Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Indian Affairs Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
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 Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain bolts installed on the horizontal control rods of the flight controls were not dye penetrant inspected for cracks during manufacturing and thus could lead to bolt failure. This AD requires replacement of affected bolts with bolts that are eligible for installation. This AD also prohibits installing an affected bolt on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 30, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 30, 2026.
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Aryanna Sanchez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4058; 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 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of affected bolts with bolts that are eligible for installation. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installing an affected bolt on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent bolt failure, which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
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. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0228, which specifies procedures for checking (inspecting) the S/N of the bolt, and depending on the results of the inspection, replacing any affected bolts with serviceable bolts. EASA AD 2022-0228 also prohibits installing an affected bolt on any helicopter. 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 MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model D-3m helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 146 helicopters of the 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 30, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6700, Rotorcraft flight control.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain bolts installed on the horizontal control rods of the flight controls were not dye penetrant inspected for cracks during manufacturing and thus are subject to bolt failure. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent bolt failure, which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0228, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0228).
(1) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 defines affected bolt as “Bolts, having part number D671M7051211 and a s/n [serial number] as listed in the ASB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “bolts, having part number D671M7051211 and a serial number as listed in Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB-BK117 D-3-67A-002, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2024”.
(3) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 refers to flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service (TIS).
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies “check”, this AD requires replacing that text with “inspect”.
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies “discard”, this AD requires replacing that text with “remove from service”.
(6) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies to make the bolt unserviceable, this AD does not require those actions.
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0228.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Aryanna Sanchez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4058; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0228, dated November 28, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-14-06, which applied to all Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. (DAI) Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes. AD 2020-14-06 required replacing affected parts, inspecting the fuel tank chambers, and removing rubber material that has detached from the fuel tank connection hoses. AD 2020-14-06 also prohibited installing an affected part on any airplane. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-14-06, additional affected parts installed during production on Model DA 40 NG airplanes have been reported. As a result, the manufacturer has published updated service material for the Model DA 40 NG. This AD requires the same actions as AD 2020-14-06 and requires updated service material to be used for the Model DA 40 NG airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 30, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 30, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 4, 2020 (85 FR 42687, July 15, 2020).
• For Diamond Aircraft Industries material identified in this AD, contact DAI, 1560 Crumlin Sideroad, London, Ontario, Canada, N5V 1S2; phone: (519) 457-4041, fax: (519) 457-4045; 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
Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7366; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-14-06, Amendment 39-21160 (85 FR 42687, July 15, 2020), (AD 2020-14-06). AD 2020-14-06 applied to DAI Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes (including Model DA 40 NG airplanes that have been converted from the Model DA 40 D). AD 2020-14-06 required replacing affected parts, inspecting the fuel tank chambers, and removing rubber material that has detached from the fuel tank connection hoses. AD 2020-14-06 also prohibited installing an affected part on any airplane. The FAA issued AD 2020-14-06 to detect and prevent fuel starvation and reduced control of the airplane. AD 2020-14-16 was prompted by Transport Canada CF-2019-39, dated October 31, 2019 (Transport Canada AD CF-2019-39) issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada.
The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the same actions as AD 2020-14-06 and to require updated service material to be used for the Model DA 40 NG airplanes.
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. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin
This AD also requires the following Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletins, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August 4, 2020 (85 FR 42687, July 15, 2020):
• Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-087, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019.
• Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-037, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019.
• Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40-087, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
• Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB F4-037, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
• Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40 NG-064, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
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 987 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this 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 has determined that 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 30, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2020-14-06, Amendment 39-21160 (85 FR 42687, July 15, 2020); (AD 2020-14-06).
This AD applies to all Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes (including Model DA 40 NG airplanes that have been converted from the Model DA 40 D), certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 1410, Hoses and tubes.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel tank connection hose deterioration and reports of affected parts that were installed during production on Model DA 40 NG airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address such deterioration, which, if not corrected, could result in contamination of the fuel system and restriction of fuel flow and could lead to fuel starvation and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, “affected part” means a fuel tank connection hose that meets the criteria in paragraph (g)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
(1) Part number (P/N) D4D-2817-10-70 installed during production on Model DA 40 NG airplanes with a serial number listed in
(2) P/N D4D-2817-10-70 or BENOLPRESS (no part number) purchased between July 13, 2017, and February 26, 2019, as listed in Section I.11 of Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-087, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019; Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40NG-064 Rev. 3, dated January 23, 2025; or Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-037, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019; or
(3) P/N D4D-2817-10-70 installed as a replacement part on or after July 13, 2017, if it is unknown whether the part meets the criteria in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD.
Within 100 hours time-in-service or within 2 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected part as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD, inspect the main fuel tank chambers, and remove any detached rubber material in accordance with Sections III.1 and III.2 of the Instructions in Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40-087, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019; Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB F4-037, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019; or Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-064, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019; as applicable to your model airplane.
Although the service material specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected part, as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD, on any airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, and the affected part for the Model DA 40 NG airplane was identified using Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40NG-064, Revision 2, dated August 29, 2019.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD and email it to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7366; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (n)(5) of this AD.
(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.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on April 30, 2026.
(i) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-064 Rev. 3, dated January 23, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following material was approved for IBR on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 42687, July 15, 2020).
(i) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-087, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019.
(ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-037, Revision 3, dated November 5, 2019.
(iii) Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40-087, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
(iv) Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-064, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
(v) Diamond Aircraft Industries Work Instruction WI-MSB F4-037, Revision 0, dated July 1, 2019.
(5) For Diamond Aircraft Industries material identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc., 1560 Crumlin Sideroad, London, Ontario, Canada, N5V 1S2; phone: (519) 457-4041, fax: (519) 457-4045; email:
(6) 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.
(7) 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 updates the geographic coordinates for Morristown Municipal Airport, Morristown, NJ, in the Class D airspace legal description. This action also replaces the reference to “Airport/Facility Directory” within the airspace legal description with “Chart Supplement.” This action does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Marc Ellerbee, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5589.
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,
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 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
An airspace review revealed that administrative updates were needed for the geographic coordinates and the FAA publication referenced in the Class D airspace legal description at Morristown Municipal Airport, Morristown, NJ. Accordingly, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the airport's geographic coordinates, specifically by changing the latitude from 40°47′57″ N to 40°47′58″ N, which is a one second difference. Additionally, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA policy.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without first publishing a proposed rule subject to public notice and comment. This rule only involves administrative changes, including the update of the airport's geographic coordinates to change the latitude by one second, and replacing the outdated “Airport/Facility Directory” term with “Chart Supplement.” This amendment will not impose any additional or amended substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements. The changes are ministerial in nature only.
This action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action 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). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Morristown Municipal Airport, excluding the portion that coincides with the New York, NY, Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the geographic coordinates for Essex County Airport, Caldwell, NJ, in the Class D and Class E4 airspace legal descriptions. This action also replaces the reference to “Airport/Facility Directory” within the airspace legal descriptions with “Chart Supplement.” This action does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 9, 2026. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Marc Ellerbee, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5589.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the legal description for Class D and Class E4 airspace extending upward from the surface at Essex County Airport, Caldwell, NJ.
Class D and Class E4 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6004 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
An airspace review revealed that administrative updates were needed for both the geographic coordinates and the FAA publication referenced in both the Class D and Class E4 airspace legal descriptions at Essex County Airport, Caldwell, NJ. Accordingly, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the airport's geographic coordinates, specifically by changing the latitude from 40°52′30″ N to 40°52′31″ N, which is a one second difference. Additionally, this action amends 14 CFR part 71 by replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement” to comply with current FAA policy.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without first publishing a proposed rule subject to public notice and comment. This rule only involves administrative changes, including the update of the airport's geographic coordinates to change the latitude by one second, and replacing the outdated “Airport/Facility Directory” term with “Chart Supplement.” This amendment will not impose any additional or amended substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements. The changes are ministerial in nature only.
This action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Essex County Airport, excluding the portion that coincides with Morristown, NJ Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of a 030° bearing from the Essex County Airport, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final action.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action on the authorization of changes to Florida's hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. These changes were outlined in a September 1, 2023, application to the EPA. We have determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed for final authorization.
This authorization is effective on May 26, 2026 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comment by April 27, 2026. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will either publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final action in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2025-1577, at
The EPA encourages electronic submittals and lists all publicly available docket materials electronically at
Leah Davis; RCRA Programs and Cleanup Branch; Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8562; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address:
The EPA is publishing this action without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This action is a routine program change. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
If the EPA receives adverse comments, we will either withdraw this action by publishing a document in the
States that have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the same time they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, the EPA shall have the authority to implement those requirements and prohibitions in Florida, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
Florida submitted a complete program revision application (PRA), dated September 1, 2023, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program corresponding to certain Federal rules promulgated between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2022 (including RCRA Cluster
Florida has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country, as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its PRA, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
The effect of this decision is that changes described in Florida's PRA as outlined below and in section VI of this document will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program and will therefore be federally enforceable. Florida will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. The EPA will maintain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, and reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the EPA is authorizing Florida are already effective under State law and are not changed by this action.
Florida initially received final authorization on January 29, 1985, effective February 12, 1985 (50 FR 3908), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. The EPA granted authorization for changes to Florida's program on the following dates: December 1, 1987, effective March 3, 1988 (52 FR 45634); December 16, 1988, effective January 3, 1989 (53 FR 50529); December 14, 1990, effective February 12, 1991 (55 FR 51416); February 5, 1992, effective April 6, 1992 (57 FR 4371); February 7, 1992, effective April 7, 1992 (57 FR 4738); May 20, 1992, effective July 20, 1992 (57 FR 21351); November 9, 1993, effective January 10, 1994 (58 FR 59367); July 11, 1994, effective September 9, 1994 (59 FR 35266); April 16, 1994, effective October 17, 1994 (59 FR 41979); October 26, 1994, effective December 27, 1994 (59 FR 53753); April 1, 1997, effective June 2, 1997 (62 FR 15407); January 20, 1998, effective March 23, 1998 (63 FR 2896); September 18, 2000, effective November 18, 2000 (65 FR 56256); August 23, 2001, effective October 22, 2001 (66 FR 44307); August 20, 2002, effective October 21, 2002 (67 FR 53886 and 67 FR 53889); October 14, 2004, effective December 13, 2004 (69 FR 60964); August 10, 2007, effective October 9, 2007 (72 FR 44973); February 7, 2011, effective April 8, 2011 (76 FR 6564); October 8, 2014, effective December 8, 2014 (79 FR 60756); February 22, 2019, effective May 10, 2019 (84 FR 5650 and 84 FR 20549); February 25, 2020, effective June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33026); and September 6, 2022, effective November 7, 2022 (87 FR 54398). The authorized Florida program, through RCRA Cluster IV, was incorporated by reference into the CFR on January 20, 1988, effective March 23, 1998 (63 FR 2896).
Florida submitted a complete PRA, dated September 1, 2023, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. This application included changes associated with Checklist 181 from RCRA Cluster X and Checklist 244 from RCRA Cluster XXX. The EPA has determined, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Florida's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, the EPA grants final authorization to Florida for the following program changes:
When revised State rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA state authorization process, the EPA determines whether the State rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the Federal program. Pursuant to RCRA section 3009, 42 U.S.C. 6929, State programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent States from adopting regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal program, States cannot receive Federal authorization for such regulations, and they are not federally enforceable.
The EPA has determined that there are no regulations included in Florida's program revisions listed in Table 1 above that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal program.
Because of the Federal Government's special role in matters of foreign policy, the EPA does not authorize States to administer the Federal import/export functions associated with the Canada Import Export Recovery and Disposal Code Changes Rule (Checklist 244). Although Florida has adopted these regulations to maintain its equivalency with the Federal program, it has appropriately maintained the Federal references in order to reserve the EPA's authority to implement these non-delegable provisions (see F.A.C. 62-730.020(3)(b)).
When final authorization takes effect, Florida will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits that the EPA issued prior to the effective date of authorization until they expire or are terminated. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the table above after the effective date of the final authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Florida is not yet authorized. The EPA has the authority to enforce State-issued permits after the State is authorized.
Florida is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the lands associated with the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian Country. The EPA retains jurisdiction over Indian country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying the authorization of Florida's revisions at this time. However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart K, for the authorization of Florida's program changes at a later date.
This action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because actions such as the authorization of Florida's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces the closure date of the 2026 recreational fishing season for golden tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. The 2026 recreational fishing season for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ is closed starting on March 27, 2026. This closure is necessary to prevent recreational landings of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ from exceeding the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) and to protect the golden tilefish resource from overfishing.
This closure is effective from March 27 through December 31, 2026.
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2) specify the 2026 recreational ACL for golden tilefish at 2,741 fish and the recreational AMs. The recreational AMs state, in part, that NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season for golden tilefish based on catch rates from the previous fishing year and annually announce the end date of the recreational season [50 CFR 622.193(a)(2)]. The fishing year and season for recreational harvest of golden tilefish started on January 1, 2026. Data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center informed NMFS' projection that recreational landings will reach the recreational ACL for 2026 by March 27. Therefore, NMFS announces that the last day of the recreational season for golden tilefish is March 26, 2026. The 2026 recreational fishing season for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ is closed starting on March 27, 2026, and continues to be closed through the end of the calendar year. During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. The next recreational fishing season for golden tilefish begins on January 1, 2027.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule that established the recreational ACL and AMs for golden tilefish has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the end date of the recreational season. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to prevent overfishing of the golden tilefish stock. The recreational ACL will soon be reached and prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time, potentially resulting in a harvest well in excess of the established ACL.
For the reasons just stated, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; opening.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. The season will open at 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2026, and will close at 1200 hours, A.l.t., December 7, 2026. These dates are the same as the 2026 commercial halibut fishery dates adopted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), except the hours are not the same. The IFQ and CDQ halibut season dates are specified by a separate publication in the
Effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 26, 2026, until 1200 hours, A.l.t., December 7, 2026.
Andrew Olson, 907-586-7228.
Beginning in 1995, fishing for Pacific halibut and sablefish with fixed gear in the IFQ regulatory areas defined in 50 CFR 679.2 has been managed under the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of these fisheries and to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. Persons holding quota share receive an annual allocation of IFQ. Persons receiving an annual allocation of IFQ are authorized to harvest IFQ species within specified limitations. Further information on the implementation of the IFQ Program, and the rationale supporting it, are contained in the preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ Program published in the
Directed fishing for sablefish using fixed gear in any IFQ regulatory area is authorized only during the period specified by the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), who must take into account the opening date of the halibut season when determining the opening date for sablefish for the purposes of reducing bycatch and regulatory discards between the two fisheries (50 CFR 679.23(g)(1)). This announcement is consistent with and required by § 679.23(g)(1), which requires that the directed fishing season for sablefish managed under the IFQ Program be specified by the Regional Administrator and announced by publication in the
These season dates for sablefish IFQ and CDQ fishing facilitate coordination between the sablefish season, chosen by the Regional Administrator, and the halibut season, adopted by the IPHC. The directed fishing season for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the IFQ Program will open 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 26, 2026, and will close 1200 hours, A.l.t., December 7, 2026. This period runs concurrently with the IFQ season for Pacific halibut announced by the IPHC, except the hours are not the same. The IFQ and CDQ halibut season will be specified by a separate publication in the
There is a difference in the time of day for opening and closing the halibut IFQ and CDQ commercial fishery and the Alaska sablefish IFQ and CDQ commercial fishery. IPHC regulations open the halibut IFQ and CDQ fishery at 0600 hours, A.l.t., on March 26, 2026, and NMFS will open the Alaska sablefish IFQ and CDQ fishery at 1200 hours, A.l.t., on March 26, 2026, pursuant to regulations that require that the time of all openings and closures of fishing seasons, other than the beginning and end of the calendar fishing year, is 1200 hours, A.l.t. (§ 679.23(b)). Therefore, if gear is deployed to fish for halibut in the commercial fishery off Alaska before 1200 hours, A.l.t., on March 26, 2026, then IFQ or CDQ sablefish caught from that deployment may not be retained. If a vessel operator holds both halibut IFQ or CDQ and sablefish IFQ or CDQ, and the operator intends to retain sablefish on March 26, then the vessel should deploy its commercial fishing gear after 1200 hours, A.l.t.
IPHC regulations close the halibut IFQ and CDQ fishery at 2359 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2026, and NMFS will close the Alaska sablefish IFQ and CDQ fishery at 1200 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2026 (§ 679.23(b)). Therefore, if gear is deployed to fish for halibut in the commercial fishery off Alaska after 1200 hours, A.l.t., on December 7, 2026, then IFQ and CDQ sablefish caught from that deployment may only be retained up to the Maximum Retainable Amount (MRA), except for catch of sablefish with longline pot gear in the Gulf of Alaska (§ 679.23(g)(2)) which must be treated as a prohibited species. If an individual aboard a vessel holds both unused halibut IFQ or CDQ and sablefish IFQ or CDQ, and the operator intends to retain sablefish on December 7, 2026, after 1200 hours, A.l.t., then the vessel may only retain IFQ or CDQ sablefish in accordance with the MRA regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(e).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would delay the opening of the sablefish fishery thereby preventing holders of sablefish IFQ and CDQ from participating in the Alaska sablefish IFQ and CDQ fishery, increasing bycatch and regulatory discards between the sablefish fishery and the halibut fishery, and preventing the accomplishment of the management objective for simultaneous opening of these two fisheries that are managed under the same IFQ Program. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule; correction.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is correcting a proposed rule that published in the February 24, 2026, issue of the
This correction is effective on March 26, 2026.
Noah Peters, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
In the proposed rule “Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing Rate, and Certain Other Employees” (Document Number 2026-03619), published at 91 FR 8780 on February 24, 2026, within the “Conforming Amendments” paragraph on page 8787, in the third column, the FR citation “90 FR xxxxx (MM, DD, YYYY)” is corrected to read “91 FR 10904 (March 5, 2026)”.
This correction of the proposed rule provides readers with complete information that was missing from the
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 14192.
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule meets the applicable standard set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law 96-511, does not apply to this rule.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) certain The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a leak through the form-in-place (FiP) gasket at the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel found during a leak check. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of the left and right side FiP gasket at the engine
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 11, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; email:
The FAA has received a report indicating a leak through the FiP gasket at the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel was found during a leak check, completed as part of a non-conformance disposition for the Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes. An investigation found that the fairing requirements of the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel caused thin regions of the FiP gasket. This caused the manufacturer to apply non-permitted sealant after the initial FiP gasket had cured, which resulted in an uneven sealing surface on the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel and leak. Non-conforming FiP gasket installations may compromise the designated drainage provision in the wing leading edge area. This condition, if not addressed, could result in fuel leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle and a consequent fire on the ground.
Boeing determined that Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes are also subject to the identified unsafe condition due to design similarity of the FiP gasket. The FAA is considering separate rulemaking for the affected Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025. This material specifies procedures for a detailed inspection of the FiP gasket at the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel of the left and right side wing for correct sealant installation, a fluid leak test of the engine fuel shutoff valve access panels for any leak, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing the FiP gasket, repairing any leaks, and repeating the leak test until no leak is found.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Referenced Material,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-2725.
Since Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, was issued, the FAA has determined more airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition. The line numbers affected are 2438 through 2598 inclusive, 2600 through 2721 inclusive, 2723 through 2813 inclusive, 2815 through 2930 inclusive, 2932
Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, specifies to do applicable on-condition corrective actions if any leak is found, for this proposed AD, if any leak is found the FiP gasket must be replaced. The FAA has added exceptions in paragraphs (h)(2) through (4) of this proposed AD accordingly.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,030 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in 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 11, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025; and airplanes having line numbers 2438 through 2598 inclusive, 2600 through 2721 inclusive, 2723 through 2813 inclusive, 2815 through 2930 inclusive, 2932 through 3068 inclusive, 3070 through 3323 inclusive, 3325 through 3425 inclusive, 3427 through 3521 inclusive, 3523 through 3611 inclusive, 3613 through 3701 inclusive, 3703 through 3791 inclusive, and 3793 through 3833 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a leak through the form-in-place (FiP) gasket at the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel found during
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025.
(1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, refer to the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in the Compliance and Accomplishment Instructions paragraphs of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, specifies “Do a fluid leak test of the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel for any leak. If any leak is found, do all applicable on-condition corrective action(s) and repeat the leak test until no leak is found”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Do a fluid leak test of the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel for any leak. If any leak is found, replace the FiP gasket and repeat the leak test until no leak is found”.
(3) Where step 4. b. of Appendix A in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, specifies “If any water leaks from the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel in less than two minutes, the fluid leak test has failed”, this AD requires replacing that text with “If any water leaks from the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel in less than two minutes, the fluid leak test has failed. Replace the FiP gasket in accordance with Figure 3 and repeat the leak test until no leak is found”.
(4) Where step 4. b. of Appendix B in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025, specifies “If any water leaks from the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel in less than two minutes, the fluid leak test has failed”, this AD requires replacing that text with “If any water leaks from the engine fuel shutoff valve access panel in less than two minutes, the fluid leak test has failed. Replace the FiP gasket in accordance with Figure 4 and repeat the leak test until no leak is found”.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Erica Bayles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 907-271-5844; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1359 RB, dated October 3, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(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
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of hearing.
This document provides a notice of public hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-108673-25) published in the
The hearing is scheduled to be held on April 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET. The IRS must receive speakers' outlines of the topics to be discussed by April 2, 2026. If no outlines are received by April 2, 2026, the hearing will be cancelled.
The hearing is being held in the Auditorium, at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Due to security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. Participants may alternatively testify or attend the hearing by telephone.
Send an outline of topic submission electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Jamie Song, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of requests to testify, attend, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the public hearing, the Publications and Regulations Section at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free number) or by email at
The subject of the hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-108673-25) published in the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by April 2, 2026. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each testimony.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available at the hearing and via
Individuals who want to testify in person must send an email to
Individuals who want to testify by telephone must send an email to
Individuals who want to attend the public hearing in person without testifying must also send an email to
Individuals who want to attend the public hearing by telephone without testifying must also send an email to
Hearings will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during a hearing please contact the Publications and Regulations Section by sending an email to
Any additional questions regarding speaking at or attending the hearing may also be emailed to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Operating Permit Program to incorporate recent changes to the Iowa Administrative Code (IAC). The revisions include removal of the Voluntary Operating Permit Program language; removal of the Emission Reduction Program language; new and renumbered rules; replacement of duplicative language with references to state statute and federal regulations; updated definitions; consolidation of 14 chapters into 8 chapters; and minor clarifications to language and grammar. The EPA is also proposing to correct the erroneous incorporation of several rules into the Iowa SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These revisions do not decrease the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2026-1156 to
Allyson Prue, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7277; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2026-1156, at
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program received on July 26, 2024. All revisions were completed due to a new administrative process required by Executive Order 10 (E.O.-10), issued by the Iowa Governor in January 2023. The revisions are to section 567—Iowa Air Quality Regulations. The revisions to the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program are specified in sections III.-IV. below. Additionally, the EPA is proposing multiple CAA 110(k)(6) error corrections in this rulemaking. The full text of the rule revision as well as the EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support documents (TSD) included in the docket for this action.
CAA sections 111 and 112 allow the EPA to delegate authority to states for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The EPA has delegated authority to Iowa for approved portions of these sections of the CAA. Changes made to Iowa's Chapter 23 pertaining to new and revised NSPS and NESHAPs are not directly approved into the SIP, but rather, are adopted by reference. Thus, EPA is not proposing to approve the changes to Chapter 23 of the Iowa Administrative Code into the state's SIP.
Iowa requested the following revisions to SIP-approved chapters:
Chapter 20—SCOPE OF TITLE—DEFINITIONS is rescinded. Most definitions previously located in this chapter have been moved to the revised Chapters 21, 22, or 23. Numerous definitions from this chapter were no longer relevant because the terms no longer appear in section 567 of the Iowa Code and were therefore deleted.
Chapter 21—COMPLIANCE is retitled COMPLIANCE, EXCESS EMISSIONS, AND MEASUREMENT OF EMISSIONS. Revisions to this chapter include the removal of the Emission Reduction Program language; adoption by reference of federal language; incorporation of rules from the now-removed Chapters 24, 25, 26, and 29; removal of numerous definitions; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.
Chapter 22—CONTROLLING POLLUTION—PERMITS is retitled CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION—CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. Revisions to SIP-approved text at IAC 567-22.1 through IAC 567-22.10 and IAC 567-22.200 through IAC 567-22.209 include the removal of the Voluntary Operating Permit Program; incorporation of rules from the now-removed Chapters 20 and 28; language relocation; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording. Additionally, SIP-approved text at IAC 567-22.105(2)“i”(5) and IAC 567-22.300 were relocated to Chapter 24.
Chapter 23—EMISSION STANDARDS is retitled AIR EMISSION STANDARDS. Revisions to this chapter include removal of redundant language; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.
Chapter 24—EXCESS EMISSIONS is retitled OPERATING PERMITS. This chapter incorporates two SIP-approved sections from the former Chapter 22. The SIP-approved sections are located in IAC 567-24.105(2)“i”(5) and IAC 567-24.300 in the submitted revisions. Revisions to SIP-approved sections are administrative in nature and include updated citations and minor revisions to grammar and wording.
Chapter 25—MEASUREMENT OF EMISSIONS is rescinded. IAC 567-25.1 was previously SIP approved and is relocated to the new Chapter 21, with the exception of IAC 567-25.1(12), which retains its SIP approval.
Chapter 26—PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION EMERGENCY EPISODES is rescinded. All sections were previously SIP approved and are relocated to the new Chapter 21, where they retain SIP approval.
Chapter 28—AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS is rescinded. IAC 567-28.1 of this chapter was previously SIP approved and is relocated to the revised Chapter 21, where it retains its SIP approval.
Chapter 29—QUALIFICATIONS IN VISUAL DETERMINATION OF THE OPACITY OF EMISSIONS is rescinded. IAC 567-29.1 of this chapter was previously SIP approved and is relocated to the revised Chapter 21, where it retains its SIP approval.
Chapter 31—NONATTAINMENT AREAS is retitled NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW. Revisions to this chapter include the removal of language referencing nonattainment areas, because Iowa no longer has any areas designated nonattainment prior to May 18, 1998; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording.
Chapter 33—SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES—PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) OF AIR QUALITY is retitled CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES—PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORIATION (PSD). Revisions to this chapter include numerous adoptions by reference of federal language, removal of redundant language, updated citations, and minor revisions to grammar and wording.
The EPA reviewed the submitted SIP revisions in accordance with the anti-backsliding provisions of CAA section 110(l). While most revisions were administrative in nature, Iowa also requested removal of the Emission Reduction Program (IAC 567-21.3) and the Voluntary Operating Permits Program (IAC 567-22.200 through IAC 567-22.209).
The EPA approved the Emission Reduction Program as part of the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The program provided a mechanism for sources to reduce emissions in exchange for a variance or for an extension of a variance granted by IDNR. The EPA finds that while IDNR removed the Emission Reduction Program from its regulations, it also strengthened its existing variance language by requiring the State to weigh the impact on public health that the variance would create versus the potential hazard to health or property that alternative methods of compliance may impact. If IDNR concludes that emissions caused by the variance would harm public health, IDNR would not grant the variance, and the removal of the Emission Reduction Program from the SIP does not impact
The EPA approved IDNR's voluntary operating permit (VOP) program as part of the SIP on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18958). This program primarily served as a CAA section 112(l) mechanism to establish federally enforceable operational limits to restrict potential to emit (PTE) to avoid Title V and other major source requirements. The program also provided a mechanism to limit emissions of criteria pollutants, and the EPA approved it as part of the SIP under CAA section 110.
In 2015, IDNR removed the VOP program rules from the Iowa Administrative Code because it determined that the construction permit program could provide a mechanism to issue synthetic minor permits. Prior to removing VOP program rules, IDNR either modified construction permits or issued new construction permits for VOP facilities, as necessary, as described in the “Voluntary Operating Permit Background and Summary” document in the docket for this rulemaking.
The VOP program is not a required program under CAA section 110. The EPA finds that Iowa's Chapter 22 construction permit rules provide adequate authority for limiting a source's PTE of criteria pollutants to below major source thresholds. As such, Iowa's removal of the VOP regulations from the SIP does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress under CAA section 110(l).
The EPA is proposing the following revisions to the Operating Permit Program:
Chapter 22—CONTROLLING POLLUTION—PERMITS is retitled CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION—CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING. Revisions to IAC 567-22.2 and IAC 567-22.3(6) include language relocation, updated citations, and minor revisions to grammar and wording. IAC 567-22.100 through IAC 567-22.300 were relocated to Chapter 24. Finally, numerous definitions from IAC 567-22.1 and IAC 567-22.10(1) are retained in the Title V Operating Permit Program.
Chapter 23—EMISSION STANDARDS is retitled AIR EMISSION STANDARDS. Iowa has requested the EPA approve the definitions at IAC 567-23.1(4) into the Title V Operating Permit Program. The terms were previously approved into the Title V Operating Permit Program but were relocated to IAC 567-23.1(4).
Chapter 24—EXCESS EMISSIONS is retitled OPERATING PERMITS. This chapter incorporates the operating permit rules from the former Chapter 22. Revisions to this chapter include removal of the Voluntary Operating Permit Program language; numerous adoptions by reference of federal language; removal of redundant language and of provisions requiring that copies of Title V operating permit applications be submitted to EPA Region 7; updated citations; and minor revisions to grammar and wording. As discussed in section III. of this proposed rule, the VOP Program is not a required program of the Title V Operating Permit Program.
Chapter 30—FEES is retained. Revisions to this chapter include addition of clarifying language, removal of redundant language, and updated citations.
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27, 2023, to January 30, 2024, and received no comments. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support documents which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
A SIP is a federally enforceable collection of regulations and documents used by a state, territory, or local air district to implement, maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to fulfill other requirements of the CAA that require SIP measures (
CAA section 110(k)(6), authorizes the EPA, when it “determines that [its] action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof) . . . was in error,” to “revise such action as appropriate.” CAA section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to make corrections to prior SIP actions that are subsequently found to be in error in the same manner as the prior action and do so without requiring any further submission from the state. While section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to correct its own “error,” nowhere does this provision or any other provision in the CAA define what qualifies as “error.” Thus, the term should be given its ordinary meaning.
In this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to remove IAC 567—Chapter 27, IAC 567—Subrule 23.1(1), IAC 567—Subrule 22.1(3)“b”(8), and IAC 567-Subrule 22.7(2)“f” from the Iowa SIP under CAA section 110(k)(6). On November 19, 2025, Iowa concurred with removal of these provisions. Because Iowa agrees with the EPA that these chapters were approved into the SIP in error, the EPA interprets the state's concurrence as a withdrawal of Iowa's request that the EPA approve revisions to these chapters into the SIP.
The EPA determined during its review of this rulemaking that these four rules were inappropriate for inclusion into the SIP because they are not related to implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS or otherwise required by the CAA to be included in the SIP. The analysis of each provision proposed for removal from Iowa's SIP is discussed below and in the TSDs for this action.
Congress enacted the CAA in 1970. CAA section 110(a)(1) requires each state to submit a SIP to the EPA that provides for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. In the 1970s and early 1980s,
Chapter 27—Certificate of Acceptance
The Linn County and Polk County local air programs are currently the only two local air programs in Iowa with certificates of acceptance issued under the authority of IAC 567—Chapter 27. Each county implements its own air pollution control ordinances, and is responsible for inspections of facilities, tracking emissions data, air quality monitoring, and compliance at major and minor facilities within its area of jurisdiction. The state retains concurrent enforcement authority. Iowa submits each county's air pollution control ordinances to the EPA for approval into the SIP. The EPA first approved Linn County's air pollution control ordinances into the Iowa SIP on August 15, 1989 (54 FR 33526) and has approved subsequent revisions, with the most recent revision approved on July 1, 2023 (89 FR 54362). The EPA first approved a portion of Polk County's air pollution ordinances into the Iowa SIP on August 15, 1989 (54 FR 33528), subsequently approving most of the remaining ordinances on November 29, 1989 (56 FR 60924). The most recent revision to Polk County's air pollution ordinances was approved on September 21, 2021 (86 FR 52413).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.232, a state may assign legal authority to carry out the state implementation plan within a local agency's jurisdiction if the plan demonstrates that the local agency has the necessary legal authority to carry out the plan. The state provides this demonstration in an infrastructure SIP submission which provides the necessary structural requirements for each new or revised NAAQS. The EPA's most recent approval of Iowa's demonstration that its local agencies have the legal authority to carry out the SIP appears in EPA's August 23, 2021, approval of Iowa's infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
EPA's approval of county air quality ordinances into the SIP does not depend on whether a county has a certificate of acceptance from the state. Furthermore, EPA's approval of the state's infrastructure SIP submission does not depend on whether a local agency has obtained a certificate of acceptance issued under Chapter 27. Therefore, the EPA proposes to remove Chapter 27 from the Iowa SIP because the EPA approved Chapter 27 in error and it is not required by the CAA for implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS.
During the review of this rulemaking, the EPA determined that IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8)—
During its review of this rulemaking, the EPA determined that IAC 567-25.1(12) was approved into the Iowa SIP in error on September 12, 1985 (50 FR 37176). IAC 567-25.1(12) requires sources with an approved alternative emission control program under IAC 567-22.7(1) that involves the trade-off of sulfur dioxide emissions to install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for sulfur dioxide. At the time that the EPA approved IAC 567-25.1(12) into the SIP, IAC 567-22.7(1) was not part of the SIP, and has not been subsequently approved. Therefore the requirement for a source with an approved alternative emission control program to operate a sulfur dioxide CEMs was not an enforceable requirement of the SIP.
Iowa moved the requirements of IAC 567-25.1(12) to IAC 567-22.7(2)“f”. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to remove IAC 567-25.1(12) from the SIP because it was not an enforceable requirement of the SIP and is therefore not required by the CAA for implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS.
In its July 16, 2024, submittal, Iowa excluded its revision to IAC 567-23.1(1) from the SIP. IAC 567-23.1(1) states that the NSPS shall apply as specified in IAC 567-23.1(2), which is not approved into the SIP. In addition, the rule states that the NESHAPs shall apply as specified in IAC 567-23.1(3), which is not approved into the SIP. Finally, the rule requires compliance with all other emission standards to be in accordance with Chapter 21—Compliance, a chapter which is approved into the SIP, and does not rely on IAC 567-23.1(1) in order to be enforceable.
During its review of this rulemaking, the EPA determined that IAC 567-23.1(1) was approved into the Iowa SIP in error on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). This subrule is a general provision that pertains to federal standards, such as the NSPS and NESHAPs, and requires compliance with regulations that are not approved into the SIP. Iowa requests delegation of certain NSPS and NESHAPs under a delegation agreement with the EPA.
CAA section 193 provides that, for SIP control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990, any “modification” thereof must “insure[ ] equivalent or greater emissions reductions” of the air pollutant for which the area is in nonattainment. 42 U.S.C. 7515. Congress added this provision in the 1990 Amendments as part of an effort to ensure adequate support for NAAQS attainment and maintenance. Consistent with the provision's plain text, Congress' intent in adopting this provision was to provide a `back-up' anti-backsliding provision for nonattainment areas beyond what was provided by 110(l).
All areas of Iowa are designated in attainment or maintenance of each NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.316. As a result, the EPA's proposed removal of the above rules from the Iowa SIP is not subject to the general savings clause in CAA section 193.
The EPA is proposing to amend the Iowa SIP and Title V Operating Permit Program by approving the State's request to revise section 567, Title II—Iowa Air Quality Regulations. In addition, the EPA is proposing to remove IAC 567—Chapter 27, IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8), IAC 567-23.1(1), and IAC 567-25.1(12) from the Iowa SIP under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6) because EPA's previous approval of these rules into the Iowa SIP was in error. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. The EPA is soliciting comment on the substantive and administrative revisions detailed in this proposal and the TSD. The EPA is not soliciting comment on existing rule text that has been previously approved by the EPA into the SIP. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in section III. of this preamble, the EPA is proposing the incorporation by reference of section 567, Title II of the Iowa Air Quality Administrative Regulations, which regulates air quality in the state of Iowa:
• Chapter 21—Compliance, Excess Emissions, and Measurement of Emissions, which provides provisions for air quality compliance, excess emissions, and measurement of emissions;
• Chapter 22—Controlling Air Pollution, which provides provisions for air quality construction permitting as well as applicable air quality definitions;
• Chapter 23—Air Emission Standards, which provides provisions for air emission standards as well as applicable air quality definitions;
• Chapter 24—Operating Permits, which includes provisions for Title V Operating Permits, Acid Rain Permits, and Small Source Operating Permits;
• Chapter 30—Fees, which defines specific air quality fees owed by air contaminant sources;
• Chapter 31—Nonattainment New Source Review, which provisions for the preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new or modified major sources of air pollutants in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and
• Chapter 33—Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), which provides provisions for the preconstruction permitting program applicable to new or modified major stationary sources of air pollutants.
The EPA is also proposing to remove rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the Iowa SIP. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to remove IAC 567—Chapter 27, IAC 567-22.1(3)“b”(8), IAC 567-23.1(1), and IAC 567-25.1(12) discussed in section VI. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed revision to 40 CFR part 52.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(aa) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted for program approval revisions to rules 567—Chapter 22 and 567-30.4 on July 26, 2024. Rules 567-22.100 through 567-22.300(12) are now located in Chapter 24 and are referred to as 567-24.100 through 567-24.300(12). Rules 567-22.117 through 567-22.119 (now 567-24.117 through 567-24.119) as well as rules 567-22.210 through 567-22.299 (now 567-24.210 through 567-24.299) remain reserved and are not part 70 approved. Previously part 70 approved rules 567-22.200 through 567-22.209 (now 567-24.200 through 567-24.209) have been reserved as a part of this approval and are no longer part 70 approved. Revisions were also made to rule 567-30.4. Numerous definitions located in 576-22.1, 567-22.10(1), and 567-23.1(4) retain part 70 approval. The state effective date is June 19, 2024. The proposed revision effective date is [date 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant an exclusion from the list of hazardous waste to WRB Refining LP (Petitioner) located in Borger, Texas. This action responds to a petition to exclude (or delist) up to 700 cubic yards per year of F037 (petroleum refinery sludge) solids to be removed from stormwater storage tanks for a continuous delisting. If EPA approves the petition for delisting, the waste will be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. EPA is proposing to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the Petitioner.
Comments on this proposed exclusion must be received by April 27, 2026.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
You can view and copy the delisting petition and associated publicly available docket materials through
E'shala Dixon, RCRA Permits & Solid Waste Section (LCR-RP), Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, telephone number: (214) 665-6592; email address:
The EPA is proposing to grant a May 2020 petition submitted by WRB Refining LP to exclude (or delist) up to 700 cubic yards annually of F037 solids from stormwater tanks at their facility in Borger, Texas.
The Petitioner requested a one-time delisting of 7,000 cubic yards of stormwater tank solids on the basis that the solids would not meet the original criteria for F037, which would be classified as hazardous waste due to “carry over” of waste codes resulting from RCRA's “mixture and derived from rules.” EPA granted that one-time delisting request in 2025. In the Petition, Petitioners also requested a continuous delisting for ongoing stormwater tank solids cleanout. This proposal responds to that portion of the Petition and proposes to grant a continuous delisting to clean out stormwater tanks annually.
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended this list several times and codifies the list in 40 CFR 261.31 and 40 CFR 261.32.
The EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because (1) the wastes typically and frequently exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the wastes met the criteria for listing contained in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (3) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment, storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed waste and which therefore become hazardous under 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the mixture or derived-from rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in part 261 regulations or resulting from the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 40 CFR 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows the petitioner to prove that the EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to the EPA or an authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The generator petitions the EPA because it does not consider the waste as hazardous under RCRA regulations.
For a delisting petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the wastes generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which the EPA lists a waste are in 40 CFR part 261.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the wastes was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if EPA has “delisted” the waste.
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and 3001(f) of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) aside from those for which EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous waste and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR part 261.3 (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for
In May 2020, WRB Refining LP petitioned the EPA to exclude from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31, 7,000 cubic yards of stormwater tank solids (F037) generated from its facility in Borger, Texas. EPA granted the Facility a one-time delisting approval in June 2025 to remove 7,000 cubic yards of waste for disposal in a subtitle D landfill. In anticipation of more frequent cleanout of the stormwater tanks, Petitioner also requested a continuous delisting of up to 700 cubic yards of stormwater tank solids annually.
The Facility has been in operation for approximately 25 years. Gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, natural gas liquids, petroleum coke and solvents are the principal products produced. The subject of this delisting petition is solids to be removed from four wastewater tanks (North Stormwater Tank, West Stormwater Tank, North Drop Out Basin, and West Grit Trap) at the Facility.
The stormwater tank solids originate from operation of the wastewater treatment system at the Facility. Petitioners explain that to the extent possible, hydrocarbons present in refinery wastewaters from various sources (
Oily waste streams are routed to the storage tanks from collection system piping and/or smaller tanks for recovery. The recovered oil is further processed within the refinery, and the separated wastewaters are routed to downstream treatment units and ultimately discharged through an NPDES/TPDES permitted outfall. In addition, refinery stormwater flows to those same four stormwater tanks that are the subject of this proposal. In general, stormwater from the northern portion of the Natural Gas Liquids Plant flows to the North Drop Out Basin for primary solids removal and then to the North Stormwater Tank for secondary removal. Stormwater from the southern portion of the Refinery flows to the West Grit Trap for primary solids removal and then to the West Stormwater Tank for secondary removal. The Petition explains that because these four tanks receive dry weather flows that could be considered “oily,” the Petitioner has elected to classify them as F037.
The solids within the four tanks are believed to be classified as F037 when generated, WRB Refining LP assumes that solids removed from the stormwater tanks bear the F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge) listing when generated.
In an effort to restore capacity of four stormwater tanks, Petitioner will remove accumulated solids from the stormwater tanks annually. This process will typically occur within a calendar year. Stormwater solids will be removed using a variety of mechanical means, which generally consists of dredging, excavating, and/or dewatering. Mechanical equipment will be utilized to extract solids from the tanks.
A total of eight acceptable sample results were provided by the Petitioner. The EPA considered all eight samples of the stormwater tank solids, and the landfill disposal scenario was modeled using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS). The worst-case scenario of the constituents' concentrations for the F037 solids were used as input in the model to determine if it would meet the hazardous waste criteria for which it was listed. The maximum total and leachate concentrations for the inorganic and organic constituents which were found in the analytical data provided by the petitioner are presented in table 2.
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4). We evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 40 CFR 261.22(a)(2) and (3).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, the EPA also considered factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste of these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Our proposed decision to grant the Facility's petition is based on our evaluation of the wastes for factors or criteria which could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the concentrations of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in the environment of any constituents once released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
The EPA must also consider hazardous wastes mixture containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i) called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.
For this proposed delisting determination, we evaluated the risk that the waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. We considered transport of waste constituents through groundwater, surface water, and air. We evaluated the Petitioner's analysis of the petitioned waste using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to determine if the waste would pose a threat to human health and the environment. The DRAS software and associated documentation can be found at
To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with transformation products. From a release to groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor through ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering, and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing. From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open landfill into stormwater runoff, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From the release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air deposition of particles on residential
The EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the Petitioner that the petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, the EPA would propose to deny the petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus, should not be a listed waste. The EPA's proposed decision to delist the waste from the Petitioner's facility is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including description of the wastes and analytical data from the Facility, and that is contained in the Petition and attachments, all of which are included in the docket of this action.
If the petitioned waste is delisted as proposed, the Petitioner must dispose of the waste in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste. The Petitioners stated that, if the delisting is approved, the landfill will likely be an onsite landfill (Notice of Registration Unit No. 045) authorized under Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 335.
The EPA notes that in some instances the maximum allowable total constituents' concentrations provided by the DRAS model exceed 100% of the waste-these DRAS results are an artifact of the risk calculations that do not have physical meaning. In instances where DRAS predicts a maximum constituent greater than 100% of the waste (that is, greater than 1,000,000 mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is not proposing to require the Petitioner to perform sampling and analysis for that constituent and sampling type (total or TCLP).
The testing approach for this waste stream will be conducted as generated. Prior to disposal of any future tank cleanouts, the Petitioner must conduct sampling and analysis as described in the delisting sampling and analysis plan and ensure that the waste does not exceed the delisting parameters. If compliance with the delisting parameters is demonstrated with analytical testing (TCLP analysis), the Petitioner may dispose of the stormwater tank cleanouts in a Subtitle D landfill. The annual volume of solids generated from the tank clean outs may not exceed 700 cubic yards. The annual sampling report shall include the volume of solids disposed of in the landfill, as well as annual testing event data. The Petitioner should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents which will affect the overall compliance with the stormwater discharge permit.
The Petitioner must submit the data obtained through verification testing to the U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, LCRRP, Dallas, Texas 75270-2102, within 30 days after receiving the results from the laboratory. These results may be submitted electronically to Harry Shah,
If this Petitioner violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Additionally, the terms of the exclusion provide that “any waste volume for which representative composite sampling does not reflect full compliance with the exclusion criteria must continue to be managed as hazardous.”
If the testing of the waste does not demonstrate compliance with the delisting concentrations described in section IV.C. above, or other data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data from the final land disposal facility) relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is at a concentration in the waste above the specified delisting verification concentrations in table 1, the Petitioner must notify the Agency within 10 days, or a later date as the EPA may agree to in writing, after receiving the final verification testing results from the laboratory or of first possessing or being made aware of other relevant data. The EPA may require the Petitioner to conduct additional verification sampling to better define the volume of waste for which the corresponding representative sample(s) do not reflect full compliance with delisting exclusion levels, the exclusion by its terms does not apply, and the waste must be managed as hazardous.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 to reopen a delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the condition of this exclusion have been violated or are otherwise not being met.
Any process changes or addition implemented at the Petitioner's facility which would significantly impact the constituent concentration of the waste must be reported to the EPA in accordance with Condition VI. of the exclusion language.
HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for public comments before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, the EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it has addressed all timely public comments, including any at public hearings. Upon receipt and consideration of all comments, the EPA will publish its final determination as a final rule. Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need
Because EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
RCRA allows states to impose more stringent regulatory requirements from RCRA's under 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. We urge Petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes under the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those states. If the Petitioner manages wastes in any state with delisting authorization, the Petitioner must obtain delisting authorization or other determination from the receiving state before it can manage the wastes as nonhazardous in that state.
Additional Information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 because it is a rule of particular applicability and exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) because it only applies to a particular facility.
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the Regulatory flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601).
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribe governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular facility on non-Tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards as described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272).
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 261 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Florida has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has reviewed Florida's application and has determined, subject to public comment, that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2025-1577, at
The EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to submit electronically or need other assistance, please contact Leah Davis, the contact listed in the
All documents in the docket are listed in the
Leah Davis; RCRA Programs and Cleanup Branch; Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8562; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address:
This document proposes to take action on Florida's changes to its hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. We have published a final action authorizing these changes in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will either publish a withdrawal notification promptly in the
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes 2026 through 2028 specifications for the Northeast skate fishery. This action would set skate catch limits for fishing year 2026, project catch limits for fishing years 2027 through 2028, and increase per trip possession limits for the wing and bait fisheries. This proposed action is necessary to establish skate specifications consistent with the most recent scientific information. The intent of this action is to establish appropriate catch limits for the skate fishery while providing additional operational flexibility to fishery participants.
Comments must be received by April 10, 2026. As explained further below, NMFS finds that a 15-day comment period for this action provides a reasonable opportunity for public participation in this action pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act section 553(c) (5 U.S.C. 553(c)), while also ensuring that the final specifications and possession limits are in place as close as possible to the start of the 2026 skate fishing season on May 1.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared a supplemental information report (SIR) that describes the proposed action and compares it to the alternatives and analyses presented in the environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared for Framework Adjustment 12 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The SIR considers whether there are any substantial changes or significant new circumstances or information that are relevant to environmental concerns and could affect the proposed action or its impacts. Based on the analysis presented in the SIR, NMFS has determined that the Framework Adjustment 12 EA does not require supplementation. The SIR also includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and economic analysis. Copies of the proposed skate fishery specifications for fishing years 2026-2028, SIR, and other supporting documents are available on the Council website at
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
Caroline Potter, Fishery Resource Management Specialist, (978) 281-9325.
The FMP sets management parameters for a complex of seven skate species (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter) off the New England and mid-Atlantic coasts. Skates support two different targeted fisheries, one for food (the wing fishery) and one for bait in other fisheries (the bait fishery). The FMP requires that annual catch and possession limits for the skate fishery be reviewed and established through the specifications process. Framework Adjustment 12 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP (Framework 12) (89 FR 58076, July 17, 2024) set management measures and specifications for the skate fishery for fishing year 2024 and projected specifications for fishing year 2025. A subsequent final rule (90 FR 16467, April 18, 2025) finalized the projected specifications for fishing year 2025.
Consistent with the Council's recommendations, this action proposes increasing the 2026 and 2027 acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch limit (ACL) to 41,282 metric tons (mt) (compared to 32,155 mt in 2025). The total allowable landings (TAL) would be 20,966 mt (compared to 15,718 mt in 2025); based on the proportional allocations prescribed in the FMP, the wing TAL would be 13,943 mt (compared to 10,453 mt in 2025), and the bait TAL would be 7,024 mt (compared to 5,266 mt in 2025). For fishing years 2026 and 2027, the ABC would be a 28-percent increase over the ABC for years 2024 and 2025. This action would decrease the ABC for fishing year 2028 by 10 percent from fishing years 2026 and 2027 in order to account for uncertainty in the future biomass trend. Thus, for 2028, this action proposes an ABC and an ACL of 37,154 mt. The 2028 TAL would be 18,800 mt; the wing TAL would be 12,502 mt; and the bait TAL would be 6,298 mt. A comparison of the current 2024-2025 and the proposed 2026-2028 specifications is provided below in table 1.
The Council will review the projected 2027 and 2028 specifications to determine if any changes need to be recommended prior to fishing years 2027 and 2028, respectively. NMFS will publish a notice prior to each fishing year to confirm these limits as projected or, if changes are necessary, NMFS may publish a proposed rule.
Skate regulations (50 CFR 648.320(a)(4)) indicate that specifications can be set for a period of up to two fishing years. However, in November 2025, the Council submitted a concurrent omnibus management flexibility amendment that, in part, would allow extending the time period for setting skate specifications for up to five years. Thus, setting projected specifications through 2028 as provided in this proposed rule is contingent on
In addition, this action proposes changes to the skate per trip possession limits. It would increase the skate wing possession limits (in wing weight) for trips fishing on a Monkfish, Scallop, or Northeast Multispecies Day-At-Sea (DAS) by 500 pounds (lb; 226.8 kg) for each season, which would result in a trip limit of 4,500 lb (2,041.2 kg) for Season 1 (May 1-August 31) and a trip limit of 6,500 lb (2,948,4 kg) for Season 2 (September 1-April 30). This proposed action would also increase the skate bait whole weight possession limit from 25,000 lb (11,339.8 kg) to 30,000 lb (13,607.8 kg) for trips fishing on a Bait Letter of Authorization (LOA) for all three bait seasons.
The proposed changes to trip limits are intended to provide additional flexibility to fishery participants. The increased skate wing possession limit is intended to allow for additional yield on trips where skates have been a constraining factor, such as for the monkfish fishery. The increased skate bait possession limit is intended to offset any increased costs for skate bait trips that have experienced longer steam times, as distance to productive fishing grounds has increased in recent years. The scale of the possession limit increases are intended to accommodate these constraints and costs while not being large enough to incentivize substantial increased fishing effort.
Indices of relative abundance (stratified mean weight/tow) for each of the seven species in the skate complex have been developed from Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) bottom trawl surveys. These indices and their rates of change form the basis for the conclusions about the status of the complex. The spring NEFSC survey data are used for little skate and the fall NEFSC survey data are used for the other managed skate species. Based on the 2025 NEFSC data update, overfishing is not occurring for any of the seven skate species, and only thorny skate is considered overfished.
It is estimated that the proposed bait possession limit increase could lead to bait landings of about 7.59 million lb (3.44 million kg) per year, as compared to the average bait landings of 7.20 million lb (3.27 million kg) from fishing years 2021-2024. These landings levels would equate to a bait TAL utilization of about 49 percent for fishing years 2026-2027 (15.5 M lb; 7.03 million kg) and 55 percent for fishing year 2028 (13.9 million lb; 6.30 million kg). These rates fall well within the range of bait TAL utilization rates of 45 to 62 percent in fishing years 2021-2024. While increasing skate possession limits could increase TAL utilization by increasing landings, the proposed increase is small enough to provide some operational flexibility and enough below the high end of the utilization rate range to avoid a substantial change in fishing effort. In addition, a substantial increase in fishing effort is not expected considering that, from 2021-2024, 91 percent of Bait LOA trips landed less than 75 percent of the current 25,000 lb (11,339.8 kg) possession limit. Catch is expected to remain within the ABC, and accountability measures would be triggered if a TAL or ACL is exceeded. Thus, these measures are not anticipated to increase the risk of overfishing for skate species or result in skate species becoming overfished. In addition, while skate mortality could increase with increased possession limits, some of the skates that are discarded dead under current possession limits would be landed instead, decreasing bycatch and mitigating increases in total mortality.
Data from observed trips in the Bait LOA fishery suggest that skate landings are largely comprised of little skate. Little skate survey biomass has been decreasing in recent years. The moving average of the survey biomass index for little skate (the 2024-2025 2-year average is 4.03) is close to its biomass threshold (3.38). If the moving average of the survey biomass index falls to less than the biomass threshold, the stock would be considered overfished. On average, it is estimated that about 7.06 million lb (3.20 million kg) of little skate have been landed annually since fishing year 2021. It is anticipated that increasing the bait possession limit, as proposed by this action, could lead to an increase in little skate landings of 381,228 lb (172,922 kg) per year and that total little skate landings could increase to 7,437,382 lb (3,373,540 kg) per year. Thus, this action could lead to an approximately 5.4-percent increase in little skate landings on average. However, this landing estimate is below the 8.28 million lb (3.76 million kg) of landings that occurred in 2021, and annual landings since then have remained below this level. Because the anticipated landings increase of 5.4 percent is relatively small and the landings estimate is below the landings in 2021, it is unlikely that the anticipated increase in mortality under the proposed action would cause little skate to become overfished. In addition, as described above, the increases in possession limits are expected to provide operational flexibility without resulting in an increase in fishing effort. Considering all of the above, no substantial changes in impacts to little skate are expected as a result of this proposed action.
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to sections 303(c), 304(b), and 305(d) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation
Section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(b)) requires publication of proposed regulations in the
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures. The increases in skate ACL and possession limits would impact vessels or affiliate groups that hold Federal skate permits and affect both bait and wing fisheries. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System code 114111) (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business that primarily engages in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and has combined annual receipts not more than $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Following the Small Business Administration guidelines, a five-year trailing average is used to determine which entities are classified as small business entities under the NMFS guidelines, as well as to measure total revenues for affiliate groups. During the most recent fishing year (2024), there were 1,929 Federal skate permits issued. These permits are affiliated with 1,304 unique entities. Regarding affiliate groups, there are 9 groups that classify as “large entities,” all of which are in the commercial fishing sector, which includes 124 permits. The remaining affiliate groups are classified as small entities, of which 837 (1,273 unique permits) are in the commercial fishing sector, 158 (195 unique permits) are in the for-hire sector, and 300 had no skate revenue (337 unique permits). Thus, the majority of entities affiliated with federal skate permits in 2024 were small entities. The large commercial affiliates averaged $16 million in revenue. Average gross revenues for the small commercial fishing entities were $636,987 and $192,648 for the for-hire affiliates.
Skate revenues comprise a relatively low percentage of total revenues for any federal vessel landing skate. Specifically, from 2022 through 2024, skate revenues for wing vessels only contributed an average of 9.8 percent of total vessel revenue. Skate revenue from vessels landing bait and vessels landing both wing and bait contributed slightly more to average total revenues (14.7 percent and 17.3, respectively). However, from 2022 through 2024, the average number of wing vessels (250) constitutes a much higher percentage of the skate fishery compared to the average number of bait vessels (17) and both wing and bait vessels (23).
From 2022 through 2024, average fishing year revenue from skate wing and bait is $4.6 million and $2 million, respectively. This action and the proposed increase in the wing possession limit is predicted to increase gross revenues in 2026 by $98,802 in Season 1 and $176,426 in Season 2 ($275,228 total). The increase in the bait possession limit is predicted to increase the gross revenues in 2026 of trips fishing on a Bait Letter of Authorization by $43,363 as compared to the previous possession limits. In total, the increase in possession limits is expected to yield up $900,908 in additional gross revenues for the combined bait and wing skate fishery over fishing years 2026 through 2028.
A description of this action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and are not repeated here. There are no additional record keeping or reporting requirements associated with this action. No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The proposed action is unlikely to disproportionately impact small businesses. It is expected that the increase in possession limits will positively impact small businesses, similarly to large businesses, with potential opportunities for increased landings, revenue, and trip efficiency gains. Considering all of the above, including recent skate revenues for small entities, the expected additional revenues from this proposed action, and the fact that skate revenues contribute a relatively small proportion to total annual revenues at the vessel level, this action is unlikely to have substantial impacts on vessels operating in the fishery. Thus, this proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1)
(i) A vessel or operator of a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal skate permit under this part, and fishes under an Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, or monkfish DAS as specified at §§ 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92, respectively, unless otherwise exempted under § 648.80 or paragraph (c) of this section, may fish for, possess, and/or land up to the allowable trip limits specified as follows: Up to 4,500 lb (2,041 kg) of skate wings (10,215 lb (4,633 kg) whole weight) per trip in Season 1 (May 1 through August 31), and 6,500 lb (2,948 kg) of skate wings (14,755 lb (6,693 kg) whole weight) per trip in Season 2 (September 1 through April 30), or any prorated combination of the allowable landing forms defined at paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(3) The vessel owner or operator possesses or lands no more than 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) of whole skates per trip.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency 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.
Webco Industries, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Kellyville, Oklahoma within FTZ 164. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 23, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include welded stainless steel tubing and nickel alloy steel tubing (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 2%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include coiled rolled stainless steel slit coils, cold rolled nickel alloy steel slit coils, and hot rolled stainless steel slit coils (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 2%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122) or section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 122, and section 232 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign 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
Hypertherm Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Hanover and Lebanon, New Hampshire within Subzone 81H. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 20, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: plasma cutting consumables and kits containing plasma cutting consumables (duty rate ranges from 2.7 to 4.7%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: tellurium copper (TeCu) rods, oxygen-free high thermal conductivity rods, and precision cut hafnium (duty rate ranges from 1.6 to 4.0%).
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 Christopher Williams at
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
This collection identified seven sectors (Aviation, Emergency Management, Global Navigation Satellite System, Human Space Flight, Power Grid, Research, and Space Situational Awareness/Space Traffic Management) that will be consulted as part of this effort. Information will be collected from each of the sectors as needed. Respondents in each sector include the general public, defined as (adults ages 18+). Members of the SWAG will oversee recruitment of the respondents. Respondents will be asked questions about their current use of space weather observations, information, and forecasts, technological systems, components or elements affected by space weather, current and future risk and resilience activities, future space weather requirements, and unused or new types of measurements or observations that would enhance space weather risk mitigation. This data collection serves many purposes, including gaining a better understanding of the needs of users of space weather products. The SWAG will use the data to identify the space weather research, observations, forecasting, prediction, and modeling advances required to improve space weather products. Specifically, the information will be used to advise the National Science and Technology Council's Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Subcommittee on improving the ability of the United States to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from space weather storms.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) catch reporting provides real-time catch information used to monitor the BFT fishery. Under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971), the United States (U.S.) is required to adopt regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), including recommendations on a specified BFT quota. BFT catch reporting helps the U.S. monitor this quota and supports scientific research consistent with ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Atlantic billfish and swordfish are managed internationally by ICCAT and nationally under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This collection provides information needed to monitor the recreational catch of Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and roundscale spearfish, which is applied to the recreational limit established by ICCAT, and the recreational catch of North Atlantic swordfish, which is applied to the U.S. quota established by ICCAT. This collection also provides information on recreational landings of West Atlantic sailfish, which is unavailable from other established monitoring programs.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
NOAA operates a space-based data collection system (DCS) per 15 CFR part 911: the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) DCS. The GOES DCS is operated to support environmental applications,
Current loading does not use the entire capacity of that system, so NOAA is able to make its excess capacity available to other users who meet certain criteria. Applications are made in response to the requirements in 15 CFR 911 (under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 313, Duties of the Secretary of Commerce and others), using system use agreement (SUA) form. The application information received is used to determine if the applicant meets the criteria for use of the system. The SUA contains the following information: (1) the period of time the agreement is valid and procedures for its termination, (2) the authorized use(s) of the DCS, and its priorities for use, (3) the extent of the availability of commercial services which met the user's requirements and the reasons for choosing the government system, (4) any applicable government interest in the data, (5) required equipment standards, (6) standards of operation, (7) conformance with applicable International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Federal Communications Commission
Accepted applicants use the NOAA DCS to collect environmental data. The applicants must submit information to ensure that they meet these criteria. NOAA does not approve agreements where there is a commercial service available to fulfill the user requirements (per 15 CFR part 911).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce Department.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 3-day meeting with online webinar participation options to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 14 through Thursday, April 16, 2026, beginning at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and 9 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring St., Portland, ME 04101; telephone (207) 775-2311; online at
Register for the webinar at
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
The Council will begin the meeting with a closed session of the Executive Committee, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to discuss sensitive information related to Council resources. Following the closed session, the meeting will open with introductions and announcements from the Council Chair. The Council will then receive reports on recent activities from the Council Chair and Executive Director; the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) Regional Administrator; NOAA Office of General Counsel; the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC); the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC); the U.S. Coast Guard; NOAA Enforcement; and representatives associated with ICCAT, Highly Migratory Species (HMS), and the Dolphin-Wahoo fishery.
After reports, the Council will review Executive Order 14276,
After a lunch break, the Council will receive an update on the NOAA framework to narrow the scope of NMFS management and science activities. This update will summarize efforts of the Regional Working Group to populate a Risk/Value Matrix for Council-managed stocks. The Council will then receive a report from the Monkfish and Skate Coordinated Committee. The report will include review and potential approval of a scoping document and schedule for a potential individual fishing quota program for the monkfish and/or skate wing fisheries, as well as a white paper summarizing coordinated monkfish and skate activities in 2025. The Council will also receive a presentation from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on the Locking Away Carbon on the Northeast Shelf and Slope project. The Council will adjourn for the day at approximately 5 p.m., followed by a public outreach event in the hotel, to foster open communication among meeting attendees.
On the second day, the Council will receive a presentation from NEFSC staff on the 2026 State of the Ecosystem report, with input from the Science and Statistical Committee (SSC), followed by Council questions. The Council will then receive an update from the SSC Chair on activities including a review of monkfish catch-per-unit-effort research, and updates from the SSC's Social Science Subcommittee. Next, the Council will receive a presentation on the draft Holistic Strategic Plan report from the Parnin Group.
Following a lunch break, the Council will receive an update from the Risk Policy Working Group on revisions to the Council's Risk Policy Concept, including a summary of SSC input. The presentation will also include an overview of technical analyses conducted by the University of Maine on applying the Risk Policy approach and updates on implementation considerations. The Council will then receive a report from the Atlantic Herring Committee, including an update on the development of an action for Fishing Years 2027-2031 Atlantic herring specifications, river herring and shad management measures, and other related measures. The day will conclude with an open period for public comment on Council issues not otherwise listed on the agenda.
On the final day, the Council will receive a report from the Groundfish Committee on the Redfish Exemption Program Review draft report. Then the Council will then receive an update from the NEFSC on fishery-independent surveys, including the 2025 and 2026
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the 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 Fishery Conservation and Management 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 Executive Director Cate O'Keefe (see
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes service(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On December 29, 2025 (90 FR 60683) and February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6624), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. The Committee determined that the products and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added these products and service(s) to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase for the contracting activities listed. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the mandatory purchase requirement is limited to the contracting activities at the locations listed, and in accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized the listed nonprofit agencies as the authorized source(s) of supply.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
On February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7977), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete product(s) and services previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: April 25, 2026.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington DC, 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the Committee intends to add this services requirement to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase only for the contracting activity at the location listed with the proposed qualified nonprofit agency as the authorized source of supply. Prior to adding the service to the Procurement List, the Committee will consider other pertinent information, including information from Government personnel and relevant comments from interested parties regarding the Committee's intent to geographically limit this services requirement.
The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following product(s) and services are proposed for deletion to the Procurement List:
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OASD(PA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 26, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Alán Ortiz, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of War (Public Affairs), Community and Public Outreach, Room 2D982, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400 or call 703-695-9368.
Respondents are individuals authorized to nominate candidates for participation in JCOC, and candidates nominated for and selected to participate in JCOC. The JCOC Nomination Form and Registration Form each record the nominator's credentials and contact information and the candidate's credentials and contact
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 26, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Naval Health Research Center, Gate 4, Patterson Rd. at McClelland Rd., Bldg. 320, San Diego, CA 92152, Dr. Cameron McCabe, (619) 553-8067.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 26, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Zelma Barrett, 202-245-8012.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The data collected for the development of the Teacher Cancellation Low Income Directory provides web-based access to a list of all elementary and secondary schools, and educational service agencies that serve a total enrollment of more than 30 percent low income students (as defined under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended). The Directory allows post-secondary institutions to determine whether or not a teacher, who received a Federal Perkins Loan, Direct Loan, or Federal Family Education Loan at their school, is eligible to receive loan
Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department of Energy.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2025 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act). The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene.
The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective April 27, 2026 and will remain in effect until further notice.
Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 449-9387, Email:
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103, Telephone: (202) 586-4798, Email:
DOE is required to prescribe test procedures for measuring the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products, as specified in Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.
The estimated annual operating costs of a covered product must be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate the product during the cycle (Section 323(b)(3) of the Act). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) and (b)(4)) DOE must provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under Section 323(c) of the Act. These costs are also used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products (16 CFR part 305). Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at
DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a
The 2025 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 27, 2026. They will remain in effect until further notice.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 17, 2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The Hackett Mills Project consists of the following existing facilities: (1) a 186-foot-long dam that consists of two spillway sections: a 101-foot-long, 8-foot-high rock-filled timber crib dam with an uncontrolled spillway (main spillway section) and a 85-foot-long, 8-foot-high concrete gravity dam with three uncontrolled bays (secondary spillway section); (2) an obsolete sluice gatehouse that connects the main spillway and the secondary spillway sections; (3) a 3.5-mile-long, 60-acre impoundment with no useable storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 235.05 feet;
The Hackett Mills Project is currently operated in a run-of-river mode and generates 1,602 megawatt-hours annually. Hackett Mills Hydro proposes to continue operating the project as a run-of-river facility and does not propose any new construction at the project.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; and (3) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
n. The applicant must file the following on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2026.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
On March 16, 2026, Current Hydro LLC (Current Hydro) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a notice from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (West Virginia DEP) that West Virginia DEP received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Ohio Power and Light, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project on November 13, 2025. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If West Virginia DEP fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
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, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
KEI Power filed a Settlement Agreement (Settlement) for the Barker's Mill Project (FERC No. 2808),
On January 29, 2026, KEI Power filed additional details, including design drawings, of its proposed full-depth trash rack overlays (perforated plates with 1-inch hole openings) to protect against fish and eel entrainment and its proposed method of upstream eel passage—installing mussel spat rope.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; and (3) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
n. The applicant must file the following on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22, 2026: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of a waiver of water quality certification.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2026.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites written feedback on its Clean Water Act (CWA) Financial Capability Assessment (FCA) Guidance. The FCA Guidance provides information on how to assess a community's financial capability as part of negotiating implementation schedules under both permits and enforcement agreements. In addition, the FCA Guidance identifies specific methodologies, supplementing the Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards (1995;
As part of the agency's commitment to implementing CWA objectives in an effective manner, EPA continues to enhance understanding of the issues surrounding FCAs for communities and seeks ways to improve the guidance. The agency will use this input to determine whether updates to the guidance are necessary to provide clear recommendations that accurately identify a community's financial capability. EPA is requesting comment on its CWA FCA guidance.
Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2026-1090, by the following method:
•
• Identify the guidance by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—the agency asks commenters to respond to specific questions and provide information according to the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) recommended criteria.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your comments and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Adhere to the comment period deadline.
Tara Johnson, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Infrastructure Division (MC4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 809-7368; email address:
This effort will revise, as needed, previous versions of the CWA FCA Guidance, including the draft guidance released in 2022 (
Since releasing the 2023 guidance, EPA has received significant feedback on the document. Much of the feedback is focused on the practical implications of several elements. The agency is revisiting the guidance to address these concerns through possible revisions, as part of its ongoing commitment to working with communities to ensure practical implementation and public health protection. Several questions/concerns/areas for further discussion have emerged as EPA has engaged with states, authorized tribes, communities, and other stakeholders to implement CWA permitting, enforcement, and WQS programs, specifically:
1. The ability of metrics that assess the severity and prevalence of poverty within a utility's service area to accurately reflect any economic impacts on rural and small communities and low-income households;
2. How to consider the effect cost of living has on the economic impacts to a community and its financial capacity;
3. Appropriate schedule lengths for compliance with CWA requirements; and
4. Specific to the WQS program, additional guidance that would help determine whether and how to account for costs when identifying a community's current financial burden.
EPA requests public comment on how to better assess these four topics, including any specific approaches and/or metrics that the agency should consider. If commenters suggest new or revised metrics of financial capability for consideration, EPA requests that the commenter identify the frequency at which the proposed data sources are published and how EPA and interested parties can obtain such data. In making revisions to its FCA Guidance, the agency intends to follow the criteria recommended by the NAPA for metrics:
• Readily available from publicly available data sources.
• Clearly defined and understood.
• Simple, direct, and consistent.
• Valid and reliable measures, according to conventional research standards, and applicable for comparative analyses among permittees.
In 2021, EPA proposed to supplement the Residential Indicator (RI) and the Financial Capability Indicator (FCI) metrics with two new metrics: the Lowest Quintile Residential Indicator (LQRI) and the Poverty Indicator (PI). The LQRI was intended to evaluate the financial impact of CWA costs on lowest quintile households in a community by calculating the ratio of adjusted costs per lowest quintile household to the service area's lowest quintile income.
While commenters from local governments, the wastewater sector, and environmental organizations were supportive of the new poverty measures, some of these commentors also expressed concerns about the methodology proposed to scale the costs for lowest quintile households and the proposed LQRI thresholds. A number of community-specific factors—such as age of infrastructure, housing type, and efficiency of water appliances—may impact water usage and costs to lowest quintile households.
In response to public feedback, the 2023 guidance added a single new metric called the Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicator (LQPI) to be considered with the RI and FCI. EPA has received requests to explicitly address concerns regarding metrics used to encompass the prevalence and severity of poverty in the FCA Guidance. The LQPI evaluates the economic impact on low-income households by assessing the prevalence and severity of poverty in a community or service area using U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data. These ACS data meet the criteria for data recommended by NAPA (see above).
Whereas the LQRI and the PI were each individual indicators for analysis, the LQPI methodology consists of six indicators.
• LQPI #1: Upper limit of the lowest income quintile (50% weight).
• LQPI #2: Percentage of population with income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (10% weight).
• LQPI #3: Percentage of households receiving food stamps/SNAP benefits (10% weight).
• LQPI #4: Percentage of vacant housing units (10% weight).
• LQPI #5: Trend in household growth (10% weight).
• LQPI #6: Percentage of unemployed population 16 and over in civilian labor force (10% weight).
EPA will use any additional comments on this issue to further assess the need for potential modifications to the LQRI and/or the LQPI analysis and/or additional analyses to characterize the severity and prevalence of poverty in a community or service area to accurately reflect economic impacts on small, rural communities and low-income households.
EPA has received requests to explicitly address concerns regarding cost of living in the FCA Guidance. EPA plans to use any additional comments on this topic to further assess the need for a new framework or whether there are gaps in the current analytical framework that need to be addressed to accurately reflect economic impacts on a community and its financial capacity.
A potential proxy for assessing cost of living and local affordability can be a service area's median household income (MHI); however, some commenters on previous proposed FCA Guidance have noted that MHI—or even lowest quintile income (LQI)—alone are not sufficient measures of poverty.
A critical issue in many CWA permits and enforcement actions with utilities is the length of the schedule to achieve compliance with the CWA. When negotiating extended schedules, EPA intends to balance the timely mitigation of human health and environmental impacts as well as ability of the community to finance compliance costs
It is critical for states and tribes to accurately describe and quantify water-related costs communities are incurring, or have made a commitment to invest in, to demonstrate whether there will be a substantial economic impact if the community incurs additional costs to meet requirements derived from applicable WQS. EPA recognizes that wastewater treatment costs are typically not the only water cost paid by households and that aging infrastructure and shifting populations require careful planning to maintain service levels. In the FCA Guidance, EPA provides standardized instructions for reporting drinking water, stormwater, and asset management costs. The agency now requests input on whether more specific guidance, or a separate standalone guidance document, regarding incorporating these types of information directly into the Municipal Preliminary Screener analysis would be helpful, if a community elects to do so.
EPA requests public comment on the most recent FCA Guidance, specifically:
1. EPA seeks comment on the effectiveness of the LQRI and the LQPI methodologies at measuring the severity and prevalence of poverty and whether an alternative or additional analyses may better capture economic impacts to small and rural communities and low-income households.
The 2020 proposed FCA Guidance uses the LQRI and PI methodology:
• Lowest Quintile Residential Indicator—cost per low-income household as a percentage of the LQI.
• Poverty Indicator—five poverty indicators used to benchmark the prevalence of poverty throughout the service area.
The 2024 FCA Guidance uses the LQPI methodology:
• Lowest Quintile Poverty Indicators—upper limit of the lowest income quintile; percentage of population with income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level; percentage of households receiving food stamps/SNAP benefits; percentage of vacant housing units; trend in household growth; and percentage of unemployed population 16 and over in civilian labor force.
Both methodologies include consideration of the following factors:
• Residential Indicator—cost per household as a percentage of MHI
• Financial Capability Indicator—six socioeconomic, debt, and financial indicators used to benchmark a community's financial strength.
EPA is interested in feedback on indicators that provide distinct information regarding the severity and prevalence of poverty in a community or service area.
2. EPA seeks public comment on whether the FCA Guidance should explicitly incorporate cost of living metrics. If yes, how should the analysis incorporate cost of living? What data sources are publicly available to consider cost of living?
3. EPA seeks public comment on the current scheduling benchmarks for communities facing unusually high financial impacts associated with complying with CWA requirements. Any scheduling considerations need to be balanced with the need for the agency to ensure that CWA requirements are complied with in a timely manner. If commentors propose schedule benchmarks, EPA requests examples to support the basis for such benchmarks.
4. For purposes of WQS analyses, EPA seeks comment on what information or separate guidance would be helpful to determine whether and how states and authorized tribes could account for costs, such as asset management costs, stormwater costs and/or drinking water costs, when characterizing costs that communities are incurring or have made a commitment to invest in.
5. EPA requests comments on what, if any, additional perspectives or considerations relevant to the implementation of the FCA Guidance are not addressed by the focused questions above.
Office of Mission Support (OMS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Acquisition Solutions is giving notice that it proposes to modify a system of records pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 to add a new routine use as required by Executive Order (E.O.) 14249 and OMB Memorandum M-25-32, and to update the contact information for the Agency Privacy Officer.
Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by April 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OMS-2020-0210, by one of the following methods:
We encourage the public to submit comments via
Please submit questions to Victor Rodriguez, email:
EPA's Acquisition System (EAS) is an automated contract writing and management system with configurable workflow used to initiate, award, modify, and track acquisition actions for the procurement of goods and services. EPA is modifying the EAS system of records notice (SORN) to comply with E.O. 14249 and OMB Memorandum M-25-32, which require agencies to modify relevant SORNs to include a routine use that allows for the disclosure of records to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or recouping fraud and improper payments. Additionally, EPA is updating the contact information for the Agency Privacy Officer.
EPA Acquisition System (EAS), EPA-86.
Unclassified.
Office of Acquisition Solutions, Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. EAS is hosted as a Software as a Service (SaaS) by Unison's Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud hosting environment which is FedRAMP authorized.
Stefan Martiyan, Director, Office of Acquisition Solutions, Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, email:
Executive Order 12072 (August 16, 1978); Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 121; Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, 41 U.S.C. 1702.
EPA uses EAS to initiate, award, modify and track acquisition actions. EAS identifies employees who initiate acquisition actions or are assigned to work on these actions. Specifically, the system tracks the requisitioner, contract official, contract specialist, and approving officials for each acquisition action.
Categories of individuals covered are EPA employees including the: (a) EPA Project Officer,
EAS collects EPA employee first name, last name, work email, work telephone, EPA employee ID and LAN User ID information. The system also collects other information required for the tracking or approval of a contract action including contract proposals, technical reviews by a peer reviewer, records of contract awards, financial data. EAS also collects Vendor Contact information including: Vendor Code, Legal Name, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) ID (a 9 character identifier used for identifying the Vendor), Cage Code (used to provide a standardized method of identifying a given facility at a specific location.), address, phone number, fax number, and email address.
EAS collects EPA employee information from EPA's directory service. Contract proposals and vendor information are collected directly from the user via the Federal Government's System for Award Management (SAM).
The routine uses below are both related to and compatible with the original purpose for which the information was collected. The following general routine uses apply to this system (): A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M. An additional routine use that applies to this system includes:
To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the
These records are maintained electronically on computer storage devices located at Unison's Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud hosting environments (production and disaster recovery) which are Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) authorized. Backups will be maintained at production and disaster recovery sites, located at Unison's Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud hosting environments (production and disaster recovery). Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected environment. Access to computer records is limited to those who have a need to know. All EAS user accounts are assigned permissions as needed based on their job functions. Permission level assignments will allow users access only to those functions for which they are authorized. All records are maintained in secure, access-controlled areas or buildings.
Records are retrieved by the first name, last name and/or User ID of EPA employees or Vendor ID (DUNS codes) associated with contracts.
EPA will retain and dispose of EAS records in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule and EPA Records Schedule 055—Contracts Management Systems. EAS records are retained for at least 6 years after contract closeout for non-Superfund actions, and 30 years after contract closeout for Superfund site actions.
Security controls used to protect personally identifiable information in EAS are commensurate with those required for an information system rated moderate for confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as prescribed in NIST Special Publication, 800-53, “Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations,” Revision 5.
All requests for access to personal records should cite the Privacy Act of 1974 and reference the type of request being made (
Requests for correction or amendment must include: (1) the name and signature of the individual making the request; (2) the name of the Privacy Act system of records to which the request relates; (3) a description of the information sought to be corrected or amended and the specific reasons for the correction or amendment; and (4) proof of identity. A full description of EPA's Privacy Act procedures for the correction or amendment of a record are described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.
Individuals who wish to be informed whether a Privacy Act system of records maintained by EPA contains any record pertaining to them, should make a written request to EPA, Attn: Agency Privacy Officer, MC 2810A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460,
None.
86 FR 10949 (February 23, 2021).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information Under TSCA (EPA ICR Number 2570.03, OMB Control Number 2070-0209) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR which is currently approved through March 31, 2026. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before April 27, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0652, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Katherine Sleasman, Office of Mission Critical Support (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 2046; telephone number: 202-566-1204; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2026. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the request to renew the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0139). The notices of proposed renewal for these information collections were previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2026.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Robert Meiers, Regulatory Attorney,
1.
91 FR 11549, March 10, 2026.
Meeting was originally scheduled for 10 a.m., on Thursday, March 26, 2026.
The meeting is cancelled.
Rory P. Smith (202) 525-8649/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
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 10, 2026.
1.
In addition,
Finally,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
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 27, 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.
Issuers can offer individual and small group market plans outside of the Exchanges that are not QHPs. Such plans are referred to in this document as “non-Exchange.” For the risk adjustment program, administrative information is used to identify all non-grandfathered small group and individual market non-Exchange plan offerings eligible for the program. Risk adjustment also requires select data such as rating area, rating factors, and actuarial value (AV) level, to perform calculation of payments and charges.
This information collection request serves as a formal request for the revision of the data collection clearance. We intend to use the instruments in this information collection for the 2025 certification process and beyond, and believe that providing these instruments now will give issuers and other stakeholders more opportunity to familiarize themselves with the instruments before releasing the 2025 application. While we intend to use these instruments in 2025, we may propose further revisions to this data collection in the future as necessary which will include seeking comments through the full 60-day and 30-day public comment periods.
Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the ACF-204: Annual Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and State Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) Report (Office of Management and Budget #0970-0248, expiration March 31, 2026). There are no substantive changes requested to the form, but instructions have been updated, and burden estimates adjusted.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
ACF proposes a 32 percent reduction in estimated average time per response to reflect the intent of existing regulations. 45 CFR 265.9(d) indicates that states that have already incorporated the information required in their TANF State Plan may meet the annual reporting requirements by reference in lieu of completing a re-submission of a particular data element. If the information in the annual report has not changed since the previous annual report, the state may reference this information in lieu of re-submission of a particular data element. Instructions have been updated to make clear both opportunities to reference in lieu of re-submission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3471,
In the
On page 45943, in the table, the entry for ANDA 070631 is removed.
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 Eye Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Eye Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
On January 23, 2025, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security issued a Finding of Mass Influx of Aliens. This finding went into effect immediately (on January 23, 2025) and remained in effect for 60 days (until March 23, 2025). The Acting Secretary's finding published in the
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), at 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides an expansive grant of authority, stating that in the event of a mass influx of aliens off the coast of the United States or a land border, the Secretary may authorize a State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the officer's superiors, to perform duties of immigration officers under the INA. In turn, section 65.83 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations allows the Secretary
In making such a determination, the Secretary may also determine that there is an “immigration emergency.” The regulations define an immigration emergency as “an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities of [the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] in the affected area or areas.” 28 CFR 65.83(d)(1) (using identical language as 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(10)).
Such a determination is based on “the factors set forth in the definitions contained in” 28 CFR 65.81. Characteristics of an influx of aliens, other than magnitude, which may be considered in determining whether an immigration emergency exists include: the likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx; an apparent connection between the influx and increases in criminal activity; the actual or imminent imposition of unusual and overwhelming demands on law enforcement agencies; and other similar characteristics.
Upon review of the current data, I have determined that there continues to exist circumstances involving the administration of the immigration laws of the United States that endanger the lives, property, safety, or welfare of the residents of all 50 States and that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens is arriving at the southern border of the United States and presents urgent circumstances requiring a continued federal response. I make this finding for the reasons discussed below.
First, over the last several years, our southern border has been overrun. As noted in Proclamation 10888,
Second, at this time, the ability of DHS to control an influx of aliens at the border has been hampered due to a federal court decision. On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision partially staying an order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the implementation of Proclamation 10888,
Third, as stated in the previous notices, when border crossing numbers are high, much detention capacity is required of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mandatory detention of aliens apprehended at the border serves important public safety and national security purposes. Aliens who have not completed this process have not been effectively vetted for criminality or national security threats. Current databases still do not allow for comprehensive and rapid searching for foreign convictions or other public safety and national security risks of recent arrivals. As a result, when numbers at the border are such that DHS is effectively forced to engage in catch-and-release practices which thwart legally mandated screenings, there is a threat to public safety and national security. This does not account for so-called gotaways, of which there have been millions over the last several years, who are not screened in any manner.
In addition, increased enforcement efforts in the interior have resulted in large numbers of aliens in custody. Many of these aliens are applicants for admission who are subject to mandatory detention pending removal proceedings under the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A);
As mentioned in the prior findings of mass influx, without controls in place at the border to stem the influx, DHS loses its capacity to hold all aliens as required by the INA.
Fourth, an influx of aliens presents significant concerns with respect to increased criminal activity. Between FY 2017 and 2019, ICE removed 485,930 aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Between FY 2021 and FY 2023, ICE removed 158,931 aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Between September 1, 2025, and March 11, 2026, ICE removed 128,889 aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, 663 known or suspected terrorists, and 2,847 gang members. Assuming that the crime rate of aliens has remained unchanged over the year, this 67% decrease (in removals) between FY 2019 and 2021 and FY 2021 and 2023 suggests that tens of thousands of criminal aliens remain in the United States. Even if ICE were to continue to remove aliens at the same levels through the rest of this fiscal year, it would still fall short of the total number of aliens removed between FY 2017 and FY 2019, indicating the large, continued presence of criminal aliens in the United States. Where there is an increase in criminal aliens, there is likely to be an increase in criminal
Furthermore, there continues to be significant criminality present at the Southwest border. In January 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Office of Field Operations (OFO) and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) encountered 399 criminal aliens. OFO made 788 criminal arrests, and USBP had 25 gang apprehensions. USBP referred 285 smuggling events for prosecution, and OFO referred 233 events for criminal prosecution. Officers and agents seized 16,528.65 pounds of illicit narcotics, including 767.16 pounds of deadly fentanyl. Officers and agents also seized 56 firearms and 42,849 rounds of ammunition, as well as $808,223.72 in currency. These numbers are only likely to increase if encounter numbers increase.
Fifth, there have been high, unusual, and overwhelming demands on law enforcement officers and agencies, which continue to present significant danger to officers and agents. For example, in January 2026, CBP records indicate that 74 CBP officers/agents were assaulted. Even while encounter numbers were lower than average in January 2026, officers and agents at the border have consistent threats against them, and there are still too many assaults and use of force incidents on officers and agents. ICE records indicate that aliens assaulted or used force against 182 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers from the period of September 2025 to February 2026, representing an average of 30 per month. In February 2025, ICE records indicated that aliens assaulted or used force against 10 ICE ERO officers. This 300% increase indicates the increasing risk that ICE ERO officers face as they seek to arrest and detain aliens that entered during periods of loose border restrictions.
Additionally, there remains a strain on ICE resources, which takes ICE away from its mission to preserve national security and public safety. ICE has many aliens pending removal that entered during prior influxes at the Southwest border. Managing those removals requires a significant expenditure of ICE resources. As of March 13, 2026, there are 1,526,800 aliens on the ICE non-detained docket with final orders of removal. This number will only increase should this finding not be extended.
Between September 1, 2025, and March 11, 2026, ICE arrested 135,395 aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Of these, 565 were known or suspected terrorists, and 3,193 were suspected gang members. Failure to extend this finding will impede the ability of ICE to properly enforce immigration laws and focus on public safety risks.
On the basis of the above facts, I find that these circumstances continue to endanger the lives, property, safety, and welfare of the residents of every State in the Union. The only way to effectively prevent this danger to the States is to maintain operational control of the border, which Congress defined to mean “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.” Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (2006); 8 U.S.C. 1701 note (stating that the Secretary of DHS “shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States”). Given that Congress directed DHS to prevent all unlawful entries, the thousands of aliens that DHS continues to encounter on a weekly basis attempting to enter the United States illegally via the Southwest border is an influx. Therefore, I find that there is currently an influx of aliens arriving across our entire southern border, which requires a federal response.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authorities under the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101,
The finding is effective immediately and expires in 180 days. This finding may expire sooner in the event I find that circumstances have changed. Such a finding would be published in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA, we) is proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. To be considered, your comments must be received on or before April 27, 2026.
Send your written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) through
Steven Mullen, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 229, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104;
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 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.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. To be considered, your comments must be received on or before April 27, 2026.
Send your written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) through
Steven Mullen, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 229, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104;
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 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.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Department of the Interior (DOI) are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 26, 2026.
Send your comments on this ICR by mail to Jeffrey Parrillo, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
Lucy Hurlbut, YCC Program Manager/Scouting Program Manager, Washington DC Area Support Office (WASO) at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the DOI; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
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 can 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.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of remand proceedings.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) hereby gives notice of the procedures it intends to follow to comply with the court-ordered remand of its final determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of aluminum lithographic printing plates from China and Japan. For further information concerning the conduct of these remand proceedings 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 207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207).
March 23, 2026.
Celia Feldpausch ((202) 205-2387), Office of Investigations, or Christopher W. Robinson ((202) 205-2542), Office of General Counsel, 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 (
The comments must be based solely on the information in the Commission's record. The Commission will reject submissions containing additional factual information or arguments pertaining to issues other than the issue on which the Court has remanded this matter. The deadline for filing comments is April 10, 2026. Comments must be limited to no more than ten (10) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material, inclusive of attachments and exhibits.
Parties are advised to consult with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for provisions of general applicability concerning written submissions to the Commission. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
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 207.3 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 either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-764-766 and 731-TA-1747-1749 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, provided for in subheadings 4412.10.05, 4412.31.06, 4412.31.26, 4412.31.42, 4412.31.45, 4412.31.48, 4412.31.52, 4412.31.61, 4412.31.92, 4412.33.06, 4412.33.26, 4412.33.32, 4412.33.57, 4412.34.26, 4412.34.32, 4412.34.57, 4412.39.40, 4412.39.50, 4412.41.00, 4412.42.00, 4412.51.10, 4412.51.31, 4412.51.41, 4412.51.51, 4412.52.10, 4412.52.31, 4412.52.41, 4412.91.06, 4412.91.10, 4412.91.31, 4412.91.41, 4412.92.07, 4412.92.11, 4412.92.31, and 4412.92.42 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.
March 2, 2026.
Calvin Chang ((202) 205-3062), 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 (
For purposes of the investigation a “veneer” is a slice of wood regardless of thickness which is cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt, or flitch. The face and back veneers are the outermost veneer of wood irrespective of additional surface coatings or covers as described below. The core of hardwood and decorative plywood (for those products that include a core) consists of the layer or layers of one or more material(s) that are situated between the face and back veneers. The core may be composed of a range of materials, including but not limited to hardwood, softwood, particleboard, or medium density fiberboard (MDF).
All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the scope even if it is trimmed; cut-to-size; notched; punched; drilled; or has undergone other forms of minor processing. All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the scope of the investigation, without regard to dimension (overall thickness,
All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the scope even if it is trimmed; cut-to-size; notched; punched; drilled; or has undergone other forms of minor processing. All hardwood and decorative plywood is included within the scope of the investigation, without regard to dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face veneer, thickness of back veneer, thickness of core, thickness of inner veneers, width, or length). However, the most common panel sizes of hardwood and decorative plywood are 1219 x 1829 mm (48 x 72 inches), 1219 x 2438 mm (48 x 96 inches), and 1219 x 3048 mm (48 x 120 inches). Subject merchandise also includes hardwood and decorative plywood that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to trimming, cutting, notching, punching, drilling, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product.
The scope of the investigation excludes the following items: (1) structural plywood (also known as “industrial plywood” or “industrial panels”) that (a) is certified, manufactured, and stamped to meet U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09, PS 2-09, PS-1-22, PS 2-10, or PS 2-18 for Structural Plywood (including any revisions to that standard or any substantially equivalent international standard intended for structural plywood), including, but not limited to, the “bond performance” requirements and the performance criteria detailed in U.S. Products Standard PS 1-09, PS 2-09, PS-1-22, PS 2-10, or PS 2-18 for Structural Plywood (including any revisions to that standard or any substantially equivalent international standard intended for structural plywood), and (b) where the relevant standard identifies core species requirements, has a core made entirely of one or more of the following wood species: Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir), Larix occidentalis (Western Larch), Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock), Abies balsamea (Balsam Pine/Balsam Fir), Abies magnifica (California Red Fir), Abies grandis (Grand Fir), Abies procera (Noble Fir), Abies amabilis (Pacific Silver Fir), Abies concolor (White Fir), Abies lasiocarpa (Subalpine Fir), Picea glauca (White Spruce), Picea engelmannii (Engelmann Spruce), Picea mariana (Black Spruce), Picea rubens (Red Spruce), Picea sitchensis (Sitka Spruce), Pinus banksiana (Jack Pine), Pinus taeda (Loblolly Southern Pine), Pinus palustris (Longleaf Southern Pine), Pinus echinata (Shortleaf Southern Pine), Pinus elliottii (Slash Southern Pine), Pinus serotina (Pond Pine), Pinus resinosa (Red Pine), Pinus virginiana (Virginia Pine), Pinus monticola (Western White Pine), Picea mariana (Black Spruce), Picea rubens (Red Spruce), Picea sitchensis (Sitka Spruce), Pinus contorta (Lodgepole Pine), Pinus strobus (Eastern White Pine), and Pinus lambertiana (Sugar Pine); (2) products which have a face and back veneer of cork; (3) hardwood plywood subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 504 (January 4, 2018); and Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 513 (January 4, 2018); (4) multilayered wood flooring, as described in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring from China. See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011); and Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 76693 (December 8, 2011), as amended by Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Orders, 77 FR 5484 (February 3, 2012); (5) multilayered wood flooring with a face veneer of bamboo or composed entirely of bamboo; (6) plywood which has a shape or design other than a flat panel, with the exception of any minor processing described above; (7) products made entirely from bamboo and adhesives (also known as “solid bamboo”); and (8) Phenolic Film Faced Plyform (PFF), also known as Phenolic Surface Film Plywood (PSF), defined as a panel with an “Exterior” or “Exposure 1” bond classification as is defined by The Engineered Wood Association, having an opaque phenolic film layer with a weight equal to or greater than 90g/m3 permanently bonded on both the face and back veneers and an opaque, moisture resistant coating applied to the edges.
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are wooden furniture goods that, at the time of importation, are fully assembled and are ready for their intended uses. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is “ready to assemble” (RTA) furniture. RTA furniture is defined as (A) furniture packaged for sale for ultimate purchase by an end-user that, at the time of importation, includes (1) all wooden components (in finished form) required to assemble a finished unit of furniture, (2) all accessory parts (
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are kitchen cabinets that, at the time of importation, are fully assembled and are ready for their intended uses. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are RTA kitchen cabinets. RTA kitchen cabinets are defined as kitchen cabinets packaged for sale for ultimate purchase by an end-user that, at the time of importation, includes: (1) all wooden components (in finished form) required to assemble a finished unit of cabinetry; (2) all accessory parts (
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are certain door stiles and rails made of LVL that have a width not to exceed 50 millimeters, a thickness not to exceed 50 millimeters, and a length of less than 2,450 millimeters.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are finished two-ply products that are made of one ply of wood veneer and one ply of a non-wood veneer material and the two-ply product cannot be glued or otherwise adhered to additional plies or that are made of two plies of wood veneer and have undergone staining, cutting, notching, punching, drilling, or other processing on the surface of the veneer such that the two-ply product cannot be glued or otherwise adhered to additional plies.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
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,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. 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 Tuesday, July 14, 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 Wednesday, July 15, 2026. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 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 § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 13, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Cargill, Incorporated, Wayzata, Minnesota. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of erythritol from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 23, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5717 (March 2026), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
March 6, 2026.
Alec Resch (202-708-1448), 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 (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined that that a violation under of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) has occurred. The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order and set the bond at zero percent (0%) of the entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review. However, the Commission has determined to suspend the issuance of the remedial orders in this investigation given the impending expiration of the asserted patent mere days into the period of Presidential review and the bond having been set at zero percent (0%). The investigation is terminated.
Jonathan D. Link, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3103. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On July 17, 2024, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed on behalf of HydraFacial LLC, f/k/a Edge Systems LLC, of Long Beach, California (“HydraFacial”). 89 FR 58188-89 (July 17, 2024). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain hydrodermabrasion systems and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of the '287 patent.
On August 14, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 3) setting the target date for completion of the investigation as December 17, 2025.
On January 21, 2025, the Commission terminated the investigation as to Eunsung based on a consent order. Order No. 19 (Dec. 19, 2024),
On April 11, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (Order No. 34) granting Complainant's unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 1-10, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 28-31, 33-37,
On August 26, 2025, the ALJ issued a final initial determination (“FID”) finding a violation of section 337 by respondent Cartessa. On September 8, 2025, Cartessa filed a petition for review of the FID and on September 16, 2025, HydraFacial filed its response.
On December 15, 2025, the Commission determined, in view of the shutdown of the Federal Government, to extend the date for determining whether to review the FID to January 22, 2026.
On January 22, 2026, the Commission determined to review the FID's findings on (1) the construction, and findings on infringement and the technical prong of the domestic industry, for the claim limitations including the term “fluid communication”; (2) invalidity and non-infringement findings based on the finding that the term “block” is indefinite, including review of any underlying related orders (
On January 28, 2026, Cartessa filed a motion to terminate the present investigation and vacate the FID on Violation of Section 337 (“Motion to Terminate”) based on the impending expiration of the '287 patent. On February 9, 2026, HydraFacial filed its opposition to the Motion to Terminate.
On February 5, 2026, HydraFacial and Cartessa submitted their initial submissions on remedy, bonding and the public interest. On February 12, 2026, HydraFacial and Cartessa submitted responses to the other's initial submission. The Commission also received public interest comments from interested third parties Sinclair Pharma Limited, Sinclair Pharma US, Viora, Inc., EMA Aesthetics, Ltd., Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC, and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the FID, and the record in this investigation, the Commission, on review, has determined to supplement and affirm the FID's finding that Cartessa has violated section 337 by importing into the United States and selling in the United States after importation certain hydrodermabrasion systems and components thereof that infringe claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 25 of the '287 patent. Specifically, the Commission (1) affirms and supplement the FID's the construction, and findings on infringement and the technical prong of the domestic industry, for the claim limitations including the term “fluid communication;” (2) vacates the FID's finding that the term “block” is indefinite and finds that Complainant has waived its allegations as to where claim 32 is infringed; (3) and supplements and affirms the FID's finding that the '287 patent is not unenforceable based on prosecution laches. Accordingly, and in conjunction with the Commission's earlier determination not to review the FID's validity and economic domestic industry findings for the '287 patent, the Commission's final determination in this investigation is that Cartessa violated section 337 with respect to '287 patent.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order against Respondent Cartessa prohibiting entry of products that infringe one or more of the asserted claims of the '287 patent, and a cease and desist order. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l)) do not preclude issuance of the above referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined that the appropriate bond in this investigation would be set at zero percent (0%) of entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review. 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The Commission, however, has determined to suspend enforcement of the orders. The '287 patent will expire on March 29, 2026, only six days after the remedial orders issue and before the conclusion of the Presidential review period when such orders would be enforced. Because of the Commission determination that bond for this investigation be set at zero percent (0%) during the period of Presidential review and the impending expiration of the '287 patent during the period of Presidential review, the Commission's orders will not have any future remedial effect.
The Commission has further determined that Cartessa's Motion to Terminate is denied as untimely. 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1). The investigation is terminated.
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 23, 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.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on April 20, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT).
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at (202) 317-3648 or
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will hold a teleconference meeting on April 20, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT). The meeting will be closed to the public.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 31, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Digital Respons-Ability, Lehi, UT; University of Nottingham Online, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM; State University of New York System, New York, NY; California IT in Education (CITE), Sacramento, CA; SCIVR, Inc., Long Beach, CA; Idaho Education Technology Association (IETA), Boise, ID; and StrongMind, Chandler, AZ, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 14, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 13, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, STROKMATIC AUTOMAÇÃO INDUSTRIAL LTDA, Joinville, FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; JVL A/S, Birkerød, KINGDOM OF DENMARK; BBH Products GmbH, Weiden, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; and Tool-Temp AG, Sulgen, SWISS CONFEDERATION, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 8, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 8, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the BIOMAP-CONSORTIUM intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 5, 2024, the BIOMAP-CONSORTIUM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 24, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 29, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Maxwell Labs Inc., New Hope, MN; and Fuzzy Sequence Pte Ltd., Ayer Rajah Crescent, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and MLCommons intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 30, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 23, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Lynx Software Technologies, Campbell, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Rust Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 14, 2022, Rust Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 10, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 27, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, indie Semiconductor, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and OpenGMSL intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 30, 2025, OpenGMSL filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department of Justice on December 11, 2025. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 18, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Norlys Digital A/S, Tranbjerg J, KINGDOM OF DENMARK; David Villegas (Affiliate), Roodt-sur-Syre, GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG; PANGEACO S.A.C, Lima, REPUBLIC OF PERU; Numo Data, Richardson, TX; Data Service Technology Co., Ltd., Chengdu, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; CleverMobi, Eindhoven, KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS; Innovation Incubator Holding LLC, Jacksonville, FL; Zhilabs S.L.U., Madrid, KINGDOM OF SPAIN; DTS, Madrid, KINGDOM OF SPAIN; Redsapient Inc., Brampton, CANADA; Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Alex Bruce (individual member), Ottawa, CANADA; GoalPost Brij Non-Profit Org., Johannesburg, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA; LabLabee, New York, NY; Infinite Computer Solutions, Rockville, MD; Virtusa Corporation, Southborough, MA; Sonalake Limited, Dublin, IRELAND; 4iG Nyrt, Budapest, REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY; iQmetrix, Vancouver, CANADA; Nuwave Communications, Las Vegas, NV; Nagarro Software Pvt Ltd, San Jose, CA; MTN Uganda, Kampala, REPUBLIC OF UGANDA have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Canopus Network Pty Ltd, Haymarket, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; Clear Blockchain Technologies Pte. Ltd., Singapore, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE; Cloudsense Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND; Cross Network Intelligence s.r.o, Prague 1, CZECH REPUBLIC; Forty Two Data Services Ltd., Yokne'am Illit, STATE OF ISRAEL; GCP Advisors, Philadelphia, PA; Inetum, Madrid, KINGDOM OF SPAIN; Innovaflo, Toronto, CANADA; Institute of Telecommunications, Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology-Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, REPUBLIC OF POLAND; NETCOMPANY-INTRASOFT S.A., Luxembourg, GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG; Nuiva s.a.r,l, Grand-Duché, GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG; Platinion GmbH, Köln, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; PlektonLabs, Austin, TX; Resolve Systems, Campbell, CA; The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND; TnBS, Paris, FRENCH REPUBLIC; Torry Harris Integration Solutions, Bangalore, REPUBLIC OF INDIA; and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, IRELAND have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, the following members have changed their names: POST Luxembourg to POST Technologies, Luxembourg, GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG; and PT XL Axiata Tbk to PT XLSmart Telecom Sejahtera Tbk, Kota Jakarta Selatan, REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.
No other changes have been made to either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 29, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 27, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Easee AS, Stavanger, KINGDOM OF NORWAY; Hypervolt, London, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND; Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY; Emulate Energy, Brookline, MA; FranklinWH Energy Storage Inc., San Jose, CA; Codibly SA, Malopolskie, REPUBLIC OF POLAND; Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID; Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, London, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and Mercury Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 29, 2025, Mercury Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 28, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 5, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OpenJS Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 17, 2015, OpenJS Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 2, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 20, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Acutronic USA, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA; American Systems Corporation, Chantilly, VA; Apptronik, Inc, Austin, TX; Arnold Magnetic Technologies, Rochester, NY; BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc., Merrimack, NH; Banks Technologies, Azusa, CA; Belding Tool and Machine, Belding, MI; BH Technology LLC, Pomona, NY; Broadband Antenna Tracking Systems, Inc, Indianapolis, IN; Canoo Technologies Inc., Torrance, CA; Choctaw Defense Manufacturing LLC, McAlester, OK; Commonwealth Technology Innovation LLC, Alexandria, VA; Cubic Defense Applications Inc., San Diego, CA; Defense Operations & Execution Solutions Inc. (DOES), W Melbourne, FL; Defense Research Associates, Inc., Beavercreek, OH; Defense Unicorns, Colorado Springs, CO; DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC (formerly E.I. du Pont de Nenours), Wilmington, DE; Dynamic Dimension Technologies, LLC, Westminster, MD; esc Aerospace US, Inc., Orlando, FL; EZ-A Consulting, LLC, Bel Air, MD; GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY; Genasys Inc (formerly LRAD Corporation), Salt Lake City, UT; Globe Tech LLC, Plymouth, MI; Hazard Protection Systems, Inc., Anchorage, AK; Highland Engineering, Inc, Howell, MI; Huntsman International LLC, The Woodlands, TX; Hypergiant Galactic Systems, Inc., Austin, TX; krtkl inc., San Francisco, CA; L3 Mustang Technology, Plano, TX; L3Harris Technologies, Greenville, TX; Lithos Energy, Inc., San Rafael, CA; Lynx Software Technologies, San Jose, CA; Mass XV LLC, Yorktown, VA; Massie MFG., Inc., Baraga, MI; National Technical Systems, Inc.—NTS Technical Systems (NTS), Camden, AR; Oakland University, Rochester, MI; On-Point Defense Technologies, Ft Walton Beach, FL; Orbital Traction, Ltd., Houston, TX; Powertrain Rockford Inc, Loves Park, IL; RAVE Computer, Sterling Heights, MI; Scale AI, San Francisco, CA; SecureCo, Inc., New York, NY; SeeByte Inc., San Diego, CA; Signal Systems Corporation, Millersville, MD; Skydex Technologies Inc, Centennial, CO; Spark Thermionics, Inc., Berkley, CA; Special Operations Solutions dba Aevex Engineering and Technology, Harrisonburg, VA; Sphere Brake Defense, LLC, Erie, PA; Strata-G Solutions, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Tangram Flex, Dayton, OH; Test & Evaluation Solutions, LLC, Warrenton, VA; The Boeing Company, Berkeley, MO; Tomahawk Robotics, LLC, Melbourne, FL; Transformational Security, LLC, Columbia, MD; TurbineOne, San Francisco, CA; Vega Technology Group LLC, North Canton, OH; and VSE Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAMC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 15, 2009, NAMC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 10, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 4, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ADC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 11, 2021, ADC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 17, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 1, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 20, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Xponential, Hellertown, PA; and Galapagos, Mechelen, KINGDOM OF BELGIUM has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 31, 2025. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 20, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 2, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 7, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 31, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 20, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Inergy Systems LLC, Tempe, AZ; Shenzhen Neo Electronics Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; HavenLock Inc., Franklin, TN; JLabs Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; DECH-X Aps, Roennede, KINGDOM OF DENMARK; GN Audio A/S, Ballerup, KINGDOM OF DENMARK; Samjin Co., Ltd, Gyeonggi-do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Stelpro, Quebec City, CANADA; Hank Smart Tech Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Flex Automation (Z-Wave Tecnologia), Sao Paulo, FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; Sengled, Shanghai City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Taiwan Fu Hsing Industrial Co., Ltd., Kaohsiung City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA (Taiwan); EUROtronic Technology GmbH, Steinau, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; Arcadyan Technology Corporation, Hsinchu City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA (Taiwan); Brivo, Bethesda, MD; Enerwave, Irvine, CA; and D-3 Technology Co. Limited, New Territories, Hong Kong, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION have withdrawn as parties to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 28, 2025. A notice was published in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
SpecGx LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 4, 2026, SpecGx, LLC, 3600 North Second Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63147-3457, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for sale to its customers and for internal use to produce non-controlled substances. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture this drug code as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On March 19, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against Ford Motor Company and the Borough of Ringwood, NJ for the performance of a remedial action and reimbursement of response costs under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site (“Site”), which is contaminated with paint sludge, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), and other hazardous substances. The State of New Jersey, including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, are co-plaintiffs.
Under the proposed consent decree, Ford Motor Company and the Borough of Ringwood agree to perform the remedial action for Operable Unit 3, identified in the EPA Record of Decision relating to the Site, dated September 2020. The proposed consent decree also requires the Defendants to partially reimburse the State of New Jersey for its past response costs and to reimburse the United States and the State of New Jersey for their future Site-related response costs. In exchange, Defendants will receive contribution protection and covenants not to sue under Sections 106, 107(a) and 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a) and 9613 and the Spill Compensation and Control Act (the “Spill Act”), N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 through -23.24, for the Site.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
NJDEP, in accordance with N.J.S.A 58:10-23.11e2 of the Spill Act will also publish notice of the proposed Consent Decree in the New Jersey Register and on NJDEP's website for a period of 60 days. Comments that are submitted to the Department will be shared with the State for consideration and will not need to be resubmitted.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Chief Evaluation Office (CEO)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before April 27, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The National Worker Survey aims to estimate the prevalence of non-compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) among nonexempt workers across various industries, with an emphasis on low-wage sectors. The survey employs both Address-Based Sampling to reach a representative sample of nonexempt U.S. workers and Respondent-Driven Sampling to gather data from workers in industries with higher incidences of wage and hour violations. The data collected will inform DOL in its efforts to improve compliance with the FLSA, optimize enforcement strategies, and enhance protections for vulnerable workers. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of inquiry.
The U.S. Copyright Office is initiating this inquiry to collect information regarding alternative fee structures that could be adopted once its updated electronic registration system is fully operational. The information will be used to study the feasibility of alternative fee structures, their impact on participation in the registration system, and the potential economic effects. This inquiry is separate from the Office's pending rulemaking proceeding instituted on March 20, 2026 to update fees within the current fee structure.
Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 24, 2026.
Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at
The Copyright Office is in the midst of a comprehensive project to update its technological infrastructure. This project, the Enterprise Copyright System (“ECS”), is expanding access to the Office's services in furtherance of its strategic objective of “Copyright for All.”
Currently, most copyright owners use the Standard Application, which allows registration of a single work for a set fee. The Office has also introduced an increasing number of group registration options that allow multiple works to be registered with one application and one filing fee, effectively reducing the per-work fee for certain types of works.
Over the past few years, the Office has acknowledged these proposals and expressed the intent to consider them once the necessary technological capabilities are in place.
The Copyright Act requires the Office to collect fees to cover the costs of certain services, including registration of copyright claims. The Register may “adjust fees” by regulation “to not more than that necessary to cover the
Section 708 of the Act requires that registration fees “be fair and equitable and give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.”
In sum, the Act requires that any proposed fee changes balance reasonable cost recovery against the effect on the use of the registration system. Economic analysis is therefore critical in setting fee schedules, including any potential changes to accommodate alternative fee structures.
While the Office has not previously conducted a comprehensive analysis of alternative fee structures, we have received comments on such structures in prior proceedings. In 2018, the Office published a notice of inquiry seeking input on registration topics, including whether we should implement a “dynamic pricing model” or offer a subscription service.
The Office previously expressed the intent to study these proposals further.
As the Office explores alternative fee structures, our statutory lodestars are that fees be “fair and equitable” and “give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.”
The vast majority of applicants submit their claims using the Standard Application. The Office currently charges a uniform fee of $65 for processing these claims, regardless of
One possibility to address the differences in cost recovery would be to charge different fees for different types of works, based on the resources required to process claims. Under a differentiated fee model, applicants would pay fees more closely tied to the actual cost of examining their claims. This fee structure would reduce the existing cross-subsidies from applicants who submit inexpensive-to-process works to those submitting works that require the Office to expend more resources.
Because the Office already organizes examination operations into divisions corresponding to the major categories of works, and currently differentiates application forms and deposit requirements along similar lines, a differentiated fee system could align with the existing institutional structure.
There are also circumstances where differential pricing based on the type of work could be inefficient and counterproductive. Because the Office's administrative classifications do not have legal significance,
A second approach to fee differentiation would be to vary fees depending on whether the author, claimant, and/or applicant is an individual or an organization.
Two conditions for this sort of pricing structure to be effective are: (1) a substantial difference in demand elasticity between groups, and (2) an ability to efficiently distinguish between the groups.
Another approach could be for the Office to offer lower or discounted fees for smaller entities—small businesses and non-profit organizations that fall below a certain employee headcount or revenue level. This approach would provide benefits similar to our cost-effective group registration options, which we implemented to make registration more accessible to individual creators and small businesses.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), following congressional legislation, has offered small entity fee discounts for patent applicants for several years. Under the America Invents Act, the USPTO is statutorily required to discount various patent application fees for small and micro entities, by 60 to 80 percent, respectively.
Discounting copyright registration fees for smaller entities would operate on similar economic logic as differentiating between individuals and organizations. The presumption is that smaller entities have less ability to pay fees and higher price sensitivity than larger organizations, making them more responsive to fee changes. Differential pricing could therefore improve access to registration for smaller enterprises while shifting a larger share of cost recovery onto larger, less price-sensitive entities.
Because the Office does not collect data on entity size, it cannot confirm these presumed differences in demand elasticity. Moreover, the findings in one recent empirical study cast doubt on whether discounted fees for smaller entities meaningfully increase patent filings.
But distinctions between the copyright and patent systems may lead to a different outcome if the Office were to discount fees for small entities. Most fundamentally, an application is necessary to secure patent rights; no protection exists until the patent is granted by the USPTO.
A related distinction is the cost of services: copyright registration fees are considerably lower than patent filing and maintenance fees.
In addition to potentially affecting application volume, offering discounts for smaller entities may require the Office to incur additional operating costs. Like the proposal to differentiate fees based on the type of work, a system that conditions eligibility for lower fees based on income, size, or filing history could invite strategic behavior, entailing greater burdens in identifying and correcting miscategorized applications. Nevertheless, if reduced fees for small entities leads to increased use of the copyright registration system, that may justify some additional administrative costs.
Subscription pricing is a model in which users pay a fixed periodic fee—usually monthly or annually—in exchange for access to a service during that period.
A subscription model is common in certain commercial markets where the cost of providing one additional unit of the service is close to zero, for example, markets for software, digital media, or cloud services.
Such inefficiencies would be particularly acute for a public-sector agency like the Office. The marginal cost of examining a registration application is not close to zero; rather, the per-unit cost of examining standard applications ranges from $83.46 to $194.46.
Further, a subscription system may introduce inequity among claimants by severing the link between usage and cost, encouraging high-volume applicants, including large organizations and third-party registration services, to file even more frequently while paying far less per claim. Meanwhile, low-volume users, including individual creators and small entities, would pay relatively more per claim. This would constitute a cross-subsidy from small or infrequent users to large or high-volume users.
Finally, allowing applicants to file additional claims for no additional fee might lead to speculative, low-quality, or borderline claims, which would strain examination resources. An influx of low-quality claims could overwhelm Office capacity, lengthen processing times, and degrade the quality of the public record. To mitigate such harms, the subscription fee would likely need to be set high and the number of applications would need to be limited.
This notice builds on previous public comments proposing various alternative registration fee structures by providing an opportunity to expand on those proposals and explain in greater detail how they could be structured and implemented. We also seek to elicit information—in particular, quantitative data about stakeholder registration practices and price sensitivity—that can be used for a robust economic analysis.
Accordingly, the Office is requesting public comment on the subjects of inquiry below. A party choosing to respond to this notice of inquiry need not address every subject, but we request that responding parties clearly identify and separately address each subject for which a response is submitted. The Office also requests that commenters explain their interest in the topic and, with respect to each answer, the basis for their knowledge.
1. Please describe, in detail, mechanisms for how the Office could implement the four proposed alternative fee structures and explain how they would support the objectives of promoting equity among authors of different work types, sustaining Office operations, and encouraging registration to create a reliable public record of copyright ownership. In doing so, consider the following:
(a) Where an alternative fee structure would be limited to certain types of claims or applicants, how should those categories be defined and why? Describe any proposed fee tiers based on the type of claim or applicant, including how fees should be set for each tier relative to other tiers, and explain why these tiers would be consistent with the statutory requirement that fees charged by the Office be “fair and equitable.”
(b) If the Office were to charge different fees for individuals and for organizations, should the fee be based on the person who created the work (the author), the person who owns the copyright in the work (the claimant), and/or the person who is submitting the claim (the applicant)?
(i) Should fees vary depending on whether the work was created by an individual author (
(ii) Should fees vary depending on whether the copyright in the work is owned by an individual claimant or a corporate claimant (which may have
(iii) Should fees vary depending on whether the claim is being submitted by an individual (
(c) If the Office were to discount fees for smaller entities, how should entity size be determined—based on annual revenue, employee headcount, non-profit status, and/or another metric?
(d) Under a subscription model, what would be reasonable limits on the number of works that an applicant could register and/or the number of applications they could file within a particular time period? Should there be different limits for different work types and, if so, how should the Office set these limits? How should fees be set given that the Office incurs similar costs when examining each individual work?
(e) What should be the consequence(s) for applicant filing errors (
(f) Please identify any current legal or regulatory constraints on adopting alternative fee structures and explain what changes to statutory or regulatory language would remove these impediments.
2. Other than the four alternative fee structures identified in this notice, are there any others that the Office should consider (
3. Please describe your or your organization's current practices with respect to registration, providing information about filing volume and costs incurred (
4. Please describe the extent to which any alternative fee structure, if implemented by the Office, is likely to affect your practices with respect to registration, including any quantitative projections about the effect on filing volume and registration-related expenses.
5. Are you aware of any potential applicants that are not fully participating in the current registration system and would be incentivized to register works if the Office implemented one or more alternative fee structures? If so, describe the potential applicant(s), identify the fee structure(s), and explain the projected change(s) in registration activity, providing quantitative data where available.
6. Would implementing any of the alternative fee structures deter any potential applicants from seeking registration or otherwise lead them to modify their registration practices? If so, describe the potential applicant(s), identify the fee structure(s), and explain the projected change(s) in registration activity, providing quantitative data and analysis where available.
7. The Office has traditionally recovered approximately 50 to 60% of our costs through fees; and the remainder is provided through appropriations from Congress. If alternative fee structures were to increase costs for providing registration services—for example, by increasing registration volume and requiring more examiners—how should the Office recover these additional costs? If the Office were to increase fees to make up for any budgetary shortfall, please identify which service fees should be increased and explain why those increases would be “fair and equitable.”
8. The adoption of any alternative fee structure is subject to technical feasibility within ECS Registration, currently in development, and would require developing additional system capabilities. To assess usage and costs before expanding access to more applicants, should the Office adopt any alternative fee structures on a limited or temporary basis? Should these fee structures be limited to certain types of works or applications? Please identify any appropriate limitations and explain why certain applications should be given higher priority.
9. Are there other process changes that could be implemented through development of ECS Registration—
10. The Office periodically evaluates, including in our fee studies, how often various registration options are used by applicants and the costs associated with providing each of them. If we were to adopt any alternative fee structures, would that obviate the need for any existing application options, such as current group registration applications? Conversely, would more or expanded group registration options obviate the need for any of the alternative fee structures? Should the Office “sunset” or discontinue any group registration options or alternative fee structures if they are infrequently used or duplicative of other options?
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
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
On September 30, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Form N-3 (17 CFR 239.17a and 274.11b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77) and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a), Registration Statement of Separate Accounts Organized as Management Investment Companies.” Form N-3 is the form used by separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts which are organized as management investment companies to register under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) and/or to register their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). Form N-3 is also the form used to file a registration statement under the Securities Act (and any amendments thereto) for variable annuity contracts funded by separate accounts which would be required to be registered under the Investment Company Act as management investment companies except for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(11)). Section 5 of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77e) requires the filing of a registration statement prior to the offer of securities to the public and that the statement be effective before any securities are sold, and Section 8 of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8) requires a separate account to register as an investment company.
Form N-3 also permits separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts which are organized as investment companies to provide investors with a prospectus and a statement of additional information covering essential information about the separate account when it makes an initial or additional offering of its securities. Section 5(b) of the Securities Act requires that investors be provided with a prospectus containing the information required in a registration statement prior to the sale or at the time of confirmation or delivery of the securities. The form also may be used by the Commission in its regulatory review, inspection, and policy-making roles.
We estimate that the hour burden for the initial registration statement on Form N-3 is 926.4 hours per initial registration statement filings. We estimate that 1 initial registration statement will be filed on Form N-3 in the next 3 years, resulting in a 309 annual hour burden for initial registration statement filings (926.4 hours ÷ 3 years = 309 annual hour burden). In addition, we estimate that there are currently 3 insurer separate accounts that file post-effective amendments on Form N-3 per year, with an average of 3 investment options per post-effective amendment). We estimate that the current hour burden per post-effective amendment is 157.55 hours, resulting in an hour burden of 1,418 for post effective-amendments on Form N-3 (that is, 157.55 × 4 investment options per post-effective amendment × 3 post-effective amendments = 1,418 hours). In total, we estimate an aggregate hour burden of 1,727 hours (309 hours for the initial registration statement + 1,418 hours for the post-effective amendments = 1,727 hours). Respondents may rely on outside counsel or auditors in connection with the preparation and filing of Form N-3. Commission staff estimates that the annual cost burden associated with preparing and filing Form N-3 is $125,376.
The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-3 are mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its CDS Clearing Rule Book (“Rule Book”) to: (i) modify the conditions under which a Clearing Member may outsource its clearing operations pursuant to regulations of the French Financial Markets Authority, the
The text of the Proposed Rule Change has been annexed as Exhibit 5.
The implementation of the Proposed Rule Change will be contingent on LCH SA's receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Risk Policies and discussed any comments it received on the Risk Policies. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
LCH SA is proposing to amend Articles 2.2.5.2 and 2.2.5.3 of the Rule Book and incorporate new Articles 2.2.5.4 and 2.2.5.5 to modify the requirements and conditions under which a Clearing Member may outsource its clearing operations in order to comply with new requirements to which LCH SA is subject pursuant to Article 541-21 of the general regulations of the AMF,
Further, LCH SA is proposing to amend the Rule Book's definition of LCH SA Contribution, which is an amount contributed by a Clearing Member that LCH SA may use to offset Damage incurred by LCH SA as a result of a declaration of an Event of Default by a Clearing Member, in order to remove the cap on this amount and also make an express reference to the amount calculated in accordance with EMIR.
LCH SA is also proposing to amend the Rule Book to comply with certain requirements of the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation. For this purpose, LCH SA is proposing to create a new Chapter 4 (
LCH SA proposes to amend Article 2.2.5.2 of the Rule Book to provide a definition of “outsourcing of clearing operations” and specify that outsourcing providers can be other Clearing Members, a legal entity controlled by or controlling the Clearing Member, or any other third-party legal entity, in view of applying certain outsourcing conditions to a provider that is not a Clearing Member.
LCH SA proposes to amend Article 2.2.5.3 of the Rule Book to provide that: (i) the outsourcing of clearing operations is subject to the prior authorization of LCH SA; (ii) such authorization may be denied or withdrawn if the conditions of or a failure in such arrangement could be such as to threaten or no longer ensure the proper compliance by the Clearing Member with its obligations pursuant to the Clearing Rules; (iii) the authorization request must provide details as to the clearing activities to be outsourced and the means of control and supervision available to the Clearing Member; and (iv) if the outsourcing provider is not a Clearing Member, the Clearing Member must ensure that the relevant risks have been assessed, a written agreement has been entered into with respect to the outsourcing, and a formalized policy for control over the third-party outsourcing provider and an outsourcing register have been put in place.
LCH SA proposes a new Article 2.2.5.4 which will provide that a Clearing Member outsourcing all or part of its clearing operations shall not be relieved of its liabilities or responsibilities as a Clearing Member with respect to the outsourced activities or modify its relationship with, or obligations to, Clients.
LCH SA proposes a new Article 2.2.5.5, which will provide that, in connection with applying for a prior authorization for the outsourcing arrangement, the Clearing Member and its outsourcing provider must sign a letter of undertakings pursuant to the terms of a template provided by LCH SA and that Clearing Member must ensure that the outsourcing provider has formally agreed that the AMF, the
LCH SA proposes to amend the definition of the term “LCH SA Contribution” from a fixed amount of Euro 20 million to an amount determined by LCH SA from time to time in accordance with the requirements relating to the calculation
First, LCH SA is proposing to add new definitions used in the new Articles of the Rule Book described below. The new defined term ‘Non-Default Event', which is proposed to be used in the new Article 1.4.2.1, will be defined in accordance with article 2(9) of the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation as a scenario in which losses are incurred by LCH SA for any reason other than an Event of Default, including but not limited to, business, custody, investment, legal or operational failures or fraud, including failures resulting from cyber-attacks. LCH SA proposes to specify that the ‘Resolution Authority' is the
With respect to the new Chapter 4 (
LCH SA proposes to create a new Article 1.4.2.1 of the Rule Book which describes the conditions under which the Resolution Authority may require Non-Defaulting Clearing Members to make a contribution in cash to LCH SA of an amount determined by the Resolution Authority in proportion to its Contribution and up to twice the amount equivalent to their Contribution. This contribution in cash may be applied to address: (i) an Event of Default, in which case the amount of the contribution shall refer to the Contribution of the Clearing Member; or (ii) a Non-Default Event, in which case the amount of the contribution shall refer to the sum of the Contribution of the Clearing Member and any contribution to the default funds of LCH SA relating to clearing services other than the CDS Clearing Service. Non-Defaulting Clearing Members can be requested by the Resolution Authority to make a contribution in cash even though all contractual obligations requiring cash contributions from them have not been exhausted. Under Article 26 of the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation, this contribution in cash can be applied on the basis of a provisional valuation (the “Provisional Valuation”). In this case, the Resolution Authority shall ensure that a definitive valuation is carried out as soon as possible (the “Definitive Valuation”). The new Article 1.4.2.1 of the Rule Book will provide that the Resolution Authority may require LCH SA to reimburse to Clearing Members the possible excess amount of the contribution in cash arising after the calculation of the Definitive Valuation. Finally, where a Non-Defaulting Clearing Member would not pay the required contribution in cash, LCH SA could be required by the Resolution Authority to notify the occurrence of an Event of Default to that Non-Defaulting Clearing Member and use its Initial Margin and Contribution up to the required amount of the contribution in cash.
LCH SA proposes to create a new Article 1.4.2.2 of the Rule Book to provide the conditions under which the Resolution Authority can reduce LCH SA's payment obligations to Non-Defaulting Clearing Members where such obligations arise from gains due in accordance with LCH SA's processes for paying Variation Margin, NPV Amount or a payment that has the same economic effect (the “VM Haircut Tool”). The Resolution Authority shall calculate any such reduction using an equitable allocation mechanism in accordance with the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation which shall be communicated to Clearing Members and the total net gains to be reduced shall be proportional to the amounts due from LCH SA. Clearing Members shall themselves inform their Clients of the application of the VM Haircut Tool and its consequences. LCH SA proposes to expressly provide in this new Article 1.4.2.2 of the Rule Book that the application of the VM Haircut Tool shall take effect and be immediately binding on LCH SA and affected Clearing Members from the moment at which the Resolution Authority takes such resolution action. Non-Defaulting Clearing Members would not have any claim against LCH SA or its successor entity arising from the reduction in payment obligations, save in the event the Resolution Authority requires LCH SA to reimburse Clearing Members partly when such Resolution Authority finds that the level of reduction based on the Provisional Valuation exceeds the level of reduction required based on the Definitive Valuation. Finally, LCH SA proposes explicitly to specify in the same new Article 1.4.2.2 of the Rule Book that any residual outstanding payable amount that would not be subject to the VM Haircut Tool will remain owed to the Non-Defaulting Clearing Member.
LCH SA proposes to create a new Article 1.4.2.3 of the Rule Book to indicate that the Resolution Authority may suspend any payment or delivery obligations of LCH SA if it is placed under resolution from the publication of the notice provided for in Article 72 of the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation (the “Notice”) until the end of the working day following that publication. Any payment or delivery that would have been due during this suspension period will be due immediately upon expiry of the same suspension period.
LCH SA is proposing to create a new Article 1.4.2.4 of the Rule Book which would provide that the Resolution Authority may suspend the termination rights of any party to a contract with LCH SA if LCH SA is placed under resolution from the publication of the Notice until the end of the working day which follows that publication, provided that the payment and delivery obligations and the provision of Collateral continue to be performed.
LCH SA proposes to create a new Article 1.4.2.5 of the Rule Book to
LCH SA is proposing to create a new Article 1.4.2.6 of the Rule Book to list the following other tools that the Resolution Authority may implement under the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation, individually or in any combination: (i) the position and loss allocation tools; (ii) the write-down and conversion tools; (iii) the sale of business tool; and (iv) the bridge tool. LCH SA proposes that the same new Article 1.4.2.6 of the Rule Book specifies that, prior to the application of these tools, the Resolution Authority shall enforce any existing and outstanding rights of LCH SA or parties other than Clearing Members that would result in the provision of financial support to LCH SA.
LCH SA proposes to create a new Article 1.4.2.7 of the Rule Book under which each Clearing Member agrees to be bound by the application of any resolution tool by the Resolution Authority as set out in articles 27(1), 29, 30, 31, 33, 40 and 41 of CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation or the exercise by the Resolution Authority of a resolution power pursuant to articles 48 to 58 of CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation (a “Resolution Measure”) in respect of its assets, rights, obligations and liabilities. Further, each Clearing Member would acknowledge that, pursuant to article 54 of CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation, any Resolution Measure taken by the Resolution Authority with respect to LCH SA does not constitute an LCH Default, provided that the substantive obligations under the contract, including payment and delivery obligations, and the provision of collateral, continue to be performed.
The amendments to the Rule Book also contain the following technical clean-up changes:
(i) in Article 2.3.3.3 a technical change would be made conforming to the proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.5.2 and 2.2.5.3 regarding outsourcing by Clearing Members; and (ii) in Articles 4.3.3.1 and 4.4.3.6 technical changes would be made conforming to the proposed amendment to the definition of the term “LCH SA Contribution.”
LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) 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. Through the proposed implementation of a number of provisions required by the AMF or EU regulations (EMIR, CCP and Recovery Resolution . . .), LCH SA is definitely trying to maintain a sound risk management framework for the CCP and its market participants that is contributing to manage regulatory, legal and operational risks which is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).
Further, Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(4)(B) provides that a registered clearing agency may deny participation to, or condition the participation of, any person if such person does not meet such standards of financial responsibility, operational capability, experience, and competence as are prescribed by the rules of the clearing agency.
Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i)
The Proposed Rule Change also includes enhancements to the Rule Book's definition of LCH SA Contribution and to the Rule Book's requirements regarding outsourcing of clearing functions by Clearing Members which are consistent with provisions of Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22 referenced above with respect to limiting the clearing agency's exposure to potential losses from defaults by its participants as well as with respect to operational risk management.
LCH SA also believes the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(1),
In addition to being registered as a Clearing Agency with the SEC, LCH SA is authorized to offer clearing services in the European Union pursuant to rules established under EMIR for CCPs. As a result of the new AMF or EU regulations LCH SA, as a CCP authorized under EMIR, is required to amend and update its rules to remain in full compliance with the adoption of these new Regulations. The Proposed Rule Change will ensure LCH SA's rules are consistent with the relevant laws and regulations applicable to CCPs authorized under EMIR, including the CCP Recovery and Resolution Regulation. LCH SA also believes that the legal basis for the Proposed Rule Change is clear and understandable to the relevant authorities, participants, and participants' customers as proposed, and the public disclosure of the amendments to the Rule Book are transparent.
For all the reasons stated above, LCH SA considers that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3)(I) requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the Proposed Rule Change and none have been received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-LCH SA-2026-002 and should be submitted on or before April 16, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
“(A) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 per centum or more of the outstanding voting securities of such other person; (B) any person 5 per centum or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, by such other person; (C) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person; (D) any officer, director, partner, copartner, or employee of such other person; (E) if such other person is an investment company, any investment adviser thereof or any member of an advisory board thereof; and (F) if such other person is an unincorporated investment company not having a board of directors, the depositor thereof.”
Rule 17a-7(e) requires the board of directors of a fund to make, adopt, and approve changes to procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the conditions of the rule have been satisfied for purchases and sales effected in reliance on the rule. In addition, the rule requires that the fund maintain and preserve permanently a written copy of the procedures adopted by the board. Under the rule, the board is required to determine, at least on a quarterly basis, that all affiliated transactions effected during the preceding quarter in reliance on the rule were made in compliance with these established procedures. The rule requires the fund to maintain written records of this board determination and each rule 17a-7 transaction for a period of not less than six years.
We estimate that approximately 446 funds use rule 17a-7 to make cross trades annually.
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend certain of its rules regarding complex orders and complex order auctions to accommodate stop-limit complex orders and establish Stop Complex Order Auctions (“SCOA”) as a new type of auction mechanism. 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 certain Exchange rules regarding complex orders and complex order auctions to establish stop-limit complex orders as a type of complex order and SCOA as a type of auction mechanism that will facilitate auctions for stop-limit complex orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.33 to (1) define stop-limit complex orders and SCOA, as well as additional terms needed to support stop-limit complex orders and SCOA, (2) describe SCOA processing as a new type of auction for complex orders, and (3) broaden the existing naming convention for auction communications to include SCOA while also updating certain auction references throughout to include SCOA. Additionally, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule 5.21(b), Rule 5.25(c), and Rule 5.34(c) to include SCOA in certain references with other types of auctions, thereby applying certain existing safeguards to SCOA. The Exchange also proposes an administrative change to Rule 5.33(b) to make a grammatical correction.
A “complex order” is an order or quote involving the concurrent execution of two or more different series in the same underlying equity security or index (the “legs” or “components” of the complex order), for the same account, occurring at or near the same time and for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy with no more than the applicable number of legs.
Taking into consideration the growth of daily expiring options, the Exchange believes that market participants will use stop-limit complex orders to more efficiently manage the short side of a complex order. The Exchange understands market participants currently may enter a stop-limit order on the short leg of a complex order while managing the long leg separately. A stop-limit complex order will provide market participants with the ability to manage both the long and short legs simultaneously.
To establish stop-limit complex orders, the Exchange proposes to add “stop-limit complex order” in Rule 5.33(b) as a new instruction type that the System
A stop-limit complex order will become a limit order when either (i) the Market-Maker SBBO or a trade price for a trade that occurs in the same complex strategy is equal to or higher (lower) than the stop-limit price, or (ii) the same side bid (ask) of the underlying equity security or the underlying index level, as the case may be, is equal to or higher (lower) than the designated stop-limit price or if a complex trade price is equal to or higher (lower) than the stop-limit price. In other words, a complex-stop limit order is a conditional order that becomes a limit order when triggered by one of two conditions. Only one of the two possible trigger conditions can be designated for a stop-limit complex order. Stop-limit complex orders may
To facilitate order processing for stop-limit complex orders, the Exchange proposes to establish SCOA as a new type of auction mechanism. The Exchange currently offers a variety of auction mechanisms which provide price improvement opportunities for eligible orders but only one type of auction mechanism for complex orders, Complex Order Auction (“COA”).
To add SCOA to Rule 5.33 as a new type of auction mechanism for stop-limit complex orders, the Exchange proposes to add the term “Stop Complex Order Auction” or “SCOA” as a new definition in Rule 5.33(a) and detail SCOA and SCOA processing in Rule 5.33(d). Rule 5.33(d) currently details COA and COA processing. Since both COA and SCOA are auction mechanisms for complex orders, the Exchange proposes to rename Rule 5.33(d) from “Complex Order Auctions (COAs)” to “Auction Types for Complex Orders” and relocate all existing COA provisions currently in Rule 5.33(d) to Rule 5.33(d)(1). Additionally, SCOA will utilize the same system functionality for order entry and messaging as COA. Consequently, the existing naming convention found in Rule 5.33 for order entry, including transaction ID, and auction messaging that currently reference COA (
The Exchange proposes to further amend Rule 5.33(d) by adding “
For a stop-limit complex order with the SBBO/trade price trigger condition, the trigger condition is met when either (i) the same side Market-Maker SBBO is equal to or higher (lower) than the stop-limit price or (ii) a trade occurs in the same complex instrument at a price equal to or higher (lower) than the stop-limit price. The SBBO/trade price trigger condition will be the trigger condition for a SCOA if the SBBO/trade price trigger condition is designated as such when an order is submitted or if no trigger condition is designated at the time of order submission since the SBBO/trade price trigger condition functions as the default trigger condition. Stop-limit complex orders comprised of legs in different groups of series in a class that designate the SBBO/Trade Price trigger condition will only trigger a SCOA if a trade occurs at or better than the stop price. As an example, for stop-limit complex orders with both SPX and SPXW leg components that have the SBBO/Trade Price trigger condition, the SCOA will only trigger if a trade occurs at or better than the stop price.
For a stop-limit complex order with an underlying price designated as the trigger condition, the order must be submitted with instructions that designate the price threshold of the underlying security or index as either (i) at or above the underlying price or index level or (ii) at or below the underlying price or index level. If the underlying security is an equity, the SCOA is triggered when the same side bid (ask) of the underlying security is equal to or higher (lower) than the designated stop-limit price or if a last-sale eligible trade price is equal to or higher (lower) than the stop-limit price. If the underlying security is an index, the SCOA is triggered when the underlying index level is equal to or higher (lower) than the designated threshold price. The price threshold must be designated at a price that is higher (lower) than the current value of the underlying security.
Once the trigger condition designated for a stop-limit complex order is met, a SCOA will be initiated, and the System will send an auction message to all subscribers that receive auction messages. An auction message will identify the auction ID, instrument ID, quantity, and side of the market of the stop-limit complex order. If a single stop-limit complex order is triggered, the SCOA starting auction price will be the less aggressive of the order's limit price or the opposite side SBBO. In addition to addressing a single stop-limit complex order, SCOA is an auction mechanism designed to effectively manage order handling in the event that multiple stop-limit complex orders with the same trigger event are elected simultaneously, which has been observed for simple complex [sic] orders. If multiple stop-limit complex orders in the same complex instrument are triggered by the same trigger event, such orders are bundled into the same SCOA, as stated in new Rule 5.33(d)(2)(B). For multiple stop-limit complex orders in the same SCOA with the same trigger event, the SCOA starting auction price will be the less aggressive of either the most aggressive limit price of the orders in the SCOA or the opposite side SBBO.
If multiple stop-limit complex orders are received for the same complex strategy but with different trigger conditions, such orders will not be bundled into the same SCOA. Instead, multiple stop-limit complex orders in the same complex strategy but with different trigger events will be processed as separate SCOAs. SCOAs may process concurrently, and the System may initiate a SCOA in a complex strategy
Proposed Rule 5.33(b)(2)(D) defines “Response Time Interval” for SCOA as the period of time during which Users may submit responses to the auction message. The Exchange will establish the Response Time Intervals for SCOA on a class-by-class basis, and as provided in new Rule, the duration of the response time interval may not exceed 1000 milliseconds. Auction Responses to SCOA will be substantially similar to Auction Responses to COA, and consequently, the process of submitting Auction Responses for SCOA in Rule 5.33(b)(2)(E) is substantially similar to the process of submitting Auction Responses for COA in Rule 5.33(b)(1)(D). As is the case for COA, the Exchange will determine on a class-by-class basis if all Users are eligible to submit Auction Response(s) or if only Marker-Makers with an appointment in the class and TPHs acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the COB
Similar to COA,
Since other orders received in a leg of the complex order may result in early termination of a SCOA as described above, the Exchange recognizes it is possible that market activity may be used to interfere with SCOA processing in a way that is contrary to just and equitable principles of trade in the markets. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .03 to Rule 5.33 to include SCOA so that if the Exchange identifies a pattern or practice of order submissions by a TPH that results in early termination of a SCOA(s) because such orders cause one of the conditions for early SCOA termination to be met, the actions of the TPH will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 8.1, as is currently the case for COA.
New Rule 5.33(d)(2)(F) establishes the processing of SCOA orders. Once the Response Time Interval has ended, the System will execute a SCOA order, in whole or in part, against complex contra-side interest by using an allocation algorithm that will allocate Auction Responses and unrelated orders resting in the COB to maximize executed volume. The SCOA allocation algorithm maximizes execution quantity while optimizing price-improvement opportunity for stop-limit complex order customers. The Exchange notes that SCOA does not allow legging because the SCOA allocation algorithm considers all available liquidity and has multiple rounds. The complexity is compounded if legging is included and is further compounded if any of the legging events trip risk control limits for the single-leg book participants (particularly for Market-Makers who rely heavily on risk controls). The Exchange notes if the SCOA orders aren't filled in the auction, then they will be added to the COB in sequence and individually eligible for legging at that point (as they are ultimately just complex limit orders at that point). If there are any unfilled order(s) in a SCOA after allocating Auction Responses and unrelated orders resting in the COB, the System will use an iteration process to attempt to fill the remaining orders of the initial SCOA. Upon completion of the initial SCOA, unfilled order(s) will iterate through additional SCOAs at incrementally more aggressive starting prices, as stated in the Exchange's technical specifications, until all orders are filled, their limit price has been reached, or the current opposite side SBBO price has been used as the last auction start price. The System enters any unexecuted portion of a SCOA order that does not execute at the end of the SCOA iterations into the COB, if eligible for entry, and applies a timestamp based on the time it enters the COB. The System cancels or rejects any unexecuted portion of a SCOA order that does not execute at the end of the SCOA iterations if not eligible for entry into the COB, in accordance with the instructions for the stop-limit complex order.
The Exchange proposes additional amendments to Rule 5.33 to apply certain existing provisions of the rule to SCOA or add SCOA as an auction mechanism applicable to existing rule provisions. Specifically, the definition of “Regular Trading” in Rule 5.33(a) is amended to add SCOA to the existing COA reference, thereby excluding complex orders processed through COA or SCOA from the definition of regular trading since complex orders processed during the COA or SCOA process are not part of regular trading of complex orders. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.33(b) to add SCOA to references of COA since SCOA is treated in the same manner as COA regarding the Exchange's determination of terms and Capacities.
The Exchange also proposes to add SCOA to Rules 5.21, 5.25, and 5.34 to include SCOA with COA references regarding order handling, message traffic mitigation, and protection mechanisms and risk controls for complex orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.21(b)(3) to remove language limiting response auctions for complex orders and add SCOA to electronic order handling during a limit up-limit down state. The proposed amendment to Rule 5.25(c) adds SCOA to the list of the Exchange's auction mechanisms, thereby applying the message traffic mitigation requirements for auction response processing to SCOA. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.34(b) and (c) to include SCOA with existing references to COA to extend existing order and quote price protection mechanisms and risk controls for complex order to SCOA communications and processing. Under proposed 5.34(c)(4)(B)(i), a User may specify whether volume or executions in SCOA, in addition to existing auction mechanisms named in the rule, will count toward the User's class, EFID, or EFID Group limit. Option volume resulting from SCOA processing may be excluded from certain risk monitor mechanism risk parameters, namely the volume parameter in Rule 5.34(c)(4)(A)(i) and the count parameter in Rule 5.34(c)(4)(A)(iii). Additionally, under proposed rule 5.34(c)(4)(F), SCOA is named as a type of complex order within the rule so that individual trades executed as part of a complex order response may be counted when determining that the volume, notional, count, or risk trips limit as well as percentage limit have been reached. Use of this functionality is optional, and a User may continue to include executions resulting from these exchange auctions in their risk parameters.
The Exchange also proposes to make a grammatical correction to Rule 5.33(d)(1)(D) to update “appointed” to “appointment” when referencing the appointment of a Market-Maker.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest by making available to investors a type of complex order that incorporates the functionality of a stop-limit order. A stop-limit complex order can effectively be used by a market participant to replace manual monitoring and management a market participant must currently engage in to gain the benefits of stop-limit functionality. Market participants may choose to execute a transaction once certain market conditions are met as a way to help manage and reduce the risk of extreme loss. Stop-limit complex orders provide investors an execution and risk management tool to execute transactions without the manual monitoring needed today. The addition of a stop-limit complex order gives market participants who wish to utilize this order type an automated way of monitoring for conditions in which they desire an execution to occur, thereby creating operational efficiencies for the market. The Exchange believes the proposed rules are appropriate in that complex orders are recognized by market participants as useful, both as an investment and a risk management strategy, and adding stop-limit order functionality to complex orders provides even greater utility. The proposed rules will provide an efficient mechanism for carrying out investor strategies.
The Exchange also believes auctioning triggered stop-limit complex orders through a SCOA will provide those orders with additional opportunities for price improvement and executions, particularly given that multiple stop-limit complex orders may be triggered by the same event. SCOA is necessary as a new auction mechanism to accommodate stop-limit complex order auctions because SCOA functionality that bundles multiple orders is unique to the SCOA auction mechanism. The Exchange believes that when multiple stop-limit complex orders are triggered by the same event, bundling into a single SCOA will have better execution outcomes than processing multiple individual orders in separate auctions. Pursuant to the proposed trigger process, the System will initiate the SCOA process for all stop-limit complex orders once designated conditions are met. Through the SCOA process, the Exchange intends to allocate resting interest against auctioned stop-limit orders to maximize executed volume, thereby filling stop-limit complex orders to the extent possible based on the auction responses received for the SCOA and resting interest in the COB. The Exchange believes this allocation method will benefit investors because it will result in execution of as many contracts of the auctioned order(s) as possible. The Exchange believes that the proposal to initiate a SCOA once the designated trigger condition for a stop-limit complex order has been met removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because the Exchange will initiate a SCOA for a stop-limit complex order in accordance with the user's instructions. Additionally, through the SCOA functionality that bundles multiple stop-limit complex orders with the same trigger condition into the same SCOA, SCOA processing will pursue price improvement through its allocation algorithm that is designed to maximize execution quantity while optimizing price-improvement opportunity for customers. The proposed execution of SCOA orders following the conclusion of a SCOA is consistent with general principles of customer priority and protects the leg markets. While SCOA orders may execute against complex contra-side interest only, the prices of these executions must improve the SBBO if there is a Priority Customer representing any leg on the Simple Book as required by Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv). The proposed
The Exchange again notes that the communication functionality for SCOA is the same as the existing functionality for COA, providing Users with the ability to place a stop-limit complex order if they so choose. When utilizing a stop-limit complex order, Users also have the choice to select the trigger condition for the order. Market participants who wish to place a stop-limit complex order have the flexibility to choose one of two types of trigger conditions which, if met, would execute the stop-limit complex order for SCOA processing. The trigger conditions rely on certain option or underlying prices, or index levels. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to use the Market-Maker SBBO for one of the trigger conditions because it will help insulate a stop-limit complex order from being triggered by an inappropriate trigger event (such as one or more customer orders placed at an extreme price) that could otherwise be caused by including non-Market-Maker limit orders into the SBBO. Use of the Market-Maker SBBO as a triggering condition is intended to help avoid cascading triggering events that could result from customer stop-limit complex orders with limit prices that are not necessarily reflective of market valuation. Use of the Market-maker SBBO will help support greater market stability and execution and provides certain protections to market participants who wish to utilize stop-limit complex orders. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to add stop-limit complex orders and SCOA are not unfairly discriminatory, as the abilities to place a stop-limit order and respond to a SCOA auction message are generally available to all Users. The proposed rule change provides the Exchange with the authority to determine if all Users or only Market-Makers and certain TPHs may respond to auction messages in alignment with Exchange authority for responses to auction messages for COA,
Additionally, regarding risk controls and price protection mechanisms, the Exchange believes the proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest by providing market participants with enhanced abilities to manage their risk with respect to stop-limit complex orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest because the proposed extension of reasonability checks and the inclusion of SCOA processing with drill-through protection as a risk monitoring mechanism will assist Users in minimizing their risk exposure, thereby reducing the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange also notes that the proposed amendment to Rule 5.33(k) to cancel or reject all auction responses to a SCOA in the event that any component or underlying security to a stop-limit complex order is halted provides an addition layer of protection to market participants by eliminating SCOA processing when trading in underlying securities is not available. SCOA will function in a similar manner as COA with respect to these protection and risk mechanisms, as well as trading halts, and the proposed amendments are consistent with Cboe Rules as applicable to COA.
Proposed amendments to Rules 5.34(b) and (c) specifically include SCOA with safeguards that exist for COA. The Exchange believes the proposed change to include SCOA in the auction mechanism types that allow Users to specify whethervolume orexecutions in the various named auction mechanisms will count toward the User's class, EFID, or EFID Group limitis reasonable because orders executed through these auction mechanisms are subject to different protections, such as price improvement requirements, as compared to other order types. As a result, these orders have different risk considerations. The Exchange notes that this functionality is optional, and Users may continue to include executions resulting from these exchange auctions in their risk parameters (as is the case today) if they prefer. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are not unfairly discriminatory, as the risk controls and protection mechanisms that will be applied to SCOA are currently available for other auction types. Additionally, the risk controls and protection mechanisms are available to all Users and applied uniformly to all Users who may choose to utilize enhanced risk parameter settings.
Last, the Exchange believes correcting a grammatical error by replacing “appointed” with “appointment” in Rule 5.33(d)(1)(D) will eliminate confusion in this provision of the rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is intended to provide market participants with new voluntary functionality to automate a manual monitoring process to determine when to execute an order in the event that a specific condition has been met. 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 stop-limit complex orders will be available to all Users and processed in the same manner. A stop-limit complex order is a type of complex order that is intended to achieve the execution of a complex order that Users can achieve today through manual monitoring and order submissions. Stop-limit complex orders offer market participants an automated alternative to this manual process. The proposed rule change provides all Users with the ability to submit a stop-limit complex order, which will be processed through SCOA once the trigger condition for the order has been met. Use of a stop-limit complex order (as well as the trigger condition) will be voluntary and within the discretion of a User, and a User may continue to manage complex orders to achieve an execution of a complex order under certain conditions in the same manner they do today. Additionally, SCOA messaging for an order will be sent to all Users who are recipients of auction messaging data, and all Users generally may submit responses to the auction if they so choose.
The Exchange does not believe 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, as the proposed rule changes apply only to a permissible User order instruction regarding how the Exchange will handle and then execute an order. Stop-limit complex orders extend functionality that is available today on the Exchange
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FICC is proposing to (i) make certain corrections and clarifications in the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”), Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) Clearing Rules (the “MBSD Rules”) and MBSD EPN Rules (the “EPN Rules,” and collectively with the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, the “Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FICC is proposing to (i) make certain corrections and clarifications in the Rules and (ii) make certain changes to harmonize the language in the GSD Rules, MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules with each other and with the rules of FICC's two clearing agency affiliates, DTC and NSCC.
FICC has conducted a review of its Rules to improve transparency and consistency and to harmonize language in its Rules with similar language in the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (“DTC Rules”) and the NSCC Rules & Procedures (“NSCC Rules”).
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
FICC believes that the proposed changes to (i) correct or clarify language in the Rules, and (ii) harmonize the language in the GSD Rules, MBSD Rules and the EPN Rules with each other and with the rulebooks of FICC's two clearing agency affiliates, DTC and NSCC, are consistent with Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act
FICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would impact competition. The proposed rule changes described above would merely enhance the clarity and transparency of the Rules and would not significantly affect FICC's operations or the rights and obligations of the membership. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule changes would not have any impact on competition and would be consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received by FICC, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
FICC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice requesting applications.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) requires the maintenance of a roster of individuals who would be available to serve as panelists for specialized labor panels. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) invites applications from eligible individuals wishing to be included on this roster.
To ensure consideration, USTR must receive your application by April 27, 2026.
You should submit your application through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For information about the application process, contact Sandy McKinzy, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, at (202) 395-9483. For all other inquiries, contact Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring & Enforcement Catherine Gibson at (202) 395-5725.
USTR is seeking applications from U.S. citizens and nationals of other countries who are interested in serving as panelists for labor dispute settlement panels established under the USMCA. You can find the text of the USMCA on the USTR website:
USMCA is a trilateral trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada (the Parties). Annex 31-A establishes a facility-specific rapid response labor mechanism (the RRM), as between the United States and Mexico, which can be used whenever either Party believes that workers at a Covered Facility (as defined in Article 31-A.15) are being denied the right of free association and collective bargaining under the laws necessary to fulfill the obligations of the other Party under the USMCA (a Denial of Rights). A Party may ask a labor panel under the RRM to request that the respondent Party allow it an opportunity to verify the Covered Facility's compliance with the law in question and to determine whether there has been a Denial of Rights.
USMCA requires the Parties to establish and maintain three lists of panelists who are willing to commit to being generally available to serve as labor panelists for the RRM. By the date of entry into force of USMCA, each Party was required to appoint three individuals to one list potentially comprised of its own nationals and appoint, by consensus, three individuals to a joint list. The individuals on the joint list may not be nationals of either the United States or Mexico. By six months from entry into force of USMCA, the Parties were required to expand the lists to at least five individuals, respectively. Individuals on the lists were appointed for a minimum term of four years or until the Parties constitute new lists.
To qualify for inclusion on the RRM lists, an applicant must:
• Have expertise and experience in labor law and practice, and with the application of standards and rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization;
• Be objective, reliable, and possess sound judgment;
• Be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take instructions from, a Party; and
• Comply with the Code of Conduct adopted by the Free Trade Commission established under Article 30.1. You can find the text of the Code of Conduct on USTR's website:
USTR invites eligible individuals who wish to be considered for inclusion on the RRM lists to submit applications through
To submit an application via
The
Applications should include the following information, and should number each section of the application as indicated:
1. Name of the applicant.
2. Business address, telephone number, fax number, and email address.
3. Citizenship(s).
4. Current employment, including title, description of responsibility, and name and address of employer.
5. Relevant education and professional training.
6. Fluency in any relevant language other than English, written and spoken.
7. Post-education employment history, including the dates and addresses of each prior position, a summary of responsibilities, and a list of clients represented in the prior five years.
8. Relevant professional affiliations and certifications, including, if any, current bar memberships in good standing.
9. A list and copies of publications, testimony, and speeches, if any, concerning the relevant area(s) of expertise. Judges or former judges should list relevant judicial decisions.
10. A list of international trade proceedings or domestic proceedings relating to labor law or other relevant matters in which the applicant has provided advice to a party or otherwise participated.
11. Summary of any current and past employment by, or consulting or other work for, the Governments of the United States, Mexico, or Canada.
12. The names and nationalities of all foreign principals for whom the applicant is currently or has previously been registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. 611
13. A short statement of qualifications and availability for service, including information relevant to the applicant's familiarity with labor law, and willingness and ability to make time commitments necessary for service on panels.
14. On a separate page, the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers of three individuals willing to provide information concerning the applicant's qualifications for service, including the applicant's character, reputation, reliability, judgment, and familiarity with labor law.
Applications are covered by a Privacy Act System of Records Notice (
False statements by an applicant regarding their personal or professional qualifications, or financial or other relevant interests that bear on the applicant's suitability for placement on a list or appointment to a panel are subject to criminal sanctions under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a request for an extension without change to an existing information collection: State of Good Repair Program.
Comments must be submitted before May 26, 2026.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Amy Volz 202-366-7484 or
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a request for an extension without change to an existing information collection: Buses and Bus Facilities Formula and Competitive Programs and Low or No Emission Program.
Comments must be submitted before May 26, 2026.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Kirsten Wiard-Bauer at
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Under this information collection, FTA gathers data from grantees necessary to evaluate and monitor grant activities. This includes applicant and project-level information in grant application, such as descriptions of proposed projects, anticipated benefits, and compliance with program requirements. After award, recipients report on project progress milestones and the use of funds; provide technical specifications for purchased equipment; certify compliance with environmental and accessibility standards; and submit periodic performance reports. These submissions are used by FTA to ensure program accountability, assess compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and measure the impact of federally funded projects on transit service and infrastructure. The information collected under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) remains unchanged from the previous renewal.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a request for an extension without change to an existing information collection: 49 U.S.C. 5310 Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities & Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program.
Comments must be submitted before May 26, 2026.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Destiny Buchanan, Office of Program Management (202) 493-8018 or
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a request for an extension without change to an existing information collection: National Transit Database 49 U.S.C. 5335.
Comments must be submitted before May 26, 2026.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Chelsea Champlin,
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a request for an extension without change to an existing information collection: National Transit Asset Management (TAM) System.
Comments must be submitted before May 26, 2026.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tamalynn Kennedy 202-366-7573 or
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before May 26, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and recommendations to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email at
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess its 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 be viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information.
Form 8821:
Form 8821-A: