCH SA may invest cash and instruments in which LCH SA may invest cash. The IRP includes, in an appendix, specific limits that apply to LCH SA's investments and sets the process for monitoring, changing, and approving these limits. Finally, the IRP sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel and the review cycle of the policy.
With respect to investment counterparties and issuers, the IRP's standards are primarily based on a counterparty's internal credit score (“ICS”). The ICS represents LCH SA's assessment of the risk of investment with a particular counterparty or investing in a particular issuer's
With respect to instruments in which LCH SA may invest cash, the IRP sets out certain minimum standards for the transactions and for the specific investments. All investment transactions must be executed in a manner consistent with market practice, and cash investments should be in a currency that LCH SA uses for clearing. For specific instruments, the criteria depend on the type of investment. LCH SA can make cash deposits, for example, with eligible central banks and overnight deposits with acceptable credit institutions. As another example, LCH SA may only invest in securities that, among other things, are issued by an approved sovereign, government guaranteed institution, or supranational institution.
The IRP also includes two annexes. These annexes specify discrete investment limits that apply to LCH SA and its affiliated clearing agency, LCH Ltd. For example, to avoid over exposure to certain entities, the annex overall concentration limits on cash deposits at central banks, and purchases of securities issued by sovereign entities associated with central banks, with the limits set per ICS. Moreover, the annex sets overall limits on the percentage of a particular issue of sovereign securities that LCH SA may purchase. Similarly, the annex sets out limits on the cash deposits, reverse repurchase, and other transactions that LCH SA may engage in with credit and financial institutions. These limits are set by ICS and measured in Euro equivalent against the transaction amount. The annex contains similar limits for other investment counterparties, overall aggregate exposure limits, and haircuts for reverse repurchase transactions, among other things.
The IRP further establishes how LCH SA should monitor and update these limits. Overall, LCH SA's Second-line Collateral and Liquidity Risk Management group (“CaLM Risk”) is the owner of the annex and is responsible for monitoring compliance with the investment limits. If any limits are breached, the breach must be reported to LCH SA's Collateral and Liquidity Management group (“CaLM”) and to the CRO. LCH SA's Credit Risk group assigns and maintains ICS for investment counterparties and can update specific investment limits with a change in ICS. Finally, the IRP gives the CRO authority to amend limits for up to three business days, as needed to facilitate liquidity management in exceptional circumstances.
The IRP sets out other relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel. Responsibility for adherence to the IRP falls to the CRO, who is the policy owner. The Collateral and Liquidity Management (“CaLM”) team is responsible for investment and monitoring activities, static data and collateral pricing, and reviewing controls at least annually. The CaLM Risk team bears the responsibility of assessing and monitoring investment exposure, including country and supranational concentration, such as correlated exposure across members or collateral in respect to a specific sovereign entity. LCH SA Compliance is responsible for monitoring and communicating relevant regulatory rules to internal stakeholders and for maintaining compliance with regulations as they apply to CaLM's activities. LCH SA Legal is responsible for preparing legal documentation and providing a review of segregation arrangements. Finally, the IRP requires the ERCo to review and approve new investments, counterparties and issuers, and may even authorize exceedances to certain thresholds, such as country concentration limits, subject to additional notification to specified units at LCH SA.
The IRP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by the ERCo and Risk Committee and be approved by the Board. Moreover, while the Risk Committee and the Board must approve any changes to the IRP itself, the ERCo may approve changes to the annexes, with notification to the Risk Committee.
The Liquidity Risk Policy (“LRP”) sets forth standards that LCH SA must meet in managing liquidity risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that LCH SA will not have sufficient liquidity to meet payment obligations when due. LCH SA has stated that the LRP's main goal is to ensure it has enough cash on hand to meet daily obligations.
The LRP describes generally LCH SA's sources of liquidity and needs for liquidity. With respect to sources, the LRP identifies cash deposits and investments held by LCH SA, its own non-cash unencumbered assets, and other unencumbered assets gained either from repurchase agreements or from defaulting members which can be readily transferred to cash. The LRP also describes other potential sources of liquidity, including defaulted members' non-cash margin contributions, Central Bank loans collateralized through member deposits, and in certain cases, assets received from non-defaulting counterparties when LCH SA completes the obligations of defaulted members. The LRP also sets out certain minimum standards that these sources must satisfy, such as minimum ICS for credit institutions.
Liquidity needs are primarily categorized as operational or default related. Operational liquidity needs include, among other requirements, repaying excess collateral to clearing members (which can occur when a clearing member's margin requirement decreases); replacement of cash collateral with non-cash collateral when members substitute non-cash assets for cash; and liquidity provided to business operations to facilitate settlement. Default-related liquidity needs are those arising from the default of a clearing member, such as liquidity needed to cover a defaulting member's obligations, settle its positions, or pay non-defaulting member counterparties variation margin. The LRP identifies other potential liquidity needs outside of operations and defaults, such as cash restricted by investment activities or payments delated by operational issues at commercial and central banks.
The LRP describes how LCH SA must assess its liquidity position. Generally, LCH SA must subtract its total liquidity requirements from its total liquidity resources, to determine an overall excess (or deficit) of liquidity resources. The LRP requires that LCH SA perform a liquidity assessment daily, on all currencies, to cover a forward period of thirty days (or less, with ERCo approval), and that intraday assessments
In addition to these minimum requirements for assessing its liquidity position, the LRP also establishes certain minimum coverage requirements that LCH SA must meet. For example, the LRP requires that LCH SA determine each day its liquidity coverage ratio, which is defined as the total available liquidity resources divided by liquidity needs. The liquidity coverage ratio must be at least 105% on each day during the assessment period. The LRP similarly sets out an overall percentage limit on how much of LCH SA's liquidity resources could be taken up by a clearing member's positions in certain circumstances.
As noted above, the LRP also requires that LCH SA model how the default of the two clearing member groups with the largest liquidity needs would affect its liquidity position, including in extreme but plausible stress scenarios. The LRP sets out general standards for this modeling and the stress scenarios that LCH SA must use when conducting the modeling. Moreover, the LRP requires that LCH SA review the models through reverse stress testing at least monthly, and that it reports its conclusions to various stakeholders, including the CRO, ERCo, and the Risk Committee. Moreover, the LRP requires that the model be subject to an annual validation.
The LRP also sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel. The LCH SA CRO is the owner of the policy. CaLM is responsible for maintaining a liquidity plan,
The LRP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by LCH SA's ERCo and Risk Committee and then approved by the Board. Moreover, the model used by LCH SA to consider the impact of the default of the two clearing member groups with the largest liquidity needs is subject to an annual validation by LCH SA's Model Validation team.
The Settlement, Payment and Custody Risk Policy (“CRP”) sets standards that LCH SA must meet in for managing risk to LCH SA from using intermediaries for settlement, payment, and custody activities.
The standards for counterparties consist of minimum criteria that all counterparties must satisfy, as well as more specific criteria for certain counterparties. For example, all intermediaries must have an assigned ICS and be subject to due diligence by LCH SA's operations team. The due diligence must provide certainty that the intermediary will segregate, identify, and make available assets belonging to LCH SA or its clearing members. In addition to these general requirements, the CRP sets out more specific requirements for certain intermediaries. For example, payment systems specifically must have controls in place to validate all payment amounts and receipts, which LCH SA must independently test annually.
The CRP requires that LCH SA monitor compliance with these criteria and its exposures to intermediaries. LCH SA must monitor its overnight direct credit exposure to intermediaries resulting from settlement, payment, and custody activities. LCH SA must also monitor its intraday unsecured exposure to commercial concentration banks as a result of concentration and investment activities. An appendix to the CRP contains precise limits on these exposures. With respect to the intraday limit in particular, the CRP provides that intraday limit usage is monitored by LCH SA Collateral Operations team and any breaches must be reported to LCH SA Credit Risk, CaLM, and CaLM Risk immediately. The report should contain details regarding usage, breaches, explanation and remediation.
If an intermediary no longer meets LCH SA's criteria, the CRP sets out procedures and internal escalation, including additional due diligence, to assess its capabilities or prohibit the intermediary from offering services to other clearing members doing business with LCH SA. LCH SA is also required to cease operating with the intermediary, with certain allowances for transition. LCH SA must monitor these limitations, and an escalation protocol exists in the case of breaches, explanations, and remediation.
The CRP establishes the responsibilities within LCH SA for compliance purposes, with LCH SA CaLM, CaLM Risk, Operations, Clearing Services, and Legal all having defined roles and working in conjunction with each other. For example, CaLM Risk is responsible for the ongoing monitoring of compliance with the policy and is regularly updated by Operations as to current liquidity facilities and by LCH SA Clearing Services as to changes to clearing facilities. When necessary, CaLM must also organize and establish investment-related liquidity facilities, sponsor investment-related intermediaries, and LCH SA Legal ensuring that all legal documentation is appropriately accounted for. The CRO is the owner of the policy. Finally, Credit Risk is responsible for assigning and maintaining for each intermediary an ICS.
The CRP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by ERCo and the Risk Committee and then approved by
The Model Governance, Validation and Review Policy (“MGVRP”) sets standards that govern LCH SA's development, maintenance, and validation of its models. The overall goal of the MGVRP is to help mitigate model risk, which is the risk that LCH SA's models fail, perform inadequately, or are subject to inadequate governance or monitoring. Failure of LCH SA's models could lead to under-estimation of margin, default fund, and other requirements that LCH SA uses to mitigate risks arising from providing clearing services. The MGVRP applies to models that have certain features, such as reliance on historical data, use of inputs and assumptions, and a methodology or algorithm that turns inputs into estimates.
The MGVRP requires that LCH SA maintain certain documentation for its models, including an overall model inventory; follow a set governance process when changing an existing model or establishing a new model; and review the performance of its models, including by conducting an independent model validation. Finally, the MGVRP sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel and the review cycle of the policy.
The MGVRP requires that LCH SA maintain a model framework governing the development, validation, approval and ongoing monitoring of quantitative models used to measure financial risk, in a way that is consistent with regulatory requirements. The MGVRP further requires that LCH SA establish and maintain a model inventory, which will be used to track each model's owner, classification, and status of the validation process.
The MGVRP requires that LCH SA classify each model as either of high or low importance, based on the expected financial impact if the model is incorrect. Models are classified as high importance if an error in the model could lead to certain outcomes, like a shortfall in total margin requirements for a class of cleared instruments greater than ten percent, and models are classified as low important if an error would not lead to such outcomes. The MGVRP requires certain risk review when LCH SA creates a new model or materially changes one with high importance. The review includes, among other steps, consultations with members, independent validation, and approval by the ERCo. Models ranked as low importance need only review and approval by the LCH SA Financial Risk Working Group and ERCo. The materiality of a change to a model is determined by the potential effect of the change. For example, a change to a model that would lead to substantial change in outcomes, including a reduction in coverage, would be considered material.
In addition to maintaining documentation and setting out a governance process with respect to models, the MGVRP also establishes requirements related to the monitoring of model performance. With respect to margin models, on a daily basis LCH SA must perform backtesting on actual portfolios to determine the performance of the model. Where backtesting shows numerous breaches or a model falling below the target confidence level, LCH SA must take remedial steps, including a further investigation to determine the reason for the model's underperformance. Results of these investigations could lead LCH SA to take additional steps affecting margin or additional reviews.
Finally, LCH SA must independently validate all models at least annually to determine if the models are performing adequately. The independent validator must have the relevant knowledge and experience to perform this task and will not be involved in any way in the model building and testing process. The model validation must evaluate the conceptual and practical soundness of the models and consider all relevant data, recorded during the validation period, which provides an indication of model performance. Where stress testing is concerned, such validation assesses the framework under extreme but plausible conditions, includes an analysis of risks within the stress testing environment itself, and evaluates the stress testing framework and outcomes, all to ensure that the stress testing is adequately correlated to the appropriate risk factors.
The MGVRP also sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel. While relevant model owners are responsible for the initiation, development, implementation, documentation and maintenance of the respective models, CaLM Risk is responsible for overseeing the design, approval, performance monitoring, and modification of margin and related pricing models. The Head of Market Risk/Credit Risk can delegate monitoring and some oversight responsibilities, particularly those concerning development and change, to an LCH SA model working group. The LCH SA Model Validation team must also validate each model yearly, though this can likewise be outsourced to a qualified independent third party, with the relevant knowledge and experience, and who has not been previously involved in the building and testing of the model subject to validation.
The MGVRP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by LCH SA's ERCo and Risk Committee and then approved by the Board. Changes to the policy require the approval of the Risk Committee and the Board. Changes to the appendix require approval by ERCo, with notification to the Risk Committee.
The Contract and Market Acceptability Policy (“CMAP”) describes the principles and factors that LCH SA applies when assessing new markets, financial products, and contracts. The CMAP is designed to create a standard, consistent approach to LCH SA's assessment of new contracts and markets, with the goal of, among other things, identifying and managing any new risks which may be posed by the new contracts and markets. The CMAP sets out certain principles that all new contracts and markets must meet, a governance process for onboarding new contracts and markets, and factors that LCH SA must consider when onboarding new contracts and markets. Finally, the CMAP sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel and the review cycle of the policy.
The CMAP first establishes general principles that apply to all contracts and markets that LCH SA clears. Overall, when determining whether to clear a new contract or market, LCH SA must ensure that it could close out a clearing member's positions in that contract or market, if that clearing member were to default. Moreover, LCH SA must ensure there is sufficient price discovery to determine a reliable market value for a contract. Finally, LCH SA must ensure
In addition to these general principles, the CMAP includes a specific governance process to follow when accepting new contracts and markets for clearing and includes factors that LCH SA should consider when determining whether to accept a new contract or market. The governance process is determined by the riskiness of the contract or market. A contract or market that exhibits novel risk features or requires significant changes to existing risk controls must be approved by LCH SA's Risk Committee and the Board, with some exceptions dependent on the type of market and the risk exposure. A contract or market that does not exhibit novel risk features or require significant changes to existing risk controls may be approved by LCH SA's ERCo, with notification to the Board Risk Committee. Moreover, ERCo has delegated to LCH SA's Operations group authority to approve contracts that (i) arise from the normal course of business and that meet the criteria set out in the appendix to the CMAP
The CMAP also sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel. LCH SA's ERCo is responsible for reviewing and making decisions on the suitability of any new contract and market. The relevant LCH SA business line is responsible for preparing and evaluating requests with respect to clearing new contracts and markets and for ensuring ongoing compliance with the CMAP.
The CMAP requires that the policy itself be reviewed annually by ERCo and the Risk Committee and then approved by the Board.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to LCH SA. More specifically, for the reasons given below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible.
As discussed above, LCH SA's Risk Policies formally enact the specific risk management requirements that govern its day-to-day operations as a clearing agency. The policies and procedures set forth therein clarify the roles and responsibilities within LCH SA for compliance with the Risk Policies. To that end, LCH SA has identified specific risks areas that may compromise its business operations. Such risk areas include, but are not limited to, default risk, investment risk, liquidity risk, settlement and custodial risk, model risk, and the risks associated with clearing a new contract or market. The corresponding Risk Policies consist of detailed risk management requirements that govern LCH SA's clearing agency operations as they relate to managing, mitigating, and monitoring these risks.
These risks, if not properly managed, could disrupt LCH SA's clearing services and its ability to safeguard funds. Thus, the risks addressed by the Risk Policies, if not managed or mitigated, could prevent LCH SA from promptly and accurately clearing and settling transactions and safeguarding funds. The Risk Policies, in helping LCH SA to manage and mitigate these risks, are therefore consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rules 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) require that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rules 17ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(i) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and approved by the LCH SA Board annually.
Taken together, the Risk Policies establish a risk management framework responsive to the various risks that LCH SA faces as a covered clearing agency and central counterparty for CDS. As stated above, the Risk Policies identify key risks faced by LCH SA and set out the roles and responsibilities within LCH SA for managing these risks. For example, the CRP was created to address the custody risk that LCH SA assumes when it relies on third parties to hold its cash. As a further example, the IRP sets forth standards for LCH SA to follow when managing its investment risk. Finally, the Risk Policies are subject to review on a specified basis and subject to Board approval, consistent with the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(i).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(vii) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by, among other things, performing a model validation for its credit risk models not less than annually or more frequently as may be contemplated by the covered clearing agency's risk management framework.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(vii).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies to effect same-day and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
As stated above, the LRP is the policy that LCH SA uses to manage liquidity risk. The LRP describes LCH SA's sources of liquidity and its liquidity needs. The LRP also requires that LCH SA assess its liquidity position, and describes how LCH SA must do so, including by determining on a daily basis its liquidity coverage ratio. It requires that LCH SA measure whether it has enough liquidity, or available cash, both for daily and intraday purposes, including the default of the two member groups with the largest liquidity requirements. These requirements generally would help LCH SA to measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk and maintain sufficient liquid resources, consistent with the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(13) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the covered clearing agency has the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations by, at a minimum, requiring the covered clearing agency's participants and, when practicable, other stakeholders to participate in the testing and review of its default procedures, including any close-out procedures, at least annually and following material changes thereto.
As discussed in Section II, the DMP requires that LCH SA establish Guidelines and Procedures for managing the default of a clearing member. The DMP also requires that the LCH SA CEO establish the DMG, who will be responsible for managing the default. The DMP further sets out standards regarding calling and communicating a default and sets out relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel for managing a default. These requirements should help LCH SA to have the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands during a default, consistent with the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
Rule 17ad-22(e)(16) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard the covered clearing agency's own and its participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
As discussed in Section II, the IRP sets out standards that LCH SA must follow to manage investment risk, meaning the risk of loss arising from its investment of cash funds. The IRP includes minimum standards with respect to investment counterparties, issuers, investment transactions, and instruments in which LCH SA may invest. The IRP also sets out limits on investments and a process for monitoring and following these limits. These requirements should help LCH SA to invest its assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks, consistent with the rule.
Moreover, as discussed in Section II, the CRP sets out standards that LCH SA must follow to manage risks that arise from the intermediaries used for settlement, payment and custody activities. These standards consist of minimum criteria that intermediaries must satisfy. The CRP also requires that LCH SA conduct due diligence on such intermediaries and comply with limits on its exposure to these intermediaries. The CRP further explains how LCH SA must monitor counterparties for compliance with these criteria and limits and sets out the relevant responsibilities of LCH SA personnel with respect to applying these criteria and limits. These requirements should help LCH SA to safeguard its own and its participants' assets, and minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, by limiting LCH SA's custodians and similar intermediaries to those that are well established, reliable, and demonstrate an ability to segregate, identify, and make available LCH SA's assets, consistent with the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(16).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered clearing agency's operational risks by, among other things, identifying the plausible sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and controls.
As discussed in Section II, the CMAP sets out a process that LCH SA must follow when accepting a new contract or market for clearing, including certain core principles that any new contract or market must satisfy. Among other things, before accepting any new contract or market for clearing, LCH SA must determine that it could close out a clearing member's positions therein; that there is sufficient price discovery for LCH SA to determine a reliable market price for a contract; and that LCH SA's risk measures and margin are appropriate for the risks presented by the contract. Finally, the CMAP establishes a governance process for accepting new contracts or markets for clearing and assigns authority to relevant LCH SA personnel. In doing so, the CMAP should help LCH SA to identify potential operational risks that could arise from clearing a new contract or market consistent with the rule. The CMAP should also help LCH SA to mitigate those risks by applying its existing risk management system or modifying its risk management system to accommodate the new contract or market, consistent with the rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(17)(i).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 30, 2022, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) filed a petition for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct and operate approximately six miles of rail line in connection with the Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension Project (the PIRATE project) in Maricopa County, Ariz. (the Line). The Line would connect the Pecos Advanced Manufacturing Zone (the PAMZ) to the UP main line west of the project area and provide rail service for Commercial Metals Company (CMC), as well as an alternative mode of freight transportation to future shippers. (Pet. 2.) By decision served on September 28, 2022, the Board instituted a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). No comments opposing the transportation merits of UP's petition were filed.
The Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) on May 31, 2023, examining the potential environmental and historic impacts of UP's proposal and requesting public comments, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-11, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 300101-307108.
As discussed in more detail below, in August 2023, OEA delayed issuance of a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) after discovering that there had been significant ground disturbance and damage to National Register of Historic Places-eligible archaeological resources within the proposed right-of-way. Following briefing on the issue, the Board was unable to reach a majority decision on whether a violation
After considering the entire record, including the record on the transportation merits, the Draft EA, the Final EA, and all comments received, the Board will grant UP's petition for exemption, subject to the environmental and historic preservation mitigation measures listed in the Appendix and set forth in the Final EA.
UP proposes to construct and operate the Line in connection with the PIRATE project, a public/private initiative to fund, engineer, design, and build a six-mile industrial rail branch, on land primarily situated on the former Williams Air Force Base. (Pet. 3.) The Line would connect the PAMZ to the UP main line (the Phoenix Subdivision) located west of the project area. (
On June 30, 2023, CMC filed a letter in support of UP's petition for exemption, stating that the project is critical to the success of CMC's operations in Mesa. (CMC Letter 1-2, June 30, 2023.) As noted above, no comments opposing the transportation merits of the proposed Line were filed.
As part of the environmental and historic review process,
On May 31, 2023, OEA
On July 28, 2023, while preparing the
Among the issues raised by the Tribes were concerns as to whether a violation of Section 110(k) of the NHPA had occurred.
On June 3, 2025, the Board issued a decision stating that it was unable to reach a majority on whether UP had violated Section 110(k) and that, therefore, no determination that Section 110(k) is applicable would be issued, and the Board would continue with the NHPA Section 106 process and its consideration of the merits of the petition.
While UP's posture and conduct during the course of this proceeding have raised serious concerns, the Board concludes that, based on the record, the proposed construction and operation of the Line qualify for an exemption under section 10502. The transportation merits of UP's petition are unopposed. The record shows that there is currently no rail service to the PAMZ, and that CMC, a major industrial shipper in the area, must rely solely on trucks to support operations at its two Mesa-based facilities. (
In addition, consideration of the proposed construction and operation of the Line under section 10901 is not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power. As explained above, the Line would introduce a new freight transportation option for CMC and potential future shippers located in the PAMZ. CMC fully supports the project, and no comments opposing the project's transportation merits have been filed.
Moreover, while NEPA prescribes a process that must be followed, it does not mandate a particular result.
There has been a thorough environmental review in this case. On May 31, 2023, OEA issued a Draft EA addressing in detail the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the Line.
OEA received 10 comments on the Draft EA.
The Board is satisfied that OEA has taken the requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of the Line and that the EA complied with NEPA. The Draft EA and Final EA adequately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation and include appropriate recommended environmental mitigation to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts.
As detailed in the Final EA, OEA initiated the Section 106 process for the PIRATE project in April 2022, conducted cultural resources surveys from May through September 2022, assessed project effects in October and November 2022, and thereafter started the process to resolve adverse effects. (Final EA x, 5-4 to 5-7;
While this project satisfies the criteria for exemption, UP's failure to adequately protect the identified National Register-eligible archaeological sites in the APE from disturbance during the pendency of the proceeding was deeply troubling. UP represents that it has instituted several new practices to ensure that, going forward, cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the pendency of the NHPA Section 106 process for a construction project. (UP Submission 14-17, Dec. 16, 2024.) UP acknowledges that failures in communications and lack of awareness of the historic review process by various UP personnel are “unacceptable” and “in need of correction.” (
Construction and operation of the Line will introduce a new freight transportation option in the PAMZ for both current and potential future shippers. It will also facilitate the diversion of traffic from truck to rail, thereby increasing overall energy efficiency. With OEA's final recommended mitigation, there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Line. After carefully considering the transportation merits and environmental issues, the Board, considering the entire record, finds that the petition for exemption to allow UP's construction and operation of the approximately six-mile line of railroad in Maricopa County described as Alternative 1 in the Draft and Final EAs should be granted, subject to compliance with the environmental and historic mitigation measures set forth in the Appendix to this decision.
This action, as conditioned, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts UP's construction and operation of the above-described rail line from the formal application procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10901.
2. The Board adopts the environmental and historic mitigation measures set forth in the Appendix to this decision and imposes them as conditions to the exemption granted herein.
3. Notice will be published in the
4. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by April 2. 2026.
5. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
a. Where practical, any ground-disturbing, ground-clearing activities or vegetation treatments will be performed before migratory birds begin nesting or after all young have fledged.
b. If such activities must be scheduled to start during the migratory bird breeding season, UP will not take steps to prevent migratory birds from establishing nests in the potential impact area. UP or its agents will not haze or exclude nest access for migratory birds and other sensitive avian species.
c. If such activities must be scheduled during the migratory bird breeding season, a qualified biologist will perform a site-specific survey for nesting birds starting no more than 7 days prior to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation treatments. Birds with eggs or young will not be hazed, and nests with eggs or young will not be moved until the young are no longer dependent on the nest.
d. If nesting birds are found during the survey, UP will establish appropriate seasonal or spatial buffers around nests. Vegetation treatments or ground-disturbing activities within the buffer areas will be postponed, where feasible, until the birds have left the nest. A qualified biologist will confirm that all young have fledged.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
60-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval and request for comments.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will be requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of TVA's Generic Clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery, community engagement, and usability testing. This Generic Clearance will fast-track the process for TVA to seek feedback and input from the public, through surveys and other instruments, regarding TVA services and programs as well as community needs and concerns. The clearance will also allow the collection of registration information for public forums, events, and other opportunities for public engagement.
Comments should be sent to the Public Information Collection Clearance Officer no later than May 18, 2026.
Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Public Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jennifer A. Wilds, Program Manager—Federal Regulations, and Information Collection Clearance Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W Summit Hill Drive, CLK-320, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401; telephone (865) 632-6580 or by email at
TVA will only submit an information collection for approval under this Generic Clearance if it meets the following conditions:
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice of initiation, request for comments and notice of public hearings.
The U.S. Trade Representative (Trade Representative) is initiating investigations with respect to acts, policies, and practices of the economies listed in Annex A of this notice related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. USTR is seeking public comments in connection with these investigations and will hold public hearings.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear through USTR's electronic portal:
For procedural questions concerning comments or participating in the public hearing, contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725. For all other questions regarding this notice, please contact Megan Grimball, Co-Chair of the Section 301 Committee, or Associate General Counsel Benjamin Allen.
For almost 100 years, U.S. law has prohibited the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured in whole or in part with forced labor. This prohibition recognizes not only the humanitarian concerns associated with allowing parties to profit from the suffering of others but also foreign policy and national security concerns arising from the exploitation of workers. Such exploitation threatens domestic producers who must compete with foreign goods produced with an artificial cost advantage and may harm U.S. workers and citizens through distorting competition and the purchase of goods produced under exploitative conditions. Ending forced labor is a key priority and an economic and national security imperative for the United States.
Forced labor may be understood as work or service extracted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily. In addition to U.S.
However, despite this clear and longstanding consensus, the use of forced labor across the world continues to persist and has even increased in recent years. The ILO estimates that as of 2021, 3.5 out of every 1,000 people, or 28 million people, globally are in forced labor. Moreover, it estimates that between 2016 and 2021, the number of people in forced labor increased by 2.7 million. According to the ILO, this increase was driven entirely by forced labor in the private economy.
Firms using forced labor incur artificially lower labor costs, and, as a result, are able to sell their goods at a lower price than they would otherwise. The ILO estimates that in 2024 the profits from forced labor in the global private economy amounted to roughly $63.9 billion annually, with annual profits per victim of $2,113 in the agriculture sector and $4,994 in the industry sector, the highest among sectors in the private economy.
Forced labor taints the entire supply chain in which it exists. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor's 2024
The United States has led the way to prevent trade in goods produced using forced labor, which are readily available in global supply chains. For example, at present, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued 54 withhold release orders and eight findings with respect to various goods whose entry into the United States is prohibited under the U.S. forced labor import prohibition. This data likely understates the number of goods produced using forced labor globally, as research on forced labor can be particularly challenging.
The United States has consistently engaged with trading partners to prevent trade in goods produced with forced labor. In response to this engagement, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union have adopted measures intended to stop the importation or sale of products produced using forced labor. More recently, in the context of ongoing U.S. reciprocal trade agreement negotiations, several countries have committed to adopt such measures. However, none of these countries has adopted and effectively enforced a forced labor import prohibition to date. Although a majority of countries prohibit forced labor as a matter of law within their jurisdiction, such prohibitions are insufficient to prevent firms from profiting from forced labor. In the absence of a forced labor import prohibition that is effectively enforced, firms can continue to source, use, and profit from imported products produced with forced labor, even if the use of forced labor is prohibited domestically.
The failure to prevent trade in products produced with forced labor may negatively affect U.S. commerce. In markets without forced labor import prohibitions, U.S. exports are required to compete with products produced wholly or in part with forced labor, including products that have been denied entry to the U.S. market and subsequently re-exported. The conditions of competition may skew to favor artificially low-cost imports produced by forced labor or incorporating forced labor inputs. Companies that do not use or rely on imports produced with forced labor may lose sales or revenues or even be pushed out of the marketplace.
Section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), authorizes the Trade Representative to initiate an investigation to determine whether an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is actionable under Section 301 of the Trade Act. Actionable matters under Section 301 include acts, policies, and practices of a foreign country that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. An act, policy, or practice is unreasonable if it, while not necessarily in violation of, or inconsistent with, the international legal rights of the United States, is otherwise unfair and inequitable. In addition, Section 301(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III) specifies that an act, policy, or practice is unreasonable if it constitutes a persistent pattern of conduct that permits any form of forced or compulsory labor.
On March 12, 2026, the Trade Representative initiated Section 301 investigations to examine whether the failure of the various economies listed in Annex A to prohibit the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labor is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Pursuant to Section 302(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act, USTR has consulted with appropriate advisory committees and the inter-agency Section 301 Committee. Pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Trade Act, USTR is requesting consultations with the governments of the economies under investigation. Pursuant to Section 304 of the Trade Act, USTR will determine whether the acts, policies, or practices under investigation are actionable under Section 301. If any determination is affirmative, the Trade Representative must determine whether action is appropriate, and if so, what action to take.
You may submit written comments on any issue covered by these investigations. In particular, USTR invites comments regarding:
• Whether any economy subject to these investigations maintains or is in the process of establishing a forced labor import prohibition, and whether any such import prohibition is being effectively enforced.
• The extent to which the failure of any economy to establish and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable, discriminates against U.S. goods, or constitutes a persistent pattern of conduct that permits any form of forced or compulsory labor.
• The extent to which the failure of any economy to establish and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition has negatively affected U.S. commerce, such as through lost U.S. exports or economic output, lower prices for U.S. goods, or lower wages for U.S. workers.
• What action, if any, should be taken to address these issues, including:
○ The level and scope, if any, of duties on products of any economy subject to these investigations.
○ The level and scope, if any, of import restrictions on products of any economy subject to these investigations.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by any additional duties on products of any economy subject to these investigations.
The Section 301 Committee will convene public hearings on April 28, 2026, in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 10:00 a.m. The hearings may continue, as necessary, until May 1. To testify at the hearings, you must submit a request to appear using the electronic portal at
Interested persons must submit written comments, requests to appear at the hearing, summaries of testimony, and post-hearing rebuttal comments using the appropriate docket on the portal at
Interested persons wishing to provide testimony at the hearing must submit a notification of intent and summary of testimony using the docket entitled `Request to Appear at the Hearing on the Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor,' docket number USTR-2026-0134.
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments or a notification of intent to testify. The first screen allows you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. Information fields are optional. However, USTR may not consider your comment or request if insufficient information is provided.
Fields with a gray Business Confidential Information (BCI) notation are for BCI information that will not be made publicly available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the comment, or any portion of it, by clicking `Next.' You may upload documents at the end of the form and indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact the USTR Section 301 support line at 202.395.5725 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.
USTR will post attachments uploaded to the docket for public inspection, except for properly designated BCI. You can view submissions on USTR's electronic portal at
Economies subject to these investigations:
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice of initiation of investigations and hearings, and a request for comments.
The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative)
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments, hearing appearance requests, summaries of testimony, and post-hearing rebuttal comments through the online USTR portal:
For procedural questions concerning comments or participating in the public hearing, contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725. Direct all other questions regarding this notice to Philip Butler, Chair of the Section 301 Committee, or Nanda Srikantaiah, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 395-5725.
Structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors presents a serious challenge to U.S. efforts to re-shore supply chains and provide good-paying jobs for American workers. Key trading partners have developed production capacity untethered from the incentives of domestic and global demand. This excess capacity leads to, among others, overproduction and large or persistent trade surpluses, as well as underutilized and unused capacity, in manufacturing sectors. Structural excess capacity has been characterized generally as underutilized industrial production capacity that is sustained through governmental interventions or policies incentivizing companies to maintain or grow their unused capacity inefficiently.
In 2024, global manufacturing generated $16.6 trillion dollars in economic output, up from $16.4 trillion in 2023, according to World Bank data. Nonetheless, according to U.S. government estimates, global manufacturing capacity utilization remains between 75.0 and 75.9 percent, below healthy utilization rates for many sectors of approximately 80 percent.
When global manufacturing investment outstrips global demand for manufactured goods, and production surpluses are concentrated within certain countries, production surpluses in those markets undermine industrial ecosystems in other countries. Across numerous sectors, many U.S. trading partners are disregarding market-based policies and producing more goods than they can consume or productively invest domestically. The result of this overproduction is large or persistent goods trade surpluses, including the expansion of exports to the United States or to third countries that, in turn, export to the United States. This displaces existing U.S. domestic production or prevents investment and expansion in U.S. manufacturing production that otherwise would have been brought online. These dynamics are reflected in U.S. global and bilateral goods trade deficits and the reduced contribution of manufacturing to U.S. gross domestic product. In the past fifteen years, U.S. capacity utilization peaked at 79.9 percent during President Trump's first term, declining to a low of 75.2 percent in November 2024 near the end of President Biden's term, further evidence that U.S. industry is not operating at its full competitive potential.
U.S. policy makers for years have expressed concern over large or persistent goods trade imbalances. For example, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the U.S. Congress instructed: “The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding current account surpluses is to develop rules to address large and persistent global current account imbalances of countries, including imbalances which threaten the stability of the international trading system, by imposing greater responsibility on such countries to undertake policy changes aimed at restoring current account equilibrium, including expedited implementation of trade agreements where feasible and appropriate.”
Low capacity utilization rates in the manufacturing sectors of some economies can be evidence of structural excess capacity in those sectors. For example, the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) estimates that global steel excess capacity is expected to increase to 721 million metric tons by 2027. The worsening global steel excess capacity trend is being driven by a wide range of non-market practices that fuel new capacity growth that exceeds underlying market demand in some economies, in turn putting jobs, investments, and supply chains in other economies at risk.
Another example can be seen in the automotive sector where the United
An illustrative list of sectors plagued by excess capacity and production includes aluminum, automobiles, batteries, cement, chemicals, electronics, energy goods, glass, machine tools, machinery, non-ferrous metals, paper, plastics, processed food and beverages, robotics, satellites, semiconductors, ships, solar modules, steel, and transportation equipment. In many of these sectors, the United States has lost substantial domestic production capacity or has fallen worryingly behind foreign competitors.
The creation or maintenance of structural excess capacity and production may result from policy interventions by trading partners that increase their domestic capacity and production while suppressing their domestic demand. Such interventions maintain capacity and production well above what would be expected under more market-oriented conditions. This may include: (1) promoting production and export untethered from market drivers of supply, demand, and investment, including through subsidies; (2) suppressing domestic wages; (3) non-commercial activities of state-owned or -controlled enterprises; (4) sustained market access barriers; (5) lax or inadequate environmental or labor protection or social safety net; (6) subsidized lending; (7) financial repression and currency practices; and others.
Among others, structural excess capacity in manufacturing sectors can be evidenced by the existence of large or persistent trade goods surpluses in certain sectors, including the nature and quality of an economy's trade balance with the United States; as well as by underutilized or unused production capacity or unprofitable firms in a given economy or sector.
The delta between manufacturing capacity and demand is often particularly acute in economies that have large and persistent trade surpluses. Economists have noted that a large manufacturing surplus requires an offsetting deficit in manufacturing elsewhere in the global economy. Trade surpluses are often rooted in domestic saving-investment imbalances shaped by government policies that tend to weaken domestic demand and promote overproduction and capacity in surplus countries. Instead of gains from trade flowing to workers and shareholders, these governments encourage firms to use these gains to fund or stimulate additional production capacity, regardless of demand. The resulting weak or depressed domestic consumption compels these economies to export their overproduction to underwrite their excess capacity, generating trade surpluses. In turn, the trading partners of these economies must run trade deficits, meaning they will have smaller tradeable goods sectors than would otherwise prevail.
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization's (UNIDO) recent quarterly report on Manufacturing Production and Trade indicates that China, Asia and Oceania (excluding China), and Europe have experienced trade surpluses in all manufactured goods, and in higher-tech manufactured goods, consistently for years.
The nature and quality of an economy's trade balance with the United States is also an indicator of excess capacity. The United States is the global consumer market of last resort, and economies with productive capacity that outstrip their domestic demand tend to send overproduction to the United States, directly or indirectly through third countries. Excess capacity can be focused in certain tradeable sectors, leading to a large and persistent goods surplus with the United States. This can be the case even if a given economy might experience balanced trade or have an overall goods trade deficit with the United States or with the world.
These investigations will focus on the following economies that appear to exhibit structural excess capacity in various manufacturing sectors, such as through large or persistent trade surpluses or underutilized or unused capacity: China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for China. China's global goods trade surplus exceeded $1.2 trillion in 2025, a record high, and accounted for nearly 70 percent of global goods trade surpluses. In 2024, China's global goods trade surplus was $993 billion. By volume, China's trade surplus meaningfully expanded—with net export volumes increasing to the highest recorded levels amid a decline in China's export prices. China's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States was the largest of any U.S. trading partner in 2024, at $361 billion in 2024. Additionally, China's data transparency is limited, and available data contains statistical anomalies that may suggest an even higher surplus. Overall, China's capacity utilization rate is 74.4 percent in 2025, which is down from 75 percent in 2024.
China maintains a global goods trade surplus across its economy, led by exports in sectors such as electronic equipment, machinery, automobiles and auto parts, plastics, furniture, articles of iron or steel, apparel, organic chemicals,
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for the European Union. Measured as a share of GDP, in 2024, the Euro area maintained a surplus on trade in goods of $451 billion and 2.3 percent of GDP. The European Union maintained a bilateral surplus of trade in goods with the United States of $237 billion in 2024. The European Union maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as chemicals and related products and machineries and vehicles. The European Union maintains this surplus despite very high energy prices and regulatory obstacles that inhibit economic growth.
Among EU Member States, for example, Germany has run a large trade surplus for well over a decade as production levels are consistently above domestic absorption. The goods trade surplus reached 5.6 percent of GDP in 2024. At the same time, Germany's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States reached $102 billion in 2024. Germany maintains a large and persistent goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as automobiles and auto parts, machinery, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical products, chemicals, and others. At the same time, capacity utilization rates in these sectors as of January 2026, such as chemicals (72.7 percent), have reached low levels.
Similarly, Ireland has run a significant goods trade surplus, amounting to $97 billion, or 15.9 percent of GDP in 2024. In 2023, its goods trade surplus with the rest of the world was $57 billion. In 2024, its bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States was $55 billion, driven by exports of the pharmaceutical sector. At only 72.7 percent in Q1 2026, Ireland's level of capacity utilization is low.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production for Singapore includes large or persistent trade surpluses. Singapore maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as semiconductors, electronic equipment, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals. In 2024, the goods trade surplus was $47 billion, or 8.6 percent of GDP. Furthermore, evidence suggests Singapore's trade surplus in the semiconductor supply chain will grow. Similarly, evidence suggests that Singapore's state-owned industrial landlord continues to expand manufacturing capacity notwithstanding a recent drop in its industrial occupancy rate.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production for Switzerland includes large or persistent goods trade surpluses. Switzerland's trade surplus reached 8.0 percent of GDP or $75 billion in 2024, and similarly was $54 billion in 2023. Switzerland had a bilateral surplus of trade in goods with the United States of $44 billion in 2024. Switzerland maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as refined gold, pharmaceutical products, organic chemicals, and machinery. Switzerland does not report official statistics on capacity utilization, but it has pursued policies in the past, such as currency intervention and sterilization of foreign exchange inflows, that contribute to structural excess capacity.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Norway. Norway maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as mineral fuels and oils, certain electronic equipment, and machinery. In 2024, Norway's goods trade surplus was 13.8 percent of GDP, or $67 billion, down from a goods trade surplus of $79 billion in 2023. Norway's seafood exports hit a record high in 2025, with Norwegian companies exporting 2.8 million metric tons of seafood worth $18 billion, representing a 4 percent increase from 2024. At 77.7 percent in Q4 2025, Norway's rate of capacity utilization was more than a full percentage point below what it was a year ago, and over two percentage points less than it was three years ago. In addition, Norway engages in policies and practices that have the effect of undervaluing its domestic currency, including the use of state-owned or -controlled enterprises to recycle oil revenues into non-domestic currencies, like the U.S. dollar, rather than its domestic currency.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Indonesia through large or persistent goods trade surpluses. In 2024, Indonesia had a $31 billion global goods trade surplus, led by exports in metals, agricultural products, fuels, textiles, and construction goods. Indonesia's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States reached $18 billion in 2025. Indonesia's cement industry faces a persistent oversupply due to a significant imbalance between production and domestic demand.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Malaysia through its large or persistent goods trade surpluses. Malaysia maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as electronic equipment, mineral fuels and oils, machinery, animal and vegetable fats and oils, and optical, photo, technical, and medical apparatuses. In 2024, Malaysia's trade surplus was 7.3 percent of its GDP, or $31 billion, down from $47 billion in 2023. In 2025, Malaysia maintained a bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States of $24 billion. Most of this surplus is focused on goods trade, driven by sectors such as electronics or machinery. Evidence suggests that Malaysia has significant excess capacity in its steel sector, which recorded capacity growth of 22 percent between 2018 and 2022, despite a 25 percent decline in steel demand during that timeframe.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Cambodia. Cambodia maintains a bilateral trade surplus with the United States, which in 2025 was approximately $12 billion. Evidence indicates its garment, footwear, and travel goods (GFT) sector exported $11.8 billion in the first nine months of 2025, a 16 percent increase from the same period in 2024. When Cambodia's GFT industry was facing uncertainty with U.S. tariffs, Cambodia's Deputy Secretary-General stated that enhancing capacity along the product chains was an option to further boost the manufacturing sector and create lucrative opportunities.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Thailand. It maintains a global goods trade surplus in sectors such as autos and auto parts, machinery, and rubber. Thailand's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States totaled $51 billion in 2025, up from $35 billion in 2024. Evidence suggests Thailand's manufacturing sector has significant excess capacity, as it is operating at below 60% capacity for two consecutive years, with only one-third of industries recovering to pre-pandemic levels.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Korea through large or persistent trade surpluses. Korea maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as electronic equipment, automobiles and auto parts, machinery, steel, and ships and marine vessels. Korea's global goods trade surplus expanded considerably in 2024, reaching $52 billion, up from a global goods trade deficit of $10 billion in 2023. Korea's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States increased to $56 billion over the course of 2024, and remained around $49 billion through 2025. The Korean Government has acknowledged the need to cut capacity in the petrochemicals sector.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Vietnam through large or persistent trade surpluses. Vietnam maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as electronic equipment, machinery, footwear, apparel, furniture, and steel. In 2025, Vietnam's trade surplus was $196 billion and $127 billion in 2024. Vietnam's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States has expanded dramatically over the past six years, primarily driven by growth in goods trade, led by electronics and machinery. Vietnam's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States stood at $178 billion in 2025. Vietnam also functions as a hub for the final assembly of goods before export, which contributes to its trade surplus. Evidence suggests Vietnam has excess capacity in its cement sector, including continued cement overcapacity of nearly 100 percent of domestic demand. Furthermore, Vietnam's intervention in foreign exchange markets and undervaluation of its currency were found to be unreasonable in a Section 301 investigation conducted by the U.S. Trade Representative in 2021.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Taiwan through large or persistent trade surpluses. Taiwan maintains a global goods trade surplus, led by exports in sectors such as semiconductors, electronic products, information technology products, and machinery. Taiwan's trade surplus in goods was $73.3 billion in 2024, similar to its goods trade surplus of $73.4 billion in 2023. Taiwan's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States grew to a record $65 billion in 2024.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Bangladesh, which has a bilateral goods trade surplus of $6.15 billion with the United States. This bilateral surplus is led by exports in the textiles sector. The government provides cash incentives for exports across forty-three sectors, including domestic textiles and leather products. Furthermore, Bangladesh's cement industry is wrestling with significant excess capacity in the midst of the industry's worst downturn in years, with Bangladesh's national consumption of cement dropping to 38MT in 2024—less than 40% of total capacity—and declining further in 2025.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Mexico. Mexico's bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States was $197 billion in 2025, led by the automotive sector, as well as construction, rail and ship transportation, and health. Mexico's automotive industry is ranked fifth-largest globally in light vehicle and heavy-duty manufacturing, with global exports amounting to $104.8 billion in 2024. The United States accounts for 79.7 percent of Mexico's exports in the automotive sector. Furthermore, evidence suggests its steel industry achieved rapid capacity growth between 2000 and 2019. Specifically, Mexico's steel sector experienced a capacity increase of 9 MMT, representing a 46 percent increase, during that timeframe. There is also evidence of structural excess production in numerous other sectors of the Mexican economy, including process manufacturing in food and beverages.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for Japan. In 2024, Japan had a global goods trade deficit of about $36 billion, but with the United States, Japan had a bilateral goods trade surplus of $57 billion in 2024. Japan maintains a global goods trade surplus in sectors such as automobiles and auto parts, and optical, photo, technical, and medical apparatuses. Japan's trade surplus with the United States is heavily focused on the automotive sector, which accounts for more than one-third of its exports to the United States. Today, Japan is one of the world's largest global vehicle exporters, exporting 4.2 million units in 2024. The share of Japanese firms that fail to make a profit, yet nonetheless continue to operate, is an indication of excess capacity in Japan's economy.
Evidence of structural excess capacity and production exists for India. In 2025, India had a bilateral trade surplus with the United States of $42 billion. India's global goods trade surplus sectors include textiles, health, construction goods, and automotive goods. For example, evidence suggests the solar module sector is plagued by excess capacity, including that India's current module manufacturing is nearly triple annual domestic demand. India also has created significant excess capacity in petrochemicals, steel, and other industries.
Section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate an investigation to determine whether an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is actionable under section 301 of the Trade Act. Actionable matters under section 301 include acts, policies, and practices of a foreign country that are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. An act, policy, or practice is unreasonable if, while not necessarily in violation of, or inconsistent with, the international legal rights of the United States, it is otherwise unfair and inequitable.
On March 11, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated section 301 investigations of the acts, policies, and practices of certain economies relating to structural excess capacity or production in certain manufacturing sectors. Pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act, USTR has consulted with appropriate advisory committees and the inter-agency Section 301 Committee. Pursuant to section 303(a) of the Trade Act, USTR is requesting consultations with the respective governments of each investigated economy.
Pursuant to section 304 of the Trade Act, USTR must determine whether the act, policy, or practice under investigation is actionable under section 301. If that determination is affirmative, the U.S. Trade Representative must determine whether action is appropriate, and if so, what action to take.
You may submit written comments on any issue covered by the investigation. In particular, USTR invites comments regarding:
• The acts, policies, and practices of each investigated economy creating or maintaining structural excess capacity or production in specific sectors.
• Whether the acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory.
• Whether the acts, policies, and practices burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and if so, the nature and
• Whether the acts, policies, and practices are actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act, and what action, if any, should be taken, including tariff and non-tariff actions.
• Whether there are additional considerations for assessing acts, policies, and practices that contribute to structural excess capacity or production in manufacturing sectors.
To be assured of consideration, USTR must receive written comments by 11:59 p.m. EST on April 15, 2026. Additional instructions on how to submit written comments are provided below in Part VI.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing covering each investigated economy beginning on May 5, 2026. To testify at the hearing, you must submit a request to appear using the electronic portal at
Post-hearing rebuttal comments, which should be limited to rebutting or supplementing testimony presented at the hearing, may be submitted within seven calendar days after the last day of the public hearing. Rebuttal comments must be submitted using the electronic portal at
Interested persons must submit written comments, requests to appear at the hearing, summaries of testimony, and post-hearing rebuttal comments using the appropriate docket on the portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments or a notification of intent to testify. The first screen allows you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. Information fields are optional. However, USTR may not consider your comment or request if insufficient information is provided. Fields with a gray Business Confidential Information (BCI) notation are for BCI information that will not be made publicly available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public. After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the comment, or any portion of it, by clicking `Next.' You may upload documents at the end of the form and indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that the information would not customarily be released to the public.
Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact the USTR section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible. USTR will post attachments uploaded to the docket for public inspection, except for properly designated BCI. You can view submissions on USTR's electronic portal at
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by TxDOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. The actions relate to various proposed highway projects in the State of Texas. These actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the projects.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of TxDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the highway projects listed below will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 14, 2026. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such a claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Patrick Lee, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701; telephone: (512) 419-8604; email:
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for these projects are being, or have been, carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated July 17, 2025, and executed by the FHWA and TxDOT.
Notice is hereby given that TxDOT and Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway projects in the State of Texas that are listed below.
The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued in connection with the projects and in other key project documents. The
This notice applies to all TxDOT and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The projects subject to this notice are:
1. RM 2243 from SW Bypass to I-35, Williamson County, Texas. The project will widen RM 2243 from a 2-lane to a 4-lane roadway with a raised median and dedicated turn lanes from SW Bypass to Norwood Drive and will add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from SW Bypass to I-35. The project is approximately 1.8 miles in length. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on December 9, 2025, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Austin District Office at 7901 North I-35, Austin, TX 78753; telephone: (512) 832-7000.
2. FM 1570, from SH 66 to SH 34, Hunt County, Texas. The project includes roadway and drainage improvements for approximately 5.8 miles along FM 1570 in Greenville, Texas. The project will reconstruct the existing two-lane rural roadway to a four-lane roadway with curb and gutter and a two-way left turn lane. A continuous 8-foot-wide shared-use path will be constructed on both sides of the roadway. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on December 17, 2025, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Paris District Office at 3500 SW Loop 286 Paris, TX 75460; telephone: (903) 737-9300.
3. US 87, from 2 miles north of the Glasscock County line to 0.45 mile south of the Howard County line, Howard and Glasscock Counties, Texas. The project will construct a four-lane divided roadway with frontage roads and diamond interchanges with turnarounds at FM 821, FM 461 W and FM 461 E. The mainlanes will be 12 feet wide with 10-foot-wide inside and outside shoulders. One-way two-lane frontage roads will be constructed on each side of the roadway separated by a clear zone width of approximately 72 feet. Frontage road lanes will be 12 feet wide with 4-foot-wide inside and 10-foot-wide outside shoulders. Frontage roads will be built first and the remaining elements completed later. The length of the project is approximately 2.45 miles. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on December 17, 2025, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Abilene District Office at 4250 N. Clack, Abilene, TX 79601; telephone: (325) 676-6800.
4. US 59 from 0.75 mile south of FM 1686 to 1.32 mile north of FM 1686, Victoria County, Texas. The project will replace the parallel bridge structures and approaches on US 59 over Skytop Rd., BU 59, and the Kansas City Southern railway in Telferner, just east of Victora. Both the northbound and southbound bridges will carry four 12-foot travel lanes with 12-foot outside and inside shoulders. Northbound and southbound main lanes will consist of three 12-foot travel lanes with 12-foot shoulders on each side. Northbound and southbound frontage roads will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with a 10-foot outside shoulder and four-foot inside shoulder. The project will also involve realignment of US 59 in some places and adjustments to turnarounds. The total project length is approximately 2.38 miles. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on December 17, 2025, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Yoakum District Office at 403 Huck St., Yoakum, TX 77995; telephone: (361) 293-4300.
5. Bentson Road, from FM 676 to FM 1924, Hidalgo County, Texas. The
6. FM 1015, from SH 107 to Mile 12 Road, Hidalgo County, Texas. The project will widen FM 1015 to a four-lane roadway. The roadway will consist of four 12-foot travel lanes (two in each direction), a 14-foot center left-turn lane, and 10-foot outside shoulders. In addition there will be a 10-foot shared use path on the east side of FM 1015, a six-foot sidewalk on the west side of FM 1015, and flashing beacons and pedestrian crosswalks at key intersections. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorial Exclusion Determination issued on February 2, 2026, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W. Interstate 2, Pharr, TX 78577; telephone: (956) 702-6101.
7. Old Alice Road, from 0.2 mile south of Sports Park Boulevard to SH 100, Cameron County, Texas. The project will reconstruct and widen the existing two lane rural Old Alice Road to a four-lane divided urban roadway with shoulders and sidewalks. In addition, the project will replace the existing bridge that spans a drainage ditch and replace several culverts within the project limits. The project length is approximately 4.9 miles. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on February 17, 2026, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Pharr District Office at 600 W Interstate 2, Pharr, Texas 78577; telephone: (956) 702-6101.
8. Nuevo Hueco Tanks Road, from FM 76 to SH 20, El Paso County, Texas. The project will extend Nuevo Hueco Tanks Road from FM 76 to SH 20 in the City of Socorro. From FM 76 to Ysla Lateral Crossing, the project will construct a new roadway consisting of four 12-foot travel lanes, a 16-foot-wide raised median, and a 10-foot-wide shared use path on each side of the roadway. From the Ysla Lateral Crossing to SH 20, Nuevo Hueco Tanks Road will continue along the existing Nevarez Road alignment and will consist of four 11-foot travel lanes, a 16-foot raised median, and a 10-foot shared use path on each side of the roadway. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Categorical Exclusion Determination issued on February 23, 2026, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The Categorical Exclusion Determination and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT El Paso District Office at 13301 Gateway West, El Paso, Texas 79928; telephone: (915) 790-4341.
9. RM 620 from south of Foundation Road to Little Elm Trail, Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas. The project will construct an overpass that will function as a bypass lane in each direction through the Anderson Mill Road and El Salido Parkway intersections. The project is approximately 1.2 miles in length. The actions by TxDOT and Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final EA, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on February 10, 2026, and other documents in the TxDOT project file. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the TxDOT project file are available by contacting the TxDOT Austin District Office at 7901 North I-35, Austin, TX 78753; telephone: 512-832-7000.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0036 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0036), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical
The 17 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Andrew Barker is a 29-year-old class A commercial driver's license (CDL) holder in North Carolina. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since April 2019. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since July 9, 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Kyle Benner is a 36-year-old class A driver's license holder in Pennsylvania. He has a history of provoked seizure and has been seizure free since December 19, 2022. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since May 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Devin Brockington is a 39-year-old class A CDL holder in Maryland. He has a history of a neurocytoma and has been seizure free since September 6, 2024. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since June 1, 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Wendy Cook is a 55-year-old class C driver's license holder in Oregon. She has a history of a provoked seizure and has been seizure free since February 11, 2025. She takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since May 19, 2025. Her physician states that they are supportive of her receiving an exemption.
Caedmon Cunningham is a 20-year-old class C driver's license holder in Kansas. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since November 2022. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 2021. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Steven Ernest is a 46-year-old class B CDL holder in Maine. He has a history of provoked seizure and has been seizure free since November 2023. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 10, 2024. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Chauncy Gibson is a 54-year-old class AM CDL holder in Georgia. He has a history of provoked seizures and has been seizure free since May 9, 2024. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 2024. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Matthew Heller is a 52-year-old class D driver's license holder in New York. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since March 30, 2019. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 2020. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Michael S. Miller is a 39-year-old class C driver's license holder in California. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since June 9, 2023. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since June 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Michael George Murray is a 46-year-old class C CDL holder in New York. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since May 8, 2023. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2023. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Brandon Petruzzi is a 28-year-old class DM driver's license holder in Massachusetts. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since February 3, 2025. He does not take an anti-seizure medication. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Scott Pontious is a 59-year-old class D driver's license holder in Ohio. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since August 2022. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2024. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Anthony Sanders is a 33-year-old class E driver's license holder in Missouri. He has a history of provoked seizure and has been seizure free since January 2025. He does not take an anti-seizure medication. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Theodore Schoep is a 44-year-old class D driver's license holder in Minnesota. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2007. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 2011. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Ryen Seyfried is a 29-year-old class D driver's license holder in New York. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2022. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2022. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Jeffrey Sparkman is a 60-year-old class DA CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since August 19, 2025. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Donte Watkins is a 35-year-old class A CDL holder in North Carolina. He has a history of provoked seizure and has been seizure free since December 2023. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since February 2025. His physician states that they are
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA requests approval to renew an information collection request (ICR) titled, Crash Causal Factors Program: Knowledge of Systems and Processes.” This ICR relates to the “Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation,” mandated by Congress in the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA). To meet Congressional requirements, FMCSA established the Crash Causal Factors Program (CCFP) to conduct in-depth research to better understand the key factors that contribute to crashes involving large trucks and buses. Phase 1 of the CCFP, the Heavy-Duty Truck Study, focuses on fatal crashes involving heavy-duty (Class 7/8) trucks. This ICR renewal covers Phase 2, the Medium-Duty Truck Study, which will focus on crashes involving medium-duty (Class 3 through 6) trucks. To plan and execute the Medium-Duty Truck Study, FMCSA must collect information from the States and local jurisdictions to understand their interest or ability to participate in the study; existing crash data collection processes, systems, and resources; and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) enforcement funding mechanisms and sources. The IC is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2026.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 18, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-0430 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Kelly Stowe, Office of Research, Crash Data Analytics Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 617-386-6807;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0430), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), was signed into law, appropriating $30 million to FMCSA to “carry out [a] study of the cause[s] of large truck crashes.” On November 14, 2021, the President signed into law the IIJA (Pub. L. 117-58), which contains requirements for a larger study under section 23006, “Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation.” The requirements under section 23006 define the scope of the study to include all CMVs as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132.
Section 23006(b)(1) of IIJA requires the Secretary to “carry out a comprehensive study to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes that involve a commercial motor vehicle.” Section 23006(b)(2) further requires the Secretary to:
A. Identify data requirements, data collection procedures, reports, and any other measures that can be used to improve the ability of States and the Secretary to evaluate future crashes involving CMVs;
B. Monitor crash trends and identify causes and contributing factors; and
C. Develop effective safety improvement policies and programs.
To meet the requirements of Section 23006, FMCSA established the CCFP.
Congress anticipated that FMCSA would need to consult with the States and a variety of other experts when planning and executing the study, as noted in section 23006(d), which reads: “In designing and carrying out the study, the Secretary may consult with individuals or entities with expertise on—
1. Crash causation and prevention;
2. Commercial motor vehicles, commercial drivers, and motor carriers, including passenger carriers;
3. Highways and noncommercial motor vehicles and drivers;
4. Federal and State highway and motor carrier safety programs;
5. Research methods and statistical analysis; and
6. Other relevant topics, as determined by the Secretary.”
This IC will collect data from Federal, State, and local highway and motor carrier safety programs. It will focus on identifying and documenting States' and local jurisdictions' interest in participating in the study; agreements that the States or jurisdictions will require to participate in the study; existing crash data collection processes, systems, tools, training, and quality control processes; and CMV enforcement funding mechanisms and sources.
FMCSA will use collected information from four ICs:
Information collected under these four ICs will inform various elements of the study plan, including the sample design, data collection plans, participation agreements, resourcing plans, and development of the study database. Below are additional details on how FMCSA will use collected information to develop various study plan elements.
Before collecting information for ICs 2, 3, and 4, FMCSA will first need to identify the appropriate points of contact in each State/jurisdiction for the remaining IC components. Once FMCSA obtains contact information from the States, the Agency will distribute a web-based survey for IC-2, IC-3, and IC-4 to the relevant point of contact in each State or jurisdiction. Below are additional details on how FMCSA will use collected information to develop various study plan elements.
The original Large Truck Crash Causation Study conducted from 2001 through 2003 leveraged the sample design from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). NHTSA has since replaced the system with the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).
To allow for a nationally representative sample design, the Agency will need to identify an appropriate mix of State and local jurisdictions. Participating States and local jurisdictions will be asked to collect and share the required study data and troubleshoot study-related issues as they arise. The information collected under IC-2 will inform the sample design for this study. It will also provide important information about State- or local jurisdiction-required participation and data sharing agreements.
FMCSA is planning to leverage existing State and local jurisdiction resources (where possible) to collect required study data. This will be a complex effort that will require substantial information sharing and coordination between participating States/jurisdictions and FMCSA.
Under IC-3, FMCSA will seek to learn more about the data elements that State and local jurisdictions are already collecting; State and local jurisdiction medium-duty truck crash reporting criteria and notification systems; State and local jurisdiction crash data collection systems and processes (
FMCSA must collect information from States and local jurisdictions to understand whether existing CMV enforcement resources can meet the study needs, and if not, to determine how much additional funding or resources jurisdictions will require to collect the necessary data. IC-4 will identify available CMV enforcement resources within States/jurisdictions, funding sources for existing CMV enforcement resources and activities (
FMCSA will collect the required information for IC-1 via email. For ICs 2, 3, and 4, FMCSA will leverage a web-based survey application combined with a document sharing platform (
FMCSA does not plan to publish results from this data collection. Results from this data collection, which will be descriptive and/or qualitative in nature, will inform the study sample design, participation agreements, data collection plans, resource plans, and study database requirements. No complex analytical techniques will be used. Final results from the overall study, once completed, will be published in a final study report. Study findings will ultimately provide new information resources that motor carriers, States, safety advocacy groups, FMCSA, and others can use to develop effective, targeted strategies to reduce crashes. As part of the CCFP, this IC supports DOT's and FMCSA's heightened effort to address the rising number of fatal crashes and reduce roadway fatalities.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from eight individuals for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0049 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0049), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing, found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971)). In 2008, FMCSA published Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.”
On February 1, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding hearing in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers relevant scientific information and literature, the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety,” any public comments received, and each individual's driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Belsvik, 64, holds a class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Minnesota.
Ms. Besenyei, 34, holds a class A CDL in Florida.
Ms. Boling, 45, holds a class D driver's license in Ohio.
Mr. Bruischart, 52, holds a class O driver's license in Michigan.
Mr. Glover, 75, holds a class AMV CDL in Alabama.
Mr. Holt, 73, holds a class ABCDM CDL in Wisconsin.
Mr. Palanti, 42, holds a class C driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Paytosh, 50, holds a class D driver's license in Ohio.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0035 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0035), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 14 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Walter Albaugh is a 42-year-old class D license holder in Massachusetts. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since September 2016. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2014. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Cadan Asterino is a 25-year-old class D license holder in Arizona. He has a history of generalized epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2014. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Alexander Blakes is a 41-year-old class A license holder in Maryland. He has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free since October 25, 2022. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2022. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Cooper Franklin is a 23-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. He has a history of a provoked seizure and has been seizure free since September 2018. He does not take an anti-seizure medication. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Anthony Fertitta is a 31-year-old class D license holder in Massachusetts. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since August 2016. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Cody Ford is a 35-year-old class O license holder in Michigan. He has a history of seizures and has been seizure free since 2018. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2018. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Terry Gribbons is a 32-year-old class DA license holder in Kentucky. He has a history of preoperative seizures and has been seizure free since September 24, 2017. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 2017. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Andrew Horton is a 21-year-old enhanced license holder in Washington. He has a history of focal epilepsy and has been seizure free since September 2017. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 2017. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Bryel Johnson is a 37-year-old class A commercial driver's license (CDL) holder in Idaho. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since March 2011. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Stephen Kelley is a 56-year-old class D and M2 license holder in Virginia. He has a history of non-intractable epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2004. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 16, 2019. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Jacob McNally is a 32-year-old class A CDL holder in Connecticut. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2015. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 10, 2024. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Joshua Trainum is a 51-year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He has a history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since January 2018. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 4, 2018. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Shawn Tupick is a 54-year-old class A CDL holder in New Hampshire. He has a history of oligodendroglioma and has been seizure free since October 19, 2017. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since October 2017. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Velvel Zhivov is a 20-year-old class D license holder in New York. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since January 2017. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2020. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of project selections and implementation guidance.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the award of $388,279,883 for 34 projects under the FY 2026 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program (Bus Competitive Program). This notice provides administrative guidance on project implementation.
Successful applicants should contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office for information regarding applying for the funds or program-specific information. A list of Regional Offices can be found at
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)) authorizes FTA to make competitive grants for the Bus Competitive Program.
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5338(a)(2)(M)) authorized $408,223,797 in FY 2026 funds for the Bus Competitive Program after an oversight takedown.
On May 15, 2025, FTA published a joint Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) announcing the availability of approximately $398 million in FY 2025 Bus Competitive Program funds and approximately $1.10 billion in Low or No Emission (Low-No) Program funds (90 FR 20737). FTA is electing to select additional projects from this NOFO using FY 2026 Bus Competitive Program funds, as well as available prior year funds. These funds will provide financial assistance to states and eligible public agencies to replace, rehabilitate, purchase, or lease buses, vans, and related equipment; and for capital projects to rehabilitate, purchase, construct, or lease bus-related facilities. In response to the NOFO, FTA received 479 eligible project proposals requesting approximately $6.8 billion in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's
Based on the criteria in the NOFO, FTA is funding 34 projects, as shown in Table 1, for a total of $388,279,883. A minimum of 15 percent of the amount made available for the Bus Competitive Program is set aside for projects located in rural areas, which is reflected in FTA's joint selections across FY 2025 and FY 2026. A statutory cap of 10 percent for any one applicant in the Bus Competitive Program is reflected as well.
Recipients selected for competitive funding are required to work with their FTA Regional Office to submit a grant application in FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) for the projects identified in the attached table to quickly obligate funds. A discretionary project identification number has been assigned to each project for tracking purposes and must be used in the TrAMS application. Grant applications must include only eligible activities applied for in the original project proposal.
When the allocated amount is less than the requested amount, recipients must reduce scope or scale the project so that a complete phase or a usable segment of the originally proposed project is implemented. Amounts may be reduced because they were capped or scaled due to more funding being requested than available, ineligible expenses may have been removed from the funded project scope, or funding was allocated for only the low-emission elements of a mixed-emission project. In all such cases where the amount allocated is less than the amount requested, the recipient should work with its Regional Office to reduce the scope appropriately. Recipients may also provide additional local funds to complete a proposed project.
Selected projects are eligible to incur costs under pre-award authority no earlier than Friday, February 20, 2026. Pre-award costs are incurred at your own risk, and the announcement that a project was selected does not guarantee that FTA will, in fact, obligate a grant for the funding. FTA is not required to reimburse pre-award costs if you do not receive an obligated grant or if the obligated grant is less than anticipated and is inadequate to cover all pre-award costs. Eligibility for reimbursement is contingent upon planning and environmental requirements having been met, among other factors. For more about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the current FTA Apportionments, Allocations, and Program Information at
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in TrAMS (see FTA Circular 5010.1F). Recipients must comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal requirements in carrying out the project supported by the FTA grant. FTA emphasizes that recipients must follow all third-party procurement requirements set forth in Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5325(a)) and described in the FTA Third Party Contracting Guidance Circular (FTA Circular 4220.1G).
Funds allocated in this announcement must be obligated in a grant by September 30, 2029.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Additionally, OFAC is publishing updates to the identifying information of one person currently included on the SDN List.
This action was issued on March 12, 2026. See
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
A. On March 12, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. DO, Phi Khanh, Hanoi, Vietnam; DOB 04 Mar 1980; POB Hanoi, Vietnam; nationality Vietnam; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Passport B7083978 (Vietnam) issued 27 Aug 2012 expires 27 Aug 2022; National ID No. 111534690 (Vietnam) (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KIM, Se Un).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters,” 70 FR 38567, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 170 (July 1, 2005) (E.O. 13382) for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, KIM SE UN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
2. HOANG, Van Nguyen, Vietnam; DOB 20 Jul 1980; POB Nghe An, Vietnam; nationality Vietnam; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Passport C7177903 (Vietnam) issued 18 Apr 2019 expires 18 Apr 2029; National ID No. 013564395 (Vietnam) (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KIM, Se Un).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13382 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, KIM SE UN, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
3. NGUYEN, Quang Viet, Vietnam; DOB 12 Oct 1993; nationality Vietnam; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk:
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(v) of Executive Order 13810 of September 20, 2017, “Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea” 82 FR 44705, 3 CFR, 2017 Comp., p. 379 (September 25, 2017) (E.O. 13810) for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AMNOKGANG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
4. CELESTINO HERRERA, York Louis, Barcelona, Spain; DOB 07 Nov 1996; POB La Vega, Dominican Republic; nationality Dominican Republic; alt. nationality Spain; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Passport XDB250498 (Spain); alt. Passport EM0642806 (Dominican Republic) issued 28 Feb 2013 expires 28 Feb 2019; National ID No. 24558183W (Dominican Republic) (individual) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUN, Song Guk).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(v) of E.O. 13810 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, YUN SONG GUK, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
5. HOANG, Minh Quang, Hanoi, Vietnam; DOB 16 Nov 1993; POB Hanoi, Vietnam; nationality Vietnam; Gender Male; Digital Currency Address—XBT bc1qyy5pt5cx3zth8xlj92lq5y87dh8xv3nwgs4ncq; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; National ID No. 001093019421 (Vietnam) (individual) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUN, Song Guk).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(v) of E.O. 13810 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, YUN SONG GUK, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
6. YUN, Song Guk (a.k.a. YUN, So'ng-kuk), Boten, Laos; DOB 27 Jul 1969; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Digital Currency Address—ETH 0xb637f84b66876ebf609c2a4208905f9ddac9d075; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0x95584C303FCd48AF5c6B9873015f2AD0ca84EaE3; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Passport 180131469 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of E.O. 13810 for being a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea.
2. QUANGVIETDNBG INTERNATIONAL SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. SHOPAR INTERNATIONAL E-TRADE COMPANY LIMITED), 37C Alley 2/69 Hoang Liet Street, Hoang Liet Ward, Hanoi, Vietnam; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Organization Established Date 04 Jul 2022; Tax ID No. 0110050211 (Vietnam) [DPRK4] (Linked To: NGUYEN, Quang Viet).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vi) of E.O. 13810 for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, NGUYEN QUANG VIET, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810.
B. On March 12, 2026, OFAC updated the SDN List entry for the following person, whose property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction continue to be blocked. The listing below reflects the amended entry on the SDN List.
SIM, Hyon Sop (a.k.a. SIM, Hyo'n-so'p), Dandong, China; DOB 25 Nov 1983; POB Pyongyang, North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Digital Currency Address—ETH 0x4f47bc496083c727c5fbe3ce9cdf2b0f6496270c; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Digital Currency Address—ARB 0x4f47bc496083c727c5fbe3ce9cdf2b0f6496270c; Digital Currency Address—BSC 0x4f47bc496083c727c5fbe3ce9cdf2b0f6496270c; Passport 109484100 (Korea, North) expires 24 Dec 2024 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA KWANGSON BANKING CORP).
SIM, Hyon Sop (a.k.a. SIM, Hyo'n-so'p), Dandong, China; DOB 25 Nov 1983; POB Pyongyang, North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Digital Currency Address—ETH 0x4f47bc496083c727c5fbe3ce9cdf2b0f6496270c; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0xd04E33461FEA8302c5E1e13895b60cEe8AEfda7F; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0x76EA76CA4Eb727f18956aB93445a94c5280412B9; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0xFb3eFf152ea55D1BfA04Dbdd509A80fD7b72cdEB; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0xFda1Ec4A6178d4916b001a065422D31EBE5F62FF; alt. Digital Currency Address—ETH 0x747AFB5c7A7fc34B547cD0FDEbf9b91759C5a52b; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214; Digital Currency Address—TRX TPDLpXxPcaSsupEZ3yrVksmNkYP5SLeKxu; alt. Digital Currency
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before May 18, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Kerry Dennis, (202) 317-5751.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before May 18, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-6008.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before May 18, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Kerry Dennis, (202) 317-5751.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting.
Wednesday, March 25, 2026.
Virtual via Microsoft Teams.
Anna Millikan, Office of National Public Liaison, at 202-317-6564, or send an email to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Internal Revenue Service announces the Electronic Tax Administration
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Members of the public planning to attend should register by March 23 by contacting Anna Millikan at 202-317-6564 or sending an email to
The meeting agenda will be posted online prior to the meeting at the ETAAC web page,
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.
Should you wish the ETAAC to consider a written statement germane to the committee's work, file the statement by sending an email to
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.